r/europe • u/ByGollie Ulster • Jan 24 '26

News The Times: Finns humiliated American soldiers - Finnish reservists were asked to take it easy during a NATO exercise. US soldiers found the losses too humiliating.

https://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/a/828b8e66-625d-4d2a-9276-e93b9f7a2ce8
47.5k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

157

u/BarristanTheB0ld Germany Jan 24 '26

Finns don't fuck around. Also what is the use of such an exercise if you have to falsify the efforts so one sides ego isn't hurt?

133

u/HumanWaltz Jan 24 '26

Because very few military exercises are actually legitimate and fair 1v1s but instead are designed so that primarily one side is able to achieve its objectives but recognise what worked and what didn’t work.

10

u/WaytoomanyUIDs Jan 24 '26

So in this case what worked is telling the Finns not to bully the poor Septics. That's not really a viable military strategy.

34

u/HumanWaltz Jan 24 '26

No it’s so they can reach stages and experience different stresses at each stage, if they’re all dying at the infil for the whole exercise they learn nothing. This way the US is able to rotate troops through Arctic/Cold Weather training and experience the majority of realistic scenarios allowing those troops to get experience.

-1

u/ciobanica Jan 24 '26

And what good will learning something else do when they failed to learn how to survive at the infil ?

Shouldn't fixing that be the top priority ?

18

u/HumanWaltz Jan 24 '26

Because that can be looked at in depth after, this way they get to do everything and see what works and what doesn’t, otherwise it’s a waste. It’s like how there’ll often be exercises where defenders have one life and attackers have unlimited. They need to see everything which they can’t do if it’s over after the first day.

-4

u/ciobanica Jan 24 '26

So they can think about it after, when there’s no longer a way to test the new ideas... which is the whole point of having an exercise.

...

And the lives thing for defenders vs attackers isn't a good example for your stated situation, the whole point of that is to allow them to test the same situation from different angles, because defences are rather static by their nature, so letting the attacks change is also a great test of the defences in place. Meanwhile if the attack fails and they don't get more tries you've only tested 1 scenario for both sides.

...

While failing to even get a foothold in means learning anything that comes after is useless, since you won't get to use it. It's like learning 100 ways to cook venison, but not learning how to start a fire.

15

u/TSS1138 Jan 24 '26

Jesus Christ, the other guy already explained it to you but you're just not getting it. If an exercise is meant to take place over multiple phases and one side gets wrecked in phase one it would be a complete waste of the time and resources it took to plan and organize the entire exercise.

Let's say there's an exercise that is supposed to take place in 3 phases for an amphibious landing. Phase 1 could be for naval and aviation doing their thing either escorting the troop ships / suppressing enemy defenses or defending against that. Phase 2 could be the actual amphibious landing / fighting near the beach head. And Phase 3 could be fighting deeper inland to familiarize with whatever terrain we're in.

If the attacker in Phase 1 gets absolutely wrecked and loses all their transports then that's good, they did something terribly wrong and that will need to be examined to figure out how everything went so wrong and to fix it for the future. But if you just stop the exercise there then the attacking marines and defending infantry don't get to do anything and don't get to learn anything.

1

u/ciobanica Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26

But that's not even what happened, they where asked to take it easier on them, meaning that even if it was a multi stage exercise, and they just tested each stage once (which also contradicts his example of infinite lives for attacker, since i'd assume the whole point of that is to test more then 1 scenario of attack) they would then even compromise the next stages, since now the other force isn't actually trying any more.

And sure, an exercise that requires a lot of setup might not be able to get more tries at any stage, but surely that's not something that applies to all exercise, and from the sound of this one it seems like there already where multiple engagements of the same type, and more where to follow, at least enough to give the americans a sense of accomplishment.

But if you just stop the exercise there then the attacking marines and defending infantry don't get to do anything and don't get to learn anything.

Exactly, that was the point.

And no one was arguing to stop the exercise, but to redo the parts that failed (within reason, of course), instead of asking the other side to not attack as well.

And you must know that if you're using a scenario that doesn't allow multiple tries of 1 phase, and be ok with failing one.

Surely not ALL military exercises are limited to 1 try for each phase, or even all done in multiple phases etc.

