Who Would Win a Battle Between the Nordics and Russia?
Assuming Russia attacked and Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland all stood united with no nukes involved
I saw this kind of silly hypothetical question on Quora and thought it would be fun to speculate and compare. Russia has some obvious numerical advantages. The whole Nordic region only counts 27.36 million people, which is much smaller than the population of Ukraine of 43.79 million people. In comparison, Russia is huge, with 143.4 million people.
However, one important thing people often forget is that it was the Soviet Union and not Russia which invaded Finland during the Winter war. At the time, the USSR counted a population of 194 million people, while Finland counted 3.5 million. Finland today is not only more populous, but also richer. Russia in contrast is a shadow of the Soviet Union with a much smaller population and many problems with their military forces.
Economic Power
If you look at size of economies, the picture change quite a lot. The Nordic region packs a heavy punch, with a combined economy of $1.6 trillion. In other words, the Nordic economy is bigger than the Russia economy of $1.42 trillion. This is worth keeping in mind when looking at the Russian attack on Ukraine. They are attacking a country which not only has a much smaller population, but also a significantly smaller economy.
Finland alone has an economy two and a half times bigger than Ukraine. This matters because remember that a lot of the challenge for Ukraine today is not merely having enough soldiers, but having enough advanced equipment to fight with. Money matters. Nordic countries would have the deep pockets needed to purchase huge amounts of advance equipment. Norway has the enormous oil fund owning 1.5 percent of the world, which could be used to finance massive weapons purchases leading up to a war and during war.
Nordic Terrain Advantages
Ukraine has stood up against the Russian onslaught surprisingly well given how massively disadvantaged they are in terms of terrain. Ukraine has a very long border against Russia with flat terrain making it easy for Russia to move in troops and attack from many directions at the same time. Ukraine has about 60 percent larger population than the Nordics, but a massive terrain disadvantage.
The Nordics is the complete opposite, offering among the best terrain to defend in Europe. While Finland lacks the Norwegian mountains, it has numerous lakes and thick forests, which made the advancement of the Red Army during the Winter War in 1939 so difficult.
Military Equipment
On paper, Nordic countries are at a considerable disadvantage because Russia has huge amounts of everything possible. But as we have seen in the war in Ukraine, quantity is not everything. Russia is generally overstretched, trying to maintain superpower status while having an economy smaller than the Nordic region. That means Russia is cutting corners in everything. Their equipment in badly maintained. Soldiers often don't know how to use the equipment effectively. A lot of Russian equipment is also significantly outdated.
Much of the Russian military equipment is old. Thus, I will simplify by comparing primarily their newer equipment from the 2000s and later.
Aircraft
Russia has around 370 modern multirole Jets of type Sukhoi Su-27 to Sukhoi Su-57. The latest is the Sukhoi Su-57, which came in 2020. They only have 10 of this Jet, but 76 have been ordered. The bulk of their newest planes would be Sukhoi Su-35, of which they have 110.
Norway, Denmark, and Finland are all transitioning to American F-35 Jets. Denmark and Norway have F-16 fighters which are getting retired, while Finland has F/A-18 Hornet which they are retiring. Sweden is the outlier since they make their own planes. Because all countries are in transition to new fighter planes, I am showing two donut graphs for what each country current have and what they will have once the order of F-35 jets have been delivered.
Russia have numerous planes if you include all old stuff they have. Russia never really "retire" anything, it seems. Anything to prop up the stats. However, if we look at relatively modern airplanes Russia doesn't
Tomaž Vargazon made the following remark about the F-35 vs. the Su-57 on Quora, which is the most modern Jet Russia has:
In all other aspects, the F-35 is superior. Stealth is the first thing anyone will wonder, and Su-57 is not a proper stealth plane. It has some low observable features and it can carry some weapons internally, but it’s a far cry from F-22/35. The Su-57 has a radar that is 20 years behind the radar and other sensors on F-35, there is no talk of sensor fusion on Su-57 (a major advantage of F-22/35), its internal bays can’t even hold a long-range air to air missile. One that will fit is supposedly in development, but that status hasn’t changed in nearly a decade. F-35 can fit four AIM-120s or two AIM-120s and two Meteros (ramjet, 300 km range) in the internal bays.
