Finnish CO seeks asylum in Belgium

[Rin]

Unarmed service numbers (2003) 56 and (2006) 38 (source Ruotuväki)
In comparison wiki claims 27000 conscripts/year trained.

Only 4 or 5 per day? How do you live on that, exactly? And how does college/postsecondary education fit in with that?

Per day payment:
(1-6 kk) 4,40 euro
(7-9 kk) 7,30 euro
(10-12 kk) 10,20 euro

Place to live and meals will be provided by place of service.
If place do not provide meals 12e/day will be paid as alternative. And similar thing with place to live.

(Source (FIN/SWE))

And you plan ahead with your studies? After lukio I applied to polytechnic, took year off and went to army first before actually starting.

And damn I write slowly...

[AMT]

Hrm. Still seems kind of... low to me. I mean hell, even the army pays you per hour over here...

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Hrm. Still seems kind of... low to me. I mean hell, even the army pays you per hour over here...

You are talking about a country with a different standard of living. Conscripts typically have lower pay than regulars in any conscript army.

[Karza]

Hrm. Still seems kind of... low to me. I mean hell, even the army pays you per hour over here...

Well, we are talking about conscripts doing military/civil service, not professional soldiers here. And with food and lodgings provided, it's not all that bad. The thing is that you must either have some savings or be able to look after your money, because even those who choose military service (and thus have less opportunities for spending money in the first place) often manage to spend the entire allowance on booze during weekend vacations . I imagine it's a bigger problem for civil service, because you're essentially living as a normal civilian so there are more opportunities for spending.

That's something they drummed into us on the first lectures in the army: Whatever you do, don't get into financial trouble because of this. Personally, I managed to actually save a little from the allowance, since when I got on vacation the last goddamn thing on earth I wanted to do was to piss away my few precious free days on drinking . I think I was completely sober through my whole service.

[Lord Revan]

while most people in the Military side serve only 6 months (9 and 12 are for service branches and officers and as said 11 is for unarmed service (essentially the same as normal apart from the fact they you don't (have to) handle weapons and you're no trained on their use)

They don't fire a weapon? Excuse me, but this strikes as rather redundant. What's the point of being a trained soldier if you are not taught how to handle a weapon?

I was a staff runner for the Regimental HQ so the closest thing I ever got to handling weapons during my service was carring a box of unloaded pistols for 1 of the officers (FYI:I was in unrmed service), so yeah I was both a serviceman (aka a soldier) in the finnish naval force and never resivied more then the basics in weapon handling (well actually not even that but it wasn't due to my service branch)

[Lord Revan]

as for the money it's quite frankly more then enough for the military service men (I generally ended up with quite a surplus from it as I don't drink (well not often at least) and there wasn't that much to spend it on (ofc the refund I got from empty bottles helped too(from non-alchohol drinks that is, no alchohol as permited on base)). You got to remember that conscripts make up only the junior ranks during peace time (and last Finland was at war was in 1945) so all officers and most senior NCOs are professional soldiers who get payed real salaries.

As said you got to remember that food, housing and healthcare is providied by the state and there's very little free time (so little in fact that 1 of the most effective punishments was to take away your off-base leaves).

granted if you smoke or drink alot, you might find it harder to save cash.

[Julhelm]

Fuck him.

[AMT]

Fair enough then. Though it does suck for those who have to pay for storage of items and whatnot during the period if they don't have family to watch over it for them.

Either way, the guy doesn't deserve any mercy for it. It seems, for the most part, to be a fair enough system.

[folti78]

Though it does suck for those who have to pay for storage of items and whatnot during the period if they don't have family to watch over it for them.

Yes, although i wouldn't be surprised if some solution could be arranged by the finnish army. I didn't found anything in their Conscript's handbook (English PDF downloadable here).

Either way, the guy doesn't deserve any mercy for it. It seems, for the most part, to be a fair enough system.

Agreed, he could have choosed from a few alternatives, but neither was good enough for mama's boy.

[Crown]

Only 4 or 5 per day? How do you live on that, exactly? And how does college/postsecondary education fit in with that?

The Finns are spoiled of course. In Glorious Greek National Service™ we got payed €9 per Month!

[folti78]

The Finns are spoiled of course. In Glorious Greek National Service™ we got payed €9 per Month!

May I ask when did they paid that? Because even the Most Glorious Hungarian Army paid about twice* that back in 2002 ... and they raised our allowance with ~€2 at the end of that year.

* IIRC conscript's allowance was 4870 HUF a month, with the Forint-Euro exchange rate dancing between 230-250HUF/1Euro. Around 2002 december they raised it about 5400 HUF.

[SecondStorm]

What is the Finnish reasoning for still having 100% conscription of all males ?

[Tiriol]

What is the Finnish reasoning for still having 100% conscription of all males ?

Small population, huge area to be protected (Finland is just a little bit smaller than Sweden); a professional army would either be entirely too small to cover the entire area or would cost hideously too much. However, as of late there has been more and more talk about a more selective conscription process.

