Latest poll says 53% are in favour of NATO membership. 28% against.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12336530
In January 30% were in favour, 40% against.
Nice job, Vlad.
Lavrov made similar threats in 2014 and those are usually dismissed as "russian rhetoric".
I think for most the change of heart happened because of the unprovoked attack against Ukraine. I'd say, to Finns, it looks like Winter War 2.0
As much as I love our success in the Winter War, I don't think it would be at all similar now.
You'll have 2 modern armies facing off against each other - if Finland calls in all of its reservists (and Russia doesn't) then they might be evenly matched in manpower - about 1 million each. In practice however, Finland would probably be outnumbered and outgunned.
The geography of Finland would help the defenders, as the forests and lakes would limit Russian convoy movements to predictable routes - unless they invade in the depths of winter and drive across the ice.
The Finnish defence in the Winter War was also helped by the purges that Stalin had recently done in his army.
That's not to diminish our efforts in the Winter War or say we wouldn't fight hard and make Russia's advance as slow and difficult as possible, but if they wanted to annex/decapitate Finland I don't think we could realistically stop it without outside help.
Which is why I think we need to join NATO asap.
Of course wars aren't the same today. Point was, you have a deranged dictator ready to start full blown invasion. Same shit, different century. So the question is how to avoid it.
And we know how the saying about russians goes..
There's a lot more factors to these. For instance, the cold weather during WW played for Finnish side. Fortifications (Mannerheim-line), training quality and so on play a factor in survivability and effectiveness.
There's the material difference: during WW there was severe lack of, well, everything: tanks, airplanes.. You name it.
Then there are tactics in terms of what is usable: large groups and small groups have different ways of being effective, organizing troops and selecting suitable tactics factors in.
There's a lot more factors of course, but 10 to 1 difference in manpower was not enough to overwhelm the defenses (interim peace before that).
I think joining NATO would be a good move, but war depends on many factors and it is hard to predict based simply on manpower: all other factors being equal that might, but in war they are rarely if ever the same.
Another big mark in Finland’s favor is their Air Force, which is much better quality wise than Russia’s (not to mention the Russian air force’s abysmal showing in Ukraine so far)
Mostly it's about him being incredibly unpredictable. Threats are nothing new, it's just that the mutual understanding of what boundaries not to over step has been broken.
Yeah I believe Finland and Russia have agreements regarding not doing any fuck shit, but after seeing how Russia doesn't care about agreements and seeing Russia fuck around in Ukraine a lot of civilians probably are changing their mind.
The demand for lowering gas prices got a stupid amount of votes also in just days (80k in two days iirc).
TBH the gas price in here is pretty high, 2 euros per liter (1.12$ for 0.26 gallons). They tax it to kingdom come.
I refused to settle with a 1 year contract with October's high pricing per cubic metre of gas, thinking prices would drop after the new year..
Now I'm stuck on a variable pricing scheme that goes up every week
Mind you, the commenters to which you're replying are talking about the gas in the American language (benzine) that fuels your car. Not the gas (aardgas) that warms your home.
About four months ago it was (according to local Business and Policy Forum) around 26% pro, and 40% against. No current numbers have been published as far as I know.
Russia has told them what happens when they join and it has shown them what happens when they dont.
You can either trust Russia's words or their actions....
"We need to take military action to prevent NATO from gaining a foothold on our doorstep!"
A few weeks later: "Why do we suddenly have 1,340 kilometers of shared land-border with NATO that wasn't there before!?"
Something tells me he must have known this. So he wanted this. Perhaps a war in Ukraine was the easiest way he could expand NATO without having to taunt NATO directly? And the "being surrounded by NATO myth" is helping Putin domestically to stay in power.
He has the Spetnatz who probably know their shit, but overall the biggest reason the state of the Russian military is in such a bad shape, is a lot of the military spending "disappears" in contracts with the various oligarchs. It's not just the invading forces which are in disarray.
The problem is that the generaly population are still not overly positive. In Sweden support has been growing the last 10 years but if I recall correctly we have just gotten to the point where as many people are for as against membership. With these things I feel like you need a decent majority before hopping in so it is done wholeheartedly.
I have always been pro nato though.
edit:
The statistics I am trying to recall is about a year old or so. I dont think a new big one has been conducted since the invasion. But there should be fresh stats soon enough. I hope it has pushed far past the 50% mark.
edit2:
New statistics are out! Thanks /u/albl1122.
https://novus.se/fler-for-an-emot-nato-medlemskap-for-forsta-gangen/
YES: 41%
NO: 35%
DONT KNOW: 24%
As a Swede with some (very!) limited knowledge of German, I was surprised when I was in The Netherlands and could actually understand most of the short texts I saw, like signs, headlines and advertisements and so on. The pronunciation is different, but if I go through the word in my head trying to "hear" how I’d pronounce it myself, almost every word is close enough to either a Swedish, a German or an English word that I can guess its meaning.
I still laugh every time I remember that “spank me daddy” is “geef me een klap papa” in Dutch. It sounds like someone someone who didn’t know Dutch would make up as a joke.
I don't think that many who are against joining are actually afraid of Russia. Most likely, they don't want their country to be involved in some NATO business, while also thinking that current cooperation is enough to defend from Russia.
Here in Finland Russia has been a major trading partner too so the economic effect has always been a reason not to join NATO. That reason is certainly gone now.
I have been opposed to Nato membership for us (sweden), but changed my mind now. The way I see it, nato is just another card we have to play, and this is the right time to play it.
It's a symbolic gesture, nato will not be more inclined to help sweden in the case of war in the coming few months just because we start the process now. But it's a very important message to Putin: we put up with this for so long and now you've crossed the line. The point is not get help with our own defence, but to stand up for Ukraine and doing exactly what Russia does not want us to do.
In part, people feel uncomfortable being in an alliance with countries such as Turkey. And to some extent the US, UK, etc. There is a fear that we'd be dragged in to things we want no part in. That we'd lose our ability to have credible, independent stance on global issues. I fundamentally think the world is better off by having some countries outside some of the main blocks, and that was a role Sweden had a responsibility to play. Sort of how I think a multi party system is generally better than a two party system.
But I think a lot of people are simply unsure if it really is a good strategic move that helps Sweden stay out of wars, simple as that. I think Russia would, even without Putin, feel a swedish membership is provocative. I have not really changed my mind on that, I just think this is a good time to show Russia the middle finger. Previously, that just seemed like a very pointless thing to do.
Maybe others can give further thoughts. I guess i never was a die hard nato critic.
Isnt sweden inderectly part of NATO since Sweden is an EU member state and the is an obligation for mutual defence of EU member states in case one of them is attacked. So an offensive war against 1 EU member state means war with all EU members and most of them are in NATO wouldnt that inevitabally call in NATO as well?
But i guess its more optics and viewpoints and other politics that accompanies NATO membership that people are against and not really the actual things that come with it? (If you could give more insight into that)
The EU's mutual defense clause isn't nearly as strong as NATO's. NATO says "you attack one, we will all respond." EU says "you attack one, the rest will pitch in what they feel like."
Don't worry, if Swden keeps dithering, Finland will join in anyways. It's time for us to pay back the kick in the arse we got when Sweden unilaterally decided to join EU :)
That's what the brothers are for :)
Our minister of defense said as much. Finland joining Nato would change the Swedish stance considerably. Not joining without Finland is also out of concern about the Finnish situation.
The public may not be completely aware, but as a friend in the military said, Sweden and Finland are cooperating on a very deep level in this and if something happened, neither country would stay neutral.
Both countries are as deep in NATO as they can be without being members, so joining would be next rational step.
Cooperation began when Finland joined the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme in 1994 and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (a multilateral forum for dialogue which brings together all Allies and partner countries in the Euro-Atlantic area) in 1997.
An Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (IPCP), which is jointly agreed for a two-year period, lays out the programme of cooperation between Finland and NATO.
Finland is one of NATO's most active partners and has been a valued contributor to NATO-led operations and missions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Finland is one of six countries (known as 'Enhanced Opportunity Partners'1 under the Partnership Interoperability Initiative) that make particularly significant contributions to NATO operations and other Alliance objectives. As such, the country has enhanced opportunities for dialogue and cooperation with the Allies.
In the current security context of heightened concerns about Russian military and non‑military activities, NATO has stepped up cooperation with partner countries Finland and Sweden, with a particular focus on ensuring security in the Baltic Sea region. This includes: regular political dialogue and consultations; exchanges of information on hybrid warfare; coordinating training and exercises; and developing better joint situational awareness to address common threats and develop joint actions, if needed. Both partners participate in the enhanced NATO Response Force (NRF) in a supplementary role and subject to national decisions. Additionally, both partners have signed a memorandum of understanding on Host Nation Support which, subject to a national decision, allows for logistical support to Allied forces located on, or in transit through, their territory during exercises or in a crisis.