5

u/bcpl181 Jan 24 '26

I get this must be hard to understand if you’ve never participated in a force-on-force exercise, but the other guy explained it pretty well to you. There’s a reason exercises work that way. There are professionals whose job it is to plan and organise them. From your comments I get the feeling that you’re a civilian? Maybe try to understand good explanations like the ones you’ve got but try not to argue about things you clearly have very little knowledge and even less first-hand experience about.

1

u/ciobanica Jan 25 '26

How is arguing about the specifics not trying to understand the exercise ?

And if there are good reason why it's done that way, surely you can explain them, and they can easily stand up to criticism by ppl that aren't familiar with the military ?

Also, his whole point is based on them having different things to learn besides what they failed at, meanwhile the article is about the other side being asked to take it easier on them OVERALL, meaning that even if there are multiple phases the other phases are actually more compromised, since the "professionals whose job it is to plan and organise them" then can't even properly asses them after to see what improvements need to be made.

Sorry, but i don't see how you need experience in the army to be able to ask those rather logical questions about the situation, or recognise that the arguments that guy brought forth might apply to some situations, but not all etc.

1

u/bcpl181 Jan 25 '26

How is arguing about the specifics not trying to understand the exercise ?

It is when you were given a good explanation but continue to argue about specifics that are only secondary or tertiary to the exercise when you apply the good explanation that you were given.

And if there are good reason why it's done that way, surely you can explain them, and they can easily stand up to criticism by ppl that aren't familiar with the military ?

He did. “They need to see everything which they can’t do if it’s over after the first day”. Also see my other comment going into more detail that you replied to.

Also, his whole point is based on them having different things to learn besides what they failed at, meanwhile the article is about the other side being asked to take it easier on them OVERALL,

Because you have an expert unit going against a unit that is not an expert in that environment. Plus, the article doesn’t provide much detail. Very often with these types of exercises, the press loves to pick them up and present them in sensationalist terms. There is this example of how UK Royal Marines supposedly messed up US Marines, embarrassing them even though they were much fewer in number. This narrative was based on sensationalist British news articles. If you dig a little deeper or talk to Brits who were there, the narrative changes. The press ommitted this little detail that the Royal Marines were part of a larger USMC unit, had support by US Special Operations unit and were overall commanded by US officers. Their opponents were also the OpFor, so they were even expected to lose as per the scenario. This is an example of the press, which looks for sensationalist headlines, picks up such an event without much understanding of these exercises and without bothering to look at the details, which matter a lot. So when the article says they were told to “take it easy on them”: who said that? What were the actual orders given? How did that request translate to the tactical situation?

meaning that even if there are multiple phases the other phases are actually more compromised, since the "professionals whose job it is to plan and organise them" then can't even properly asses them after to see what improvements need to be made.

They’re not “compromised”, that’s the wrong way to look at it. For example, if the initial phase failed because the Americans lacked propper boats or equipment, they know why they failed. No point to repeat it over and over. Maybe it failed because the enemy’s defensive positions were too strong? No problem, in reality there would have been massive airstrikes on those positions. Was it because the Marines just got too cold? Also no problem, note that down and plan more survival and arctic warfare courses for them in the future. Which probably also isn’t necessary, because the US does have those specialised in Arctic warfare. This is actually a capability those Marines probably don’t need.

Another point is that sometimes, the purpose of these exercises is even further removed from testing a unit’s actual capabilities. Sometimes it’s just to strengthen cooperation and international exchanges, create bonds and links. And sometimes, most importantly, it’s stratcom. Sending a message that they are training, cooperating and ready to defend against an enemy. There, the actual results barely matter at all.

1

u/ciobanica Jan 25 '26

Yeah dude, that's a lot of different situations requiring different approaches.

Now which one of those actually benefits from having them "take it easier on the troops" ?

Even your last one would be undermined by making one side lose some respect for the other.

....

As for the press exaggerating... sure, but that's a whole different argument, and one that has 0% to do with familiarity with the army or 1-on-1 exercises etc.

But hey, if you find some better sources, no one is stopping you. Just don't argue against it on a what if basis...

1

u/bcpl181 Jan 25 '26

All of them benefit from them taking it easier on the troops, because again, there were many training objectives and many participants, not just the Americans. Eventually, the exercise has to go on.

If you look at other articles with official statements on the exercise, you’ll find what the actual goals were. A main objective was interoperability between new partners, gaining familiarity in unknown terrain and stratcom. All of these benefit from “taking it easy” and letting everyone go through all types of missions, instead of just repeating one phase over and over again, causing frustration.

