Should Sweden and Finland be offered NATO membership?

[Storr]

Sisu.

https://twitter.com/CobraArray/status/1512404328862347272?s=20&t=ysM3GbxXonl...

[Frodo]

Finland will make its fateful decision 'before midsummer', so before June 23.  Some think as early as next month:

Finland gears up for historic NATO decision

[rc18]

Things seem to be moving on this, seems Sweden may be ready to join too.

https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1514181898456555531?s=20&t=8djLg1_ccESZ19c...

https://twitter.com/charlyjsp/status/1514176607333883908?s=20&t=8djLg1_ccESZ...

Edit; Though not confirmed (or denied) in the press conference.

https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1514192666178764802?s=20&t=HjUHkUXJIRYM4TL...

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Sweden joining NATO isn't an enthusiastic decision; ending 213 year neutrality (it's become an identity) is quite painful. But alas, times change.

The only parties who really love NATO are M and L; KD and C only became pro-NATO recently. And now S follows very reluctantly. SD should come along in the vote as well, as the government has expressed a desire that 3/4 of the Riksdag approve the decision (consensus culture, after all).

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/davekeating/status/1514198882250596356?s=21&t=izxXshrpqF...

[°Leprechaun]

The Soviet Union invaded Finland on 30 November 1939:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

The Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations because it condemned the invasion as illegal.

Can the UN do the same to Russia? (because of the illegal invasion of Ukraine?)

[Oryxslayer]

The Soviet Union invaded Finland on 30 November 1939:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

The Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations because it condemned the invasion as illegal.

Can the UN do the same to Russia? (because of the illegal invasion of Ukraine?)

Note: it is widely seen by experts that the existence of powers outside of the LoN was a weakness, not a strength. Obviously the first such member was the US which sapped it's legitimacy, but then later on came the Fascist and other authoritarian regimes who were kicked out. Basically it established the League as a club with rules, and it you were no longer a member, then why should you obey said rules anymore?

With this precedent, the UN serves as a forum for all nations, no matter how new, subnational, or despotic. But all powers are still symbolic outside of the security council, so kicking Russia out would only weaken the UN without accomplishing much.

[Farmlands]

Sweden joining NATO isn't an enthusiastic decision; ending 213 year neutrality (it's become an identity) is quite painful. But alas, times change.

The only parties who really love NATO are M and L; KD and C only became pro-NATO recently. And now S follows very reluctantly. SD should come along in the vote as well, as the government has expressed a desire that 3/4 of the Riksdag approve the decision (consensus culture, after all).

Remaining neutral during the second World War, right at Sweden's doorstep, should not be considered a point of pride or national identity, in my opinion. This is absolutely the right decision, and clearly backed by the Swedish population too.

[°Leprechaun]

The Soviet Union invaded Finland on 30 November 1939:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

The Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations because it condemned the invasion as illegal.

Can the UN do the same to Russia? (because of the illegal invasion of Ukraine?)

Note: it is widely seen by experts that the existence of powers outside of the LoN was a weakness, not a strength. Obviously the first such member was the US which sapped it's legitimacy, but then later on came the Fascist and other authoritarian regimes who were kicked out. Basically it established the League as a club with rules, and it you were no longer a member, then why should you obey said rules anymore?

With this precedent, the UN serves as a forum for all nations, no matter how new, subnational, or despotic. But all powers are still symbolic outside of the security council, so kicking Russia out would only weaken the UN without accomplishing much.

The question that I wonder about is how weak is the UN as it is. The UN can only send peace keeping troops to Ukraine if no nations on the Security Council veto such a resolution. Should Russia remain on the Security Council if it remains in the UN?

edit: Also, although membership in NATO protects it's members, what about other nations?
Finland and Sweden are members of the EU. Does that protect them from aggression? It would seem that it should.

[Helsinkian]

edit: Also, although membership in NATO protects it's members, what about other nations?
Finland and Sweden are members of the EU. Does that protect them from aggression? It would seem that it should.

The EU has the "Mutual Defence Clause" (Article 42.7):

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in
accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific
character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

It's unclear what would really happen. The last sentence was added at the request of countries like Finland and Sweden that were outside NATO and at the time wanted to retain their non-aligned status in military matters.

[TheReckoning]

Russia should be given NATO membership in order to bring them into the fold to take down China. No way could China take on both Russia and the USA and except anything but defeat.

[Oryxslayer]

Things seem to be moving on this, seems Sweden may be ready to join too.

SNIP

Also something to note that is unstated but important: If Andersson and S didn't pursue NATO membership now, when Finland is moving, then potential membership would become a powerful cudgel that the Conservative parties would use against S in the fall campaign. Better to take action when it is popular and claim credit for it later.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Sweden joining NATO isn't an enthusiastic decision; ending 213 year neutrality (it's become an identity) is quite painful. But alas, times change.

The only parties who really love NATO are M and L; KD and C only became pro-NATO recently. And now S follows very reluctantly. SD should come along in the vote as well, as the government has expressed a desire that 3/4 of the Riksdag approve the decision (consensus culture, after all).

