12 ms·

Seems 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).

Seems 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Sweden 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 ago
    Finland 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".
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    Ukraine actually applied to NATO in 2006. You label the invasion of Ukraine a "dispute"? It's a war of unilateral aggression involving war crimes and genocide. The point of NATO membership of Finland and Sweden is to avoid military conflicts. Putin proved to the world that he does not abide by any norm or treaty, so not joining NATO will give those countries no security from his forces should he decide attacking them is in his best interests.
geysersam 5y ago
Don't understand why you are being downvoted. You're entirely correct.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> previously anti-NATO Has anything... happened, since then?
- RedShift1 5y ago
  Maybe a "special operation" of sorts?
- lawn 5y ago
  The winds seems to be changing quite quickly and both the second and third largest parties have now stated support for NATO (if Finland would join at least). While the biggest party still hasn't voiced their support, they aren't completely against it and there seems to be hectic discussion behind closed doors.
jonny_eh 5y ago
I'm curious what the main arguments against joining NATO are? A commitment to military spending? Potentially being dragged into a war?
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  The main argument is that other nations have some say in your foreign policy. You can argue that this is always the case to some degree, and it's better NATO has some say rather than Putin and Russia just rolls over you.
  - ghostwriter 5y ago
    on the other hand, if NATO gets into a conflict with China over Taiwan, there's a highly chance that Finland and Sweden would have to send their troops to fight and die there too. It serves geo-political interests of the US, but whether it serves interests of Finland and Sweden is a question for their citizens to answer.
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      How does NATO "get into a conflict" between China (not a NATO member, last I checked) and Taiwan (not even an UN observer)?
      - klawcode 5y ago
        I'm pretty sure a lot of people think NATO == US Empire and Interests. Its simply not true, and this is a pretty great example of how much disinformation and FUD certain "interests" have created around NATO. Hawaii isn't even covered under NATO, even if someone attacked the US: https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/ https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        The US would have to make a case to the rest of the members that it has been attacked under article 5 and the rest of the members have to agree. There are a lot of conceivable scenarios where the US would not make the case and even where the other members might disagree.
hmfrh 5y ago
> 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? Remember when Russia invaded Ukraine and it didn't lead to NATO involvement? We have direct evidence that a European country can be attacked without NATO immediately jumping in to help. If Russia "only" wanted the Eastern "wilderness" of Finland, do you think the other European powers would immediately send in their own troops? There's a reason that the smaller European countries that border Russia haven't been attacked and absorbed yet, and that's because they're NATO members. Being a NATO member clearly has more upsides than downsides.
- codethief 5y ago
  > We have direct evidence that a European country can be attacked without NATO immediately jumping in to help. If Russia "only" wanted the Eastern "wilderness" of Finland, do you think the other European powers would immediately send in their own troops? Well, there is the Mutual Defence Clause (article 42.7 of the Treaty of the European Union): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/mutual_defence.html https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/mutual_defence.ht... So while the exact action is not specified there, an attack on Finland might already very well mean that some NATO states (and by implication all of NATO) would get involved in the situation you're describing.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    This is not how NATO works, and very likely not how the mutual defense clause works. Article 5 doesn't apply if you send your soldiers on some mission (e.g. defending Finland) on your own accord and Russia kills them. The EU clause is generally interpreted - from what I've read - to not require other EU members to offer direct military support to the attacked nation.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Article 5 doesn't apply if you send your soldiers on some mission (e.g. defending Finland) on your own accord and Russia kills them. That depends where you send them, as Article 5 has geographical constraints specified in Article 6 (there is no general exceptions for troops being attacked after being voluntarily sent “somewhere”.) Moreover, even without triggering Article 5, an attack on NATO member troops in the Euro-Atlantic region but outside the territory specified in Article 6 would probably be a trigger for regional security consultations under Article 4, which have produced more NATO interventions than Article 5.
ismaildonmez 5y ago
> but remember just a few years ago when Turkey shot down a Russian jet on the Syrian border and almost led to NATO involvement It led to nothing, Turkey asked for Patriot missile systems (to protect from attacks from Syria, not Russia or Black Sea), which were hastily provided. Russia started cutting economical ties with Turkey, Erdoğan wrote a personal apology letter to Putin, and after that things got better. Then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Andrei_Karlov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Andrei_Karlov happened, which is still a mystery in itself, and yet, nothing happened that's interesting NATO wise.

bayesian_horse 5y ago

The 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 ago
Sweden 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 ago
  Finland 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".
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Ukraine actually applied to NATO in 2006. You label the invasion of Ukraine a "dispute"? It's a war of unilateral aggression involving war crimes and genocide. The point of NATO membership of Finland and Sweden is to avoid military conflicts. Putin proved to the world that he does not abide by any norm or treaty, so not joining NATO will give those countries no security from his forces should he decide attacking them is in his best interests.

geysersam 5y ago

Don't understand why you are being downvoted. You're entirely correct.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> previously anti-NATO Has anything... happened, since then?

