24 ms·
Finland and Sweden set to join NATO as soon as summer
- Proven 5y ago
- spaceheater 5y ago
- carabiner 5y agoWell, the purpose of NATO is to enrich defence contractors. LM, Boeing, BAE... Each new member country is an empty powder keg, ready to be filled with fighter jets and tanks. We're all like sticks of dynamite connected by fuse wires. It's great fun.
- Narretz 5y agoSweden and Finland already have quite capable military. Joining NATO isn't some historical shift in their positions, it's more an insurance, made cheap by Russia's failure to conquer Ukraine.
- Symbiote 5y agoSweden's defence spending is 1.22% of GDP, above Slovenia, Belgium, Luxembourg. Finland's is 1.53%, also above Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Czechia, North Macedonia. The EU average is 1.56%. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=false https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?most_...
- helsinkiandrew 5y agoFinland increased its military budget by 70% last week. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-05/finland-adds-2-2-billion-defense-spending-in-shadow-of-war https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-05/finland-a...
- edgyquant 5y agoThe purpose of NATO is to prevent a Russian conquest of Europe. Full stop.
- TheGigaChad 5y ago
- hprotagonist 5y ago
- ShivShankaran 5y ago
- hprotagonist 5y ago
- ShivShankaran 5y ago[flagged]
- Scaevolus 5y agoIf only Ukraine had tried diplomacy!
- lillecarl 5y agoDid they though? They knew Putin wouldn't allow a NATO membership to come through. I'm more worried that Russia is gonna fuck with us (Sweden) if we join NATO. This is going to be a deciding factor for my vote, I do not want to be a part of big brother USAs extended military arm, I want us to stay true to what we've been doing for the last 200 years, staying neutral and peaceful. If we chose a side we're in the same boat as everyone else.
- chrisseaton 5y agoIs neutrality the best way to stay peaceful?
- lillecarl 5y agoIf the option is joining one of the opposing gangs I'd say yes, yes it is
- chrisseaton 5y agoUkraine was neutral, now begging to be let into the EU, and in practice entirely dependent on weapons and training from NATO for national survival. Why do you think Russia picks on Ukraine (neutral) and not Lithuania (allied)?
- lillecarl 5y agoMy assumption would be because Ukraine "was last".
- Hamuko 5y ago>I want us to stay true to what we've been doing for the last 200 years, staying neutral and peaceful. If we chose a side we're in the same boat as everyone else. Good to know we can count on you Sweden if we get invaded by Russia. Glad that you also stayed neutral and peaceful during WWII. Not really sure how you managed that, seems really hard. - Finland
- golemotron 5y agoYes. People talk about about empathy, but it is the rarest thing in humanity - the ability to see things from your opponent's point of view and then predict their response.
- yetihehe 5y agoUkrainians did use "the ability to see things from your opponent's point of view and then predict their response." That's why they prepared for this war and knew that it will start about 2021-2022. They already knew in 2019[0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3aeTu0N3c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3aeTu0N3c
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago>a. spend the next 3 years strengthening your diplomatic relations with them. How much do you think that would have helped Ukraine?
- watwut 5y agoThat depends whether - the country can be trusted to not invade you if you try to accommodate. - sees willingness to accommodate as weakness to be exploited by pushing boundaries again and again. That being said, if defensive military is others is likely to result in war initiated by the other country, the safe bet is that no amount of diplomatic relations will protect you.
- mort96 5y agoI don't see why you're presenting those options as mutually exclusive. When you have an aggressive imperialist neighbour which has expressed interest in your territory, you both try to strengthen diplomatic relations with them to try to avoid a confrontation, but you may also wish to enter into defensive military alliances to be prepared if diplomacy fails. Anything else would honestly be irresponsible.
- mnw21cam 5y agoSpeak softly and carry a big stick.
- lucozade 5y agoIf you're sensible, and your neighbour is Russia, you do a and b.
- sgjohnson 5y agoNon-interventionism is great until it becomes your problem. Maybe the United States can afford to not care, but Europe can’t.
- snek_case 5y agoI don't think anyone trusts Putin or Russia at this point. That really defeats the point of trying for a diplomatic solution with them unfortunately.
- kspacewalk2 5y agoWhich one would you choose if you were Britain in 1938? Also curious about "strengthening diplomatic relations" with a country whose soldiers enthusiastically commit "bottom-up" mass murder and rape while its government joyfully obliterates civilian targets like apartment blocks as a matter of deliberate "top-down" policy. Like, how does it work? Do you simply ignore reality while holding said relations and focus on the positives?
