Help with Background: Why does Russian invades Finland in 2015?

[answer_is_42]

I think that as long as the Russians planned to succeed in a short amount of time, then they might be able to succeed in securing some strategic objectives before they were forced to negotiate by the EU and USA. A blitzkrieg type surprise attack could catch the western nations off guard, giving time for the Russians to do what ever it is they are wanting to achieve before the democracies can organise a response. All this could be some heavy handed way to force other nations into concessions. Russia could negotiate new borders etc from a position of strength if they had troops in Helsinki.

As to the treat of a nuclear response, I think that would be unlikely. What would be gained? That would only escalate the conflict to the point that the nuclear nations would be in direct danger themselves. The US threatened to put troops on the ground when Russia invaded Georgia, but they never threatened a nuclear strike.  

Thing is, any Russian invasion of a neighbour of that scale would be preceded by months of diplomatic and military build-up - it would be no 'bolt from the blue'.  As such Finland's friends would be well placed to prepare. Georgia was a different case, for they are not in Europe, and in many people's eyes (inc. the Russians) were the aggressors in the first place.

However, this being said, if you were to tell someone in 1920, at the height of Europe's democratic trend, that over the next two decades barely five European nations would maintain functioning democracies*, they'd probably laugh you down, and considering the current world turmoil, I won't be making any bets!

*Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes, p.111. The five were Britain, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland...

[Gary Mitchell]

Because Mr Putin says so?

[Centaur_Seducer]

And maybe reinforcements could come from the Nordic Battle Group:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Battle_Group

I read it through quickly, and then all the sudden my well devoleped ability to spot inmature words kicked in and I found this rather funny remark:

In 2007 the commander ruled that the lion's penis had to be removed. Since civilian women are often sexually abused in the war zones of the world, they did not consider the depiction of a penis appropriate on a uniform worn into battle. However, this decision has been questioned by some Swedish heraldists, including heraldic artist Vladimir Sagerlund, who has asserted that coats of arms containing lions without a penis were historically given to those who had betrayed the Swedish Crown

[Hobbit]

  :oI must admit that I didn't read that bit

A few years ago I did make a colour for my re-enactment unit, the main device of which was a bull with an engorged todger!

[Rob_bresnen]

Because Mr Putin says so?

Yes that might work!

Sample figure is very nice BTW.

Russia falls out with Norway over resource exploitation in Spitzbergen...Russian Special Forces en route to Norway overland stray across the Finnish border (by accident or design) and trigger border clashes.

or...as part of a classic NATO vs Russia scenario Russian forces bypass Norwegian forward defences by crossing the "Finish Wedge"...

I like that one too.

Ehy, I am hailing from the War Studies Department... I know some of my colleagues are just happy to show themselves around telling people they are from WS... but I am doing real war studies, and those things are like contingency plans, as absurd they are you never know when you will need one... or two... and I think that if Andrew got in prime time speaking of the Russian Navy as he does in class there would be at least a diplomatic incident. Ok once he told us the story of when he was arrested by the KGB... just after the collapse of the Iron Courtain he had been invited to a big conference in Leningrad, got completely drunk (at least he told us so, I have almost never seen him drinking anything more than juice) with a professor from US (Hattendorf or Love forgot whom) and the police took them under custody... because they were westerner the KGB showed up. Ok maybe he made it up but it was fun. Anyway coming up with wars is both a challenging intellectual  exercise and fun.  And it is also a pre-requisite to use our contemporary collection for anything except the headlines that could be not so funny to game. 

That sounds like a REALLY interesting job. My dream job.

[carlos marighela]

Plausible reasons

 1. The Russians didn't get the joke in Leningrad Cowboys Go America. Aki Kaurismaki, is after all a Finnish director.

2. Super Vlad, goes hunting along the Karelian border in deepest winter , removes his shirt  for a photo op as is his particular fetish and freezes to death. Press secretary is so mortified at the consequences he buries the body and blames it on the Finns.

