8 ms·

> 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? Remembe

by hmfrh 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 4y 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.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > there is the Mutual Defence Clause (article 42.7 of the Treaty [of Lisbon] Article 42.7 “leaves more room for interpretation than one might expect for a clause in a legally binding text” [1]. If Finland and Sweden turned down NATO membership and then suffered territorial degradation, I doubt the U.S. would step in. That, in turn, might motivate EU members to exercise their opt outs or neutrality caveats, or find that all that can be done within their power is send non-lethal aid. [1] https://ecfr.eu/publication/ambiguous-alliance-neutrality-opt-outs-and-european-defence/?amp https://ecfr.eu/publication/ambiguous-alliance-neutrality-op...
  - avar 4y ago
    To expand on this: It also explicitly provides for an opt-out to preserve the neutrality of countries like Sweden and Ireland, such a clause being added at their insistence. I suspect that when the rubber hits the road nothing would happen, are Western European countries going to get into a potential nuclear exchange with Russia defending an EU member that's got a carve-out allowing them not to do the same for them? That doesn't apply for Finland in the same way, but I'd still expect more of a "thoughts and prayers" response from the EU than anything else. 1. https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_article_427_an_explainer5019/ https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_article_427_an_explainer5...
  - orwin 4y ago
    Well, I'm pretty sure Europe is capable of sending nuclear missiles that would destroy any FOB Russia set in Finland (this wouldn't trigger Russia doctrine of only using nukes to defend its territory, not its troops). Invasion would become way to costly for a demographically challenged country.
    - fsloth 4y ago
      Would EU countries waste their nukes in attrition of RU troops on aligned soil? There aren't that many (by official figures). I'm guessing most countries would prefer not to escalate to nukes unless their own territory was threatened.
- IlliOnato 4y ago
  Unfortunately, no, not by implication. Chapter 5 only means defending a country that's attacked. So if Russia invades Finland, and say France send troops to defend it, and Russia retaliates against France, then US, UK, and Turkey are not obliged to defend France. As far as NATO is concerned it's France's affair. In reality of course the the non-EU NATO members will probably decide to get involved one way or the other, but they are not legally bound to it.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Chapter 5 only means defending a country that's attacked. This is true, but there are no limitations on the circumstances of the attack. For instance, if the US was fighting a low-grade global war with an Afghanistan-based terrorist network that has not previously attacked the US anywhere covered by Article 5 because of the geographic constraints of Article 6, and in retaliation for the acts of the US in that war that global terrorist network attacked, say, New York and D.C., then Article 5 would apply, there is no “well, you chose to fight them for other reasons before they attacked you” exclusion. Now, if Russia only retaliated against French troops in Finland, Article 6 would geographically exclude Article 5 applicability.
- fsloth 4y ago
  The EU defense clause is no NATO replacement and in a state of war it is highly unclear would it even merit material transfers. Currently it's more of a gesture or suggestion for future collaboration.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  I think there is a pretty large chance countries like Germany figure out some way to ignore that. IMO the only thing keeping a European country exempt from Russian military action is the presence of US forces.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  Just because the EU gets involved, doesn't mean NATO will follow suit. There's an argument that EU is the aggressor for the purposes of Article 5 if it comes to the aid of a non-NATO member. The USA and other non-EU members would have the option to sit that one out, if they wanted. Alternatively, they could offer support to only NATO members. This is probably part of what's spurring NATO membership. I bet most Fins and Swedes thought that the USA would deploy forces the event of a conflict. Now they see that American policy will be aid only, regardless of the death and destruction.
  - jeltz 4y ago
    I have never heard of that being a common sentiment, or actually any Swede thinking that. Swedes have never assumed America will deploy troops.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > There's an argument that EU is the aggressor for the purposes of Article 5 There is no such thing as “an aggressor for purpose of Article 5“; and the only case to be made for an “aggressor” status that would obviate Article 5 commitments is an aggressor under international law (that is, someone engaging in aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter, North Atlantic Treaty, and customary international law.) Participating in individual or mutual self-defense action outside the scope of NATO doesn't void Article 5 (we know, because it didn't, despite definitely being part of the scenario, in the only actual Article 5 invocation in history.)
    - mywittyname 4y ago
      Mutual defensive pacts are not transitive. Germany being in NATO does not mean that every country Germany has a defense pact with is de facto in NATO. Finland probably doesn't want to find out the hard way how the USA is going to decide to roll here. Being a NATO member removes all doubt as to what happens.
lnxg33k1 4y ago
It has a lot of upsides for the military establishment, remember when Russia was not a threat and NATO decided to have 3 trainings in Ukraine and start talks about a Russia bordering country joining a Russia enemy conglomerate? Remember when a bordering state of US tried to put enemy weapons on their territory and the US almost deleting that state from earth logs? I think US right now, especially if this announcement is true is the main european Enemy, US is expanding it's world oversight by expanding NATO on European borders at expense of European stability, this is due to the shallowness of european leaders It's US wagering European lives for its interests
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > remember when Russia was not a threat and NATO decided to have 3 trainings in Ukraine No. I remember when Ukraine tossed out a Russian puppet and Russia nearly immediately invaded and has been continuously at war with Ukraine since. When was this time that Russia wasn't a threat and Ukraine was having trainings with NATO?
  - lnxg33k1 4y ago
    Wait, about the first reply, because trainings are objective, differently from who is a threat to whom Sept 2021: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-holds-military-drills-with-us-forces-nato-allies-2021-09-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h... https://www.army.mil/article/250444/us_nato_ukraine_enhance_interoperability_with_rapid_trident_exercise https://www.army.mil/article/250444/us_nato_ukraine_enhance_... But one training can still be seen as a threat on the border of a superpower? IS Army.mil news credible enough for US people outside the reach of russian propaganda? Does it reply your question when was US training on the border of Russia? Can we accept US as a enemy of europe? Or better, can we accept the fact that US is only giving important to ITS own interests without care of the safety of anyone else? (makes sense, it should be european leaders representing europeans interests), but someone should be able to say, european leaders currently suck, damaging their people in order to represent US interests in ukraine
    - 4y ago
VictorPath 4y ago
If Finnish land helped Russian national interests, it would have been taken in 1944 or 1945. By early 1943, Russia was pushing back Germany, and Finland would not have been a problem. Finland would be in more danger if it joined NATO, not less.
- fsloth 4y ago
  "Finland would be in more danger if it joined NATO, not less." What nonsense is this. Russians respect force. The more the better. NATO gives Finnish Defense Forces enough credibility to deter any Russian aggression specifically targeting Finland for the next 50 years at least by making the cost of invasion psychologically and analytically too high.
cute_boi 4y ago
I don't understand this argument. Turkey is a NATO country, Ukraine is not a member? So, why would it lead to NATO involvement. If Russia had attacked turkey due to Turkey's strike on Russia Jet it would be debacle.
yucky 4y ago
>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. Yes, because Turkey is in NATO and Ukraine isn't. It has nothing to do with Ukraine being in Europe. Not all of Europe is in NATO, and not all of NATO is in Europe.
aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
> We have direct evidence that a European country can be attacked without NATO immediately jumping in to help. What about the NATO planes above Ukraine..?
geysersam 4y ago
> Remember when Russia invaded Ukraine and it didn't lead to NATO involvement? That's not the same situation at all. Turkey is a member of NATO. Ukraine is not.

