Sweden and Finland set to join NATO in May

[CumbrianLefty]

Putin today didn't sound like someone desperate to start any more wars any time soon.

[brucejoel99]

So apparently the (Social Democratic) President of Croatia is threatening to veto Finland's entry to NATO.

I remember Atlas cheering this dweeb's election victory.

And Croatia Prime Minister is pro admitting them and are openly contradicting each other
https://yle.fi/news/3-12418999

So this is a non-issue, then. Although Croatia's constitutional framework mandates the President's inclusion in foreign policy insofar as deciding on the location of diplomatic missions & consular offices abroad (at the Government's proposal & with the PM's approval), appointing & recalling diplomatic representatives (not only at the Government's proposal & with the PM's approval but with the opinion of a parliamentary committee as well), & receiving letters of credence & letters of recall from foreign diplomatic representatives are concerned, it's still a parliamentary system, & executive political power is still otherwise fully vested in the Government at the PM &, abroad, their Foreign Minister & NATO Ambassador's direction.

Thus, when FM Grlić-Radman confirms the following:

https://twitter.com/Ulkoministerio/status/1519010550038122497
He's correct because even if President Milanović shows up to NATO's June Summit in Madrid & tries to veto the Finnish - &, by presumable extension, the Swedish - application(s), PM Plenković, FM Grlić-Radman, & NATO Amb. Nobilo overrule him.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Hmm, again, and then maybe i think i'll have detailed my point well enough

Russia is not about 'invading' Europe, or even about 'winning' over a country to me, and thats one of the major difference with WW2, heck yes we saw how they were good at invading about 1 month ago and how they are struggling now to seize a piece of land which is supposedly culturally close at many levels, though tactically they also are apparenyly learning from their mistakes on the military level, apparently the starting point was such a mess that a bit of organization looks like some huge progress anyways

Russia is just about destroying, the most they could, and about all the History grudges they (well, he) could have, destroy materially and psychologically, he is not building anything, it's blind revenge, and we dont know yet how much blind it could become

Thats what, my 1st concern always been Finland, it ticks a lot of boxes, history with Russia, importance of the status of neutrality, lot of the Russian elite fled there few months ago, not a huge army, been very keen at quiting its historical neutrality since start of conflict, and, yeah, thats what i said from start, it has something that could counter the latest technologies Russian missiles??

Same for Sweden to a lesser extent, it's not about having a 'Battle of England', it's not engaging in a new 'front', if ever Russia manages to strike in those countries without NATO can technically do anything, part of the EU, imagine the psychological effect all over Western countries? Imagine the humiliation? Would those countries retaliate? To the nuked Russia? They really would enter in this? Then NATO would finish to take them? In order to have what they try to avoid at all cost, a direct confrontation with Russia?

That looks like a lot of hazardous questions to me

Destruction, humiliation, destabilisation so much to entertain Putin i guess

And so much about which apparently Western countries feel to be so much above that they can spare themselves to live as if a serious war was on borders and as if we were not part of the target at all

Hey so be it if so, who am i and what can i say, again, best of luck to everyone!!

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/charlyjsp/status/1523687370129915907?s=20&t=3ar7EVXvK9WS...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It is concerning, the potential for NATO expansion to create a world war.
I hope it never gets to that point.

At this point, if a world war actually happens, it was always going to happen.

I'm not talking about a world war sparked by what happened in Ukraine.
I'm talking long-term.

[Frodo]

https://twitter.com/RCourteau/status/1523695322588872705

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I feel like your point that Finland and Sweden needing to join in secret would have more weight to it if it wasn’t for the fact that it would be suicide for Russia to open a second front on Finland and Sweden. They don’t have the manpower or resources to open a second front against two more countries let alone ones that have superior military equipment to Russia. I mean Sweden has a western armed air force that could ripe Russia’s apart. The only thing Russia can do is shake their fists at them joining NATO because quite frankly at this point they could probably beat Russia on their own without actually joining NATO. It’s just that even though they probably would win it still would be destructive and bloody so it would better to join as a deterrent

Finland and Sweden are small in terms of population, but they are wealthy and advanced. Sweden and Finland combined almost have the same GDP as Russia. Russia is a backwater economically, having the same GDP as Brazil.  

