Some more uncomfy details for the Finns.......
1. The Soviets offered an equal land exchange with Finland prior to the Winter War, meaning every square inch the Soviets wanted in order to increase the security of St. Petersberg, would be compensated with an equal square inch of Soviet territory in exchange, as the Soviets foresaw a likely invasion from Germany (or Germany+Finland) via Finnish territory given the vulnerability of St Petersberg and they were ultimately proven correct.
2. The Finns did not begrudgingly accept an alliance with Nazi Germany because of operation barbarossa. Finland was an ally of Nazi Germany prior to the Winter War even breaking out. Finland had German military advisors on its soil, it was receiving military equipment from Nazi Germany long before the Winter War broke out, and politically Finland was within the orbit of both Weimar and Nazi Germany.
3. When the Winter War peace deal was being hashed out, the Finns asked for the territory exchange deal that they were offered no less than 8 times prior to the war. But the Soviets responded that the ship had already sailed on that deal. That said, the Soviets only took from the Finns what the original land exchange deal had proposed, and considering how costly this war was for the Soviets, I don't think the terms of this peace treaty were all that punitive. The Finns decided to fight instead of negotiate, and the only thing they lost was the land the Soviets proposed to trade.
4. It was Nazi Germany who initially encouraged the Finns to take the land exchange deal before the Winter War even broke out, and it was Nazi Germany who encouraged Finland to surrender with conditions, recognizing that the Finnish position that did not allow for any kind of negotiations was unrealistic.
5. Unlike the Soviets, who stated their intentions while attempting to negotiate a territory exchange deal with the Finns prior to the Winter War, the Finns during the Continuation War had no clear cut revised border in mind as the Finns went far far further than simply reclaiming what they had lost during the Winter War. They were essentially trying to create a greater Finland by taking as much territory as they could get and defend.
Comments
(Long Spike)
holy shit is that you!!?
(Site Administrator)
it's Defense Politics Aaaaaysia
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I for one want to thank Nazi Germany for helping us out. Without them, I might have grown up as an orc.
Like Putin, Stalin should have stayed on his side of the border. Save men and resources to defend their country but instead, they chose to do frontal attacks on Finnish machine gun nests. Their plan was to take a swift victory. Cut Finland in half from the narrowest point, and take over the country in two weeks. Sound familiar?
Without Soviet aggression, the nazis would have never played a part in this. At least not on the scale they did. After the continuation war, Finns fought against the nazis to get them off their land -> Lapland War.
Considering what the Soviets set out to do and the differences in manpower and equipment, I would say it's a win for us Finns. The alternative would have been that Finland would have been part of the Soviet Union at least till the end of the cold war. Giving into Soviet demands would have just given them the idea that they can push around the little states to their liking. Putin is having the same learning experience now, even if they take land from Ukraine, it's gonna cost him a lot.
(Site Administrator)
"even if they take land from Ukraine, it's gonna cost him a lot"
so even if Russia wins (like the Soviets won in Finland, twice) ... it's gonna cost them something. Amazing analysis. Whoever would have thought war has a pricetag.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
(Site Administrator)
nice meme. here's some data... (your copelord comrades have managed to remove "Soviet victory" from the Winter War wiki entry but it's obvious from the result who won)
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yeah the Soviets took part of our land. Finns were outnumbered but made the Soviets pay a high price for it.
I think a repeat of this is going in Ukraine.
(Site Administrator)
so you think Russia's gonna beat NATO in Ukraine.
& your idiot government just signed up for another L.
that's gotta sting.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Russias already lost whether it gets the land or not. A massive military failure that just keeps dragging on.
Really Putin has been the best spokesperson for NATO. Keep it up and it will expand more.
(Site Administrator)
according to your goofy qualifiers, the Soviets lost against Finland, just like they lost against Nazi Germany and in the same way Russia will lose against NATO in Ukraine.
just deny reality & post memes, that way your side always wins!
well done.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Ok you define Russias objectives in Ukraine and when they will achieve them so we can get a sense of what winning is.
(Site Administrator)
their objectives are multi-faceted & some go beyond Ukraine's borders but just in military terms taking any land from Ukraine permanently has gotta count as a win.
since you like the language of memes, this one's pretty relevant here:
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So if they take a square mile of land and lose 7 000 tanks and half a million soldiers, it is considered a win?
