5 ms·

A very important point made by a previous Finland prime minister today on Sky News: > FINLAND IS NOT NEUTRAL. That's a common misconception. Finland just doesn

by 323 5y ago

A very important point made by a previous Finland prime minister today on Sky News: > FINLAND IS NOT NEUTRAL. That's a common misconception. Finland just doesn't belong to a military alliance. But it is definitely aligned with EU/NATO. > We are members of the EU. Use € as our currency. Have a close partnership with Nato. Have a military which is more Nato compatible than most of its member states. Participate in Nato exercises and crisis management. Purchased F-18 and F-35. Part of JEF, etc, etc. NOT NEUTRAL. https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/1497619756760895489 https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/1497619756760895489

duxup 5y ago
Even during the Cold War they cooperated with NATO counties and their planning involved assuming they would get support from NATO nations. Russia wasn’t in the dark about it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
InsaneOstrich 5y ago
The original article says the same thing multiple times
- 323 5y ago
  People don't read the article, especially when it's a PDF.
belter 5y ago
Yes but note also from the Report ( pag 20/21 ) "...Irrespective of this, the Atlantic Alliance makes it clear that the organisation’s security guarantees apply to members only. Full access to collective defense planning, decision-making and military structures can only be reached via full membership. This leads to the main paradox of the NATO partnership, namely that in the worst case it can be seen in the eyes of external actors to strengthen an ever-closer association with NATO without, however, supplying the deterrence provided by Article 5..."
- logifail 5y ago
  > the organisation’s security guarantees Q1: Do existing NATO members consult their citizens (referendum or political party making pledge before national election or similar) before a new member state is admitted? Q2: If not, why not? bonus Q: Imagine Taiwan were to apply to join NATO...
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Because all(?) of the NATO members are representative democracies of some form or other. While obviously certain actions can be a domestic political issue (so in that sense citizens are "consulted"), there's no direct citizen vote on things like alliances, treaties, etc. (or many other actions a national government takes).
    - logifail 5y ago
      > there's no direct citizen vote on things like alliances, treaties, etc One could imagine that if your country's citizens will be called upon to go to war to fight to defend a distant "country X", just because your country and "country X" happen to be in an alliance, that citizens informed consent would be desirable and required before signing such a treaty. Despite what your politicians might say, joining an military alliance has a cost, it's not a freebie.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >bonus Q: Imagine Taiwan were to apply to join NATO... I imagine you would see a very similar response from China, probably a more swift and harsh than that of Russia.
    - AniseAbyss 5y ago
      Most countries don't recognize Taiwan's independence. I'm always amazed people don't know that. Despite CCP's yelling that they want to invade the world has agreed to an awkward but stable status quo.
cryptonector 5y ago
This isn't the only relevant question. The most relevant question is: how defensible is potential NATO entrant X? Georgia was completely indefensible. Ukraine might have been, but preparations were not made for it. Finland can defend itself, so in a sense it is defensible, and in so far as Norway is a NATO member and a neighbor, there might be lines of transportation that might make Finland defensible by the alliance. I don't actually know. Finland must be more defensible than the Baltic states (which are not at all defensible, but are in NATO). But evidence suggests that Putin doesn't care as much about Finland as about Ukraine, nor as much about the Baltic states as about the Ukraine. So this question may not matter as much as I suppose. Still, in a context where Putin sees NATO expansion as so provocative, it might not be a good idea to rush to expand NATO just yet -- it might be a good idea to first take stock and really see if we actually can defend the new entrants.
- ajross 5y ago
  > The most relevant question is: how defensible is potential NATO entrant X? That's... not the point at all. NATO isn't an attempt to maximize the utility of a "fortress" in western Europe, it's an attempt to deter aggression by expressly recognizing an attack on one member as an attack on all. If war is inevitable then we'll all be fighting on Finland's side anyway and NATO membership doesn't matter. The reason to join is to make it as clear as possible that attacking Finland is off limits, and thus prevent the war.
  - logifail 5y ago
    > it's an attempt to deter aggression by expressly recognizing an attack on one member as an attack on all. ...and it appears the two mutual alliances pre-World War 1 basically ended up hastening the start of World War 1. Why do we think that it would be different this time?
    - ajross 5y ago
      Because your example is 108 years old and no NATO nation has been attacked militarily[1] in the 73 years since the treaty was signed? [1] With no doubt a handful of exceptions that people will point out. The Faulklands war comes to mind, where the UK deliberately did not invoke the treaty and chose to defend its territory itself, etc...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by 323 5y ago

duxup 5y ago

Even during the Cold War they cooperated with NATO counties and their planning involved assuming they would get support from NATO nations. Russia wasn’t in the dark about it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

