6 ms·

Look at the map, the NATO doesn't have much land borders with Russia. With Finland joining... the length of land border will multiply. This will surely pose a c

Look at the map, the NATO doesn't have much land borders with Russia. With Finland joining... the length of land border will multiply. This will surely pose a challenge.

formerly_proven 4y ago
Only in a technical sense obviously, not in any way that actually matters.
- csomar 4y ago
  St Petersburg is less than 100 miles away. But yeah most of the rest of the border is useless, given its nature.
  - naavis 4y ago
    St. Petersburg is already less than 100 miles from Estonia, which is a NATO country.
rightbyte 4y ago
There is much talk about Russia not wanting Finland in NATO but why would NATO want Finland in NATO with yet another expensive border to patrol. "Buffer states" work both ways.
- andybak 4y ago
  I would argue that NATO already has to care about that border. Finland joining NATO just makes that reality easier to handle.
  - rightbyte 4y ago
    They only have to care about the Finnish border in a military fictional grand plan sense not a everyday practical sense.
    - andybak 4y ago
      My sense of what is "fictional" and what isn't shifted markedly in the last few months.
- Deukhoofd 4y ago
  With Finland being part of the EU, an invasion of Finland by Russia would already pull in 90% of NATO (per Article 42 of the EU). With most of NATO already needing to care about the border, this should not pose too much of a challenge.
  - blibble 4y ago
    no one (including the Finnish government) believes that article 42 has any teeth https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000008697709.html https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000008697709.html (ironically because Finland insisted on it in the last treaty renegotiation) and I don't think you can really say that it's 90% of NATO without the US, more like 10%
- GolDDranks 4y ago
  The current Baltic NATO states and Norway are much easier to defend having control over the Baltic Sea, plus Finland has a considerably strong military that now joins to strengthen NATO, so it should be a win-win for the both sides.
  - rightbyte 4y ago
    Why are we pretending conventional war between NATO and Russia is a thing?
    - trash8435798 4y ago
      If that's the case, why does the border need "expensive patrolling" (which is already done by Finland anyway)?
    - tremon 4y ago
      Because Russia is currently doing conventional war inside Ukraine?
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Because Russia could easily start a conventional war and there is no way NATO would escalate that to nuclear without Russia using nuclear weapons first.
      - JasonFruit 4y ago
        What makes you think NATO nations wouldn't do such a thing, if there were a conventional war between them and Russia? War is essentially irrational, and it causes governments and the general population to desire ends that can only be pursued by harmful, immoral means. What makes NATO immune to this?
        jacquesm 4y ago
        In principle nothing, but in practice NATO has shown considerable restraint so far and I see no reason why they would suddenly and catastrophically deviate from that. So unless Russia uses nuclear weapons first - which they have threatened now multiple times - I do not see this or any other conflict NATO is involved in escalate to nuclear. NATO has never publicly committed to a NFU policy because that would weaken their hand on the political stage but in practice they seem to be following that line. It's a smart way to position themselves, and other nuclear capable entities have done the same.
- aa-jv 4y ago
  Finland joining NATO benefits the military-industrial complex immensely. There are HUGE profits to be made in the effort required to get NATO and Finnish military standards aligned.
  - formerly_proven 4y ago
    Bullshit. Both Sweden and Finland have "NATO-compatible" militaries and took part in many NATO exercises over the years.
    - aa-jv 4y ago
      .. and will now be recipients of billions in funding towards the cause. Don't even try to pretend NATO isn't a major profit center for the American military-industrial complex. That is the only reason for its funding and existence in lieu of actual diplomacy and sane foreign policy.
      - CRConrad 4y ago
        > .. and will now be recipients of billions in funding towards the cause. Any money for their militaries will have to come out of their own budgets, just like before. NATO doesn't have any coffers for "recipients of funding". No wonder you're opinions are so warped; you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > Finland joining NATO benefits the military-industrial complex immensely. There are HUGE profits to be made in the effort required to get NATO and Finnish military standards aligned. Those profits have already been made, because both Finnish and Swedish military standards have been NATO-aligned for decades already. Maybe you'd have a somewhat more sane perception of the world if you actually knew anything about it.
- burmanm 4y ago
  Why would it cause NATO more expenses? Finland takes care of patrolling the border, just like before. There's no intention to get foreign troops to guard our borders (or even foreign troops at all in Finland beyond exercises).
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > There's no intention to get foreign troops to guard our borders (or even foreign troops at all in Finland beyond exercises). Preferably quite a few exercises in the near future... Until ratification is through.
- klausjensen 4y ago
  Finland knows all about Russian/Soviet aggression and have had to build and maintain a strong military force for that reason. Plus, speaking as a fellow Nordic... The Finns are our brothers and sisters. Of course they are welcome.
- enaaem 4y ago
  The Baltics are very vulnerable and with Finland nearby they can easily be supported. Looking at Russias performance against Ukraine Finland and Sweden alone would easily hold them off. Nato won’t need to spend much resources to protect Finland. Ukraines terrain is as easy as as it gets for Russia. Finland is full of lakes, forests and mountains. Logistics is 100 times harder.
- MandieD 4y ago
  Finland and Sweden both have strong militaries (for their population size) that have been using NATO-compatible hardware for years, along with taking part in exercises with other NATO militaries. They’ll be self-sufficient assets to the alliance, and being in NATO makes their status unambiguous should Putin or whoever follows get any more bad ideas.
docdeek 4y ago
It essentially doubles the length of the border with Russia for NATO. Currently it is 1,215km long [1] and the Finland/Russia border is 1,340km long [2]. 1: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/10/pdf/2110-russia-top5-myths-en.pdf https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/10/p... 2: https://finland.fi/life-society/a-border-that-once-divided-now-unites/ https://finland.fi/life-society/a-border-that-once-divided-n...