(Site Administrator)
irrelevant, taking one sq mile of land wouldn't happen.
losing 7k tanks is also a ridiculous notion.
do you wanna talk about Finland losing the Winter, bd?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"irrelevant, taking one sq mile of land wouldn't happen."
No, it wouldn't happen, but I'm trying to gauge what "winning" means to you.
For example, if Russia lost half a million soldiers, how much land would they have to take that it's worth it?
I know Russia doesn't give much worth to human lives (not back in the day or now), but let's just pretend human lives mean something.
"do you wanna talk about Finland losing the Winter, bd?"
We can, but I think a more interesting subject is how the Soviets couldn't take over Finland with overwhelming odds in manpower, tanks and planes.
Or we could talk about how Russia has a tendency to try and rob other countries of their land and how some see that as a good thing and cheer them on.
(Site Administrator)
"I'm trying to gauge what "winning" means to you"
then you should have said that. I'm outlining what objectively winning is, I'm not going to discuss my take on it. You're too disingenuous & ignorant to get into it. As I've already said, if K/D ratio or resources lost was counted towards winning a war then the Soviets lost to the Nazis.... but they didn't. The Soviets beat the Nazis just as they beat their Finnish allies. Twice.
"We can, but I think a more interesting subject is how the Soviets couldn't take over Finland with overwhelming odds in manpower, tanks and planes."
lol .... you're so full of cope. It's funny. The Soviets got everything they requested before the Winter War & in the Continuation War they got a bit more.
"Or we could talk about"...
check the title of the post & watch the video if you haven't already. Try to stay on topic if you're capable.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"I'm not going to discuss my take on it."
Of course not. Have to keep options open if things go bad(er) for Russia, so you can claim a win no matter how it goes.
Shouldn't be hard to tell what the objectives are, the time to achieve them, and what you are willing to spend (lives and gear). Theres always a cost-benefit to war. Nobody goes to war if they think the cost will be more than the gain. I guess it comes down to how much you value human life or till you go broke. In the case of Russia I think money is the only factor as long a they can draft new meat into the grinder.
"lol .... you're so full of cope. It's funny. The Soviets got everything they requested before the Winter War & in the Continuation War they got a bit more".
I know you just want to troll, but I'm not going to deny history. Russia stole our land. They attacked Finland and took it from us by force. If you want to be spiteful about it, then be. Just shows what kind of character you are and the level of maturity you possess. Not that I didn't know it already.
Read up on it. Stalin had plans to take the whole country and it's a huge win for us that Finland could prevent that from happening and remain independent.
"check the title of the post & watch the video if you haven't already. Try to stay on topic if you're capable."
Well Russia stealing land is part of the topic and you seem to cheer them on. But I do understand if you want to avoid that uncomfortable part. But again, it's your choice who you root for.
(Site Administrator)
"I guess it comes down to how much you value human life or till you go broke"
no it doesn't & Russia's already brushed off the economic attacks.
"it's a huge win for us"
Finland lost the war. Not losing as badly as they could have is still losing.
"Russia stealing land is part of the topic and you seem to cheer them on"
when did I cheer on Russia "stealing land"?
all of that stuff you wrote is just cope by the way.
Finland lost both wars with the Soviets.
Another uncomfy fact for you: This year Russia's GDP growth is higher than Finland's. Finland has a projected zero percent growth for 2023. So does that mean you're losing this proxy war in Ukraine just like you lost twivce against the Soviets, given that you want to bring all kinds of side issues into the win/lose calculus?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Finland lost the war. Not losing as badly as they could have is still losing"
Finally, you're starting to see some nuance. But your aim is to troll, so I'm not expecting much.
This whole post is your attempt to troll me. The title says it all.
"when did I cheer on Russia "stealing land"?"
"all of that stuff you wrote is just cope by the way"
Ok, if you say so.
"you want to bring all kinds of side issues into the win/lose calculus?"
So, all that matter is if you take even the smallest slice of land from your enemy, the resources that you pour into it are irrelevant? Is this correct?
(Site Administrator)
"This whole post is your attempt to troll me"
cool your narcissism.
"when did I cheer on Russia "stealing land"?"