by hmfrh 4y ago

codethief 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y 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.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> there is the Mutual Defence Clause (article 42.7 of the Treaty [of Lisbon] Article 42.7 “leaves more room for interpretation than one might expect for a clause in a legally binding text” [1]. If Finland and Sweden turned down NATO membership and then suffered territorial degradation, I doubt the U.S. would step in. That, in turn, might motivate EU members to exercise their opt outs or neutrality caveats, or find that all that can be done within their power is send non-lethal aid. [1] https://ecfr.eu/publication/ambiguous-alliance-neutrality-opt-outs-and-european-defence/?amp https://ecfr.eu/publication/ambiguous-alliance-neutrality-op...
- avar 4y ago
  To expand on this: It also explicitly provides for an opt-out to preserve the neutrality of countries like Sweden and Ireland, such a clause being added at their insistence. I suspect that when the rubber hits the road nothing would happen, are Western European countries going to get into a potential nuclear exchange with Russia defending an EU member that's got a carve-out allowing them not to do the same for them? That doesn't apply for Finland in the same way, but I'd still expect more of a "thoughts and prayers" response from the EU than anything else. 1. https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_article_427_an_explainer5019/ https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_article_427_an_explainer5...
- orwin 4y ago
  Well, I'm pretty sure Europe is capable of sending nuclear missiles that would destroy any FOB Russia set in Finland (this wouldn't trigger Russia doctrine of only using nukes to defend its territory, not its troops). Invasion would become way to costly for a demographically challenged country.
  - fsloth 4y ago
    Would EU countries waste their nukes in attrition of RU troops on aligned soil? There aren't that many (by official figures). I'm guessing most countries would prefer not to escalate to nukes unless their own territory was threatened.
IlliOnato 4y ago
Unfortunately, no, not by implication. Chapter 5 only means defending a country that's attacked. So if Russia invades Finland, and say France send troops to defend it, and Russia retaliates against France, then US, UK, and Turkey are not obliged to defend France. As far as NATO is concerned it's France's affair. In reality of course the the non-EU NATO members will probably decide to get involved one way or the other, but they are not legally bound to it.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Chapter 5 only means defending a country that's attacked. This is true, but there are no limitations on the circumstances of the attack. For instance, if the US was fighting a low-grade global war with an Afghanistan-based terrorist network that has not previously attacked the US anywhere covered by Article 5 because of the geographic constraints of Article 6, and in retaliation for the acts of the US in that war that global terrorist network attacked, say, New York and D.C., then Article 5 would apply, there is no “well, you chose to fight them for other reasons before they attacked you” exclusion. Now, if Russia only retaliated against French troops in Finland, Article 6 would geographically exclude Article 5 applicability.
fsloth 4y ago
The EU defense clause is no NATO replacement and in a state of war it is highly unclear would it even merit material transfers. Currently it's more of a gesture or suggestion for future collaboration.
wonderwonder 4y ago
I think there is a pretty large chance countries like Germany figure out some way to ignore that. IMO the only thing keeping a European country exempt from Russian military action is the presence of US forces.
mywittyname 4y ago
Just because the EU gets involved, doesn't mean NATO will follow suit. There's an argument that EU is the aggressor for the purposes of Article 5 if it comes to the aid of a non-NATO member. The USA and other non-EU members would have the option to sit that one out, if they wanted. Alternatively, they could offer support to only NATO members. This is probably part of what's spurring NATO membership. I bet most Fins and Swedes thought that the USA would deploy forces the event of a conflict. Now they see that American policy will be aid only, regardless of the death and destruction.
- jeltz 4y ago
  I have never heard of that being a common sentiment, or actually any Swede thinking that. Swedes have never assumed America will deploy troops.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > There's an argument that EU is the aggressor for the purposes of Article 5 There is no such thing as “an aggressor for purpose of Article 5“; and the only case to be made for an “aggressor” status that would obviate Article 5 commitments is an aggressor under international law (that is, someone engaging in aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter, North Atlantic Treaty, and customary international law.) Participating in individual or mutual self-defense action outside the scope of NATO doesn't void Article 5 (we know, because it didn't, despite definitely being part of the scenario, in the only actual Article 5 invocation in history.)
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    Mutual defensive pacts are not transitive. Germany being in NATO does not mean that every country Germany has a defense pact with is de facto in NATO. Finland probably doesn't want to find out the hard way how the USA is going to decide to roll here. Being a NATO member removes all doubt as to what happens.