Tanks and Artillery
To simplify my comparison, I am not including every type of tank and artillery. I am sticking with the most important and more modern variants where applicable. The number of tanks Russia has is very hard to estimate, for instance, since they have so many on paper, but which in reality are just about useless as they either lack crews or have ruined by bad maintenance. For tanks I have used the best estimates for T-72, T-80, T-90 and T-14 Armata I could come across. Nordic militaries are easier to analyze, as they are primarily made up of some variant of Leopard 2 tanks. Also, Nordic countries don't keep outdated tanks in storage. The numbers listed are a more true reflection of the actual tank capability.
Russia has huge amounts of artillery, but I limited my focus to Howitzers. In this comparison, you can see Finland is the oddball. Finland has an extreme focus on artillery and the largest artillery force in Western Europe.
You might wonder why Finland has so much artillery? As with much of Finnish military thinking, it goes back to the Winter war and their experience there. Artillery proved decisive to Finnish forces. It also works well with a large conscript army, as you don't need extensive training to operate artillery systems. Or rather, there are many tasks related to artillery operations which don't require experts.
Finland has also been quick to buy artillery anywhere in the world whenever opportunities for cheap artillery presented itself. For instance, they bought a lot of East-German artillery after German reunification.
Each Nordic country focus on different artillery systems. The Danes got 19 French CAESAR self-propelled howitzer mounted on a truck with eight wheels. Norwegians and Finns use Korean K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzer with tracks and armor. Norwegians and Finns have 24 and 48 pieces respectively. The Swedes have their own system as usual, the Archer Artillery System. They got 48 of these. The Russians still use an old self-propelled Howitzer from Soviet times called 2S19 Msta.
As usual, Russians have a massive quantity advantage, but in terms of quality, accuracy, and range they fall short. Reading up on these systems, it seems to me that the Western systems generally have better range and accuracy. Many are excellent at relocating after firing before they get spotted. The French system can apparently fire several rounds in succession at different angles, so they land in the same spot at the same time. That means the enemy doesn't get a chance to figure back at your position before you have packed your bags and relocated.
I had to read up as quickly as possible about different modern tanks. What struck me when reading comparisons of Western tanks such as the Leopard 2 and Russian tanks like T-90 and T-72 is: There are many of the same differences between East and West as I could read about studying WW2 tank battles. Germans built tanks more slowly and costly. Russians cranked out tanks faster and cheaper. On the battlefield, Germans excelled at coordination in their tank attacks. German tanks had radio communications to coordinate their actions, which Soviets lacked.
Russians had relatively good amor, however, and overran German forces with sheer numbers. Quality problems were endemic with Soviet stuff, as we see in Ukraine today with stuff that breaks down due to poor maintenance. There is a strange red thread back to Soviet practices in WW2.
The coordination aspect is still a clear advantage for German tanks. They have sophisticated electronic systems and screens to have full battle awareness and coordination. You see the same approach with the F-35. Russians are still at a primitive stage in terms of communication and coordination judging by this comment I came across from Henrik Rewesa former Danish navy officer:
I’m sure they would love to. But to make it effective, it needs to be distributed to all units participating. Looking at the captured Russian material using paper maps and unencrypted consumer radios, it seems they are very far away from fielding anything close to NATO-standards.
Are we surprised? This fits the news we get out from the Ukrainian war, with Ukrainian military listening in on Russian communications.
Outcome of Military Engagement
The question whether Russia could beat the Nordic nations or not, really comes down to whether quantity beat quality. Russia will have a massive quantity advantage in most areas. But for pretty much every weapon system, Nordic countries would field more advance weapon systems with better range, more accuracy and better electronic systems and better communications.
In addition, I am confident that Nordic equipment will be far better maintained than Russian equipment and thus operating closer to its potential than a lot of Russian equipment. The way the Russian conscript army works from all the reports I have read is a far cry from what I experienced while serving in Norway. Norwegian military runs a tight ship with proper attention to maintenance. I don't think other Nordics are any worse at that.
Another aspect we have seen in the war in Ukraine is that Western military training is clearly superior. Russia directs its forces much like WW1. Officers bark orders and soldiers obey. There is little to no individual initiative. NATO countries in contrast follow the concept of Command and Control. Here one can also see parallels to WW2. Part of the reason German forces were so effective was that units were highly autonomous and trained to do independent decision-making. They were also trained to make quick decisions.
Command and Control means that rather than a detail plan to execute in minute detail, you describe overall objectives and goals to those executing the plan. That means every unit and soldier has an understanding of what one is trying to achieve and can make decisions based on opportunities that arise to achieve those goals and objectives.
