Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

seicar t1_iykd7ev wrote

Or not.

Take Finland for example. It is neither EU nor RU. Fins aren't anit-trade or specifically in love with a set distance between rails. Until recently this has been for a very real reason.

The country has been a fulcrum of neutrality between RU and Scandinavia/EU/NATO for approx. 90 years.

Now a lot of countries had some sort of authoritarian fascism within its population prior to WWII, but the Finns had to embrace Nazis to help hold off USSR. Stalin really really really wanted to put a big red mustache on that area.

After, (and during) if the Finns looked west, then USSR would see a real threat to their north sea ports as well as the major (and at some times capital) city of St. Petersburg. If the Fins went east, then the Baltic would be open for strikes into central EU and Scandinavia. To make a premature TLDR; the Finns were militarized like Israel, not because everyone wanted to kill them, rather they were the Uncle that had an old house in the middle of NYC central park. A desirable location.

Keeping all the outside countries off of major logistical infrastructure is a big positive.

AND... Fin/Swede entering NATO is a big big deal as a consequence of the Ukrainian invasion.


RU, China, East African countries, Central American countries, India, etc. might be a bit smart to make things a bit difficult.

3

pviitane t1_iynqc6n wrote

Well, actually. Finland has the same gauge as Russia. You see, during the early heydays of rail building, Finland was part of Russian Empire and the building started on the orders of Russian emperor/czar.

Before the Russian invasion, there has been a daily passenger rail connection from Helsinki to St Petersburg and Moscow. There are at least couple of border crossing points where Finnish and Russian rail networks connect so this has surely been taken into account in military defense planning.

1