You said
"I don't know why people still think Ukraine was somehow a lynchpin to a NATO invasion. The biggest threat to Russia vis à vis NATO wasn't Ukraine, it was Finland"
Yes.
How the Carpathians in any way blocks an invasion of Russia from a Ukraine in NATO when it's at the other end of the country is beyond me
Lol You're making my point for me.
What else did I say? "Ukraine being in NATO makes things harder", and "Ukraine is actually a liability" were mentioned in my follow up. Moving your front line 1000km away from a natural defensive barrier makes things harder, not easier. Especially when you know that's likely where the enemy is going to focus their attacks from.
Also as for Murmansk, yeah, it's important, a lot of assets there and in the region but once it's taken, then what.
Then you've neutralized and captured much of the Northern Fleet and its ordinance. Take a guess at what kind of ordinance is stored there in large numbers. Also take a look at where much of Russia's first strike capability on rearward NATO member states comes from. I'll give you hint what you should research: sea-launched cruise missiles. That's the "then what".
Because Kola. And as for assets, if you really wanted to, you can fuck that shit up with missiles, attacks from the American carriers, much easier than attacking through bog and scrub. Hunting for moose and collecting 10-42, best kind, attacking, not so much.
It's literally only about Murmansk and the associated bases in the district. Kola provides no strategic value to NATO. It's 100% about neutralizing the Northern Fleet.
And no, you can't just fuck it up with missiles and attacks from carriers for a variety of reasons. The first big one is hardening. The second is you always need boots on the ground. Go back and revisit Gulf I. Everything that was done was to better support boots on the ground. Sub pens are especially hard to take out from above.
And yes in the continuation war the Finns did well in an attack with limited goals but Germany did even better further south.
And since then, Finland has gone from a normal country to the most civil defence minded nation in the western world. This isn't WWII anymore. Times have changed.
Whereas if NATO launches an attack from NATO you are closer to a lot more interesting stuff, serious population centers. Clear path to Moscow and Stalingrad [did I mention I am old as fuck]
Close to Moscow doesn't matter because you can't take it right away. You'd need knowledge of Russia's ABM/air defense layout to get why and that's too technical to explain here, but Moscow is going to take time. The 2 nations in NATO tasked with reducing its ABM and air defenses are not the quickest to move either. There will be plenty of time to get from anywhere to Moscow. Heck, you could probably use Japan as a stepping off point and still get to Moscow before it's ready to be taken. Being close to Moscow is like moving your front line away from the Carpathians: it doesn't actually help and given the assets in and around Moscow being closer might actually be a liability.
Never mind that as WWII showed,
WWII is history. The operational art was still attrition for crying out loud, and since then we've seen 3 advancements in operational art here in the west. So if you're basing your entire view on how WWII went, you're out to lunch. It's not relevant now.
the North is a pretty hard place to Advance,
Not particularly true anymore.
the Germans never made it anywhere near there, it's a pretty desolate place.
WWII Germany is long gone, move on.
OTOH The parts of Russia past Ukraine [as long as you don't go north into the Belarus and the marshes is pretty sweet for thrusting deep into the enemy rear.
I wonder if Russia might think that and be prepared for that. Hmmm...
So that would make you.... what's the word I am looking for, ah yes, wrong.
Ok, think that if you want. My experience and training are indeed more than a decade out of date. It's possible things have changed. But given that you seem to think it's still 1941, I'm not convinced you've got a better grasp.
Now if you were talking about NATO on the defense, yes, Ukraine is a big open and vulnerable place whereas Finland is really defendable but considering how much trouble Russia is having with Ukraine, I doubt that's a worry.
Yes, Ukraine is doing great. At a ridiculously high cost. A high cost in lives and equipment. Now imagine if they were holding at the Carpathians how much better they'd be doing, especially if Ukraine had spent 40+ years developing their military with a focus on mountain warfare the way NATO member states tasked with holding the Carpathians have. Add air supremacy. Then think encirclements of the Russian forces that had to advance into Ukraine to secure vital resources, metallurgy, and manufacturing. Not only is Ukraine secured within maybe DD+21 at the latest, but it took a lot of Russian troops and equipment with it in falling to NATO.
But with Ukraine in NATO we don't have that. That whole plan dissolves. NATO still wins, but NATO casualties are likely higher. Ukraine is a liability to NATO. There's a reason NATO strung Ukraine along for 50 years and they were no closer to getting in, and that's not because Ukraine had significant value.
Ukraine makes NATOs job harder in the south. Meanwhile, the largest threat to every NATO member state from Germany west, including North America, is Russia's Northern Fleet. And Finland can neuturalize that by HH+12 at the soonest, and DD+2 at the latest, with any stragglers mopped up by the superior British, French, and US fleets. Even if a handful of subs survive, that's not enough to overwhelm US ABM defenses.
Ukraine is a liability, Finland is an asset. The biggest threat to Russia vis à vis NATO isn't Ukraine, it's Finland. It really is that simple.