- droopyEyelids 5y agoThe interesting and difficult thing to process here is whether this is a provocation without turning it into 'whatabboutism' John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?" Joining NATO means millitary bases, troop exercises, and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility. From that perspective, avoiding the issue of morality and legality, it seems like a terrifying step towards war between nuclear-armed powers.
- sgjohnson 5y ago> John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?" Definitely not by invading Canada.
- watwut 5y agoThere is nothing difficult about it. It is not provocation, full stop. For that matter, Russia claimed Ukrainians talking about Russia atrocities are provocation too and that was nonsense too. ------------------- > Joining NATO means millitary bases, troop exercises, and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility. Sure. And Russia has army, millitary bases, does troop exercises and have both defensive and offensive missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility. > From that perspective, avoiding the issue of morality and legality, it seems like a terrifying step towards war between nuclear-armed powers. No, it is actual step towards safer world. Finland does not have to wait till Russia tries to invade them.
- neverartful 5y agoGood points! It makes me wonder if we never learned anything from the Cuban Missile Crisis.
- mopsi 5y ago> John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?" Stupid analogy from a stupid man. For this analogy to have any merit, the US would have to be a dictatoriship that has committed genocide against Canadians, is currently committing in occupied territories, and has declared destruction of Canada and Canadian nation as its goal. But the US is not an existential threat to Canada, hence no need for an alliance with China.
- geysersam 5y agoExtremely unlikely that Sweden joins NATO before the election in the autumn. After - it's a possibility.
- nivenkos 5y agoSeems unlikely, Sweden has elections in the autumn and the second-biggest party was previously anti-NATO (as is the current ruling party, in the past at least). It all looks rosy now, but remember just a few years ago when Turkey shot down a Russian jet on the Syrian border and almost led to NATO involvement?
- bayesian_horse 5y agoThe invasion of Ukraine changed everything. Also: If Russia tries anything with the baltic states, it will almost inevitably attack parts of Sweden and Finland just to safeguard its flanks. There is no upside to appeasing Putin anymore.
- jeltz 5y agoSweden was never really been very interested in appeasing Putin. Our opposition to NATO has much more to do with Erdogan plus various US led wars (recently Iraq and Afghanistan but before that a bunch of other wars) than with fear of provoking Russia. The left wing parties in Sweden do not like the idea of a military alliance with Turkey or the US, but this invasion might make it the least bad option to them.
- bayesian_horse 5y agoFinland has a long history of trying not to anger Russia. Sweden to some degree also. On the long haul, friends of the US have a much better time than "friends" of Russia, especially those with a border to their "empire". I don't think a lot of people like being allied to Erdogan. Turkey itself is not so much the problem, it is actually a valuable member due to location and contribution. As I said, non-membership makes involvement of Finland and Sweden in any future wars between Russia and its neighbors more likely, not less likely.
- itsoktocry 5y ago>There is no upside to appeasing Putin anymore. The upside is to avoid nuclear war. Believe it or not, prior to the Russian invasion, the Ukrainian peoples wanted peace, too. Joining NATO wouldn't have done so. The idea that disputes between countries all over the map should lead to NATO involvement is dangerous. It's astounding how so many people don't seem to understand this. Of course, if you say, "How would we react?" it's "whataboutism".
- kodburn 5y ago"Russian special operation for expanding NATO has been completed successfully."
- Hamuko 5y agoNATO should really award Putin for being the most effective NATO spokesman of the decade. Finland went from 20% in favour of NATO membership (2019) to 68% in favour of NATO membership (April, 2022).
- nix23 5y agoRaytheon and Lockheed should gift Putin some champagne ;)
- MisterTea 5y agoInteresting idea. Just keep sending them lavish thank you gifts from foreign politicians, investors, and corporations until the people get suspicious.
- nix23 5y agoOk, now that's a idea i can stand behind...for example some polarbear-paws-ashtrays from Sudan? From Nord-korea, a stolen Japanese singer?
- fy20 5y agoAnd he's possibly done more than any other European politician towards shifting Europe off fossil fuels.
- golemotron 5y agoWe'll see. Some things are easier to say than they are to do.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoI think NATOs new popularity is what will ultimately save Macron in the French elections. Le Penn wants to disband NATO and snuggle up with Putin and I doubt if the majority of the French will fall for that.
- crateless 5y agoIt is better to call Putin's bluff now rather than wait for Ukraine to fall which might force cooler heads to prevail. Also a dual ascension dares Russia to go to war on two perhaps three fronts? For Russia, the choice is: war now or war later? Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war.