Remaining neutral during the second World War, right at Sweden's doorstep, should not be considered a point of pride or national identity, in my opinion. This is absolutely the right decision, and clearly backed by the Swedish population too.

Well obviously no one in Sweden is proud of that period of neutrality, even if it was the right call in the end, but more of an attitude of being an independent voice in international affairs, especially during the Cold War.

[CumbrianLefty]

Sweden joining NATO isn't an enthusiastic decision; ending 213 year neutrality (it's become an identity) is quite painful. But alas, times change.

The only parties who really love NATO are M and L; KD and C only became pro-NATO recently. And now S follows very reluctantly. SD should come along in the vote as well, as the government has expressed a desire that 3/4 of the Riksdag approve the decision (consensus culture, after all).

Remaining neutral during the second World War, right at Sweden's doorstep, should not be considered a point of pride or national identity, in my opinion. This is absolutely the right decision, and clearly backed by the Swedish population too.

Well obviously no one in Sweden is proud of that period of neutrality, even if it was the right call in the end, but more of an attitude of being an independent voice in international affairs, especially during the Cold War.

Certainly in the early years of the war, Sweden thought there was a good chance the Nazis would invade them nonetheless - though if that happened they intended to go down fighting like Norway did (but unlike Denmark)

[Lord Halifax]

Sweden joining NATO isn't an enthusiastic decision; ending 213 year neutrality (it's become an identity) is quite painful. But alas, times change.

The only parties who really love NATO are M and L; KD and C only became pro-NATO recently. And now S follows very reluctantly. SD should come along in the vote as well, as the government has expressed a desire that 3/4 of the Riksdag approve the decision (consensus culture, after all).

Remaining neutral during the second World War, right at Sweden's doorstep, should not be considered a point of pride or national identity, in my opinion. This is absolutely the right decision, and clearly backed by the Swedish population too.

Well obviously no one in Sweden is proud of that period of neutrality, even if it was the right call in the end, but more of an attitude of being an independent voice in international affairs, especially during the Cold War.

Certainly in the early years of the war, Sweden thought there was a good chance the Nazis would invade them nonetheless - though if that happened they intended to go down fighting like Norway did (but unlike Denmark)

If Sweden had entered the war Danish and Norwegian forces would have had a place to retreat to and could have continued fighting. Denmark has no terrain suitable for defense against a modern army and Norway lacked the manpower to fight alone after the Allies withdrew. Sweden has excellent terrain for defense and had a relatively large army which together with evacuated Norwegian and Danish troops could have tied down substantial German forces if they'd decided to fight. Instead they sold iron ore to the Nazis. "Intending" to go down fighting doesn't really matter if you don't do it, the fact remains that Sweden's role in WW2 is on balance rather shameful. They offered refuge to the Danish Jews and resistance fighters from the other Scandinavian countries, but compared to actually fighting the Nazis and given they had both the terrain (unlike e.g. the Benelux countries and Denmark) and the manpower to do actual damage to Nazi Germany and aid the Allied war effort their neutrality is more problematic than e.g. Ireland (too weak and with strong anti-British sentiments in parts of the population), Portugal (too isolated and would have been a net drain on Allied resources) or Switzerland (too isolated, landlocked and completely surrounded by the Axis). If all of the Scandinavian peninsula had been available to the Allies it would also have made sense to open a Scandinavian front and e.g. evacuated Polish troops and Canadians (used to similar terrain) could have been deployed there. 

[The Lord Marbury]

Sweden joining NATO isn't an enthusiastic decision; ending 213 year neutrality (it's become an identity) is quite painful. But alas, times change.

The only parties who really love NATO are M and L; KD and C only became pro-NATO recently. And now S follows very reluctantly. SD should come along in the vote as well, as the government has expressed a desire that 3/4 of the Riksdag approve the decision (consensus culture, after all).

Remaining neutral during the second World War, right at Sweden's doorstep, should not be considered a point of pride or national identity, in my opinion. This is absolutely the right decision, and clearly backed by the Swedish population too.

Well obviously no one in Sweden is proud of that period of neutrality, even if it was the right call in the end, but more of an attitude of being an independent voice in international affairs, especially during the Cold War.

Certainly in the early years of the war, Sweden thought there was a good chance the Nazis would invade them nonetheless - though if that happened they intended to go down fighting like Norway did (but unlike Denmark)

If Sweden had entered the war Danish and Norwegian forces would have had a place to retreat to and could have continued fighting. Denmark has no terrain suitable for defense against a modern army and Norway lacked the manpower to fight alone after the Allies withdrew. Sweden has excellent terrain for defense and had a relatively large army which together with evacuated Norwegian and Danish troops could have tied down substantial German forces if they'd decided to fight. Instead they sold iron ore to the Nazis. "Intending" to go down fighting doesn't really matter if you don't do it, the fact remains that Sweden's role in WW2 is on balance rather shameful. They offered refuge to the Danish Jews and resistance fighters from the other Scandinavian countries, but compared to actually fighting the Nazis and given they had both the terrain (unlike e.g. the Benelux countries and Denmark) and the manpower to do actual damage to Nazi Germany and aid the Allied war effort their neutrality is more problematic than e.g. Ireland (too weak and with strong anti-British sentiments in parts of the population), Portugal (too isolated and would have been a net drain on Allied resources) or Switzerland (too isolated, landlocked and completely surrounded by the Axis). If all of the Scandinavian peninsula had been available to the Allies it would also have made sense to open a Scandinavian front and e.g. evacuated Polish troops and Canadians (used to similar terrain) could have been deployed there.  

