3 ms·

Oh, 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

by 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago

Oh, 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 ago
Actually 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 ago
  On 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 ago
    Ultimately 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 ago
  How could Britain realistically have helped Finland militarily in WW2?
  - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
    IIRC, Churchill did try assemble to a force during the Winter war, but there simply wasn't anyway of getting enough men with winter combat experience.
- Wildgoose 4y ago
  That's not true. Churchill was not Prime Minister when the Soviet Union invaded Finland.

kukkeliskuu 4y ago

Actually 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 ago
On 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 ago
  Ultimately 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 ago
How could Britain realistically have helped Finland militarily in WW2?
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
  IIRC, Churchill did try assemble to a force during the Winter war, but there simply wasn't anyway of getting enough men with winter combat experience.
Wildgoose 4y ago
That's not true. Churchill was not Prime Minister when the Soviet Union invaded Finland.