Look at the map, the NATO doesn't have much land borders with Russia. With Finland joining... the length of land border will multiply. This will surely pose a challenge.

formerly_proven 4y ago

Only in a technical sense obviously, not in any way that actually matters.

csomar 4y ago
St Petersburg is less than 100 miles away. But yeah most of the rest of the border is useless, given its nature.
- naavis 4y ago
  St. Petersburg is already less than 100 miles from Estonia, which is a NATO country.

rightbyte 4y ago

There is much talk about Russia not wanting Finland in NATO but why would NATO want Finland in NATO with yet another expensive border to patrol. "Buffer states" work both ways.

andybak 4y ago
I would argue that NATO already has to care about that border. Finland joining NATO just makes that reality easier to handle.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  They only have to care about the Finnish border in a military fictional grand plan sense not a everyday practical sense.
  - andybak 4y ago
    My sense of what is "fictional" and what isn't shifted markedly in the last few months.
Deukhoofd 4y ago
With Finland being part of the EU, an invasion of Finland by Russia would already pull in 90% of NATO (per Article 42 of the EU). With most of NATO already needing to care about the border, this should not pose too much of a challenge.
- blibble 4y ago
  no one (including the Finnish government) believes that article 42 has any teeth https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000008697709.html https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000008697709.html (ironically because Finland insisted on it in the last treaty renegotiation) and I don't think you can really say that it's 90% of NATO without the US, more like 10%
GolDDranks 4y ago
The current Baltic NATO states and Norway are much easier to defend having control over the Baltic Sea, plus Finland has a considerably strong military that now joins to strengthen NATO, so it should be a win-win for the both sides.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  Why are we pretending conventional war between NATO and Russia is a thing?
  - trash8435798 4y ago
    If that's the case, why does the border need "expensive patrolling" (which is already done by Finland anyway)?
  - tremon 4y ago
    Because Russia is currently doing conventional war inside Ukraine?
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Because Russia could easily start a conventional war and there is no way NATO would escalate that to nuclear without Russia using nuclear weapons first.
    - JasonFruit 4y ago
      What makes you think NATO nations wouldn't do such a thing, if there were a conventional war between them and Russia? War is essentially irrational, and it causes governments and the general population to desire ends that can only be pursued by harmful, immoral means. What makes NATO immune to this?
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        In principle nothing, but in practice NATO has shown considerable restraint so far and I see no reason why they would suddenly and catastrophically deviate from that. So unless Russia uses nuclear weapons first - which they have threatened now multiple times - I do not see this or any other conflict NATO is involved in escalate to nuclear. NATO has never publicly committed to a NFU policy because that would weaken their hand on the political stage but in practice they seem to be following that line. It's a smart way to position themselves, and other nuclear capable entities have done the same.
aa-jv 4y ago
Finland joining NATO benefits the military-industrial complex immensely. There are HUGE profits to be made in the effort required to get NATO and Finnish military standards aligned.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  Bullshit. Both Sweden and Finland have "NATO-compatible" militaries and took part in many NATO exercises over the years.
  - aa-jv 4y ago
    .. and will now be recipients of billions in funding towards the cause. Don't even try to pretend NATO isn't a major profit center for the American military-industrial complex. That is the only reason for its funding and existence in lieu of actual diplomacy and sane foreign policy.
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      > .. and will now be recipients of billions in funding towards the cause. Any money for their militaries will have to come out of their own budgets, just like before. NATO doesn't have any coffers for "recipients of funding". No wonder you're opinions are so warped; you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > Finland joining NATO benefits the military-industrial complex immensely. There are HUGE profits to be made in the effort required to get NATO and Finnish military standards aligned. Those profits have already been made, because both Finnish and Swedish military standards have been NATO-aligned for decades already. Maybe you'd have a somewhat more sane perception of the world if you actually knew anything about it.
burmanm 4y ago
Why would it cause NATO more expenses? Finland takes care of patrolling the border, just like before. There's no intention to get foreign troops to guard our borders (or even foreign troops at all in Finland beyond exercises).
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > There's no intention to get foreign troops to guard our borders (or even foreign troops at all in Finland beyond exercises). Preferably quite a few exercises in the near future... Until ratification is through.
klausjensen 4y ago
Finland knows all about Russian/Soviet aggression and have had to build and maintain a strong military force for that reason. Plus, speaking as a fellow Nordic... The Finns are our brothers and sisters. Of course they are welcome.
enaaem 4y ago
The Baltics are very vulnerable and with Finland nearby they can easily be supported. Looking at Russias performance against Ukraine Finland and Sweden alone would easily hold them off. Nato won’t need to spend much resources to protect Finland. Ukraines terrain is as easy as as it gets for Russia. Finland is full of lakes, forests and mountains. Logistics is 100 times harder.
MandieD 4y ago
Finland and Sweden both have strong militaries (for their population size) that have been using NATO-compatible hardware for years, along with taking part in exercises with other NATO militaries. They’ll be self-sufficient assets to the alliance, and being in NATO makes their status unambiguous should Putin or whoever follows get any more bad ideas.

docdeek 4y ago

It essentially doubles the length of the border with Russia for NATO. Currently it is 1,215km long [1] and the Finland/Russia border is 1,340km long [2]. 1: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/10/pdf/2110-russia-top5-myths-en.pdf https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/10/p... 2: https://finland.fi/life-society/a-border-that-once-divided-now-unites/ https://finland.fi/life-society/a-border-that-once-divided-n...