- your answer to this was about the most weaksauce, disingenuous cope I've seen you write yet. And the list is long.
"So, all that matter is if you take even the smallest slice of land from your enemy, the resources that you pour into it are irrelevant? Is this correct?"
no it's not. You're being an idiot, as per usual. Deliberately misinterpreting what I've said & adding in your ridiculous hyperbole which I've already told you is off the table.
there is no common ground here. You're completely & utterly caught up in a biased & naive view of what's happening & you don't even understand what equates to a victory in war. Regardless how many times I spell out to you your mistakes you just keep bashing your head against the wall with the same lame arguments. Just give up. Finland lost the Winter War. You can cope all you like but it's a fact. The video above points out how & why they lost. Deliberately misinterpreting minutia in my replies here & arguing with straw man fallacies just exposes how hard you're coping. Be a man. Take the L.
Oh yeah, while I think of it, and since you're trying so hard to be a dick about this, I just realized that not only did Finland manage to LOSE TWICE in WWII, they worked hard at joining NATO by helping LOSE in Afghanistan and are now going to LOSE again in Ukraine. LOL. That's gotta suck.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
cool your narcissism"
I think Im the only Finn here so obviously its directed at me.
- your answer to this was about the most weaksauce, disingenuous cope I've seen you write yet. And the list is long.
I think it spells it our quite clearly. You couldn't admit it here when Ive asked it multiple times.
Atleast have the balls to say it, you'd earn more respect even if we dont agree. What are you afraid of? That your ideology doesnt hold up to scrutiny.
"So, all that matter is if you take even the smallest slice of land from your enemy, the resources that you pour into it are irrelevant? Is this correct?"
"no it's not."
Ok. So we have established that there is some limit when war becomes un-profitable / too expensive for what it will gain.
Correct?
"That's gotta suck."
Nah. Dont have to worry what that megalomaniac east of the border is planning next. You know because we lost the winter war gotta make sure it doesnt happen again.
It might suck for Putin that his actions lead to the expansion of NATO
(Site Administrator)
"I think Im the only Finn here so obviously its directed at me. "
why would you assume I'd post something on here just for your sake?
"What are you afraid of? That your ideology doesnt hold up to scrutiny."
project much?
you're the most intellectually dishonest guy on here and your arguments are weak as piss, when you're not "just trolling". Why not discuss topics instead of playing games all the time & pretending to be sincere while you're just fishing for stupid shit to try & counter..... for example the in this thread you're trying to accuse me (again) of having some opinion about Russia's action in Ukriane, apparently for some shitlib type reasoning that can help you look like you're more morally righteous (just ignore NATO expansion, Ukrainian Nazis, Ukrainian corruption, the obvoius cynicism with which the UK+USA are preventing peace in Ukraine, etc etc). It's just so pathetic & transparent. If anyone here is afraid of reality it's you, bd.
"So we have established that there is some limit when war becomes un-profitable / too expensive for what it will gain."
scroll up, I've already addressed this. Nobody's interested in 1 square mile of land. I don't know why you're trying to deal in hypotheticals.... actually I do - the reality is too much for you to comprehend.
"You know because we lost the winter war gotta make sure it doesnt happen again...It might suck for Putin that his actions lead to the expansion of NATO"
You know what's funny about every single time you're tried to make this point?
- you've not once listed any benefits of joining NATO that Finland will enjoy by cucking themselves to the US empire aka joining NATO. It seems like all that matters to you is sticking it to Russia. A country that Finland's had no real security issues with for over 70 years & was doing decent trade with before last year, & trade relations were expanding. FInland is giving this commercial relationship up...what's something REAL that Finland gets to make up for this shitty economic outlook...
- https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/FIN
do you think putting US bases in Finland with missiles pointed at Russia will increase Finland's security?
and you realize the host always pays the lion's share of the budget for US overseas bases, right?
if your argument is (again) that Russia can't attack Finland because NATOcuckery, give some evidence that Russia had even the remotest intention to attack Finland.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"why would you assume I'd post something on here just for your sake?"
Because you've been doing this kinda thing for years here. You post videos to get a reaction. That's why it's so easy to spot your sock accounts. Nobody here gives a shit what happened to Finland in WWII unless you're a Finn or Russian / Pro-Russian.