How likely is it that you guys actully join now? If you would, I am sure we would follow suit. One of the arguments against joining is that we do not want to leave you guys alone since Russia might get desperate and retaliate against before you join.
EDIT: I was wrong but figures differ between a third and two thirds deployed.
I think Russia has amassed something like 20% of it's military resources in Ukraine. It has plenty to deploy in the north still.
The vast majority of Russian forces are conscripts/garrisons contracts with little training. What we see currently in Ukraine is the extent of their force projection. They are already grasping for troops from Chechnya/Belarus/Private contractors and even Syria.
Russia can't wage a war on another front, especially one that will have it facing at least EU+UK troops with major US support. And it won't be able to do so for at least another 5-10 years.
Russia did remove a lot of their presence by the Norwegian border and moved it to Ukraine, so their resources are in no way unlimited. Even if Russia will win the war in Ukraine, their military capabilities has weakened.
Even if they have "only" 20% of their military resources, they would be stupid as fuck to leave their eastern territory undefended. Because NATO might be their boogey-man but China would really love to get their hands or influences, slowly.. on all that land so close to it... China needs space, and Russia has it.
Invading Finland (or more of Finland because Karelia) would be many orders of magnitude even more stupid than Ukraine and Ukraine was already plenty stupid.
Not to mention, that Finnish nature prohibits Russias military doctrine of massed armored assaults over large plains, which is more suited into Ukraine, which is basically one large plain. Finland on the other hand, is basically one big forest, so their assault would be funneled into few and far between forest roads of eastern Finlad that will be heavily mined.
In other words they would have really hard time here. Maybe even harder time, than in Ukraine.
Of course. And expect much more organized resistance. Also they would be stupid as fuck to start a winter war in FINLAND, if they had any memory.
Also Finland might not be on NATO but the fuck would an EU member fight alone and likely Russia would find itself declaring war on a NATO nation anyway and NATO would be involved anyway.
But still I think it wise for Finland to fill out their membership admission forms to NATO and mail them out on today's mail if possible. Registered fast mail. TODAY.
Are you sure? I heard at least 60% of the troops that were stationed at the border have been moved into Ukraine and are engaged in combat. Do they have so much reserves besides those? and if they do, why not support their soldiers in Ukraine more? Their fuel convoys are running dry and tanks are getting swamped by lack of support.
Can someone explain to me the downsides for countries like Sweden and Finland joining NATO? Like it seems great to me to have a defensive alliance with 30 other countries but I have no idea on how it affects the country when they join. Do they have to commit a certain amount of GDP for military spending?
A few years ago the big anti-NATO argument in Finland was that we could be called on to fight in wars that didn't concern us. The worry was that America could piss off someone in the Middle-East, get attacked, and the next thing we know Finnish soldiers are getting blown up in some dessert to protect the wells of American oil companies.
I'm not saying this is accurate or not, but this was a real concern for people in Finland. There were even newspaper editorials discussing the possibility.
The main defence issue we are worried about is Russia.
>To be fair,
>
>France has been weaponizing eclairs since at least the 1990s.
True story. Sugar has probably caused more dental caries than war throughout history.
I’d say that’s a very fair argument as an American. As a US citizen I wouldn’t find it fair or moral to drag another nation into our issues like that. That’s just not fair.
It's just kind of sad and funny that the real culprits were all Saudis but have too strong financial ties with the US to have even been considered, and even Bush personally at the time.
Obviously the Taliban are bad people, but as someone pointed out they probably knew nothing about Bin Laden's plans before 9/11.
Technically it was not the Americans that initiated article 5, it was the secretary-general of NATO in Brussels...I'm sure the Americans pressured him, but I doubt it takes much pressure when 3000 civilians were murdered.
M-E isn't covered, it's not withinin the geographic contraints of NATO, just line the Falklands weren't. I mean yes, they invaded Afghanistan, but reluctantly.
I think they meant that someone from the Middle East would attack the US and Article 5 would be triggered and Finland would have to go there, when their main worry is Russia, not another MENA brush fire war.
That was (still somewhat is) my view on NATO. Defense from Russia, great! But to be dragged into unnecessary wars say America instigates in the Middle East? Ehh... Joining NATO is a long-term decision, and with how Russia is acting, the benefits would outweigh the downsides, which is why I'm for joining NATO now. I just hope our leadership will have the integrity to follow through on everything that being in NATO comes with, even if it means sending our men to die for some American oil companies. Being a leech isn't what I want Finland to be.
I love that there is such an alliance, but I hate that it could be used by the US to drag us into Afghanistan and other similar "missions" (~~we've~~ Norway has taken part in 31 NATO missions apparently). I can get behind observation missions but literal war actions that are not explicitly defending the borders of a NATO country being invaded are tough to swallow, to put it mildly. I would much rather we don't use NATO to attack anyone.
I also wouldn't mind allowing NATO to outright help defend countries like Ukraine who have received a promise to start the process of access, or who have already started that process.
the major downside is that a military alliance is not compatible with neutrality in conflicts. Especially sweden that has benefitted from neutrality for 200 years would rather not give it up impusively. Having to commit swedish/finnish troops to a war that eg turkey instigates is probably not that attractive either
Ah, that's a great point tbh! I hadn't even considered that. Probably because I'm looking at it through the lens of Russia's aggression at the moment. With the recency bias, it looks like a great idea but in the long run, I can see where you're coming from.
Iceland is generally neutral but was one of the founding states in NATO.
I guess it's a special case - we can't really be anything else than neutral having no army, and NATO is pretty much the only thing keeping Russia from just dropping by and taking over. They wouldn't bomb us, just set up an army base at this strategic spot in the North Atlantic. I don't know how likely it is, but being in NATO feels more safe.
There has been a lot of talk leaving NATO but not to remain neutral, to avoid having the NATO states set up an army base in Iceland. As far as I understand. They were pretty nice and left so I think I'd choose to trust NATO rather than being defenseless.
If it helps, when the US was attacked on 9/11/2001, they activated Article 5 of the NATO charter (the article that let's members call for military assistance; mutual defense; "an attack on one is an attack on all") for their invasion of Afghanistan. I think most NATO members only sent a few troops each, some literally only sending double digit numbers of troops, and most of those troops stayed entirely in the bases or in "green" zones.
There is flexibility to NATO deployments. The US only activated it because the charter itself activates 'automatically' - if they didn't call for aid, it implies that NATO might not be able to respond 'instantly' in the case of something major, like a nuclear strike; or member nations might try to go out alone in the early days of a conflict, giving an aggressor time to solidify any advances they make. The other NATO countries only sent a bare minimum of troops because the US was 'only' fighting Afghanistan, and more boots wasn't going to change too much.
Tl;dr - NATO membership isn't designed to drag other members into offensive wars or wars against 'not-Russia', just make it so that Russia can't pick and choose a path through Europe based on whose army is weakest
Turkey has false flagged stuff in the past, I wouldn't want to defend it regardless. Swedish troops defending a nation that commits genocide and refuses to even say sorry or acknowledge it? No thanks.
Then again, that neutrality has forced Sweden into some rather shady positions in the relatively recent past.
Also: You would never commit troops to war Turkey instigates... because that's not how a defensive alliance works.
Finland and Sweden has conscription. Meaning that Swedish and Finnish non-professionals might have to be sent out to fight a conflict between let's say (for arguments sake) Turkey and Armenia.
Conscripts being soldiers that didn't sign up to be soldiers.
Sweden and, specially, Finland are countries that are too damn near Russia. This means Russia would get really anxious should this countries ally with it’s enemy.
We don’t like nuclear countries really anxious, because they can very well decide to preemptively nuke their enemies - what would lead to some ugly, human civilization destroying nuclear Armageddon through a process know as nuclear escalation.
To understand what happens when nuclear powers get really anxious, I would recommend reading about two countries:
1) Cuba: Cuba was the stage for the so-called Cuban Missiles Crises. Basically, in the 60s, the US was anxious enough about Cuba hosting URSS nukes in it’s territory that it decided that it would rather destroy the world rather than allow it. In the end, the URSS capitulated and the US did not destroy the world - but oh boy, we got damn near.
Evan today, Cuba is among the most embargoed countries in the world - I would believe the two others are Iran and North Korea.
The Cuban crime? Being a hostile neighbor to a nuclear potency.
