Yeah, you're right, the incomplete NATO/EU overlap is not very sensible. Others are also pointing out that Finland would be an important asset for NATO if the Baltic countries were ever attacked. So some pretty strong reasons outside solidarity, too.
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
While any individual country in NATO pales in comparison to US numbers, what people don't realize is that every 10% that each country can add in the form of well-equipped, high readiness, interoperable units, it all adds up to the balance of a hypothetical conflict vs Russia. Those 3 fighter squadrons that Finland has are about a 10% increase on what the US Air Force has in terms of active duty fighter squadrons. Add that to what the UK, France, Poland, and everyone else can deploy and you see why the balance of forces looks ever more grim for Russia.
Plus every single unit added to NATO with the inclusion of Sweden and Finland will already be in the theatre, while the majority of US units that would join a hypothetical conflict in Europe still would have to be transported from North America.
Which is less likely to result in friction or problems in the wider region which is less likely ultimately to result in problems for all involved. It's crazy to think that defending allies and trading partners is essentially aggression. It's just looking out for your mutual interests.
Finland's defense budget is like half of Norway's, come on. Going by Wikipedia, because it's easy and accurate enough for this purpose, total defense spending for NATO countries is just above $1 000b. Finland joining would increase the budget by 0.3 %, and even if we exclude the US for some reason it's 1.2 %. Exclude Canada as well to make it only European countries and we reach 1.3 %.
You're still talking about that border thing, and I'm not going to argue with a Fin about it. It seems like you view it akin to something like Jämtland/Herjedalen, which isn't my impression at all, but ok, I'm wrong. I'm aware that it's not an official dispute and not something that is likely to be a source of conflict, I even said so. Happy to drop it.
However, if you want to say that there exists a scenario where a country, Russia or anyone else, is contemplating attacking a NATO country but decides against it because Finland joined ... then I'll just smile and nod and disagree.
Of course Finland on it's own won't deter Russia from attacking a Nato country but I don't think that is how the alliance is supposed to work either. We join Nato as a part of the alliance and togheter with all the other countries we contribute to all nations defences. In the case of the Baltics, Finland and Sweden joining NATO will for sure make Russia think twice about attacking any of those nations. With Finland and Sweden in Nato the whole Baltic sea will be surounded by NATO countries, there will be plenty of equipment and manpower ready to fight close by and not on the other side of the Atlantic ocean and plenty of airbases available fot Nato planes in all directions.
Finland alone is not the question, the question is if Finland alone will ever tip the scale. I.e. NATO without Finland vs NATO without Finland. Which they won't. If Finland is let into NATO, and that will happen of course, it's not because NATO needs Finland to deter anyone. That is, I'm sorry, quite absurd, and deterrence is what we were talking about. Finland will make NATO slightly bigger and slightly stronger, and the point of the open door policy is to get stronger and bigger, so Finland will join. Sweden will join for the same reasons, only thing complicating that is that they'll have to sell out the Kurds first to please Erdogan.
Yeah, more than I initially thought. The agreement they signed is very vague and doesn't really commit Finland and Sweden to anything they weren't already committed to in regards to the Kurds. But: existing NATO members have quite a while (a year?) to approve the membership of Sweden and Finland, so you can safely assume that Turkey will be testing that agreement in the meantime. That still means that Sweden and Finland can use their own interpretation of the agreement again after having become members - but Turkey will be doing most of the interpreting until then.
We just have to agree to disagree then because it is my opinion that a Swedish and Finnish membership in Nato will 100% serve as a deterent against potential Russian aggressions in the Baltic countries.
Finland and Sweden joining NATO is massive because it means that the Baltic sea will be pretty much fully controlled by us and even though it will probably not mean much in deterring countries that are thousands of kilometers away, it will for sure weaken Russia's positions and will deter them from doing anything stupid.
The main reason for the Turkish veto was never about the Kurds, of course that is part of it but once the US changed it stance on the modernization of the Turkish f16s every thing else was suddenly solved in no time.
Erdogan is even claiming that some Swedish citizens will have to be extradited, but maybe some shiny toys will fix that. Not good for Kurds however it turns out, just a sliding scale of bad, they're terrorists now.
What a cumming
I seriously doubt Sweden are even legally able to extradite citizens if they risk the death penalty.
Only the Swedish courts can decide who is to be extradited.