3. Most plausible. The Russians invade because they are all drunk.

[Dolmot]

1. The Russians didn't get the joke in Leningrad Cowboys Go America. Aki Kaurismaki, is after all a Finnish director.

- Paskaa.
- Kuinka niin?
- Ei kaupallista potentiaalia. Menkää Amerikkaan. Niillehän kelpaa mikä tahansa.

Still a handy stock answer whenever a honest opinion is requested.

3. Most plausible. The Russians invade because they are all drunk.

You could easily invert that scenario.

[akodo]

I'd start with diplomatic issues getting bad between the two nations for various reasons.

1. One side isn't very careful talking to news cameras and makes comments that the other side feels are insulting.  Other side makes comments back and an minor diplomatic incident occurs.

2. some non-diplomatic more shameful type crimes occur.  Maybe the Finnish President has an early 20s son or daughter that takes a trip to Russia with some friends and gets drunk and in a car accident.  Drugs are found at the scene and in the blood tests.  Russian news uses this as an excuse to smear Finland, Finland start accusing Russians of planting the drugs and faking the tests to make it look worse.  Russia counters that Finnish government approached the about trying to keep the entire thing quiet.

3. Some non-diplomatic big financial crimes happen.  Guy in country A uses internet schemes to swindle a TON of money from people from country B.  Country B doesn't do anything, either choosing to not prosecute or simply stating that they disbelieve country A's claim about who really did the crime.

4.  In retaliation for this, Russia cuts off exportation of electricity and natural gas (or whatever other good key resources best fit) claiming they just have too much demand at home.

5...Meanwhile...EU issues.  After the scare about the safety of Nuclear Power thanks to the meltdown in Japan, some very anti-nuclear energy politicians get into power in various EU nations and put about a moritorum on new Nuclear Power plants.  Finland is very mad about this.

6. Meanwhile...global issue: Fuel issues.  Oil consumption grows rapidly in a 3 year window.  Some strict EU environmental regulations greatly slow output of current oil rigs and slow down new.  A couple oil fields that were thought to be very large surprisingly run dry.  This all feeds into oil prices going through the roof.  Middle East Terrorists take this opportunity to strike at their own governments by attacking oil fields and shipping, making the oil concerns go into 'condition red'.  Across the globe shortages of gasoline and diesel (even at extremely high prices) leads to shortages, rationing, very long lines at the pump.  New Nuclear Power regulations from above are causing huge friction as well.

7. Big oil reserves found right on the border between Finland/Russia...possibly in the gulf, possibly on land, some of the land that Russia/Finland traded back and forth post WW2.  Maybe Karelia.  Maybe there were talks and Karelia was just given back or about to be given back before issues 1, 2, and 3 stalled.  Either way BOTH sides claim the land and both sides start developing, and there is some sabotage on both sides by each-other.

Final results, both sides bring in military forces to support their claim on the resource and to 'provide security' to prevent sabotage.  Some event leads to shots being fired and a minor war flares up. 

[pocoloco]

^I so wish that oil would be found Of course, without the aggression part afterwards.

[Hobbit]

I think this whole thread has raised a couple of interesting points:

1. Modern gaming often falls down for lack of a plausible background story. Even looking at the "Global War Game" exercises that the US undertook in the 80s it appears that they struggled for a reason to go to war with the WarPac. Those exercises do however provide a reasonable background story.

2. Even with imagination we find it quite hard to think of a serious reason why two nations might go to war. The bottom line, of course, is that going to war has to seem less bad than not going to war. Nations generally only fight where there is more to gain than lose. Until 9/11 it was quite hard to get modern democracies to go to war because your average member of the public had access to everything they wanted anyway. Your average young person in Sub-Saharan Africa had little to look forward to in life and therefore little to lose by going to war.

And now, in case everything I've said thus far has been too serious, I do like the silly stories too.

[former user]

I don't know....
there are right now too many idiotic reasons why people go to war around the globe, one has just to watch the news or read the newspapers.

Once the concept of wargaming does not collide with the above, I personally prefer the silly pretence..
global politics is rotten enough as it is....

[Conquistador]

I think this whole thread has raised a couple of interesting points:

1. Modern gaming often falls down for lack of a plausible background story. Even looking at the "Global War Game" exercises that the US undertook in the 80s it appears that they struggled for a reason to go to war with the WarPac. Those exercises do however provide a reasonable background story.