"for example the in this thread you're trying to accuse me (again) of having some opinion about Russia's action in Ukriane,"
All this talk about projecting and dishonesty....So, you would never write "победа в россии" anywhere?
"scroll up, I've already addressed this. Nobody's interested in 1 square mile of land."
I wasn't asking about the 1 square mile of land. I was asking if can we agree there's a limit when war becomes un-profitable / too expensive for what it will gain. I'm asking this because many times simple logic breaks down with you.
So do you agree or not?
" give some evidence that Russia had even the remotest intention to attack Finland."
I have none but we don't know how out of touch Putin is / will become. Be that as it may, It's Putin that made it happen. You can thank him.
(Site Administrator)
"Nobody here gives a shit what happened to Finland in WWII unless you're a Finn or Russian / Pro-Russian"
not true. Winter War videos have been posted on here before & people seem interested in it. You left out "pro-NATO" / "western empire simp". Do you even recognize this type of person or is your head stuck too far up your own ass / never actually talked to people from the "rest of the world" where 87% of the people live?
"So, you would never write "победа в россии" anywhere? "
I've explained to you once why I prefer to see a Russian victory & what that means. If you've forgotten that's your problem. If you've conveniently forgotten for whatever reason, as I suspect is the case, then you're really just wasting your time. Ultimately all you're having a go at is my opinion on something so it's a waste of both our time for you to try & bitch about it. You've bitched about it so much already, like a little fucking girl having a wee cry. Fuck outa here & grow some ballz.
"I was asking if can we agree there's a limit when war becomes un-profitable / too expensive for what it will gain"
I'm not agreeing to anything with you, you're just trying to play a game that's not worth my time. This conflict is multi-faceted. In the traditional sense there is a war between Russia and Ukraine and Russia can't lose. If you were as smart as you pretend to be you'd realize this. Just another reason this road you're trying to go down is a waste of time.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"not true. Winter War videos have been posted on here before & people seem interested in it."
Yeah, sure. You wanted to share some real info with us and not troll. Some random asian dude that uses Chat GPT to get the answers. :D
Theres some good documentaries on YT I can share if you can't find anything better.
"I've explained to you once why I prefer to see a Russian victory & what that means."
And a few posts back
"for example the in this thread you're trying to accuse me (again) of having some opinion about Russia's action in Ukriane"
Hmm....and preaching to me how I'm so dishonest.
"I'm not agreeing to anything with you, you're just trying to play a game that's not worth my time"
I know you wont. Some inconsistencies might come up when we brake things down to their basics and it's hard to spin after that.
(Site Administrator)
"Some random asian dude that uses Chat GPT to get the answers"
and yet you failed to address any of his points, or any in the description.
"Hmm....and preaching to me how I'm so dishonest. "
if you weren't pretending not to remember what I said about Russian victory, or whether you actually can't remember, makes no difference. .... you still are off the mark with your interpretation of what I've said. Regardless, you're trying to bitch about my opinion. So weak. So very weak.
"I know you wont."
then what are you doing?
"hard to spin"
more projection. You're a massive spinner to the point where even idiots can recognize your intellectual dishonesty. For example, on this post about how Finland LOST the Winter War, you've spent a significant amount of the time talking about my opinion on an entirely different war. Not even the objective facts about it, but about my fucking opinion of it, with your usual deliberately false interpretations & logical fallacies thrown in for good measure. On the one hand you're making out like I'm not being up front & on the other you're pretending to care deeply about my opinion. Your hands are contradictory.
...and you ignored my actual questions:
do you think putting US bases in Finland with missiles pointed at Russia will increase Finland's security?
and you realize the host always pays the lion's share of the budget for US overseas bases, right?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"and yet you failed to address any of his points, or any in the description."
What should I address about it? All I said that its a win for Finland that we didnt lose the whole country. You know, the Red army against a small nation.
"Regardless, you're trying to bitch about my opinion. So weak. So very weak."
Welcome to spiked. We argue here. You are free not to engage.
Youre just kind of a special case where you dont even want to admit what your arguing for. Like extra squirmy.
"then what are you doing?"
Proving that when pressed, you back off with some lame excuse that "I dont have the time" and yet you come back time and time again.
