4 ms·
UK has also made written guarantees to protect Finland (and Sweden) during the application process. In practical reality, if Russia were to attack Finland or S
by klausjensen 4y ago
UK 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.