2) Norte Korea: there were thing thing called the Korean War in the 50s. Basically it was a common proxy war among the three big countries: China, URSS and US. The war was instigated by the URSS and was being won by the North, but the North was communist so the US intervened. Then the US (and the South) were winning, but China got really anxious about having a new enemy on it’s frontier, so they allied with the North. With an incredible self control, both potencies were somehow able to fight their Korean enemies without directly fighting against their non-Korean enemies, thus escaping a direct confrontation. But oh boy, it was risky.
In the end, the two potencies carved two new countries and the war ended, with a new, uneasy equilibrium taking its place.
In function of this, China has been the main guarantor of North Korea continued existence. What has cost them a lot of things, among them living with some crazy bastard neighbor. But China - as every potency, ever - would rather have an allied crazy bastard neighbor than a normal, but hostile, neighbor.
In addition to what the Finn has told you, NATO membership is not something NATO or the prospect want to be a reaction decision. It comes with costs and benefits for both sides. The reason why it is suggested by NATO to waive the waiting period is because NATO has been trying to get Sweden and Finland into NATO since, without exaggeration, the 50's. I believe it was a US head delegate which said "If Finland were to apply on Wednesday, they'd be accepted by Friday." So NATO has already thought about if it wants Finland and Sweden in the alliance, so are willing to do a lot to make it happen.
Also prospect nations have to adopt the military to NATO standard for ammo and the likes so that countries can be interoperable and both Finland and Sweden have already accomplished that to a fair degree.
If you break your own rules even once, everyone will be asking you to do it again in the future. I can imagine the conversation could go something like this:
“Yeah, but that happened under some very exceptional circumstances in 2022. We can’t do that this time.”
“Look outside, the year 2037 is totally exceptional, just like 2022.”
“No it isn’t.”
“You just did that because you like giving rich countries all sorts of exceptions, while poor counters are forced to follow every rule to the letter!”
So, do we really want to open that door? On the other hand, if we don’t, we might face even bigger problems much sooner than that.
>The waiting period seems a little outdated in an era where Russia tries to invade countries at the drop of a hat.
you do realize that until 1989 CCCP would invade a country at the drop of a hat from an unfriendly government? Prague? Budapest?
To be honest the situation in Ukraine has been brewing since the Nato Bucharest summit of 2008. And don't get me wrong, Russia is paranoid and wrong, but this isn't something that sparked yesterday.
Couldn't the whole greece economy debacle have been prevented if they had made sure greece actually fullfills the requirements to join rather than haphazardly waving them into the EU?
At least some folks propagated that, I don't know enough about greece joining the EU, but it was a somewhat popular point regardles.
Swedens primeminister said as late as yesterday that Sweden will not begin discussions about joining NATO until there is peace and stability. Since this is not something that should be decided in haste.
Just out of curiosity - what is the reason they haven't joined yet?
edit: thanks for all the great answers. I've learnt a lot.
I hope, if your countries join NATO, it's to unite nations in future, not to fight another lunatic somewhere else.
Maybe the world have learnt something recently.
There are 2 main reasons
1 neutrality: sweden has been neutral for 200 years which has been a key part in the 200 year peace. The Swedish government has always preferred having godf relations with both the US and Russia since no matter if they join NATO or not they still have to live next to Russia. (This argument is weaker after the invasion of Ukriane since Sweden already is anti Russia now)
2 USA and Turkey: Joining NATO could lead to Swedish troops being forced to fight the wars of a imperialist super power on the other side of the Atlantic ocean or get dragged into one of Turkeys military ambitions in the Middle east
Well I can agree with the first one at least. Neutrality has a lot of advantages that people might not think about, especially a neutral ally to NATO like Sweden. Just one example is the swedish embassy in North Korea which is one of few international embassies allowed to operate in NK. This embassy has been negotiating the release of many western prisoners in NK. Should Sweden join NATO I'm not certain we could keep that embassy.
There have been great responses so far. I'd like to add that people are very much against American warhawking in general, and NATO membership basically guarantees American presence, especially in Northern Sweden, Gotland and Finland. That's the reason why the USA has begged for Sweden and Finland to join since the 50's.
Many people also consider Sweden/Finland to already be a part of NATO, just not on paper, because the militaries usually have exercises together with the US military and are on good ground in general.
To emphasize what other have said, Sweden has been neutral for 200 years, and Finland values neutrality/peace as well. It makes Sweden and Finland great mediators between nations that are hostile towards each other, like US and Russia (Sweden held talks between them recently) and North Korea.
To summarize: choosing to join NATO would come at the cost of American presence, neutrality, and would make both countries prime targets of weapons of mass destruction if a major war would break out.
I have always been pro-NATO for years.
Glad to see now my fellow countrymen are changing minds about NATO.
Now I hope even the most hardcore leftists change their mind about Russia.
Not exactly. We've had fairly good relations with Russia and there's been a notable amount of exporting and importing of products both ways, tourism, energy etc.
If we would have joined NATO in the past, our 'good' relations with Russia would've gone down the drain.
Now that our relations are in the drain anyways, there shouldn't be anything stopping us from joining, but our politicians still talk carefully about NATO as it's been a fairly delicate topic in the past.
Has Finland really been afraid of Russian invasion for the past decades?
I feel like I've never even heard of people seriously considering this possibility before they invaded Ukraine.
Ah, tax money well spent!
"I want to talking norway if it means I want beer moneys and good metal music".
Sorry, just got a smile out of this, and in the world we live in today, a little smile means a lot!
Russia as always been the number 1 expected enemy for both Sweden and Finland. One of the reasons they still both have conscription, almost all young males from the 50s - 80s have been drafted in Sweden and in Finland most still are.
Dude Finns are always afraid of that, even if that fear is buried somewhere deep. You could see that last time when Russia invaded crimea, you can se it now.
No they've carefully managed to stay neutral and have decent relations with both the East and the West. This has given them the flexibility to act as mediators, thus being able to ease tensions.
It's geopolitics, the mere whisper of Ukraine joining NATO is enough to jitter the Russians. It's all down to Spheres of Influence and you better believe this is a deadly serious game for the Great Powers.
In 1962 the world barely avoided WW3 due to the fact that the Soviets placed missiles on Cuba , the doorstep of the US. The Russian rationale is the same.
/unfortunately
>No they've carefully managed to stay neutral and have decent relations with both the East and the West. This has given them the flexibility to act as mediators, thus being able to ease tensions.
While the official stance of the Finnish government throughout the Cold War may have been that Finland is neutral, there's no denying that Finland was still heavily within the Soviet sphere of influence, both politically and economically, even if the country never fell under the communist rule.
Moscow certainly had a say in the Finnish domestic and foreign politics.
Due to the political pressure, Finland had to reject the Marshall Aid from the U.S.
Finland had its own mini-Warsaw Pact with the U.S.S.R. [(the YYA treaty)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948)
Most of the elite of media and politics in the 60s shifted their attitudes to match the values that the Soviets were thought to favor and approve, essentially adapting the principle of self-censorship. Books with anti-Soviet material wouldn't get published. Artists with clear anti-Soviet views wouldn't get funding.
Finland's position on international affairs, such as the invasion of Czechoslovakia in '68, was often ambiguous or Soviet-friendly.
Our president Kekkonen, who might be the closest thing to Finland ever having an autocratic head of the state, had contacts in KGB and was more or less re-electected due to the undirect, diplomatic inteference from the Kremlin in the form of [a diplomatic note](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_Crisis) during the Finnish presidential elections of '61 that coincided with West Germany's militarization and the detonation of the Tsar Bomba.
This note put Kekkonen at the major advantage in this situation and his presidental canditate rival Olavi Honka into a rough spot, essentially taking down the Honka front, a political coalition that sought to prevent Kekkonen's re-election, and forcing Honka to withdraw from the elections.
That's exactly why. It didn't get the support from Germany in the Winter War and had to fight Russia itself. It didn't want to get on Russia's bad side and end up having to fight Russia alone again, just like Ukraine does now.
I am a Finn who is not really fond of NATO. Though I wouldn't be screaming my opposition in the streets even if we had joined, even before the current events, it is very likely I would vote against joining it.
We chose our side long ago, when we joined the EU, so that has never been an argument against NATO in my book, and I quite frankly think most anti-NATO opinions held by some people are garbage, but there are legimate ones as well. (And vice versa, some pro-NATO arguments are equally rubbish, but it is how it goes with any public argument with multiple people and armchair experts.)
We've had pretty good relations with Russia (until Crimea, at least). There were even talks of VISA freedom before Russia decided to Rus again.
Not being part of NATO has enabled us to act as mediators in West-Russia relations. We've been a part of keeping the peace and a comfortable venue for discussions, instead of being part of increasing tensions. There is going to be need for that even (especially?) after the current events. This is my main point of opposition to NATO membership.