- dry_soup 5y agoI live in Finland and have not seen any headlines making this claim this definitively in local news outlets. But on Reddit I've seen article after article from foreign sources stating that Finnish NATO membership is imminent. Edit: There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what I am saying. The headline (as of this writing: "Finland and Sweden set to join Nato as soon as summer") is not true. Lots of people wish it were true. It may even become true in the future. But as of today, it is not true, and I take issue with that.
- tomComb 5y agoI acknowledge the point you are making, but your Canadian ambassador seems to be jumping the gun too... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-finland-nato-membership-ukraine/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-finland-nat...
- ShivShankaran 5y ago
- ardit33 5y ago
- ShivShankaran 5y ago
- mmastrac 5y ago> Reddit is 100x worse than facebook and 100x more gamed than facebook. we will see once the war ends and the truth is revealed. Let's just say that the traffic to certain subreddits stirring up the west dropped off a cliff when the Russian invasion started. It _was_ worse than Facebook, but the troll farms are no longer pumping nearly as much division. If Russia had been in the middle of a war during the Brexit vote, there's no way they could have swung the influence they did.
- 5y ago
- mushbino 5y agoDoes anyone have a list of the actions NATO has taken since its inception?
- alex_duf 5y agoThe main power of NATO is dissuasion, and I assume (maybe naively) that it's hard to measure dissuasion.
- crateless 5y agoQaddafi would like a word.
- bayesian_horse 5y agoThat wasn't NATO... and he could have stopped the air raids by stopping his artillery attacks on civilian areas at any time.
- fit2rule 5y ago
- ghostwriter 5y ago> That wasn't NATO what is a framework to distinguish NATO and non-NATO intervention? Let's say a conflict is small enough for a single country like the US to handle it. Is it still NATO or is it only the US with other members not objecting to it?
- Xylakant 5y agoThe NATO has no power to restrict actions of its members - it can just decide not to support them, which is common. Any action unilaterally taken by a member state or a group of member states that is not explicitly adopted by the NATO council is not a NATO mission.
- dt3ft 5y agoThis is not reliable information. Source: I live in Sweden.
- alkonaut 5y agoThe headline “set to” here means they could. Or “things are pointing in the direction that…” or “multiple signs seem to indicate that…”, or similar. Nothing strange in this reporting at all.
- Symbiote 5y agoThere's a press release, if you prefer it. https://www.socialdemokraterna.se/nyheter/nyheter/2022-04-11-socialdemokraterna-genomfor-en-sakerhetspolitisk-dialog-mot-bakgrund-av-rysslands-invasion-av-ukraina https://www.socialdemokraterna.se/nyheter/nyheter/2022-04-11...
- yxhuvud 5y agoLet me summarize the press release for you: "We will talk about it internally in the political party". In other words, the submitted article is just bullshit.
- Symbiote 5y agoI'm not Swedish and can't easily read Swedish. There's an article in the most-respected British newspaper, articles in English-language Swedish newspapers and an original press release providing a primary source for part of the news (I assume there were interviews or similar as it was announced). > The Social Democrat general secretary, Tobias Baudin, said the security review would be complete “before the summer”. (From another article as I'm not a Times subscriber.) If you won't believe quotes from senior politicians in major newspapers I can't help you.
- klibertp 5y agoAnd the "security review" that will be completed "before summer" has already yielded results, and the results are 100% in favor of one possible outcome? I read an article a few months back about a Swedish town that prepares itself as a place for storing nuclear waste for the next 10000 years. The one thing I remember from that article is that it took 18 years to start building the facility. I get that desperate times and so on, but I think deciding something huge on a timeline this tight is not very probable. EDIT: actually, storage meant for 100_000 years! Here: https://www.dw.com/en/sweden-approves-plans-for-forsmark-nuclear-waste-storage-site/a-60584787 https://www.dw.com/en/sweden-approves-plans-for-forsmark-nuc...
- ariyadi 5y agoBad
- sAbakumoff 5y agoSeriously, why doesn't Russia join NATO?
- Symbiote 5y agoNATO membership is only open to democracies who respect other sovereign countries, and they must be invited by the existing members.
- jesusofnazarath 5y ago
- dfadsadsf 5y agoLOL. Does it include Turkey and US currently occupying sizable chunks of Syria? Also calling Turkey democracy is questionable at best considering current regime and multiple military governments before whole Turkey was in Nato.