This war is exposing what a paper tiger Russia is.

[Badger]

It is concerning, the potential for NATO expansion to create a world war.
I hope it never gets to that point.

Offs, tim, give it a rest. Putin has been threatening invasion of these countries which drove them into the arms of nato, with 110% justification.

Don't attempt to blame the NATO for this or even offer some half-assed both sides analysis because it is just plain wrong-headed.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It is concerning, the potential for NATO expansion to create a world war.
I hope it never gets to that point.

Offs, tim, give it a rest. Putin has been threatening invasion of these countries which drove them into the arms of nato, with 110% justification.

Don't attempt to blame the NATO for this or even offer some half-assed both sides analysis because it is just plain wrong-headed.

You need to look at things from a global perspective here. What happens in Ukraine is and will continue to have global impact, shaping how China might act towards us, among other things.
There have been multiple occasions in which we have had global-spanning international alliances spanning the globe. The late 1800s and early 1900s were one such occasion, and the 1930s were another.
In both cases, we saw world wars.
The world is composed of various power centers fighting for influence and territory using all the things in their disposal, and always has. And the more a NATO-type alliance expands and the more of them there are, the more flash points can create a global conflict between said power centers. Are we to myopically assume that tensions will just die off completely, forever, just because said countries are NATO members? Do we know how things will look like 20 or 25 years from now? How do we know that the tools we've used won't be turned onto us?
Of course the political will for war needs to exist, but that's something that tension can go a long way towards furnishing. When there is a sense of desperation or urgency, of course political leaders will find it relatively much more expedient to roll the dice.
The post-World War II world order could be destroyed by a major international war on multiple continents. We already see a proliferation of pacts and other things on the world stage. Biden himself understands this too, I think. He's flat-out committed to no Americans fighting in Ukraine. Good for him.
All this isn't "half-a**ed both sides analysis". It's recognition of geopolitical reality.
What you and I prefer is far from guaranteed to be the dominant paradigm globally anyway. To just assume that it will be in perpetuity, or act as such, is foolish. Geopolitical power knows neither morality nor political ideology. The real world ain't like a comic book where the baddies, as a rule, tend to lose in the end.

[CumbrianLefty]

It is possible for both of these things to be true at the same time:

1) Russia has totally legitimate national interests and security concerns, and yes the West went badly wrong during and after the fall of the USSR in not sufficiently understanding and assisting these;

2) Russia's present conduct is totally outrageous and indefensible, and what happened previously is absolutely no excuse - the rest of the world is totally entitled to react appropriately, and that includes its neighbours pursuing whatever makes them feel most secure.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It is possible for both of these things to be true at the same time:

1) Russia has totally legitimate national interests and security concerns, and yes the West went badly wrong during and after the fall of the USSR in not sufficiently understanding and assisting these;

2) Russia's present conduct is totally outrageous and indefensible, and what happened previously is absolutely no excuse - the rest of the world is totally entitled to react appropriately, and that includes its neighbours pursuing whatever makes them feel most secure.

Oh, the world is totally entitled to act the way it desires in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and I'd be lying if I claimed I didn't approve, on net, of the beating Russia is getting right now.

The thrust of what I'm saying is 1) you need to consider long-term and short-term, not just one or the other, and 2) the idea that NATO-style structures are good without limit and the more of them exist and the more powerful they are is automatically better, is basically the road to a world war. Such maximalist thinking is not how the Pax Americana is likeliest to be preserved, especially as the American military-industrial complex will have to do double-duty to maintain America's pre-eminent position.

(Of course, me being American, an analyst type, and IR realist all influence me here)

[dead0man]

The Soviet Union lost.  The husk doesn't get to dictate to the rest of the world (or even just it's neighbors) for the next century.