2. Even with imagination we find it quite hard to think of a serious reason why two nations might go to war. The bottom line, of course, is that going to war has to seem less bad than not going to war. Nations generally only fight where there is more to gain than lose. Until 9/11 it was quite hard to get modern democracies to go to war because your average member of the public had access to everything they wanted anyway. Your average young person in Sub-Saharan Africa had little to look forward to in life and therefore little to lose by going to war.

And now, in case everything I've said thus far has been too serious, I do like the silly stories too.

1) Yeah, but serious reasons much less cause war than human foibles.  WW1 - there too many reasons to list why this broke out that have much less to do with geo-politics than human failings such as ego, afraid to be the first one to stop mobilizing and say, "Why are we doing this," the usual human stupid idea of a 'quick, easy war,"  and incredibly bad judgment of another countries leaders/priorities/history, ad infinitum.

2)  Go look at past wars - we are not unlikely to use the same bad choices to get into awar that humans have used in the past.
 
One reason I stay away from "Today/near future" wars is the fact that it is an uncomfortable subject (and highly unpredictable) unless you are a professional Dr. Strangelove (raises hand) and even then...

I would suggest Aliens cause the war by manipulation of human politics/psychology for their own arcane reasons.

Gracias,

Glenn

[macgarns]

Hi,
I can only see one good reason for Russia to invade Finland : due to climatical changes, there is a shortage of snow in Russia, and President Putin sends some of it's best troops to seize the white gold of Finland so he can enjoy skiing.

There will be spec forces fighting small actions ( like destroying all the snowplow trucks ), large scale combat with batalions seizing big areas to secure the snow access, logistical nightmare with truck/ train convoys briging back the snow to Russia under constant attack from FDF & partisans.

We can also imagine Finland sending Special Jäger Batalion in Russia to capture Putin's pair of ski in retaliation.

  Fred

[Rob_bresnen]

One reason I stay away from "Today/near future" wars is the fact that it is an uncomfortable subject (and highly unpredictable) unless you are a professional Dr. Strangelove (raises hand) and even then...

I initially felt the same as you when it came to modern gaming- I thought, and continue to feel, that entertaining myself by gaming a conflict that is very fresh, or even ongoing, like Afghanistan or Iraq, is somehow 'wrong'. I know its a matter of personal taste, and judging by how many manufacturers there are making Afghans and Somalis etc, there are a people out there who do enjoy it, and don't share my feelings. And that's fine too.
What changed for me was the discovery of VBCW, and it's fictionalised setting, which allowed me to use all the inter-war and early WW2 figures, without the moral angst that comes with in. My first journey into 'ultra-modern' wargaming was inspired VBCW. I created a fictional African state called Zugando and drew up a background that I felt comfortable with, explaining the conflict. That way i could delve into Ultra-modern gaming without feeling that I was being disrespectful.
The Finland idea grew out of a desire to try something a bit different. As I said earlier, I was going to get some snow/woodland scenery and I wanted to get the most out of my scenery. The fictional 'what if?' nature of a conflict with Finland/Russia in an Ultra modern setting has the same suspension of reality as VBCW and African Imagi-nations. It never happened, so it's just for fun, like a Tom Clancy book. No moral angst.

As to the idea that modern wargaming falls down because of a lack of logical reasons for war, well I think some of the feedback so far on this thread has suggested that there are a number of very plausible reason for such a conflict to occur (along with a whole raft of not so plausible ones). Not that we need a good reason to enjoy a game...Call of Duty has the most ridiculous and implausible background, but it's still fun to play.

I know I don't really need a 'reason' for a conflict to take place, but in my mind at least a game is more fun if there is a strong narrative running through it, which locates it in a time and place. I like names characters and battles where set objectives are at stake.: it just gives the games another dimension.

Just my thoughts. Your welcome to comment.

[pocoloco]

Just to let know, I have Finnish blue-white roundels as decals, I think 9 of them, so in case you need those for vehicles, let me know and I will sent them to you.