[Crown]

The Finns are spoiled of course. In Glorious Greek National Service™ we got payed €9 per Month!

May I ask when did they paid that? Because even the Most Glorious Hungarian Army paid about twice* that back in 2002 ... and they raised our allowance with ~€2 at the end of that year.

* IIRC conscript's allowance was 4870 HUF a month, with the Forint-Euro exchange rate dancing between 230-250HUF/1Euro. Around 2002 december they raised it about 5400 HUF.

I got my discharge in November of 2006 ... scary eh?

[[R_H]]

Only 4 or 5 per day? How do you live on that, exactly? And how does college/postsecondary education fit in with that?

The Finns are spoiled of course. In Glorious Greek National Service™ we got payed €9 per Month!

Wow. Here we (recruits) get the equivalent of 2.7 Euros a day. What did they expect you to do with 9 Euros a month?

[folti78]

Wow. Here we (recruits) get the equivalent of 2.7 Euros a day. What did they expect you to do with 9 Euros a month?

Doing his duty for his nation as conscript. Professional soldiers usually have (a somewhat) competitive pay regardless whether they are enlisted or officers. (Except when they aren't. For example, pay and allowance was quite sucktastic in the Hungarian Army in the '90s.There were times when a new 2nd Lt's starting pay was just a bit higher than the minimal wage.)

I got my discharge in November of 2006 ... scary eh?

Yes. Of course if there's no way to spend it during the service...

[Broomstick]

What is the Finnish reasoning for still having 100% conscription of all males ?

Small population, huge area to be protected (Finland is just a little bit smaller than Sweden); a professional army would either be entirely too small to cover the entire area or would cost hideously too much. However, as of late there has been more and more talk about a more selective conscription process.

I would also think having a nation with expansionist/imperial tendencies such as Russia on one's border also has a major effect on perceived need for mandatory military service.

[Edi]

I would also think having a nation with expansionist/imperial tendencies such as Russia on one's border also has a major effect on perceived need for mandatory military service.

No shit. We have 1300 kilometers of border with them,mostly inhabited by bears, wolves, moose and mosquitoes. Hiring enough manpower to watch all of that would be too expensive. And as my friend who is a lieutenant in the Finnish Defense Forces says: "We practice to defend against invasions from all directions, but if the attack comes from somewhere other than the east, the enemy flanked us." This, by the way, is something practically everyone hears during their conscription time.

[Tiriol]

I would also think having a nation with expansionist/imperial tendencies such as Russia on one's border also has a major effect on perceived need for mandatory military service.

No shit. We have 1300 kilometers of border with them,mostly inhabited by bears, wolves, moose and mosquitoes. Hiring enough manpower to watch all of that would be too expensive. And as my friend who is a lieutenant in the Finnish Defense Forces says: "We practice to defend against invasions from all directions, but if the attack comes from somewhere other than the east, the enemy flanked us." This, by the way, is something practically everyone hears during their conscription time.

It should also be noted that having Russia as our neighbour (and before that, the Soviet Union) has for a long time been an effective deterrent for thoughts of trying to get in NATO. I think that some of these consentious objectors have forgotten Russia's close proximity and what it means for security considerations (no disrespect intended for Stas or any other Russian on the board), having lived most of their lives in a world of peace and prosperity without having passively or actively aggressive, large neighbour with a tendency for expansionist policies.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I would also think having a nation with expansionist/imperial tendencies such as Russia on one's border also has a major effect on perceived need for mandatory military service.

No shit. We have 1300 kilometers of border with them,mostly inhabited by bears, wolves, moose and mosquitoes. Hiring enough manpower to watch all of that would be too expensive. And as my friend who is a lieutenant in the Finnish Defense Forces says: "We practice to defend against invasions from all directions, but if the attack comes from somewhere other than the east, the enemy flanked us." This, by the way, is something practically everyone hears during their conscription time.

It should also be noted that having Russia as our neighbour (and before that, the Soviet Union) has for a long time been an effective deterrent for thoughts of trying to get in NATO. I think that some of these consentious objectors have forgotten Russia's close proximity and what it means for security considerations (no disrespect intended for Stas or any other Russian on the board), having lived most of their lives in a world of peace and prosperity without having passively or actively aggressive, large neighbour with a tendency for expansionist policies.

Why a deterrent? You're unclear as a whole on who you mean.

[Lord Revan]

It should also be noted that having Russia as our neighbour (and before that, the Soviet Union) has for a long time been an effective deterrent for thoughts of trying to get in NATO. I think that some of these consentious objectors have forgotten Russia's close proximity and what it means for security considerations (no disrespect intended for Stas or any other Russian on the board), having lived most of their lives in a world of peace and prosperity without having passively or actively aggressive, large neighbour with a tendency for expansionist policies.

Why a deterrent? You're unclear as a whole on who you mean.

Russia has said that it would be "most displeased" should Finland join the NATO (in plain speak they've said to Finland "don't join NATO if you wanna stay in our good graces"), also due to the expansionist tendencies Finnish foreign policy between 1945-1982 was very soviet friendly for a "neutral" country.

this is ofc not meant as an insult to any russian members of the board.