[Person Man]

The Soviet Union lost.  The husk doesn't get to dictate to the rest of the world (or even just it's neighbors) for the next century.

Condolences!

[Sir Mohamed]

https://twitter.com/charlyjsp/status/1523687370129915907?s=20&t=3ar7EVXvK9WS...

Putin has accomplished what no American president could ever have. Even Germany paying its 2% in defense.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Hey, Le Monde also publishes in English now, didnt know that...

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/05/09/finland-wants-the-nato-accession-process-to-be-as-quick-as-possible_5982941_4.html

Personally i feel i'll kinda hold my breath from the moment they make this will to apply official till the moment they actually get protection, let's see what happens, that anyways would be a big enough test for everybody

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Besides, on the whole NATO debate, i think it wasnt smart, to say the least, from Europeans to just wait and see under the umbrella after the fall of the USSR, and maybe even before, for Americans they had this tool that nobody pushed them to withdraw, then why would they do so, the fair move would have been at least a refoundation of it under a new paradigm, especially since the pact in front of it had disapeared, could have spared us a good deal of fuel for all whats going on

France has been the only European power that became 'geostrategically conscious' after WW2, maybe one thing explaining the other, it's also been the 1st one to refuse a strategical European military alliance in 1950s, well, after 2 WW with Germans, they were kinda 'cautious', but France also been the 1st one to try to recreate some military force in Europe with Chirac, with the participation of Blair, but, well...UK?...Europe?...NATO?...and now...AUKUS?

And now here we are, u have 1 country with a big military independence at all levels, and all the costs that go with, still France, which cant do much about anything that's going on the European continent because nobody in Europe really cared about one of the most basic thing, the independence of ur own security

Putin wouldnt have the slightest thing to say about an independent European security, but the nature of NATO creates de facto of possibility of expansionism that can be at the very least used as a pretext

In short:

To NATOers: when a conflict is over put the weapons down, might help, at the very least for people not to feel threatened and later use it against u, and at the very best to eventually build trust, which doesnt mean to destroy ur weapons

To Europeans: if u let the builder of ur fence control it, then dont be surprised if u dont have a lot of control of whats going on in ur ground! And that ur neighbour care more about the fence builder than urself

'Amusingly' enough Trump policies going further would have helped Europeans to realize, maybe


Personally im pragmatic enough, whatever can help the situation as it is now, and even before the conflict, u know someone wants to invade? U think it's a bad thing? Then what about trying to prevent it instead of giving an openly green light to the invader! No?? Like proposing to Ukraine to put some troops before anything happens, yeah an umbrella, better with an other label than NATO, could have been one more occasion to do something new, better than this admirative wait and see how much a situation can get spoiled

Such a conflict would at least, hopefully, pretty much make obvious that a lot of acronymes ought to be refounded, NATO, EU, UN, and maybe others...

[Torrain]

The British and Swedish PMs have formalised a mutual UK-Sweden defensive pact whilst on a trip to Harpsund, a clear attempt to deter the Russians from aggression during the application period. Swedish neutrality is already over - all that remains to be done is to submit a formal application in the coming weeks.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

The British and Swedish PMs have formalised a mutual UK-Sweden defensive pact whilst on a trip to Harpsund, a clear attempt to deter the Russians from aggression during the application period. Swedish neutrality is already over - all that remains to be done is to submit a formal application in the coming weeks.

If there effectively is something like this, then i guess yeah, could do for Sweden, but then again, Finland has anything to deter anything yet...?

[dead0man]

The British and Swedish PMs have formalised a mutual UK-Sweden defensive pact whilst on a trip to Harpsund, a clear attempt to deter the Russians from aggression during the application period. Swedish neutrality is already over - all that remains to be done is to submit a formal application in the coming weeks.