Nordic units in both peace keeping missions and Afghanistan have generally shown a lot of initiative, flexibility and thinking on their feet. And there is a track record here. Finland was really good at fighting the Red Army. Back in the 1700s, the Swedish Army under Karl XII would regularly defeat Russian forces four times larger. So, why do Nordics have a history of punching above their weight and having well-trained soldiers?
Primarily because Nordic countries have always had small populations and knew they had to make every soldier count to the max. One could not afford to waste soldiers, the way Russian commanders would regularly do. Sweden in the 1700s was an unusual Great Power. It was far more powerful and feared, that seemed reasonable for a country of such small population. Russia with a much larger land and population genuinely feared the Swedish military. Their power was built on an effective state apparatus, rapid mobilization and superior military training and tactics. Yet, as countless armies have experience in Russia, the Swedes got beaten despite constantly winning battles. Even if Sweden had much lower losses than Russia, they simply could not sustain those losses.
It was the same in the Winter war. Finland inflicted far more damage on the Red Army than they did on them. Yet, in the end Finland had to sue for peace because they could not sustain their losses while the Soviet Union as usual had a crazy ability to suck up heavy losses.
That is essentially the predicament united Nordic would face against Russia. We may very well inflict far higher casualties on Russia than vice versa, but we may be less capable of sustaining losses than them. On the other hand the Soviet Union struggled against Finland alone. Imperial Russia struggled against Sweden alone. Current Russia is smaller in relative terms to either the Soviet Union or Imperial Russia, and they would be facing all the Nordics rather than a single country.
Tank Battles
We saw how badly it went with Russian tanks in Ukraine. In the Nordics with its much more difficult terrain there would be far better opportunities for ambushing their tanks. From thick Finnish forests soldiers can sneak through and spot Russian positions which will frequently get into pinch points due to forest and lakes. That will give ample opportunity for ambushes and artillery fire from massive Finnish artillery.
Artillery Battles
Russians caused a lot of trouble for Ukrainians because their artillery could outrange what Ukrainians had. Yet, Nordic countries generally have more advance artillery systems with better range than what Russians have. Thus, advancing while staying out of range of return fire will not be a tactic Russians can employ in the Nordics without taking heavy losses.
Air Combat
Russia never managed to achieve dominance in the Ukrainian airspace, despite on paper having far more modern airplanes. How will they achieve that in the Nordics, where the tables are turned? The F-35 is far superior to anything Russia has, combined with advance anti-aircraft systems on the ground. The difference will not merely be amplified by superior technology, but also the fact that Western training tends to be better. Nordic pilots get more hours of training.
Sure, Russia will have a number advantage in the sky, but in Ukraine, that hasn't translated to dominance. In a Nordic battle, I think that would lead to the Russian air force in the end taking a serious beating. Remember, they are the attackers and thus have to content with both fighters Jets and surface-to-air systems.
Conclusion
I think Nordics would defeat Russia because there are very few cases where Nordics represent an easier challenge for Russia than Ukraine. Ukraine has more people, that counts in Ukraine's favor relative to the Nordics. However, Nordics have advantageous in every other area:
Terrain which is much easier to defend and which negates a lot of Russian numerical advantage, as you get many pinch points where numerical superiority cannot be utilized effectively.
Much more advance military equipment with better coordination, range, and accuracy.
A bigger economy than Russia. Ukraine in contrast has a much smaller economy. That provides access to more weapons, supplies and a long list of things which will benefit a nation at war. Norway has tons of cash on hand to go on a military buying spree if needed.
Superior military training. Ukraine started with Soviet style training, but later got Western training with obvious benefit. Nordics have trained in Western style combat tactics since the beginning.
While Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a formidable leader, Ukraine itself has long struggled with corruption. It is a young democracy trying to find its way. Russia suffers from endemic corruption and grift like few other countries. Here is another area Nordics would have the upper hand. Significantly better run government will play a key role in warfare. What dooms a military is often not a decision made on the battlefield, but by political leadership. Putin surrounded by yes-men never telling him straight facts will repeatedly make terrible choices with detrimental effect on the Russian military.
And if you are fighting the countries known for the most humane prisons in the world while your leader is a tyrant that cares nothing for you, perhaps surrender becomes very attractive? To motivate a fighting force, they need to believe in what they do. Either it must be for the love of their country or hatred of the enemy. I think Putin will have a hard time convincing his countrymen that Scandinavians are evil demons that must be crushed for the safety of the motherland.
As with Ukraine, whomever fight for something they believe in will have a clear advantage.