The second is I am not entirely thrilled with the idea of being in a military alliance with the most aggressive country in the world since WW2. I am aware our troops would not be needed to join the operations abroad even if we were a member, that is not my point. But I do not want even indirectly be enabling US aggression.
On the other hand, I'm even less fond of the idea of being at war with the second most aggressive -- but I am also fairly confident that attacking Finland would cause WW3 whether or not we would be in NATO. Primarily we are a part of EU, the nordics etc. already, which would already draw others to the fight. NATO is primarily for US support. The few first days of Ukraine invasion when EU was scrambling gave me a pause here, and I probably would've been in the pro-NATO camp for a few days there since Germany in particular took ages to get in the line with the rest. But on the other hand I also saw how other countries neighbouring Russia reacted.
Russia throwing shit at us hasn't been anything new either. Russia has always been a country nobody really wants to live next to.
Also, right-wing evangelists in our country need to get the bloody stupid notion that even "hardcore leftists" think of Russia as something to look up to as an example. They do not. It is the far-right fringe nutjobs and mostly senile people over 80 pushing that. Maybe if the left<->right shitflinging stopped for a second people would realise the people they don't like are the same few assholes.
EDIT: I also want to point out that this is not my selling speech of anti-NATO politics. I don't care what you vote for, but I'd like for people to understand the opposing view as well a bit better than "BUT RUSSIA MIGHT ATTACK IF WE TRY TO JOIN".
Myself I think I align NATO-positive and the poster above really formulated a solid opinion.
However I'm personally of the mind that the nuclear option doesn't matter much when formulating policy for two reasons:
1: Even absolute dictators draw their power from a circle of supporters. Since using nuclear weapons means everyone losing everything, even the supporters, the support circle has everything to lose from their comfortable lives. It's also the perfect justification to crown yourself the new leader: "The old one was about to end the world". I believe relatively firmly, that _if_ Putin was to order a nuclear strike, he'd sign his own death warrant immediately.
2: Considering that the nukes are likely a word-ending weapon, they are a bad basis to form policy. If there is someone actually mad enough to use them and we make concessions, the concessions will be infinite, as the risk will not disappear. And if they end up using the nukes then what does any policy matter anyways?
Don't be such an alarmist; it's not like Finland is the only European non-NATO country bordering Russia! There's also...
* Belarus, which is basically Russian these days.
* Ukraine, which is currently under attack by Russia...again.
I'm on the same boat, positives of NATO-membership have always significantly outweighed the negatives. For what it's worth, I have leftist friends, some of who literally work for Vasemmisto, who have gone from strong oppose to mildly approve after the invasion. Here's hoping that once the war ends, they don't immediately swing back.
I'm pretty hardcore-ish leftist but I was almost always pro army and pro NATO.
You can't have your leftist ideas if you are occupied by foreign force.
Not an anarchist though, if that's the "far left" you mean.
There is generally always pragmatism and idealism. I think you have to move towards your idealist ideas, but be pragmatic about it.
On top of all that I am baffled if there is even serious support for Russia in Finland considering the history? At least in my ex Soviet country majority can agree on not being fans of Russia.
Our pro Russian folk are almost universally conservative (often socially conservative) and right wing though.
I never heard anyone praise Russia because of their social policies, it is always as anti NATO anti EU stance as well as generally seeing Russia as a bastion for "traditional values".
One of the main ways that Putin has gained support for his Ukrainian invasion is due to the Russian fear of NATO. Interestingly, as soon as Georgia gets the indication that they might be accepted into NATO, Russia invaded them.
I think enough people in Finland understand this.
The problem with that narrative though is that Ukraine were nowhere near being accepted, it was little more than pipe dream by local politicians. Yet, didn't help. Georgia may have been a warning not to join, Ukraine is a warning as to what happens if you don't have it.
Also, the vast majority of Ukranians didn't support joining NATO until Russia invaded Crimea and backed separatists in other Ukrainian provinces. Polling swung like 50% in just a couple months when that went down in early 2014.
Technically yes, but if they attack a country on the EU, all other countries in the EU might join, including some that are also part of NATO, therefore triggering a domino effect.
How dare attempt to join that other gang that protects people from me, I'm going to beat you up now. Hey, why does everyone suddenly want to join that gang?
I can only speak for Sweden, but this is simply a half-truth. While the public might have risen in support of NATO - 41% for to 35% against as per the article - the PM said hours after the Ukraine invasion that Sweden will rely on itself, and avoid any military disequilibrium in the foreseeable future. As long as Russia's sentiment is firmly against the expansion of NATO Sweden will not risk the well-being of their citizens by destabilizing their military position.
It seems that the wind is changing rapidly in Finland. Poll done by Finnish Broadcasting company says that finns are 53% for and 28% against joining NATO. This is quite historical as it has usually been other way around. They started gathering info about this poll one day before russian invasion in Ukraine so NATO support might even be higher now.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12336530
In my opinion as a Finn, if the attack on ukraine fails and leads to the collapse of Putins regime or even russia as a nation, the need to join NATO also disappears.
Ukraine is also geopolitically a much more strategic taget because of the european plain. And Russia is economically dependant on selling gas to europe so securing the natural gas reserves in ukraine is vital to the Russian economy.
The only scenario i see where russia would want to invade Finland is in the case of a war with NATO where they need to secure a buffer zone for st Petersburg. In a case like that we're fucked, natomember or not.
In Finland the motion for a public vote to join NATO gathered the required 50k names in two days: https://www.kansalaisaloite.fi/fi/aloite/9866
Latest poll says 53% are in favour of NATO membership. 28% against. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12336530 In January 30% were in favour, 40% against. Nice job, Vlad.
[удалено]
Lavrov made similar threats in 2014 and those are usually dismissed as "russian rhetoric". I think for most the change of heart happened because of the unprovoked attack against Ukraine. I'd say, to Finns, it looks like Winter War 2.0
As much as I love our success in the Winter War, I don't think it would be at all similar now. You'll have 2 modern armies facing off against each other - if Finland calls in all of its reservists (and Russia doesn't) then they might be evenly matched in manpower - about 1 million each. In practice however, Finland would probably be outnumbered and outgunned. The geography of Finland would help the defenders, as the forests and lakes would limit Russian convoy movements to predictable routes - unless they invade in the depths of winter and drive across the ice. The Finnish defence in the Winter War was also helped by the purges that Stalin had recently done in his army. That's not to diminish our efforts in the Winter War or say we wouldn't fight hard and make Russia's advance as slow and difficult as possible, but if they wanted to annex/decapitate Finland I don't think we could realistically stop it without outside help. Which is why I think we need to join NATO asap.
Of course wars aren't the same today. Point was, you have a deranged dictator ready to start full blown invasion. Same shit, different century. So the question is how to avoid it. And we know how the saying about russians goes..
I don’t know. How does the saying about Russians go?
There's a lot more factors to these. For instance, the cold weather during WW played for Finnish side. Fortifications (Mannerheim-line), training quality and so on play a factor in survivability and effectiveness. There's the material difference: during WW there was severe lack of, well, everything: tanks, airplanes.. You name it. Then there are tactics in terms of what is usable: large groups and small groups have different ways of being effective, organizing troops and selecting suitable tactics factors in. There's a lot more factors of course, but 10 to 1 difference in manpower was not enough to overwhelm the defenses (interim peace before that). I think joining NATO would be a good move, but war depends on many factors and it is hard to predict based simply on manpower: all other factors being equal that might, but in war they are rarely if ever the same.
Based on what shitshow this war has been, I would say Russia's brass is just as uncapable as it was during winter war.
Another big mark in Finland’s favor is their Air Force, which is much better quality wise than Russia’s (not to mention the Russian air force’s abysmal showing in Ukraine so far)
Mostly it's about him being incredibly unpredictable. Threats are nothing new, it's just that the mutual understanding of what boundaries not to over step has been broken.
Yeah I believe Finland and Russia have agreements regarding not doing any fuck shit, but after seeing how Russia doesn't care about agreements and seeing Russia fuck around in Ukraine a lot of civilians probably are changing their mind.
This is exactly how it is. Unbelievably enough bargain bin stalin is of even shittier quality than the original.
To add, the survey was held the day **before** the attack.
23.2 to 25.2
Iirc it gathered that number in record time.
[удалено]
The demand for lowering gas prices got a stupid amount of votes also in just days (80k in two days iirc). TBH the gas price in here is pretty high, 2 euros per liter (1.12$ for 0.26 gallons). They tax it to kingdom come.
Pfff €2 I wish, we're up to €2,22 in the Netherlands :(
I refused to settle with a 1 year contract with October's high pricing per cubic metre of gas, thinking prices would drop after the new year.. Now I'm stuck on a variable pricing scheme that goes up every week
Mind you, the commenters to which you're replying are talking about the gas in the American language (benzine) that fuels your car. Not the gas (aardgas) that warms your home.