"more projection. You're a massive spinner...."
Ask me anything and lets see?
Will I say something and then in the next post say something else.
"do you think putting US bases in Finland with missiles pointed at Russia will increase Finland's security?"
Dont know. It depends on the situation. Do I want missiles here? No. But thats for Finlands government to decide not the US.
(Site Administrator)
"its a win for Finland that we didnt lose the whole country"
the Soviets weren't trying to annex the whole country, they want primarily to secure Leningrad & they achieved that objective. Read the description at the top of this post.
If they had been trying to take the whole country all they had to do was keep going, they had broken the main layer of defense & had the Finns on the run.
"We argue here"
some of us are able to argue about the reality of things rather than trying to play games with fake-ass interpretations of other people's opinions.
"Like extra squirmy."
more projection from one of Spike's most greasy members.
"Proving..."
nothing. fify.
"Ask me anything and lets see?"
How about one of the questions I've already asked which you ignored...
> FInland is giving this commercial relationship up...what's something REAL that Finland gets to make up for this shitty economic outlook... [by getting itself entirely swallowed by the US imperial order & enthusistically supporting the war against Russia]
?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"the Soviets weren't trying to annex the whole country, they want primarily to secure Leningrad & they achieved that objective. Read the description at the top of this post."
Here some documents from Finnish Soviet relations from 39-40 if you wanna dig into it. https://histdoc.net/history/velikie1939_e.html
Whats relevant is the orders here: https://histdoc.net/pic/Orders_Nov_1939.jpg
They wanted to take the whole country. They would have gone all the way if they could. Just like they did with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania because they could put up much of a fight.
After the Winter war they were still going execute the same plan but Germany got in the way. Many historians claim that the Winter War was actually what made Hitler take on Russia because he saw how badly the Red army faired against the Finns.
"some of us are able to argue about the reality of things"
Thats what I'm trying to establish with you by asking if you agree that there's is a limit when war becomes unprofitable, but for some reason you back off. I guess you don't have the time.....still keep replying though despite your busy schedule.
"FInland is giving this commercial relationship up...what's something REAL that Finland gets to make up for this shitty economic outlook"
You call 0% growth for 2023 shitty? Look at what happened during the 90s here. We've been through tougher times.
We will figure out something rather than funding Putin's war. Maybe we can be friends again if he stops invading countries.
(Site Administrator)
"They wanted to take the whole country. They would have gone all the way if they could."
No they didn't and yeah, they could have kept going if they wanted. They only fought for a few months, broke the back of the Finnish frontline & then negotiated to get what they wanted. That graphic you provided is ridiculous as you've presented it.
"if you agree that there's is a limit when war becomes unprofitable"
I'm not going to discuss broad concept like this with you for a few reasons:
1- you're so often disingenuous
2- you show a high level of ignorance, whether willful or not, especially when it comes to the Russian perspective
3- all the fallacies & spin you bring into the equation, all the games, it's too fake.
"You call 0% growth for 2023 shitty?"
Yes. Yes I do. To make it worse Finland is part of a clique that's been trying to crush the Russian economy and failed miserably.
But you've not answered the question at all. What does Finland get in return for its new role as a chihuahua at the beck & call of US empire?
..... if you are going to take another angle of "it hurts Russia's interests" don't bother.
I'll give you some examples of how you could answer the actual questoin in REAL terms:
- Finland's political power is enhanced because ..........
- Finland's economic power / commercial opportunities are enhanced because ..........
- Finland's military power/security situation is enhanced because ...........
Examples of what are NOT REAL advantages for Finland:
- Putin is angry because ............
- Finland is more morally righteous than Russia because ............
I'll risk being a bit more real with you for a sec, I have a hunch Finland has been offered some future concessions around the Arctic in terms of resource grabbing by teaming up with the Atlanticists. It's the only thing I can think of that could be any kind of payoff but it's just speculation. If this is all just about spiting Russia though, or being in the "cool kids club" by politically aligning with the fading US empire, it's a huge L for Finland imo.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"No they didn't and yeah, they could have kept going if they wanted. They only fought for a few months, broke the back of the Finnish frontline & then negotiated to get what they wanted. That graphic you provided is ridiculous as you've presented it."