InsaneOstrich 5y ago

The original article says the same thing multiple times

323 5y ago
People don't read the article, especially when it's a PDF.

belter 5y ago

Yes but note also from the Report ( pag 20/21 ) "...Irrespective of this, the Atlantic Alliance makes it clear that the organisation’s security guarantees apply to members only. Full access to collective defense planning, decision-making and military structures can only be reached via full membership. This leads to the main paradox of the NATO partnership, namely that in the worst case it can be seen in the eyes of external actors to strengthen an ever-closer association with NATO without, however, supplying the deterrence provided by Article 5..."

logifail 5y ago
> the organisation’s security guarantees Q1: Do existing NATO members consult their citizens (referendum or political party making pledge before national election or similar) before a new member state is admitted? Q2: If not, why not? bonus Q: Imagine Taiwan were to apply to join NATO...
- ghaff 5y ago
  Because all(?) of the NATO members are representative democracies of some form or other. While obviously certain actions can be a domestic political issue (so in that sense citizens are "consulted"), there's no direct citizen vote on things like alliances, treaties, etc. (or many other actions a national government takes).
  - logifail 5y ago
    > there's no direct citizen vote on things like alliances, treaties, etc One could imagine that if your country's citizens will be called upon to go to war to fight to defend a distant "country X", just because your country and "country X" happen to be in an alliance, that citizens informed consent would be desirable and required before signing such a treaty. Despite what your politicians might say, joining an military alliance has a cost, it's not a freebie.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >bonus Q: Imagine Taiwan were to apply to join NATO... I imagine you would see a very similar response from China, probably a more swift and harsh than that of Russia.
  - AniseAbyss 5y ago
    Most countries don't recognize Taiwan's independence. I'm always amazed people don't know that. Despite CCP's yelling that they want to invade the world has agreed to an awkward but stable status quo.

cryptonector 5y ago

This isn't the only relevant question. The most relevant question is: how defensible is potential NATO entrant X? Georgia was completely indefensible. Ukraine might have been, but preparations were not made for it. Finland can defend itself, so in a sense it is defensible, and in so far as Norway is a NATO member and a neighbor, there might be lines of transportation that might make Finland defensible by the alliance. I don't actually know. Finland must be more defensible than the Baltic states (which are not at all defensible, but are in NATO). But evidence suggests that Putin doesn't care as much about Finland as about Ukraine, nor as much about the Baltic states as about the Ukraine. So this question may not matter as much as I suppose. Still, in a context where Putin sees NATO expansion as so provocative, it might not be a good idea to rush to expand NATO just yet -- it might be a good idea to first take stock and really see if we actually can defend the new entrants.

ajross 5y ago
> The most relevant question is: how defensible is potential NATO entrant X? That's... not the point at all. NATO isn't an attempt to maximize the utility of a "fortress" in western Europe, it's an attempt to deter aggression by expressly recognizing an attack on one member as an attack on all. If war is inevitable then we'll all be fighting on Finland's side anyway and NATO membership doesn't matter. The reason to join is to make it as clear as possible that attacking Finland is off limits, and thus prevent the war.
- logifail 5y ago
  > it's an attempt to deter aggression by expressly recognizing an attack on one member as an attack on all. ...and it appears the two mutual alliances pre-World War 1 basically ended up hastening the start of World War 1. Why do we think that it would be different this time?
  - ajross 5y ago
    Because your example is 108 years old and no NATO nation has been attacked militarily[1] in the 73 years since the treaty was signed? [1] With no doubt a handful of exceptions that people will point out. The Faulklands war comes to mind, where the UK deliberately did not invoke the treaty and chose to defend its territory itself, etc...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]