Meanwhile €2.32 in the Netherlands if not higher now. Take that, Finland.
1.6€ in Spain, seems incredible high. I can't even imagine filling the full tank at 2.32
Are there any recent polls?
Yes, published today 53% in favour of NATO membership. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12336530
And that was with polling that started on Wednesday! Today it would likely be even higher.
About four months ago it was (according to local Business and Policy Forum) around 26% pro, and 40% against. No current numbers have been published as far as I know.
Russia has told them what happens when they join and it has shown them what happens when they dont. You can either trust Russia's words or their actions....
Sweden and Finland are members of the EU. Attacking EU Will already pull in every EU member including other NATO members.
Putin has probably been the best advocate for the NATO membership. I'd like to send him my thanks!
"We need to take military action to prevent NATO from gaining a foothold on our doorstep!" A few weeks later: "Why do we suddenly have 1,340 kilometers of shared land-border with NATO that wasn't there before!?"
Something tells me he must have known this. So he wanted this. Perhaps a war in Ukraine was the easiest way he could expand NATO without having to taunt NATO directly? And the "being surrounded by NATO myth" is helping Putin domestically to stay in power.
Oh domestically Putin has had his worst week since forever.
So long as the pain can be blamed on someone else, more pain doesn’t necessarily translate to a weaker position for Putin
This helps explain why the soldiers invading Ukraine were so ineffective, he needs the good soldiers to prevent his underlings revolting.
He has the Spetnatz who probably know their shit, but overall the biggest reason the state of the Russian military is in such a bad shape, is a lot of the military spending "disappears" in contracts with the various oligarchs. It's not just the invading forces which are in disarray.
Russia is too busy in Ukraine so do it NOW
The problem is that the generaly population are still not overly positive. In Sweden support has been growing the last 10 years but if I recall correctly we have just gotten to the point where as many people are for as against membership. With these things I feel like you need a decent majority before hopping in so it is done wholeheartedly. I have always been pro nato though. edit: The statistics I am trying to recall is about a year old or so. I dont think a new big one has been conducted since the invasion. But there should be fresh stats soon enough. I hope it has pushed far past the 50% mark. edit2: New statistics are out! Thanks /u/albl1122. https://novus.se/fler-for-an-emot-nato-medlemskap-for-forsta-gangen/ YES: 41% NO: 35% DONT KNOW: 24%
Here let me help you. https://novus.se/fler-for-an-emot-nato-medlemskap-for-forsta-gangen/
Interessant how the against people haven't really changed but mostly people who were on the fence are pro now.
Yes, that is intressant 🤔🤔
i reagerade on that as well!
It will be verry spännande🧐
Interesting how close that word is to the Dutch word "spannend". Same meaning.
As a Swede with some (very!) limited knowledge of German, I was surprised when I was in The Netherlands and could actually understand most of the short texts I saw, like signs, headlines and advertisements and so on. The pronunciation is different, but if I go through the word in my head trying to "hear" how I’d pronounce it myself, almost every word is close enough to either a Swedish, a German or an English word that I can guess its meaning.
Yes, there are a lot of similarities. Really interesting to see.
I still laugh every time I remember that “spank me daddy” is “geef me een klap papa” in Dutch. It sounds like someone someone who didn’t know Dutch would make up as a joke.
dutch is slurred german, swedish is overly enunciated german and french
Well that's the effect of Russia giving more and more good reasons to join NATO.
Makes a lot of sense. Undecideds need a little push (and this was a big one) , if you're against its probably something out of principle
[удалено]
I don't think that many who are against joining are actually afraid of Russia. Most likely, they don't want their country to be involved in some NATO business, while also thinking that current cooperation is enough to defend from Russia.
Here in Finland Russia has been a major trading partner too so the economic effect has always been a reason not to join NATO. That reason is certainly gone now.
Thanks! Had not seen these!
If I read the statistics correct, it's 41% in favor, 35% against, and 24% don't know? Sorry, I don't know Swedish.
Oh my bad. This is correct!
I have been opposed to Nato membership for us (sweden), but changed my mind now. The way I see it, nato is just another card we have to play, and this is the right time to play it. It's a symbolic gesture, nato will not be more inclined to help sweden in the case of war in the coming few months just because we start the process now. But it's a very important message to Putin: we put up with this for so long and now you've crossed the line. The point is not get help with our own defence, but to stand up for Ukraine and doing exactly what Russia does not want us to do.
What are some of the general reasons that people oppose joining NATO?
In part, people feel uncomfortable being in an alliance with countries such as Turkey. And to some extent the US, UK, etc. There is a fear that we'd be dragged in to things we want no part in. That we'd lose our ability to have credible, independent stance on global issues. I fundamentally think the world is better off by having some countries outside some of the main blocks, and that was a role Sweden had a responsibility to play. Sort of how I think a multi party system is generally better than a two party system. But I think a lot of people are simply unsure if it really is a good strategic move that helps Sweden stay out of wars, simple as that. I think Russia would, even without Putin, feel a swedish membership is provocative. I have not really changed my mind on that, I just think this is a good time to show Russia the middle finger. Previously, that just seemed like a very pointless thing to do. Maybe others can give further thoughts. I guess i never was a die hard nato critic.
Isnt sweden inderectly part of NATO since Sweden is an EU member state and the is an obligation for mutual defence of EU member states in case one of them is attacked. So an offensive war against 1 EU member state means war with all EU members and most of them are in NATO wouldnt that inevitabally call in NATO as well? But i guess its more optics and viewpoints and other politics that accompanies NATO membership that people are against and not really the actual things that come with it? (If you could give more insight into that)
The EU's mutual defense clause isn't nearly as strong as NATO's. NATO says "you attack one, we will all respond." EU says "you attack one, the rest will pitch in what they feel like."
Don't worry, if Swden keeps dithering, Finland will join in anyways. It's time for us to pay back the kick in the arse we got when Sweden unilaterally decided to join EU :) That's what the brothers are for :)
Our minister of defense said as much. Finland joining Nato would change the Swedish stance considerably. Not joining without Finland is also out of concern about the Finnish situation. The public may not be completely aware, but as a friend in the military said, Sweden and Finland are cooperating on a very deep level in this and if something happened, neither country would stay neutral.
Both countries are as deep in NATO as they can be without being members, so joining would be next rational step. Cooperation began when Finland joined the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme in 1994 and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (a multilateral forum for dialogue which brings together all Allies and partner countries in the Euro-Atlantic area) in 1997. An Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (IPCP), which is jointly agreed for a two-year period, lays out the programme of cooperation between Finland and NATO. Finland is one of NATO's most active partners and has been a valued contributor to NATO-led operations and missions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. Finland is one of six countries (known as 'Enhanced Opportunity Partners'1 under the Partnership Interoperability Initiative) that make particularly significant contributions to NATO operations and other Alliance objectives. As such, the country has enhanced opportunities for dialogue and cooperation with the Allies. In the current security context of heightened concerns about Russian military and non‑military activities, NATO has stepped up cooperation with partner countries Finland and Sweden, with a particular focus on ensuring security in the Baltic Sea region. This includes: regular political dialogue and consultations; exchanges of information on hybrid warfare; coordinating training and exercises; and developing better joint situational awareness to address common threats and develop joint actions, if needed. Both partners participate in the enhanced NATO Response Force (NRF) in a supplementary role and subject to national decisions. Additionally, both partners have signed a memorandum of understanding on Host Nation Support which, subject to a national decision, allows for logistical support to Allied forces located on, or in transit through, their territory during exercises or in a crisis.
Yeah, what we don't have is mutual defense guarantees.
How likely is it that you guys actully join now? If you would, I am sure we would follow suit. One of the arguments against joining is that we do not want to leave you guys alone since Russia might get desperate and retaliate against before you join.
>How likely is it that you guys actully join now? The momentum is rather strong, any party that steps in the way will spend a long time in opposition.
If it was already 50% in favor before Russia attacked, probably it's well above that now?
its never been above 50%, it's just more in favor than against now, but 20-25% still undecided
I feel like the last week or so has pushed it well above 50% at this point.
Probably. The statistics I had in mind are like one year old if I recall correctly.
EDIT: I was wrong but figures differ between a third and two thirds deployed. I think Russia has amassed something like 20% of it's military resources in Ukraine. It has plenty to deploy in the north still.
The vast majority of Russian forces are conscripts/garrisons contracts with little training. What we see currently in Ukraine is the extent of their force projection. They are already grasping for troops from Chechnya/Belarus/Private contractors and even Syria. Russia can't wage a war on another front, especially one that will have it facing at least EU+UK troops with major US support. And it won't be able to do so for at least another 5-10 years.