While I don't wish to completely derail this thread with discussions about WWII, I think you're being overly optimistic about the Swedish chances to resist German forces. The Swedish armed forces were not at all in a good shape at the time of the German invasions of Denmark and Norway, their own estimates at the time said that they'd be able to resist a German invasion for at most a few weeks. To enter the war of their own volition when their predictions are showing that kind of outcome, even if later proved to be incorrect, would not only be completely insane but also a complete betrayal of the Swedish citizens they were sworn to protect. And the security and safety of its citizens should always be a country's first, second and third priority.

Perhaps Sweden should've entered the war at a later date, some time post-1943. There were certainly plans developing along those lines towards the tail end of the war. But definitely not at the start, we'd have been completely crushed. Either way it's very easy for us to lean back in the comfort of our own homes, with the benefit of hindsight and without the direct responsibility for the well-being of 6+ million people, and say what they should've done at the time.

[TheReckoning]

Sweden joining NATO isn't an enthusiastic decision; ending 213 year neutrality (it's become an identity) is quite painful. But alas, times change.

The only parties who really love NATO are M and L; KD and C only became pro-NATO recently. And now S follows very reluctantly. SD should come along in the vote as well, as the government has expressed a desire that 3/4 of the Riksdag approve the decision (consensus culture, after all).

Remaining neutral during the second World War, right at Sweden's doorstep, should not be considered a point of pride or national identity, in my opinion. This is absolutely the right decision, and clearly backed by the Swedish population too.

Well obviously no one in Sweden is proud of that period of neutrality, even if it was the right call in the end, but more of an attitude of being an independent voice in international affairs, especially during the Cold War.

Certainly in the early years of the war, Sweden thought there was a good chance the Nazis would invade them nonetheless - though if that happened they intended to go down fighting like Norway did (but unlike Denmark)

If Sweden had entered the war Danish and Norwegian forces would have had a place to retreat to and could have continued fighting. Denmark has no terrain suitable for defense against a modern army and Norway lacked the manpower to fight alone after the Allies withdrew. Sweden has excellent terrain for defense and had a relatively large army which together with evacuated Norwegian and Danish troops could have tied down substantial German forces if they'd decided to fight. Instead they sold iron ore to the Nazis. "Intending" to go down fighting doesn't really matter if you don't do it, the fact remains that Sweden's role in WW2 is on balance rather shameful. They offered refuge to the Danish Jews and resistance fighters from the other Scandinavian countries, but compared to actually fighting the Nazis and given they had both the terrain (unlike e.g. the Benelux countries and Denmark) and the manpower to do actual damage to Nazi Germany and aid the Allied war effort their neutrality is more problematic than e.g. Ireland (too weak and with strong anti-British sentiments in parts of the population), Portugal (too isolated and would have been a net drain on Allied resources) or Switzerland (too isolated, landlocked and completely surrounded by the Axis). If all of the Scandinavian peninsula had been available to the Allies it would also have made sense to open a Scandinavian front and e.g. evacuated Polish troops and Canadians (used to similar terrain) could have been deployed there.  

Sweden had a right to defend itself against the Nazis by remaining neutral. Swedish neutrality made Sweden a safe haven for Jews as well, saving many lives from being killed in the Holocaust. Sometimes taking the “down low” route is better than being outright antagonistic, even if your opponent is as bad as Nazi Germany. Not to mention going to war would’ve been terrible for Sweden.

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1515559273723535363?s=20&t=yVc6mk...

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1516929917069545475?s=20&t=u9LHgzdhkA1...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-inches-closer-nato-after-parliament-expresses-support-military-alignment-2022-04-20/

[Torrain]

^To build on Storr’s point in the prior post, the Left Alliance have indicated that they won’t leave the governing coalition if their coalition partners back NATO admission, so long as any application passes with a clear parliamentary majority.

Basically, they seem to appreciate that they’re out on a limb, and won’t undermine themselves or the Government over this application. Essentially giving the green light for the Social Democrats to be more open about their intentions.

[Torrain]

Sweden's "consultation period" now has a clear timeline, according to Politico Europe: 4 weeks of discussion, with a decision by May 24th.

This follows an earlier announcement that the official defence recommendation on whether to join would be released earlier than expected - May 13th rather than May 31st.

It's worth noting that the conventional wisdom through this process has been that Finland is likely to jump first, with Sweden using a Finnish NATO bid as the final justification for their own accession. This is backed up by recent polling, which shows that 51% of Swedes support joining NATO, but that number jumps to 64% if Finland has joined (or is in the process of joining) the alliance.

As such - it's quite possible that we'll have an official position (and probable application) from both nations in the next 32 days.