lnxg33k1 4y ago

It has a lot of upsides for the military establishment, remember when Russia was not a threat and NATO decided to have 3 trainings in Ukraine and start talks about a Russia bordering country joining a Russia enemy conglomerate? Remember when a bordering state of US tried to put enemy weapons on their territory and the US almost deleting that state from earth logs? I think US right now, especially if this announcement is true is the main european Enemy, US is expanding it's world oversight by expanding NATO on European borders at expense of European stability, this is due to the shallowness of european leaders It's US wagering European lives for its interests

dragonwriter 4y ago
> remember when Russia was not a threat and NATO decided to have 3 trainings in Ukraine No. I remember when Ukraine tossed out a Russian puppet and Russia nearly immediately invaded and has been continuously at war with Ukraine since. When was this time that Russia wasn't a threat and Ukraine was having trainings with NATO?
- lnxg33k1 4y ago
  Wait, about the first reply, because trainings are objective, differently from who is a threat to whom Sept 2021: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-holds-military-drills-with-us-forces-nato-allies-2021-09-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h... https://www.army.mil/article/250444/us_nato_ukraine_enhance_interoperability_with_rapid_trident_exercise https://www.army.mil/article/250444/us_nato_ukraine_enhance_... But one training can still be seen as a threat on the border of a superpower? IS Army.mil news credible enough for US people outside the reach of russian propaganda? Does it reply your question when was US training on the border of Russia? Can we accept US as a enemy of europe? Or better, can we accept the fact that US is only giving important to ITS own interests without care of the safety of anyone else? (makes sense, it should be european leaders representing europeans interests), but someone should be able to say, european leaders currently suck, damaging their people in order to represent US interests in ukraine
  - 4y ago

VictorPath 4y ago

If Finnish land helped Russian national interests, it would have been taken in 1944 or 1945. By early 1943, Russia was pushing back Germany, and Finland would not have been a problem. Finland would be in more danger if it joined NATO, not less.

fsloth 4y ago
"Finland would be in more danger if it joined NATO, not less." What nonsense is this. Russians respect force. The more the better. NATO gives Finnish Defense Forces enough credibility to deter any Russian aggression specifically targeting Finland for the next 50 years at least by making the cost of invasion psychologically and analytically too high.

cute_boi 4y ago

I don't understand this argument. Turkey is a NATO country, Ukraine is not a member? So, why would it lead to NATO involvement. If Russia had attacked turkey due to Turkey's strike on Russia Jet it would be debacle.

yucky 4y ago

>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. Yes, because Turkey is in NATO and Ukraine isn't. It has nothing to do with Ukraine being in Europe. Not all of Europe is in NATO, and not all of NATO is in Europe.

aaaaaaaaata 4y ago

> We have direct evidence that a European country can be attacked without NATO immediately jumping in to help. What about the NATO planes above Ukraine..?

geysersam 4y ago

> Remember when Russia invaded Ukraine and it didn't lead to NATO involvement? That's not the same situation at all. Turkey is a member of NATO. Ukraine is not.