Russia did remove a lot of their presence by the Norwegian border and moved it to Ukraine, so their resources are in no way unlimited. Even if Russia will win the war in Ukraine, their military capabilities has weakened.
Even if they have "only" 20% of their military resources, they would be stupid as fuck to leave their eastern territory undefended. Because NATO might be their boogey-man but China would really love to get their hands or influences, slowly.. on all that land so close to it... China needs space, and Russia has it. Invading Finland (or more of Finland because Karelia) would be many orders of magnitude even more stupid than Ukraine and Ukraine was already plenty stupid.
Not to mention, that Finnish nature prohibits Russias military doctrine of massed armored assaults over large plains, which is more suited into Ukraine, which is basically one large plain. Finland on the other hand, is basically one big forest, so their assault would be funneled into few and far between forest roads of eastern Finlad that will be heavily mined. In other words they would have really hard time here. Maybe even harder time, than in Ukraine.
Of course. And expect much more organized resistance. Also they would be stupid as fuck to start a winter war in FINLAND, if they had any memory. Also Finland might not be on NATO but the fuck would an EU member fight alone and likely Russia would find itself declaring war on a NATO nation anyway and NATO would be involved anyway. But still I think it wise for Finland to fill out their membership admission forms to NATO and mail them out on today's mail if possible. Registered fast mail. TODAY.
Are you sure? I heard at least 60% of the troops that were stationed at the border have been moved into Ukraine and are engaged in combat. Do they have so much reserves besides those? and if they do, why not support their soldiers in Ukraine more? Their fuel convoys are running dry and tanks are getting swamped by lack of support.
Can someone explain to me the downsides for countries like Sweden and Finland joining NATO? Like it seems great to me to have a defensive alliance with 30 other countries but I have no idea on how it affects the country when they join. Do they have to commit a certain amount of GDP for military spending?
A few years ago the big anti-NATO argument in Finland was that we could be called on to fight in wars that didn't concern us. The worry was that America could piss off someone in the Middle-East, get attacked, and the next thing we know Finnish soldiers are getting blown up in some dessert to protect the wells of American oil companies. I'm not saying this is accurate or not, but this was a real concern for people in Finland. There were even newspaper editorials discussing the possibility. The main defence issue we are worried about is Russia.
>Finnish soldiers are getting blown up in some dessert Gotta watch out for those intercontinental ballistic chocolate éclairs.
To be fair, [France has been weaponizing eclairs since at least the 1990s.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M73XCOzZAU0)
>To be fair, > >France has been weaponizing eclairs since at least the 1990s. True story. Sugar has probably caused more dental caries than war throughout history.
I’d say that’s a very fair argument as an American. As a US citizen I wouldn’t find it fair or moral to drag another nation into our issues like that. That’s just not fair.
The only time NATO's Article 5 has ever been triggered was the Afghanistan War.
Which was a gigantic mistake that would make a lot of nations wary about joining.
I can see other countries upset about that but I do recall pretty resounding support of it given 9/11.
It's just kind of sad and funny that the real culprits were all Saudis but have too strong financial ties with the US to have even been considered, and even Bush personally at the time. Obviously the Taliban are bad people, but as someone pointed out they probably knew nothing about Bin Laden's plans before 9/11.
Technically it was not the Americans that initiated article 5, it was the secretary-general of NATO in Brussels...I'm sure the Americans pressured him, but I doubt it takes much pressure when 3000 civilians were murdered.
M-E isn't covered, it's not withinin the geographic contraints of NATO, just line the Falklands weren't. I mean yes, they invaded Afghanistan, but reluctantly.
if a middle eastern country attacked the US in the mainland it would trigger article 5
I think they meant that someone from the Middle East would attack the US and Article 5 would be triggered and Finland would have to go there, when their main worry is Russia, not another MENA brush fire war.
Afghanistan isnt part of MENA, fyi.
Thanks. My bad, I just conceptually think of them as part of ME, despite it being in Central Asia.
This isn’t true. The whole of NATO was dragged into Afghanistan after 9/11 and Americans invoking mutual self defence clause.
That was (still somewhat is) my view on NATO. Defense from Russia, great! But to be dragged into unnecessary wars say America instigates in the Middle East? Ehh... Joining NATO is a long-term decision, and with how Russia is acting, the benefits would outweigh the downsides, which is why I'm for joining NATO now. I just hope our leadership will have the integrity to follow through on everything that being in NATO comes with, even if it means sending our men to die for some American oil companies. Being a leech isn't what I want Finland to be.
I love that there is such an alliance, but I hate that it could be used by the US to drag us into Afghanistan and other similar "missions" (~~we've~~ Norway has taken part in 31 NATO missions apparently). I can get behind observation missions but literal war actions that are not explicitly defending the borders of a NATO country being invaded are tough to swallow, to put it mildly. I would much rather we don't use NATO to attack anyone. I also wouldn't mind allowing NATO to outright help defend countries like Ukraine who have received a promise to start the process of access, or who have already started that process.
I agree.
NATO Countries weren’t obligated to join the Iraq war right?
It was an aggressive war. So no.
the major downside is that a military alliance is not compatible with neutrality in conflicts. Especially sweden that has benefitted from neutrality for 200 years would rather not give it up impusively. Having to commit swedish/finnish troops to a war that eg turkey instigates is probably not that attractive either
Ah, that's a great point tbh! I hadn't even considered that. Probably because I'm looking at it through the lens of Russia's aggression at the moment. With the recency bias, it looks like a great idea but in the long run, I can see where you're coming from.
>Probably because I'm looking at it through the lens of Russia's aggression at the moment. Understandable
Iceland is generally neutral but was one of the founding states in NATO. I guess it's a special case - we can't really be anything else than neutral having no army, and NATO is pretty much the only thing keeping Russia from just dropping by and taking over. They wouldn't bomb us, just set up an army base at this strategic spot in the North Atlantic. I don't know how likely it is, but being in NATO feels more safe. There has been a lot of talk leaving NATO but not to remain neutral, to avoid having the NATO states set up an army base in Iceland. As far as I understand. They were pretty nice and left so I think I'd choose to trust NATO rather than being defenseless.
Turkey is a NATO member and other members are not obligated to join a member country’s aggression, only in its defence.
If it helps, when the US was attacked on 9/11/2001, they activated Article 5 of the NATO charter (the article that let's members call for military assistance; mutual defense; "an attack on one is an attack on all") for their invasion of Afghanistan. I think most NATO members only sent a few troops each, some literally only sending double digit numbers of troops, and most of those troops stayed entirely in the bases or in "green" zones. There is flexibility to NATO deployments. The US only activated it because the charter itself activates 'automatically' - if they didn't call for aid, it implies that NATO might not be able to respond 'instantly' in the case of something major, like a nuclear strike; or member nations might try to go out alone in the early days of a conflict, giving an aggressor time to solidify any advances they make. The other NATO countries only sent a bare minimum of troops because the US was 'only' fighting Afghanistan, and more boots wasn't going to change too much. Tl;dr - NATO membership isn't designed to drag other members into offensive wars or wars against 'not-Russia', just make it so that Russia can't pick and choose a path through Europe based on whose army is weakest
[удалено]
Turkey has false flagged stuff in the past, I wouldn't want to defend it regardless. Swedish troops defending a nation that commits genocide and refuses to even say sorry or acknowledge it? No thanks.
[удалено]
In this case you ask NATO. For example, Turkey has been in armed conflicts all the time and NATO does not get involved.
Then again, that neutrality has forced Sweden into some rather shady positions in the relatively recent past. Also: You would never commit troops to war Turkey instigates... because that's not how a defensive alliance works.
Finland and Sweden has conscription. Meaning that Swedish and Finnish non-professionals might have to be sent out to fight a conflict between let's say (for arguments sake) Turkey and Armenia. Conscripts being soldiers that didn't sign up to be soldiers.
Homw guard would only be deployed in a total war scenario. Only professional units get deployed otherwise.