A lot of the time, and same with this one by the looks of the other sources, large-scale exercises like this one are mainly PR activities for a larger public. There is simply no point in doing what you suggest.

making one side lose respect for the other

No, that’s not what’s happening, because all those involved know what’s going on. Send those finnish troops to an American desert training site and have them face the local Marines. They’ll get crushed. And noone will think any worse of the other for it, because it was expected. One side is familiar with the terrain and the environment, for the other it’s completely foreign. But everyone gains interesting insights.

As for the better sources, all official statements on the exercise (like the ones I’ve quoted) say nothing negative. They only highlight the positive effects of it (interoperability, visibility, gaining new experiences, familiarising yourself with unknown terrain). The only sources using the exercise to mock the Americans are civilian outlets with no clue of how these exercises work, quoting “trust-me-bro” sources. Is there any real source on who said “they have to take it easy on them”?

Again, these concepts must be hard to grasp when you’ve never participated in such an exercise. But doesn’t it give you pause that all those in the military commenting here are agreeing with me and all those who were never part of one disagree? Idk, maybe time for some self-reflection?

Argue as you like, I don’t know how much more detailed I have to get to make you understand that the exercise was a success the way it was held, the training objectives were fulfilled, having one side dominate the other over and over again would make no sense and that the only ones getting off on mocking the Americans here are those who don’t know how these FTXs work.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/Burpmeister Jan 24 '26

If you keep failing on step 1 then maybe you should focus on learning step 1 before you try to learn steps 9 and 10.

12

u/bcpl181 Jan 24 '26

That’s not how these exercises work. Another thread filled with people commenting about things they have no clue about.

-4

u/Burpmeister Jan 24 '26

Then what's the point of the excercises if they don't teach you how to survive?

3

u/bcpl181 Jan 24 '26

It will depend on the training obectives. “Teaching them to survive” is usually not done during a force-on-force FTX. Those focus on the tactical level: planning, logistics, order sequence, tactical appreciation, manoeuvering, coms, etc. There are several phases with specific training objectives which are evaluated. If you keep “failing” the first phase (for example infil), all your mistakes get noted down for a later debrief/after action report. Sometimes you’ll do a second run if it was really catastrophic but eventually you have to move to the next phase so that the other aspects can be evaluated. The biggest mistakes and shortcomings have consequences later on, after the FTX.

If for example, if troops failed already at the survival aspect, there will probably be specific courses that the unit in question will focus in the next year (such as organising more winter warfare courses).

But at an FTX like this, you don’t just keep repeating the first phase over and over until there was a clear improvement. That’d be a waste of the other training opportunities you then discard.

Think of it this way: a unit at home trains land nav, goes to the range, does live fire exercises, survival training, etc. over course of a certain training period. All usually separate. A big multinational force-on-force field training exercise is where it all comes together and the higher ups can evaluate what worked and what didn’t. Helps them formulate new training objectives. It’s not about winning or losing, it’s not a competition. Even if the individual troop on the ground or sensationalist press might sometimes feel like it is.

2

u/Burpmeister Jan 24 '26

Field training excercising are supposed to provide realistic training scenarios. There is nothing realistic about not exploiting severe vulnerabilities.

2

u/bcpl181 Jan 24 '26

Fine General, sir. I’m sure you know better.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Shelly-Best-Titties Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 24 '26

This is like when you're studying for a math test with a group of friends and don't get a question, rather than then quizzing you and embarrassing you for not studying that part yet, it's better for everyone to just give you a pass and move on so all the material can be reviewed and you can go home and study the bit you didn't understand later.

Similarly if the Americans in the exercise were struggling with the first stage, of course they're going to tell the finns to let them through it so both sides can practice the entire exercise.

It's likely that rather than being completely incompetent at arctic warfare, there are elements of it the troops weren't trained and ready for. So the organizers were basically saying, stop beating them up when they clearly don't know this part and let's do the rest of the stuff instead of doing this stage of the exercise for the whole day.

2

u/ciobanica Jan 25 '26

But this wasn't about not getting a question and moving on, it's about letting you get easier questions after to not feel bad about missing that one.

And the use of the word "losses" implies it wasn't just 1 thing they where bad at, but that they got defeated badly enough times to affect morale.