RedShift1 5y ago
Maybe a "special operation" of sorts?
lawn 5y ago
The winds seems to be changing quite quickly and both the second and third largest parties have now stated support for NATO (if Finland would join at least). While the biggest party still hasn't voiced their support, they aren't completely against it and there seems to be hectic discussion behind closed doors.

jonny_eh 5y ago

I'm curious what the main arguments against joining NATO are? A commitment to military spending? Potentially being dragged into a war?

bayesian_horse 5y ago
The main argument is that other nations have some say in your foreign policy. You can argue that this is always the case to some degree, and it's better NATO has some say rather than Putin and Russia just rolls over you.
- ghostwriter 5y ago
  on the other hand, if NATO gets into a conflict with China over Taiwan, there's a highly chance that Finland and Sweden would have to send their troops to fight and die there too. It serves geo-political interests of the US, but whether it serves interests of Finland and Sweden is a question for their citizens to answer.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    How does NATO "get into a conflict" between China (not a NATO member, last I checked) and Taiwan (not even an UN observer)?
    - klawcode 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure a lot of people think NATO == US Empire and Interests. Its simply not true, and this is a pretty great example of how much disinformation and FUD certain "interests" have created around NATO. Hawaii isn't even covered under NATO, even if someone attacked the US: https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/ https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      The US would have to make a case to the rest of the members that it has been attacked under article 5 and the rest of the members have to agree. There are a lot of conceivable scenarios where the US would not make the case and even where the other members might disagree.

hmfrh 5y ago

> 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? Remember when Russia invaded Ukraine and it didn't lead to NATO involvement? We have direct evidence that a European country can be attacked without NATO immediately jumping in to help. If Russia "only" wanted the Eastern "wilderness" of Finland, do you think the other European powers would immediately send in their own troops? There's a reason that the smaller European countries that border Russia haven't been attacked and absorbed yet, and that's because they're NATO members. Being a NATO member clearly has more upsides than downsides.

codethief 5y ago
> We have direct evidence that a European country can be attacked without NATO immediately jumping in to help. If Russia "only" wanted the Eastern "wilderness" of Finland, do you think the other European powers would immediately send in their own troops? Well, there is the Mutual Defence Clause (article 42.7 of the Treaty of the European Union): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/mutual_defence.html https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/mutual_defence.ht... So while the exact action is not specified there, an attack on Finland might already very well mean that some NATO states (and by implication all of NATO) would get involved in the situation you're describing.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  This is not how NATO works, and very likely not how the mutual defense clause works. Article 5 doesn't apply if you send your soldiers on some mission (e.g. defending Finland) on your own accord and Russia kills them. The EU clause is generally interpreted - from what I've read - to not require other EU members to offer direct military support to the attacked nation.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Article 5 doesn't apply if you send your soldiers on some mission (e.g. defending Finland) on your own accord and Russia kills them. That depends where you send them, as Article 5 has geographical constraints specified in Article 6 (there is no general exceptions for troops being attacked after being voluntarily sent “somewhere”.) Moreover, even without triggering Article 5, an attack on NATO member troops in the Euro-Atlantic region but outside the territory specified in Article 6 would probably be a trigger for regional security consultations under Article 4, which have produced more NATO interventions than Article 5.

ismaildonmez 5y ago

> but remember just a few years ago when Turkey shot down a Russian jet on the Syrian border and almost led to NATO involvement It led to nothing, Turkey asked for Patriot missile systems (to protect from attacks from Syria, not Russia or Black Sea), which were hastily provided. Russia started cutting economical ties with Turkey, Erdoğan wrote a personal apology letter to Putin, and after that things got better. Then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Andrei_Karlov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Andrei_Karlov happened, which is still a mystery in itself, and yet, nothing happened that's interesting NATO wise.