31 ms·
This more or less seals Finland applying for NATO membership. However, adding new members requires unanimous consent from all existing members, so it's not gua
by thematrixturtle 4y ago
This more or less seals Finland applying for NATO membership. However, adding new members requires unanimous consent from all existing members, so it's not guaranteed to be smooth sailing. Russia is also obviously deeply unhappy about this and will do its best to disrupt the process via direct and indirect pressure.
- NicoJuicy 4y agoI think Germany said they will be under protection from NATO as soon as they start the procedure.
- klausjensen 4y agoUK has also made written guarantees to protect Finland (and Sweden) during the application process. In practical reality, if Russia were to attack Finland or Sweden now, the answer from NATO would be pretty much the same as if they were already members.
- throwaway894345 4y ago> In practical reality, if Russia were to attack Finland or Sweden now, the answer from NATO would be pretty much the same as if they were already members. Really? Why is this true of Finland but not Ukraine?
- fsloth 4y agoBecause Ukraine was not in the explicit membership pipeline.
- klausjensen 4y agoUkraine was not about to join NATO.
- Moru 4y agoBecause that would have been agressive from the NATO standpoint. Russia was not having a "war" with Ukraine, from Putins standpoint they were going into their own country to protect their citisens. That would just have played out Putins way to support his narrative that Russia is under attack from the rest of the world.
- Wildgoose 4y agoBecause Ukraine was/is in a state of Civil War.
- denton-scratch 4y agoThat's not a "civil war"; Ukraine has been invaded by a foreign army.
- Wildgoose 4y agoNot in 2014 it wasn’t.
- denton-scratch 4y agoWhat? That's exactly what happened in 2014!
- klausjensen 4y agoRussia most certainly invaded. "In response to the deteriorating situation in the Donbas, Russia abandoned its hybrid approach, and began a conventional invasion of the region. The first sign of this invasion was 25 August 2014 capture of a group of Russian paratroopers on active service in Ukrainian territory by the Ukrainian security service (SBU)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=In%20response%20to%20the%20deteriorating,Ukrainian%20security%20service%20(SBU) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=In....
- yodelshady 4y agoUkraine hadn't applied, until recently arguably didn't meet the military requirements, and - even before this year - had a border dispute in Donbas. The latter is important, NATO is not a hired gun. Finland does have a stable border.
- denton-scratch 4y ago> had a border dispute in Donbas Not to mention Crimea, whose annexation by Russia is accepted by nobody.
- Sharlin 4y agoBecause NATO has the initiative here. The guarantees, unofficial or not, now function as a deterrent for possible Russian aggression. A promise/threat to join a hypothetical future conflict is very different from joining an existing conflict. One is a deterrent, the other is escalation. Besides, Finland has been a close NATO ally for a long time, shares NATO values, our military is already 100% NATO compatible, and we are strategically and geopolitically a pretty important piece of the puzzle.
- selimthegrim 4y agoThis is turnkey, UKR isn’t
- matsemann 4y agoIf Sweden got attacked, most Norwegians would want to help them somehow, ending up dragging NATO into the ordeal anyways, is my thought.
- praptak 4y agoMost Poles want to help Ukraine somehow and we didn't drag NATO into the conflict. Sweden would probably get stronger support for other reasons, like being perceived as an established democratic western country.
- stuff4ben 4y agoThat's because NATO can't join the conflict.
- kibwen 4y agoNorway would only be able to drag NATO into a war if Norway were attacked on its own soil.
- voidfunc 4y agoKinda my thought here. Finland and Sweden in NATO formalizes some stuff but I am highly confident if they were attacked and not in NATO we would probably still show up. They are close allies.
- sph 4y agoHow can Russia pressure and disrupt the process when NATO members are the ones most afraid of Putin? Finland's doing this only because of Russia's actions. I can't imagine anybody vetoing Finland's membership. In fact, the more the merrier^Hstronger.
- mariuolo 4y ago> How can Russia pressure and disrupt the process when NATO members are the ones most afraid of Putin? Hungary is also a NATO member and yet its president (Mr. Orban) has been quite chummy with Putin.
- sph 4y agoFair enough. I must imagine there will be intense pressure from NATO members towards Hungary if they're the only ones protesting. Is there a process for booting a member?
- klausjensen 4y agoHungary has already stated they will not oppose Finland/Sweden NATO membership, so it is not really relevant.
- zsombor 4y agoOrban is the prime minister not the president. As for being chummy no Hungarian prime minister or president current or former has ever served as board member for Gazprom, nor served as head of shareholders for Nordstream AG, or director of the board for Rosneft the Russian oil company. All these positions were/are held by a former german chancellor Gerhard Schröder whom had put Germany onto the path of closing perfectly working nuclear plants and thus leading to the current dependence on Russian oil and gas: https://bigthink.com/pessimists-archive/germany-nuclear-power-russia-putin/ https://bigthink.com/pessimists-archive/germany-nuclear-powe...