- lamp987 5y agoHow is Turkey a member then? How was fascist Spain a member? And it's all lead by a country that respects sovereignity the least of all on the entire planet, lmao.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoSeriously? Because Russia is the main aggressor that NATO is trying to defend against. The chickens don't invite the fox into the hen house.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoAlternatively, it would be more problematic for the US to invade and bomb Russian allies if Russia were a fellow NATO member
- rascul 5y ago> Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
- nikolay 5y agoA lot of memberwannabes rely on Article 5 of NATO, but as Nigel Farage asked himself, do you really believe NATO will start WWIII over a small country?! And how is these countries joining NATO benefiting the existing NATO members? Obviously, Russia has nothing more to lose given the sanctions, so, the only thing left is a direct NATO conforntation, but it seems that the West is more afraid of such conflict than Putin, who believes that this is inevitable and that if you're faced with an inevitable flight, it's better to strike first.
- bayesian_horse 5y agoA Russian attack on a small NATO member state would result in a proportionate NATO response ... not whatever you understand by "WWIII". All NATO members have allied troops stationed within their borders, so non-involvement isn't even possible.
- oxff 5y agoI don't personally like the idea of joining a military alliance with state like Turkey in it. I mean, Greece and Turkey are both in NATO but Greece tries to maintain "rough" parity with materiel with Turkey for obvious historical reasons .. So what happens if they decided to go town on each other someday? A5 invocation, first come first served? I really don't know what that would imply.
- hmfrh 5y ago> And how is these countries joining NATO benefiting the existing NATO members? Stability in Europe. The west doesn't want refugees from whatever country Russia decided to invade this week to show up on their doorstep all the time, or the supply chain interruptions that happen when war constantly breaks out. You might remember that NATO arose almost immediately after World War 2 which had a rather negative effect on Europe and European influence in the world. > Obviously, Russia has nothing more to lose given the sanctions, so, the only thing left is a direct NATO conforntation, Russia has plenty more to lose. Namely every major European power and the US unloading all their armaments on Russian cities that are very close to the border. > but it seems that the West is more afraid of such conflict than Putin, who believes that this is inevitable and that if you're faced with an inevitable flight, it's better to strike first. This is an absolutely unrealistic take. Russia _can not_ win major combat against NATO in any shape or form. They couldn't do it with their made up propaganda army and they certainly can't do it with their actual army.
- oxff 5y agoRussian army has been revealed to be a joke, so I don't see the why all the rush to join NATO because of their fiasco in eastern Ukraine. We bordered USSR and they had a military that went toe-to-toe with the Nazi Germany; USSR military was a much greater threat and yet we brought them to stalemate and had enough deterrent to stop them from conquering us later.
- timeon 5y agoIt may be "fiasco in eastern Ukraine" but I guess that residents of Mariupol or Bucha would prefer if they were in NATO.
- bee_rider 5y agoIsn't Ukraine a fairly large country, compared to the European average? For example they appear to have around 9x as many people as Finland. Of course, Finland has a more high tech economy, maybe a much better army. But I don't think getting stalled by the 8'th largest European country, particularly given the outpouring of high tech western weapons, makes Russia non-scary. (8'th largest by population, and that's with the no-EU Turkey and Russia included). If I were Finland I'd join NATO ASAP, while Russia is distracted and before a bunch of mysterious "border disputes" arise.
- pdpi 5y agoThe Russian fiasco in Ukraine is that they haven’t won, and it seems less and less likely that they will ever win. They’re still doing plenty of damage in the meantime. Damage that could perhaps have been avoided if Ukraine had direct military backing from NATO. All things considered, I’d rather not get into a fight at all than get into fight I win.
- glogla 5y agoI don't know if you refer to Winter War or Continuation war, but both ended by Finland surrendering territory to the Soviets. After the first one, Finland allied with the Nazis, after the second one it lost freedom and sovereignty through Finlandization. I'm not sure how both can be seen as anything but Soviet victories?
- fsloth 5y ago
- exabrial 5y agohttps://archive.ph/P8TNK https://archive.ph/P8TNK
- keewee7 5y agoFinland is very likely to join NATO. Support for NATO among the population is very high and among active Finnish military personnel it's over 90%. The country shares a border with Russia and there is some historical bad blood between Finland and Russia. However only 50% of Swedes want to join NATO and the current ruling government is anti-NATO. If I was a betting person I would put the likelihood of Finland joining NATO at 99% and the likelihood of Sweden joining NATO at 0%.
- erikstarck 5y agoIf Finland joins, Sweden will follow. We can't be the only baltic nation outside NATO. That would be both foolish and selfish. With the third largest party, SD, switching there is a majority in Riksdagen pro-NATO. S will follow soon.
- cute_boi 5y agoIs there any benefit for Sweden to join NATO? Finland is directly attached to Russia, so it might benefit them from future aggression. But, I don't see any reason for Sweden to join NATO. Also, people seem to forget the cost of joining NATO is not free.