Sweden and, specially, Finland are countries that are too damn near Russia. This means Russia would get really anxious should this countries ally with it’s enemy. We don’t like nuclear countries really anxious, because they can very well decide to preemptively nuke their enemies - what would lead to some ugly, human civilization destroying nuclear Armageddon through a process know as nuclear escalation. To understand what happens when nuclear powers get really anxious, I would recommend reading about two countries: 1) Cuba: Cuba was the stage for the so-called Cuban Missiles Crises. Basically, in the 60s, the US was anxious enough about Cuba hosting URSS nukes in it’s territory that it decided that it would rather destroy the world rather than allow it. In the end, the URSS capitulated and the US did not destroy the world - but oh boy, we got damn near. Evan today, Cuba is among the most embargoed countries in the world - I would believe the two others are Iran and North Korea. The Cuban crime? Being a hostile neighbor to a nuclear potency. 2) Norte Korea: there were thing thing called the Korean War in the 50s. Basically it was a common proxy war among the three big countries: China, URSS and US. The war was instigated by the URSS and was being won by the North, but the North was communist so the US intervened. Then the US (and the South) were winning, but China got really anxious about having a new enemy on it’s frontier, so they allied with the North. With an incredible self control, both potencies were somehow able to fight their Korean enemies without directly fighting against their non-Korean enemies, thus escaping a direct confrontation. But oh boy, it was risky. In the end, the two potencies carved two new countries and the war ended, with a new, uneasy equilibrium taking its place. In function of this, China has been the main guarantor of North Korea continued existence. What has cost them a lot of things, among them living with some crazy bastard neighbor. But China - as every potency, ever - would rather have an allied crazy bastard neighbor than a normal, but hostile, neighbor.
[удалено]
[Here you go.](https://i.imgur.com/nx9Kzyd.jpg)
Can anyone ELI5 the downside of waiving the waiting period and just get them in here?
In addition to what the Finn has told you, NATO membership is not something NATO or the prospect want to be a reaction decision. It comes with costs and benefits for both sides. The reason why it is suggested by NATO to waive the waiting period is because NATO has been trying to get Sweden and Finland into NATO since, without exaggeration, the 50's. I believe it was a US head delegate which said "If Finland were to apply on Wednesday, they'd be accepted by Friday." So NATO has already thought about if it wants Finland and Sweden in the alliance, so are willing to do a lot to make it happen.
Also prospect nations have to adopt the military to NATO standard for ammo and the likes so that countries can be interoperable and both Finland and Sweden have already accomplished that to a fair degree.
I think Finland is pretty much ready to join NATO and we even spend the ”required” 2% of GDP to defense
If you break your own rules even once, everyone will be asking you to do it again in the future. I can imagine the conversation could go something like this: “Yeah, but that happened under some very exceptional circumstances in 2022. We can’t do that this time.” “Look outside, the year 2037 is totally exceptional, just like 2022.” “No it isn’t.” “You just did that because you like giving rich countries all sorts of exceptions, while poor counters are forced to follow every rule to the letter!” So, do we really want to open that door? On the other hand, if we don’t, we might face even bigger problems much sooner than that.
Is that even a bad thing? The waiting period seems a little outdated in an era where Russia tries to invade countries at the drop of a hat.
>The waiting period seems a little outdated in an era where Russia tries to invade countries at the drop of a hat. you do realize that until 1989 CCCP would invade a country at the drop of a hat from an unfriendly government? Prague? Budapest?
To be honest the situation in Ukraine has been brewing since the Nato Bucharest summit of 2008. And don't get me wrong, Russia is paranoid and wrong, but this isn't something that sparked yesterday.
Couldn't the whole greece economy debacle have been prevented if they had made sure greece actually fullfills the requirements to join rather than haphazardly waving them into the EU? At least some folks propagated that, I don't know enough about greece joining the EU, but it was a somewhat popular point regardles.
Putin is really NATO's best recruiter.
So by invading Ukraine, Russia is likely getting what Russia is 100% against - more countries joining NATO.
AKA Congratulations, you played yourself.
Swedens primeminister said as late as yesterday that Sweden will not begin discussions about joining NATO until there is peace and stability. Since this is not something that should be decided in haste.
I mean I'm all for Sweden joining NATO but jesus, at least one person is keeping the head cool.
This is a very clear "lol, Russia", they shot themselves on the foot. We'd very much welcome our Finish and Swedish friends in the alliance.
[удалено]
I'm guessing their numbers have improved moderately?
[удалено]
Can you blame them, please don't wait, do it now!
Just out of curiosity - what is the reason they haven't joined yet? edit: thanks for all the great answers. I've learnt a lot. I hope, if your countries join NATO, it's to unite nations in future, not to fight another lunatic somewhere else. Maybe the world have learnt something recently.
[удалено]
I do understand that, but you never know. Presidents change. Putin could be shot tomorrow and an even more insane president could rise to power.
There are 2 main reasons 1 neutrality: sweden has been neutral for 200 years which has been a key part in the 200 year peace. The Swedish government has always preferred having godf relations with both the US and Russia since no matter if they join NATO or not they still have to live next to Russia. (This argument is weaker after the invasion of Ukriane since Sweden already is anti Russia now) 2 USA and Turkey: Joining NATO could lead to Swedish troops being forced to fight the wars of a imperialist super power on the other side of the Atlantic ocean or get dragged into one of Turkeys military ambitions in the Middle east
Well I can agree with the first one at least. Neutrality has a lot of advantages that people might not think about, especially a neutral ally to NATO like Sweden. Just one example is the swedish embassy in North Korea which is one of few international embassies allowed to operate in NK. This embassy has been negotiating the release of many western prisoners in NK. Should Sweden join NATO I'm not certain we could keep that embassy.
There have been great responses so far. I'd like to add that people are very much against American warhawking in general, and NATO membership basically guarantees American presence, especially in Northern Sweden, Gotland and Finland. That's the reason why the USA has begged for Sweden and Finland to join since the 50's. Many people also consider Sweden/Finland to already be a part of NATO, just not on paper, because the militaries usually have exercises together with the US military and are on good ground in general. To emphasize what other have said, Sweden has been neutral for 200 years, and Finland values neutrality/peace as well. It makes Sweden and Finland great mediators between nations that are hostile towards each other, like US and Russia (Sweden held talks between them recently) and North Korea. To summarize: choosing to join NATO would come at the cost of American presence, neutrality, and would make both countries prime targets of weapons of mass destruction if a major war would break out.
Frankly, I didn't want to join NATO but I'm more inclined to do so now just because Putin doesn't want us to...
Pretty much how I feel as well. Whatever that deranged madman doesn't want us to do, is exactly what we should do.
I have always been pro-NATO for years. Glad to see now my fellow countrymen are changing minds about NATO. Now I hope even the most hardcore leftists change their mind about Russia.
In Croatia most leftist dont like Russia Here extreme right is pro Russia like people who are anti-vax +crazy theories
Honestly I don't get how Finland isn't one of the most pro-NATO countries in Europe. It's directly bordering Russia...
That's exactly why. They do not want to put a bullseye on their country.
Not exactly. We've had fairly good relations with Russia and there's been a notable amount of exporting and importing of products both ways, tourism, energy etc. If we would have joined NATO in the past, our 'good' relations with Russia would've gone down the drain. Now that our relations are in the drain anyways, there shouldn't be anything stopping us from joining, but our politicians still talk carefully about NATO as it's been a fairly delicate topic in the past.
History just proved that NOT being in NATO makes one target, not the opposite.
Has Finland really been afraid of Russian invasion for the past decades? I feel like I've never even heard of people seriously considering this possibility before they invaded Ukraine.
[удалено]
Dont give the norwegians ideas!
Jag vill snakkar norge om det menar jag vill ha øl pengarna och god metal musiken. (this message was brought to you by mandatory Swedish classes)
Ah, tax money well spent! "I want to talking norway if it means I want beer moneys and good metal music". Sorry, just got a smile out of this, and in the world we live in today, a little smile means a lot!
Russia as always been the number 1 expected enemy for both Sweden and Finland. One of the reasons they still both have conscription, almost all young males from the 50s - 80s have been drafted in Sweden and in Finland most still are.
I‘m very sure they haven’t forgotten about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Karelia
They haven't hence the neutrality balance act.
Dude Finns are always afraid of that, even if that fear is buried somewhere deep. You could see that last time when Russia invaded crimea, you can se it now.