Yeah, I can't see that ever happening.
Gosh, whatever could a country with around 300,000 potential wartime troops all extensively trained to fight a single enemy within their own uniquely harsh climate and with a massive artillery component possibly bring to a war with Russia..?
This is drivel. You can see from the prices of energy, grain, metals etc that this war in Ukraine is not good for any NATO country right now. Stopping a war happening is good for almost all sanely run countries, let alone the human considerations for why avoiding war is good. Admitting Finland will stop Russia invading them so long as you subscribe to the view that the leadership of all parties haven't entirely lost the plot. Which they haven't, whatever you think of Putin.
So @TwoSheds are you Ukranian? If so I will just feck it up with what I will say following. If Russia declares war to your country, your country better surrender? even if they can do whatever they want to your country, to your city, to your neighbourhood, to your family? put them in gulags just because some law that they pull out from their arse? Are you sure a war fighting for your freedom is worse than being under dictatorial rule?
So easy to right from your comfy house behind a screen
I'm very confused by all these questions. Avoiding a war is good, is that a controversial opinion? Being in NATO is how Finland will avoid a war, not surrendering. War and surrendering to fascists are both bad things. The merits of which is worse can be debated by philosophers.
did the 1930's teach you nothing?
I wrote this just after the agreement had been signed:
So from my own reading, and what I've read about it in the news, the agreement doesn't actually have to change a lot if the Swedes get to interpret it very liberally. The problem is really that they don't while Turkish approval of their memberships still hasn't formally been granted.
A couple of things, mostly regarding monetary policy and inflation. Did you have anything specific in mind? I don't think Finland joining the allies would have deterred Germany from invading Poland.
Yeah, it's all a bit confusing to me. After the agreement they held speeches, and Erdogan really went in hard, which apparently was a shock. What I mentioned earlier about extraditing named "terrorists" Erdogan actually claims is specified in the deal, which it of course isn't. Just posturing, perhaps, I don't know.
How would you stop this war?
Given that Turkey made zero mention of these during the preliminary talks (before Finland and Sweden made their application public) and have made zero demands or requests after the deal, there is absolutely zero evidence that Turkey cares about these things at all, and it is solely a negotiation tactic for better jets, as well as something they can present to the local population as a victory (even though nothing actually happened).
What war? The one in Ukraine? How has that got anything to do with Finland?
Ukraine one, yes.
Nothing to do with Finland.
I wouldn't stop this war.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle now. Somebody has to win once both sides have had to fully commit.Letting other countries into NATO will do basically nothing to stop this war, that's not why it's happening.
A little dismissive stating that Finland will contribute very little. Finland will add a good amount to NATO militarily. They are highly regarded, especially in mountain / cold weather warfare.
Toss in Sweden & NATO is doing very well for itself.
I don't think it's very dismissive when we're adding Finland to a group of 30 countries, a lot of them with more resources. As I said, Finland has a military budget 0.3 % the size of NATO as a whole. Their budget is around the same as Portugal's, and the smallest of all the Nordics except Iceland.
You don’t even need to know any numbers to see how it helps. Just look at a map of the Baltic Sea and Finland/Sweden/Gotland Island.
One of the things Russia is most paranoid about historically other than invasion across the European Plain is probably being hemmed in from the open seas.
I just don't see a world where Putin thinks he can take on the US, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Turkey, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, Norway, Romania, Belgium, Greece, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Iceland and Luxemburg, but then thinks twice because he'd have to take on Finland as well.
Which is what we were talking about, NATO as deterrence and as a defensive alliance. NATO in no way needs Finland. With or without MAD Russia has nothing on NATO, they're dwarfed by more than an order of magnitude. It would be like France going to war against the US, it's just not a thing. Finland will make NATO slightly stronger, which is what they want, but it's not because they need more artillery for defense.
This thread is full of talk about how NATO would never invade Russia because nuclear weapons (this is why NATO expansion is not a threat to Russia, remember), and how NATO membership is so attractive to Eastern European countries because then Russia can't invade, and now suddenly NATO, a giant both as a nuclear power and as the most powerful military alliance by far, suddenly need the comparatively tiny resources of Finland to defend themselves? It doesn't make any sense.