- TMWNN 4y agoDon't forget Merkel. There are still people that say that Merkel was always against German dependence on Russian gas but could not do anything about it. For 16 years! There is more "evidence" that Merkel is a long-term Russian intelligence asset, recruited from her youth in East Germany,[1] than that of Trump being the same. One guess on which claim is incessantly repeated by the bien-pensants of the chattering classes. Bonus: Trump and Stoltenberg argue on camera (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k>). Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong? [1] Something else never talked about is how her parents moved from West to East Germany when she was a baby
- M2Ys4U 4y ago>However, adding new members requires unanimous consent from all existing members, so it's not guaranteed to be smooth sailing. I highly doubt that any of NATO's members will veto an application from Finland (or Sweden).
- Maakuth 4y agoThe process has been going on in unofficial sense since the start of Putler's war, but to minimize risks, the official process is only kicked off now. It was only started after it was verified that there are no internal or external blockers and that Sweden is in lockstep.
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y agoOh, there was little doubt a Finnish application was on the way. From what I can tell from Swedish media, it's more or less decided there aswell. Both Finland and Sweden signed a defence agreement with the UK yesterday. Norwegian newspapers has claimed Denmark, Iceland and Norway are also going to offer Finland and Sweden military aid in case of Russian shenanigans during the application process. That leaves both Finland and Sweden fairly safe, and the only noteworthy risks would be cyber warfare and Russian psy-ops used to turn public opinion against a NATO membership. As for the application process itself, Stoltenberg pretty much promised a swift handling in the NATO end of things, but as you mention, it has to be unanimous and there is always a chance someone with power might be in Putin's pocket, or oppose the idea for other reasons.
- kukkeliskuu 4y agoActually it is not a contract, because it is not contractually binding. It is more a promise to help. And Churchill promised to help Finland in WW2 and did not keep his promise.
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y agoOn an international level, there is nothing but promises and sanctions, unless we resort to warfare. Let's hope it won't be neccesary to put those treaties to the test.
- kukkeliskuu 4y agoUltimately you are of course right, but this is not a fair characterization for this case. Some agremeents are made through the normal legislative process for each country, and are enforceable by international courts. These promises by heads of UK and Finland are not that kind of enforceable agreements, as they have not been approved by the legislature. They are just political statements by heads of state.
- bigDinosaur 4y agoHow could Britain realistically have helped Finland militarily in WW2?
- shaky-carrousel 4y agoThat distinction is pretty moot, as no applying country has ever been rejected by NATO.
- bartread 4y ago> Russia is also obviously deeply unhappy about this So what? They only have themselves, or rather Putin, to blame. He's forfeited the right for them to have any meaningful input into the decision.
- piokoch 4y agoThe ship has sailed for Russia already. USA will not tolerate obstruction by Germany, France or Hungary. Recent meeting about Ukraine support was hold in Ramstein and this place was chosen intentionally - to show who is the master of the show and who should sit and listen. By attacking Ukraine Russia wanted to "push" NATO away from its borders, but it all went backwards - now they will have a new, 1300 km long border with NATO member countries. Russian fleet in Petersburg can be decommissioned now, as there is no merit to maintain it while Gulf of Finland can be easily blocked and is under traditional artillery control from Estonia and Finland side (it is just 80-100 km wide). In fact in case of military conflict Petersburg is lost, can be attacked from the West and the North by land and covered by long range rocket artillery like Himmars (it is just 200 km away from Finnish and Estonian borders). Same story with Murmansk harbor, it will be very difficult for Russia to defend it against attack from Norway and Finland given the very long and fragile supply line - a single E105 route, 1000 km long or train connection that goes along that route. Imagine famous Kiev 60 km convoy multiplied by 10 and attacked not by post-soviet era weapon that Ukraine had but by state of the art equipment. Russia will have to put a lot of forces over there to be able to protect new attack line that they have opened by themselves. Build hell a lot of new infrastructure, provide logistic support, etc. The costs will be exorbitant. When countries like Poland, Romania or Baltic countries became NATO members it was clear that they will need to be protected by western armies (although Poland is quickly catching up with its military potential, other countries is developing too). Right now situation is different: two very strong, well equipped, well trained armies are joining the Pact. Another 300 modern tanks, Sweden by itself has more than 400 modern combat aircrafts of various types, Finland has just contracted 60 F-35 (with loyal wingman option that doubles the potential in future), plus artillery and other best of class equipment. Indeed, Putin, Gerasimov and Shoygu are master strategists.
- Thaxll 4y agoUSA is playing a dangerous game atm, they're not in Europe and don't depend on Russian energies. They just want Russia to sink and don't really care about the fate of Europe.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
- ngcc_hk 4y agoThink and re-imagination needed. That is a problem like eu that need to be handled, especially now that turkey is in the way. I think one has to rethink. The key is what are these military alliance is for. For democracy then we can have an alternative one. A new alliance covering South Korea, japan, Taiwan, Australia, eu, Sweden, Finland, Canada …. Soviet Union is gone. Turkey is a liability as it is not a democracy. And it is a problem.