Well provide some evidence to back that up. These are publicly available documents. Here the Soviet's order if you want to translate it. https://histdoc.net/pdf/Doklad_no_4587,29_oktjabrja_1939g.pdf
Talks about taking over cities that are on the west coast of Finland and cutting off communication with the Sweds because they thought they would come to support Finland.
It was already laid out in the Molotov–Ribbentrop agreement with Stalin and Hitler that Finland is fair game for Russia just like Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia but oddly they didn't follow through with Finland. Wonder why.
Also theres many mention in Finnish history books that after the winter war in 1940 Semjon Timosenko and Kirill Meretskov signed plans to again try and take over Finland. Finland was aware that things were brewing and knew this time around the Soviets had learned their lessons from the Winter War. This time around Finland was even in a worse position. Hence they agreed that Germany would help them.
But I'm sure you'll ignore all of this and argue just like with Ukraine. -> Every step of the plan was executed perfectly. Dragging it out IS the plan :D
"I'm not going to discuss broad concept like this with you for a few reasons"
Its a yes or no question.
I know you have had problems answering yes or no questions before.
And again you're blaming me of being disingenuous. Do you see how disingenuous this make you look, or are you capable of any self-reflection?
"Yes. Yes I do"
Ok. We just have to disagree here.
"But you've not answered the question at all. What does Finland get in return for its new role as a chihuahua at the beck & call of US empire?"
It's very simple. Insurance that a repeat of WWII doesn't happen. We can't trust Putin.
You know the polls. Before Russian invasion, Finland was nowhere near joining NATO. People were fine with Russia and didn't want to join.
You can whine all you want but Putin made it happen. You just need to cope with that fact.
(Site Administrator)
Military planners draw up all kinds of plans for decision makers to consider.
It's obvious the primary objective of the Soviets was to secure Leningrad, along with other lands they wanted, which they got by force after the Finns refused to negotiate & subsequently LOST on the battlefield against the Soviets. Twice. The second time was when the Finns were allied with the Nazis & attacked the Soviets, just in case Finnish indoctrination had you believing something different.
"Its a yes or no question."
No it's not, there needs to be a definition of "profitable" which is a can of worms. You have to put a value on the costs which vary from human to land to all sorts of things. And since you're so biased & disingenuous there's no way I'm getting into that kind of discussion with you. Not to mention it's just a cope to distract from the fact that FInland LOST the Winter War.
"Do you see how disingenuous this make you look, or are you capable of any self-reflection?"
lol. Such a greasy copelord.
"Insurance that a repeat of WWII doesn't happen. We can't trust Putin."
the leader of a neighbouring country that'd caused no problems for Finland & hadn't looked like causing any is the excuse used here to give up a substantial amount of sovereignty, independence & prosperity by joining a hostile alliance against that country & attacking it........ at a time when the leader of the alliance is antagonizing said neighbour & risking escalation. Seems totally logical. Not based on feelings or propaganda at all.
I asked you (twice) for something real that Finland received for what it's given up & you've come back with "insurance because I'm scared" without giving a shred of evidence to rationalize the fear.
oh my.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"It's obvious the primary objective of the Soviets was to secure Leningrad"
Now that I can agree with. They needed a buffer zone. But it's a ridiculous notion that they would only take a small buffer IF they could have taken a much bigger one. They could have fought any invading force from much deeper in Finland instead of the small 100 miles Karelian Isthmus. The nazis would have needed to fight through the whole of Finland, instead of getting a free pass.
"No it's not, there needs to be a definition of "profitable" which is a can of worms."
I'm not asking you to define it. I'm asking if you can imagine a scenario where war would become unprofitable.
"I asked you (twice) for something real that Finland received for what it's given up & you've come back with "insurance because I'm scared" without giving a shred of evidence to rationalize the fear."
I see you're having to cope hard with NATO expansion.
We have some real evidence of what Russia is capable of doing to it's neighboring country. We don't know how fucked up in the head Putin is and we don't know how long Russia will keep up this tradition. We already had to deal with it in the past.
As for what have we received? I don't think anything yet. It will materialize if Russia steps on our land. Basically, the force defending Finland grew exponentially. It's a deterrent, and hopefully, it will remain as such.