Imagine the scenario where USA pulls out from Nato due to some nutter like Trump, it leaves Poland/Baltics/Finland at the elevated risk of being invaded but having all Baltic sea countries in one alliance strategically will help to deter even the slightest of thoughts in those sick minds even without US involvement. For the safety in the baltic region this is huge and you have to be deluded to think otherwise.
Last edited:
Finland has close to 1M reserve force, that can be mobilized quickly. That in itself is an asset to NATO in the region. Should something happen in the Baltics those troops would be on the ground much faster than the US army. Which brings me to the point of your rather simplistic views on this. Yes, due to the nuclear deterrent NATO doesn't need Finland...to protect itself against thermonuclear war. In a conventional conflict, which is much more likelier, Finland would be a key asset for that region .
In addition to that, the chance of NATO getting involved if Finland was to be attacked by Russia, even if not officially a member of the alliance, is pretty high - EU member and pretty much aligned with NATO anyway. So making it official reduces the probability of this attack happening in the first place.
I can see why you would think that, but is that true though? If Ukraine had been in NATO, would Russia have risked attacking? NATO's deterrent power increases the risk to an attacker, and so lowers the risk of being drawn into a defensive war in the first place.
Yes, without the US then Finland's budget is a bit more than 1 % of NATO's. I'll just have to live with being deluded.
Of course it's an asset, that's obvious. Russia is struggling with Ukraine, it doesn't take much to be an asset when Russia is so weak. It's just not a needed one, it's a bonus.
It's true in the sense that the risk increases by almost nothing vs nothing. However, if you listen to the people disagreeing with be here then it's very true. Apparently Russia attacking NATO countries is a very real risk, so much so that NATO need Finland to help out.
You just need to look at a map to understand why Finland and Sweden will contribute greatly to the security of the Baltics and will help to deter any future Russian aggression there.
You compare Nato as a whole against Russia but wars are not fought by comparing numbers on paper, they are fought by boots and equipment on the ground. There would be very little US troops in North America or South East Asia could do to help if Russia where to attack the Baltics. Turkish tanks and soldiers on the Syrian border would contribute very little in the defence or in any potential counter attack through the Suwalki corridor which would be the only way to get any troops to counter attack as things stand right now. With Finland and Sweden in Nato it basically makes the Russian navy obsolete in the Baltic sea since the ships could be targeted with coastal based anti ship missiles from any direction.
Ground based air defences could cover the whole Baltic sea from the island of Gotland and the whole Bay of Finland from main land Finland. It provides Nato with air bases from 2 more directions and both countries will provide both man power and modern equipment in the immediate vicinity of what is probably the weakest area for Nato in a war with Russia.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://cpd.gov.ua/reports/спікери-які-просувають-співзвучні-ро/
anyone have any ideas what this is about? btw scott ritter definitely falls into the first camp as he does not support ukraine. on the other hand, you're entirely free to support the russian side of things if you want to without being called a terrorist in official documents funded by your own government. just a snippet of the article as posting full length is not allowed. the first link contains a link to pictures of all those people named.
this is a weird story. yet to see it fully explained but basically it seems that the ukranian government has classified 72 people as "information terrorists". 20% seem to be considered knowing war criminals under this classification. these are people who the ukrainians believe support the russian narrative. some of the names on the list definitely do support the russian narrative or take issue with the ukrainian/american side. but others are just journalists and politicians and academics. anyway, the interesting point is that the report has been made by a ukrainian civil servant who is paid by the us taxpayer and includes us politicans as well as us citizens.
anyone have any ideas what this is about? btw scott ritter definitely falls into the first camp as he does not support ukraine. on the other hand, you're entirely free to support the russian side of things if you want to without being called a terrorist in official documents funded by your own government. just a snippet of the article as posting full length is not allowed. the first link contains a link to pictures of all those people named.
Article 34 of the Ukrainian constitution (freedoms of thought, speech, and expression) is part of what is currently restricted under the martial law that’s in place there.
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/new...kaz-pro-zaprovadzhennya-voyennogo-stanu-73109
https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/44a280124.pdf
i understand ukrainians not being able to do it. that makes absolute sense when you're literally at war with russia. but the weird part is them listing americans and other nationalities on the same index seeing as it's funded by the us taxpayer. don't see it being enforceable in any sense just don't see the point of it or what sense it makes in general. could just be a who's who of people they want everyone to double guess when getting news.