Hacker News Reader

Comment by distances | Hacker News Reader

It depends a bit. For example Finland used to use a lot of Soviet weaponry while (practically if not officially) preparing to deter Soviet attack. Some upsides:

- Results in trade deals with a neighboring superpower

- In case of war, looted enemy armament is familiar and compatible

- Cheaper due to Soviet attempts to keep sphere of influence (e.g. no direct NATO compatibility)

View on HN

Another upside:

- Making it clear that you're not in the 'other guys' camp.

A NATO Finland would have been incredibly threatening to the Soviet Union. A friendly, non-aligned Finland that just wants to be independent, without stepping on anyone's toes is a useful buffer state.

After the second world war, Finland had to tread very, very carefully.

To add to this comment, the majority of Finland's infantry fighting and transport vehicles that in use are still Soviet BMPs and MTLBs. Same applies to artillery and also all light machine guns are and probably will Russian PKMs for a while.

But yeah since the fall of USSR they've been slowing shifting towards buying from NATO countries/allies, with German Leopard tanks having replaced T-72s and recently buying artillery units from South Korea.

Finland is not a member of NATO and it does not have any foreign army on its territory so it can make a decision based on technical characteristics and economical (not political) factors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com