> We rely on huge conscription army of 900 000

This is about what the Soviets lost in the first two months of WW2.

Considering Russian population of 144 million, half of which are women and half of the rest either too old or too young to fight, the Russian army reserve can be (conservatively) estimated at about 30 million men.

With that in mind, in the possible conflict Finland would need to continuously maintain a loss ratio of 30:1 or more.

In the Winter war, the loss ratio was about 5:1, which is a "good" news tactically, but not "good enough" news strategically. It meant that Finland moved to the point of not being able to fight faster than the Soviets did.

Another discrepancy — the one that did not exist in either the Winter war or the Continuation war — is that the Russian nuclear arsenal is somewhere between 3,000 and 10,000 nuclear weapons, while the Finnish nuclear arsenal is none.

Finally, Russia won't fear any sanctions for its conflict with Finland, because the sanctions weapon is already used against them.

> You may ask why would we need NATO if we have such a military?

I may ask why you think that seeking NATO membership is putting Finland in a less dangerous position and not in a more dangerous one. After all, getting in an alliance with Germany in the past proved as a costly mistake.

> After what Russia did to Ukraine

Russia is in a process of wrecking Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. They seem to have achieved at least the goal of keeping Ukraine out of NATO, because NATO will not admit Ukraine while it fights the Russians.

I fail to see how doing exactly the same thing that Ukraine did is not a very dangerous gamble.

You have fair points and respect your opinion on this. In my opinion Russia is running out of men willing to fight in Ukraine already. Will to fight is huge one, Soviet union was 50 times bigger than Finland during Winter War, yet they struggled. One reason to apply right now according to some is precisely because Russia is stuck in Ukraine.

However myself I don't believe in any real military threat from Russia for Finland during NATO application process or after. War in Ukraine seems to be about some sort of obsession in Russia about Ukraine, not about NATO.

Even right now, Kremlin seems to be changing it's mind about should Ukraine be allowed to even EU. They now seem to be equaling EU with NATO "I think that our position on the European Union now is more similar to NATO because we don’t see a big difference" (Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russian UN representative)

Finland is part of UK led Joint Expeditionary Force, also new alliance with UK (with bizarre Boris stunt yesterday), and is backed by EU mutual defense clause. It's weak solidarity clause, and was never meant to be military alliance, nevertheless it allows flexible interpretation, and Germany has promised even troops to help if needed.

I'm not worried at all, and don't see this as gamble.

> After all, getting in an alliance with Germany in the past proved as a costly mistake.

Btw, I didn't quiet understand this. In Finland the Continuation War (where Finland allied with Germany) is seen as alliance of necessity, and saved Finnish independence.

> In my opinion Russia is running out of men willing to fight

First of all, let me assume you didn't poll Russians yourself. Consuming media's opinion is fine, provided we take it critically — this helps us distinguish between the facts out of which an opinion was formed later, and an opinion with the facts selected later to support it.

Second: I've been to the military, including active engagements, and in my experience, the troops start to fight because the other option is court-marshal, and they continue to fight because the other option is dying. These two are good motivators to put up the best fight possible in the circumstances. Questions like "is this war justified" or "are we the baddies" usually aren't given much importance on the battlefield; one is busy surviving another day.

> One reason to apply right now according to some is precisely because Russia is stuck in Ukraine.

That's a fair point, and it may get the loss ratio from 30:1 to about 10:1 or so.

Again, tactically it just made the task three times as easy. Strategically, I don't think it turns an unachievable goal into an achievable one.

OTOH, Russia is already eating sanctions, so the cost of the first front has already been paid; the second front may come at a lower cost.

> War in Ukraine seems to be about some sort of obsession in Russia about Ukraine, not about NATO.

OTOH, the war in Georgia wasn't about any obsession Russians have with Georgia. Because there isn't any to speak of. But both can be explained by being about NATO.

> They now seem to be equaling EU with NATO

Here's the thing: NATO is a military alliance weaponized against Russia, so Russia doesn't want to see Ukraine as a part of it. If EU is an economic alliance, Russia wouldn't have any objection to Ukraine in it. But if EU is an economic alliance weaponized against Russia, Russia (again) doesn't want to see Ukraine as a part of it. I think in the last couple of months, as we can see a weaponization of economy, finance, and even McDonalds against Russia (and weaponization of Russian energy against EU), the EU seems more and more weaponized.

> nevertheless it allows flexible interpretation

That's exactly the problem with it. In a case of need, this can be taken to mean anything. Ditto the "you are not alone" comment. Article 5, on the other hand, is very clear.

> Germany has promised even troops

Again, this is vague enough and may mean anything, between one company and the whole Bundeswehr.

> the Continuation War (where Finland allied with Germany) is seen as alliance of necessity

Not many nations are willing to admit mistakes and take guilt. This is not good for nationalism and patriotism. E.g. turks are in a second century to deny Armenian holocaust. Russians "conveniently forget" that in 1939-1941 they have been an ally of Nazis; so much so they count the war (which goes by a different name there) from 1941. Germans are a notable counter-example, but this doesn't come as their choice, does it?

In the hindsight, looking around your neighborhood, Sweden stayed neutral, Norway lost its independence for some years (but got it back), and Finland aligned with Germany. Hence "alliance of necessity" seems to be more of a retroactive explanation that allows everyone to save their face. If by "independence" they mean "independence from the Soviets", then it remains to be explained why the Soviets didn't take that independence at the end of that war. To me, it sounds more plausible that the Soviets were just not interested in governing the Finns.

One final note: the Soviets (and Russians) kept mostly silent for the last 70 years about Finnish alliance with Nazis, because it was more convenient for everyone to forget about that and move on. The Soviet/Russian victory narrative speaks about Germany and Japan, but never Finland. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if Lavrov pulls the Nazi card and waves it in Finland's face.