In un nuovo sondaggio, il 40% dei finlandesi sostiene l’invio di truppe di terra in Ucraina
https://i.redd.it/y4qxznv3iyae1.jpeg
di D3adtrap
In un nuovo sondaggio, il 40% dei finlandesi sostiene l’invio di truppe di terra in Ucraina
https://i.redd.it/y4qxznv3iyae1.jpeg
di D3adtrap
18 commenti
In Western Europe, there has been growing support for ending the war through negotiations. Support from Finland and Sweden to continue supporting Ukraine remains strong.
More and more Finns would like to send Western ground troops to Ukraine. At the same time, Finns’ concern about Russia has clearly grown.
More than 50% of National Coalition Party, Finns Party, & Greens voters support sending ground troops and even 46% of Left Alliance voters.
Source: [Helsingin Sanomat](https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000010941465.html)
So 60% of Finns are wrong
Just clone 40 copies of Simo Häyhä and point them East
Finnish Putin
If we ask if they personally would like to be sent, then percentage would be different
Based Finns. The NK are there after all, why should we not provide direct support?
Now ask everyone in the poll if they would like to be deployed to Ukraine.
It would be %5 max.
To clarify, the question here is not about sending Finnish troops specifically. The question asked was “Should Ukraine’s western supporters send ground troops to Ukraine?”
Is this about ground troops for combat, or as peacekeepers once a ceasefire is signed?
Yes white man, die in another war while getting replaced in your own homelands…
Rough translation:
Should the western allies that support Ukriane send troops/ground forces to Ukriane?
-Yes, because we should give Ukraine stronger support against the Russian invasion.
-No, because escalation of the conflict should be avoided
-Dont know/No opinion/cant answer
My point is this is more than yes-no answer.
It says that 40% support sending troops, 39% does not support sending troops and 21% does not know. Only 1000 people were asked so obviously the result could be extremely different if the whole country was to vote for it.
Sending young boys into the hellhole of trench warfare will be a great sacrifice I’m willing to make from the safety of my home. /s
40% support (up from 31), 39% are against (down from 50%), and rest dont know (small increase from 18 to 21)
So biggest support atm is for sending in troops.
Its also notable that as war has kept going and casualties piled up, support for sending in troops has not declined, but greatly increased.
The Finns were straight in to seize a Russian ship that possibly damaged undersea cables. They will not fuck around.
They are a country that takes no shite from Russia whatsoever. They will have NATO soldiers stationed there in the future and signed a pact with the US.
It closed its borders last year with Russia, stating that Russia was sending thousands of migrants to its border.
There is obviously more at play here.
But, Finland uses direct but measured responses to Russias machiavellian antics.
Nobody believes Russia could take Finland on for a moment. It would be the end of Russia.
All the same, having the longest border with Russia, Finland sill never drops its guard.
It could teach other countries a thing or two
The question is if the west should send troops . Not Finland specifically. “You go first Ameribros “
People need to be shown more drone killing footage, and then asked if they want to send their kids to fight in Ukraine.
This poll is a result of detachment from what the battlefield of today looks like, and thinking it would just be “Nato soldiers” sent to a war restricted to Ukraine.
If the west (Finland included) sent troops to Ukraine to fight Russia, we would become active participants in the war. We share a long ass border with Russia and have conscription. If you think your family wouldn’t be affected as a result you’re extremely naive.
Ukraine lacks manpower. How many of these 40% supporting sending ground troops have told themselves, their husbands, fathers, and sons, to go fight in Ukraine? We all have basic training from conscription. Oh that’s right, you only support sending someone elses family to go die in a war, how very noble of you.
This is not like the US sending training units to Vietnam in the 60s, which then escalated to combat troops, because, Vietnam was a proxy war, the US were not directly / openly engaging the Chinese.
Sending troops to Ukraine, from any NATO country, e.g. Finland, would mean they are directly engaging Russian troops. Russia would then declare war on that country and may attack them, invoking article 5… and then Russia’s allies might also declare war… And I’m pretty sure that’s what World War 3 looks like?
There seem to be a lot of hawks that think that this thing can be both escalated and, at the same time, localised to Ukraine. Maybe it can… but if it isn’t, World War 3 is a very bad time. Maybe WW3 is not nuclear, but it would certainly be horrific and protracted. Maybe it’s necessary for it to happen to get rid of Putin and Russian expansionism, but I feel like western folk shouting “send in the boys”, haven’t really thought it through and considered the magnitude of what that could mean.
Maybe my view is wrong. Maybe Western countries can send troops to Ukraine, Russia’s allies decide it’s not worth the hassle and sit this one out. Russian forces are pushed out of Ukraine, and Putiin takes it on the chin, doesn’t use nukes, accepts the loss of the war and probably his own political position and quietly hands over power to his successor.
When key powers, in the runup to WW2, said enough-is-enough, in response to an expanding Germany, nuclear weapons didn’t exist. Seeing similar behaviour now from a nuclear armed state I don’t think we can apply the same logic and to be honest I don’t know what the answer is because I’m just a random Redditor. Obviously going all out on the economic sanctions is step one.