I have a feeling that a large part the Objectors simply don't know what Russia means to finnish foreign policy or have naive picture of what would happen.

[Sea Skimmer]

Finland joining NATO would mean the Soviet Baltic fleet is virtually blockaded, its key Northern Fleet bases left exposed and the second largest city in Russia is open to a ground attack. Back in the Cold War the Soviet Union would have attacked Finland in a heartbeat to prevent it from joining NATO. As it was NATO was sufficient aware of these sensitivities to completely ban foreign exercises in Finnmark while Norway only deployed the most token of its own forces in the area.

The Turkish boarder was a little less sensitive, since neither side had anything very important along it, and both sides enjoyed very rugged terrain to rule out quick invasions.

[Karza]

No shit. We have 1300 kilometers of border with them,mostly inhabited by bears, wolves, moose and mosquitoes. Hiring enough manpower to watch all of that would be too expensive. And as my friend who is a lieutenant in the Finnish Defense Forces says: "We practice to defend against invasions from all directions, but if the attack comes from somewhere other than the east, the enemy flanked us." This, by the way, is something practically everyone hears during their conscription time.

Yep. It's kinda funny actually, our politicians always keep their comments about threats to our security carefully ambiguous, but in the army just about every exercise began with some variation of "Right, the Russians have come over the border. Now what we need to do is..." .

I've seen plenty of people argue that Russia isn't a threat to us anymore, but even if it isn't right now, who knows what the situation is in 20 years? Better safe than sorry.

[Tiriol]

It should also be noted that having Russia as our neighbour (and before that, the Soviet Union) has for a long time been an effective deterrent for thoughts of trying to get in NATO. I think that some of these consentious objectors have forgotten Russia's close proximity and what it means for security considerations (no disrespect intended for Stas or any other Russian on the board), having lived most of their lives in a world of peace and prosperity without having passively or actively aggressive, large neighbour with a tendency for expansionist policies.

Why a deterrent? You're unclear as a whole on who you mean.

Others have answered this quite adequately, but since the question was directed at me, I'll try to explain it myself.

The Soviet Union wouldn't have been displeased with Finland joining NATO. It would have been downright outraged and would have probably invaded or pulled some strings to ensure that such an alliance would never come to be, even at the cost of the Finnish society as a whole. Finland was practically a no-man's land in the Cold War and our politicians knew it. And thanks to some of our treaties with the Soviet Union, they could have come up with some excuse about "a resurgent fascist Germany" to invoke "mutual aid and defense treaty" and send Soviet troops here to "ensure protection and safety of Finland and the Soviet Union". That mental image is deterrent enough for any ambitions to join NATO.

Soviet Union is gone, but Russia remains. It has been weak for some time, but the spectre of Soviet intervention still existed (and exists) and now when Russia is growing in strength and has been quite clear about its displeasure with NATO's enroachement with the area traditionally viewed as Russia's sphere of influence, that silent risk looms still. However, Finland does now have an option of joining NATO, since Russia hasn't acted as belligerently as the Soviet Union (although whether Finland will join is another thing entirely).

Did this answer the question clearly enough?

[The Grim Squeaker]

It should also be noted that having Russia as our neighbour (and before that, the Soviet Union) has for a long time been an effective deterrent for thoughts of trying to get in NATO. I think that some of these consentious objectors have forgotten Russia's close proximity and what it means for security considerations (no disrespect intended for Stas or any other Russian on the board), having lived most of their lives in a world of peace and prosperity without having passively or actively aggressive, large neighbour with a tendency for expansionist policies.

Why a deterrent? You're unclear as a whole on who you mean.

Others have answered this quite adequately, but since the question was directed at me, I'll try to explain it myself.

The Soviet Union wouldn't have been displeased with Finland joining NATO. It would have been downright outraged and would have probably invaded or pulled some strings to ensure that such an alliance would never come to be, even at the cost of the Finnish society as a whole. Finland was practically a no-man's land in the Cold War and our politicians knew it. And thanks to some of our treaties with the Soviet Union, they could have come up with some excuse about "a resurgent fascist Germany" to invoke "mutual aid and defense treaty" and send Soviet troops here to "ensure protection and safety of Finland and the Soviet Union". That mental image is deterrent enough for any ambitions to join NATO.

Soviet Union is gone, but Russia remains. It has been weak for some time, but the spectre of Soviet intervention still existed (and exists) and now when Russia is growing in strength and has been quite clear about its displeasure with NATO's enroachement with the area traditionally viewed as Russia's sphere of influence, that silent risk looms still. However, Finland does now have an option of joining NATO, since Russia hasn't acted as belligerently as the Soviet Union (although whether Finland will join is another thing entirely).

Did this answer the question clearly enough?

Excellently so.

Thanks, I was unclear since I knew about Finland's history with Russia (the winter war, the retaking and re-losing of territory in 45, etc') and thought that would make it an obvious NATO prospect (To the point of being surprised to hear it isn't in it).
Thanks for the explanation as to Russia's terror/ultimatum