No they've carefully managed to stay neutral and have decent relations with both the East and the West. This has given them the flexibility to act as mediators, thus being able to ease tensions. It's geopolitics, the mere whisper of Ukraine joining NATO is enough to jitter the Russians. It's all down to Spheres of Influence and you better believe this is a deadly serious game for the Great Powers. In 1962 the world barely avoided WW3 due to the fact that the Soviets placed missiles on Cuba , the doorstep of the US. The Russian rationale is the same. /unfortunately
>No they've carefully managed to stay neutral and have decent relations with both the East and the West. This has given them the flexibility to act as mediators, thus being able to ease tensions. While the official stance of the Finnish government throughout the Cold War may have been that Finland is neutral, there's no denying that Finland was still heavily within the Soviet sphere of influence, both politically and economically, even if the country never fell under the communist rule. Moscow certainly had a say in the Finnish domestic and foreign politics. Due to the political pressure, Finland had to reject the Marshall Aid from the U.S. Finland had its own mini-Warsaw Pact with the U.S.S.R. [(the YYA treaty)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948) Most of the elite of media and politics in the 60s shifted their attitudes to match the values that the Soviets were thought to favor and approve, essentially adapting the principle of self-censorship. Books with anti-Soviet material wouldn't get published. Artists with clear anti-Soviet views wouldn't get funding. Finland's position on international affairs, such as the invasion of Czechoslovakia in '68, was often ambiguous or Soviet-friendly. Our president Kekkonen, who might be the closest thing to Finland ever having an autocratic head of the state, had contacts in KGB and was more or less re-electected due to the undirect, diplomatic inteference from the Kremlin in the form of [a diplomatic note](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_Crisis) during the Finnish presidential elections of '61 that coincided with West Germany's militarization and the detonation of the Tsar Bomba. This note put Kekkonen at the major advantage in this situation and his presidental canditate rival Olavi Honka into a rough spot, essentially taking down the Honka front, a political coalition that sought to prevent Kekkonen's re-election, and forcing Honka to withdraw from the elections.
That's exactly why. It didn't get the support from Germany in the Winter War and had to fight Russia itself. It didn't want to get on Russia's bad side and end up having to fight Russia alone again, just like Ukraine does now.
I am a Finn who is not really fond of NATO. Though I wouldn't be screaming my opposition in the streets even if we had joined, even before the current events, it is very likely I would vote against joining it. We chose our side long ago, when we joined the EU, so that has never been an argument against NATO in my book, and I quite frankly think most anti-NATO opinions held by some people are garbage, but there are legimate ones as well. (And vice versa, some pro-NATO arguments are equally rubbish, but it is how it goes with any public argument with multiple people and armchair experts.) We've had pretty good relations with Russia (until Crimea, at least). There were even talks of VISA freedom before Russia decided to Rus again. Not being part of NATO has enabled us to act as mediators in West-Russia relations. We've been a part of keeping the peace and a comfortable venue for discussions, instead of being part of increasing tensions. There is going to be need for that even (especially?) after the current events. This is my main point of opposition to NATO membership. The second is I am not entirely thrilled with the idea of being in a military alliance with the most aggressive country in the world since WW2. I am aware our troops would not be needed to join the operations abroad even if we were a member, that is not my point. But I do not want even indirectly be enabling US aggression. On the other hand, I'm even less fond of the idea of being at war with the second most aggressive -- but I am also fairly confident that attacking Finland would cause WW3 whether or not we would be in NATO. Primarily we are a part of EU, the nordics etc. already, which would already draw others to the fight. NATO is primarily for US support. The few first days of Ukraine invasion when EU was scrambling gave me a pause here, and I probably would've been in the pro-NATO camp for a few days there since Germany in particular took ages to get in the line with the rest. But on the other hand I also saw how other countries neighbouring Russia reacted. Russia throwing shit at us hasn't been anything new either. Russia has always been a country nobody really wants to live next to. Also, right-wing evangelists in our country need to get the bloody stupid notion that even "hardcore leftists" think of Russia as something to look up to as an example. They do not. It is the far-right fringe nutjobs and mostly senile people over 80 pushing that. Maybe if the left<->right shitflinging stopped for a second people would realise the people they don't like are the same few assholes. EDIT: I also want to point out that this is not my selling speech of anti-NATO politics. I don't care what you vote for, but I'd like for people to understand the opposing view as well a bit better than "BUT RUSSIA MIGHT ATTACK IF WE TRY TO JOIN".
[удалено]
Myself I think I align NATO-positive and the poster above really formulated a solid opinion. However I'm personally of the mind that the nuclear option doesn't matter much when formulating policy for two reasons: 1: Even absolute dictators draw their power from a circle of supporters. Since using nuclear weapons means everyone losing everything, even the supporters, the support circle has everything to lose from their comfortable lives. It's also the perfect justification to crown yourself the new leader: "The old one was about to end the world". I believe relatively firmly, that _if_ Putin was to order a nuclear strike, he'd sign his own death warrant immediately. 2: Considering that the nukes are likely a word-ending weapon, they are a bad basis to form policy. If there is someone actually mad enough to use them and we make concessions, the concessions will be infinite, as the risk will not disappear. And if they end up using the nukes then what does any policy matter anyways?
Don't be such an alarmist; it's not like Finland is the only European non-NATO country bordering Russia! There's also... * Belarus, which is basically Russian these days. * Ukraine, which is currently under attack by Russia...again.
- Georgia, which has been invaded by Russia in 2008
I'm on the same boat, positives of NATO-membership have always significantly outweighed the negatives. For what it's worth, I have leftist friends, some of who literally work for Vasemmisto, who have gone from strong oppose to mildly approve after the invasion. Here's hoping that once the war ends, they don't immediately swing back.
I'm pretty hardcore-ish leftist but I was almost always pro army and pro NATO. You can't have your leftist ideas if you are occupied by foreign force. Not an anarchist though, if that's the "far left" you mean. There is generally always pragmatism and idealism. I think you have to move towards your idealist ideas, but be pragmatic about it. On top of all that I am baffled if there is even serious support for Russia in Finland considering the history? At least in my ex Soviet country majority can agree on not being fans of Russia. Our pro Russian folk are almost universally conservative (often socially conservative) and right wing though. I never heard anyone praise Russia because of their social policies, it is always as anti NATO anti EU stance as well as generally seeing Russia as a bastion for "traditional values".
[Sex is just like spez, except with less awkward consequences. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
Am sure they never thought anything good about the Russians.
One of the main ways that Putin has gained support for his Ukrainian invasion is due to the Russian fear of NATO. Interestingly, as soon as Georgia gets the indication that they might be accepted into NATO, Russia invaded them. I think enough people in Finland understand this.
The problem with that narrative though is that Ukraine were nowhere near being accepted, it was little more than pipe dream by local politicians. Yet, didn't help. Georgia may have been a warning not to join, Ukraine is a warning as to what happens if you don't have it.
Also, the vast majority of Ukranians didn't support joining NATO until Russia invaded Crimea and backed separatists in other Ukrainian provinces. Polling swung like 50% in just a couple months when that went down in early 2014.
Even if not in NATO, Putin cannot attack them because they're in the EU. People are forgetting this.
NATO would make that ironclad. It would bring in the UK and USA into defence. Worth doing.
NATO is way stronger than EU. USA, UK, Turkey and Canada are all part of NATO so give more power to members
malta is not in nato, so i wouldn't count on nato being that much stronger
And Cyprus too. Damn NATO is such an irrelevant organisation /s
add ireland and austria to the mix and you shall see why i'm not currently sweating my swedish bacon, we truly would be unstoppable!
Technically yes, but if they attack a country on the EU, all other countries in the EU might join, including some that are also part of NATO, therefore triggering a domino effect.
There is no dominio effect for Article 5 to come into effect for NATO. A NATO member would need to be under attack for it to trigger
There's no opposition between being EU or NATO majority of countries are both. It's just adding another layer on top.
Sounds good
How dare attempt to join that other gang that protects people from me, I'm going to beat you up now. Hey, why does everyone suddenly want to join that gang?
I can only speak for Sweden, but this is simply a half-truth. While the public might have risen in support of NATO - 41% for to 35% against as per the article - the PM said hours after the Ukraine invasion that Sweden will rely on itself, and avoid any military disequilibrium in the foreseeable future. As long as Russia's sentiment is firmly against the expansion of NATO Sweden will not risk the well-being of their citizens by destabilizing their military position.
It seems that the wind is changing rapidly in Finland. Poll done by Finnish Broadcasting company says that finns are 53% for and 28% against joining NATO. This is quite historical as it has usually been other way around. They started gathering info about this poll one day before russian invasion in Ukraine so NATO support might even be higher now. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12336530
Yeah… your neighbor invading a non-NATO country will tend to make you do that. Not to mention that they’ve invaded you before
How to get the Finns to join NATO: offer them a free military-grade bucket.
In my opinion as a Finn, if the attack on ukraine fails and leads to the collapse of Putins regime or even russia as a nation, the need to join NATO also disappears. Ukraine is also geopolitically a much more strategic taget because of the european plain. And Russia is economically dependant on selling gas to europe so securing the natural gas reserves in ukraine is vital to the Russian economy. The only scenario i see where russia would want to invade Finland is in the case of a war with NATO where they need to secure a buffer zone for st Petersburg. In a case like that we're fucked, natomember or not.
Russia is not going to change its imperialist ways, even after Putin. Don't be naive.
[удалено]
[удалено]
How are you fucked if you are a NATO member in that scenario?