- erikstarck 5y agoThere is absolutely no one that will come and assist Sweden when Russia decides to take Gotland if we’re not in NATO. And it’s extremely selfish by the self proclaimed humanitarian super power to not step in and help if some of our Baltic neighbors were attacked. The cost of a strong enough military outside NATO is higher than inside. 4-5% of GDP vs 2%.
- doikor 5y agoAnd Finland is already spending between 2.5 to 3.5% of its GDP on defense already (depends on how one calculates the actual cost of conscription). Finland joining nato will not increase its defense spending in the long term
- elric 5y agoCan we please start de-escalating this situation? Speculative headlines like these do nothing to improve the situation.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y agoHow do you imagine that would work? Because it currently seems that the only way to de-escalate is to kill tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, and/or a coup and consequent total regime change in Russia.
- user3939382 5y agoThe US needs to push Ukraine to agree to neutrality. Had we done that in the first place this war likely wouldn't be happening. Ukraine would have lost nothing by agreeing to that. Zelenskyy already said he was told in private Ukraine wouldn't be admitted to NATO anyway, making this entire war senseless.
- keewee7 5y ago>The US needs to push Ukraine to agree to neutrality. Russia's version of "neutrality" is a joke. Russia's demand for "neutrality" means letting Russia decide Ukraine's foreign and military policies. Russia want to enforce specific limits on the size and capabilities of Ukraine's military. That will never be accepted by Ukraine.
- user3939382 5y agoIt's interesting that we have no popular qualms about the Monroe Doctrine, which we've abused to interfere with and overthrow legitimate governments in South America for decades, but when Russia takes a Monroe-Doctrine-esque position with a country on their border it's out of the question. I see basically 3 possibilities. Ukraine agrees to neutrality, Ukraine resists neutrality and has its country destroyed and is eventually forced to agree to it anyway (what is happening now), or the western powers start a hot war with Russia and risk WW3/nuclear holocaust. Given those options I'd go with the first.
- polski-g 5y agoOther nations would be wise to oppose their admittance. There is no upside for them, only risk.
- augustuspolius 5y agoDo you mean the risk is that Russia will invade Finland and NATO will have to get involved? This is short term thinking. What if Finland does not join NATO and Russia invades? What if Russia succeeds? In the next decade it will invade Sweden that’s also not in NATO. At the end of this process, Russia will still border NATO in the North. Only this time Russia will be a much bigger and a more powerful state. What’s the upside for NATO in that?
- polski-g 5y agoThat is a good point. USA should quit NATO entirely unless we start getting paid in direct cash payments.
- jl2718 5y agoFrom here looks like we’re headed into the fall of the Russian Federation, and an endless series of NATO interventions in regional conflicts all over Russia. The Chinese strategy will be to trade debt for resource access, and wait for this to end. 100 years from now, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, and the rest, will all be considered one historical chapter, like the 30 or 100 years war.
- augustuspolius 5y agoIn your scenario, why would NATO get involved in any regional conflicts in Russia?
- shabier 5y agoFor the same reason western countries, especially the usa, have been involved in "regional conflicts".
- keewee7 5y agoIf you are predicting an ethnic breakup of Russia you are very wrong. Most minority republics in the Russian Federation have been fully Russianized.
- jl2718 5y agoI don’t think that ethnicity will be a factor. It will be an economic breakdown and then a fight to control natural resources and trade routes.
- Maursault 5y agoWhy isn't Russia already a member of NATO?[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–NATO_relations#Suggestions_of_Russia_joining_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–NATO_relations#Suggesti...
- klawcode 5y agoStandard ** measuring between the US and Russia for one. If Russia ever drops the corruption and becomes a strong democracy, then it could conceivably go into NATO. It would require the US to be much much more passive and a team player (as an American I view this as a good thing, provided it is by other democracies w/ good human rights) It would also require Russia to have some reason for doing so, mainly if it couldn't defend against China, or some developed Central Asian or Islamist superpower near it. Its also likely that Russia would ally with these forces instead of NATO, or just play them off each other like India is doing with the US/Russia now. On the NATO side, it would require additional defense commitments by NATO towards Russia (and in the Pacific, the US). I doubt there would be appetite for it in the EU (and maybe not in the US), unless something went really really bad.
- slim 5y agoRussia has already asked to join nato in the past
- readonthegoapp 5y agoDidn't think women would be so anxious to end the world too
- rurban 5y agoThird would be Austria then. Anyone knows the approval numbers there?