If there effectively is something like this, then i guess yeah, could do for Sweden, but then again, Finland has anything to deter anything yet...?

they do have Russian incompetence on their side

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Hey, if nobody there can handle the fact to push the right button for the right missiles for it to reach after the border and not in the sea, then, ok, i guess

[It’s so Joever]

It is possible for both of these things to be true at the same time:

1) Russia has totally legitimate national interests and security concerns, and yes the West went badly wrong during and after the fall of the USSR in not sufficiently understanding and assisting these;

2) Russia's present conduct is totally outrageous and indefensible, and what happened previously is absolutely no excuse - the rest of the world is totally entitled to react appropriately, and that includes its neighbours pursuing whatever makes them feel most secure.

Oh, the world is totally entitled to act the way it desires in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and I'd be lying if I claimed I didn't approve, on net, of the beating Russia is getting right now.

The thrust of what I'm saying is 1) you need to consider long-term and short-term, not just one or the other, and 2) the idea that NATO-style structures are good without limit and the more of them exist and the more powerful they are is automatically better, is basically the road to a world war. Such maximalist thinking is not how the Pax Americana is likeliest to be preserved, especially as the American military-industrial complex will have to do double-duty to maintain America's pre-eminent position.

(Of course, me being American, an analyst type, and IR realist all influence me here)

Realism is an archaic idea of global relations because it assumes state actors act logically. That myth should have been busted by now.

[CumbrianLefty]

It is possible for both of these things to be true at the same time:

1) Russia has totally legitimate national interests and security concerns, and yes the West went badly wrong during and after the fall of the USSR in not sufficiently understanding and assisting these;

2) Russia's present conduct is totally outrageous and indefensible, and what happened previously is absolutely no excuse - the rest of the world is totally entitled to react appropriately, and that includes its neighbours pursuing whatever makes them feel most secure.

Oh, the world is totally entitled to act the way it desires in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and I'd be lying if I claimed I didn't approve, on net, of the beating Russia is getting right now.

The thrust of what I'm saying is 1) you need to consider long-term and short-term, not just one or the other, and 2) the idea that NATO-style structures are good without limit and the more of them exist and the more powerful they are is automatically better, is basically the road to a world war. Such maximalist thinking is not how the Pax Americana is likeliest to be preserved, especially as the American military-industrial complex will have to do double-duty to maintain America's pre-eminent position.

(Of course, me being American, an analyst type, and IR realist all influence me here)

Realism is an archaic idea of global relations because it assumes state actors act logically. That myth should have been busted by now.

That assumption was never totally true, but is maybe now less so than at any time since WW2.

[Farmlands]

Hey, if nobody there can handle the fact to push the right button for the right missiles for it to reach after the border and not in the sea, then, ok, i guess

Russia is not going to attack to attack Finland or Sweden, as they won't risk a large-scale war when they're already incompetently in the middle of losing another smaller one. NATO holds all the cards here, zero chance.

[Helsinkian]

The British and Swedish PMs have formalised a mutual UK-Sweden defensive pact whilst on a trip to Harpsund, a clear attempt to deter the Russians from aggression during the application period. Swedish neutrality is already over - all that remains to be done is to submit a formal application in the coming weeks.

If there effectively is something like this, then i guess yeah, could do for Sweden, but then again, Finland has anything to deter anything yet...?

Johnson continued from Sweden to Finland and signed the same document with the Finnish President, a couple of hours ago.

https://twitter.com/Silvia_Amaro/status/1524427508497756160

"What it says is that in the event of a disaster, or in the event of an attack on either of us, then we will come to each other’s assistance, including with military assistance." --Boris Johnson
The Guardian

[Badger]

It is concerning, the potential for NATO expansion to create a world war.
I hope it never gets to that point.

Offs, tim, give it a rest. Putin has been threatening invasion of these countries which drove them into the arms of nato, with 110% justification.

Don't attempt to blame the NATO for this or even offer some half-assed both sides analysis because it is just plain wrong-headed.

You need to look at things from a global perspective here. What happens in Ukraine is and will continue to have global impact, shaping how China might act towards us, among other things.
There have been multiple occasions in which we have had global-spanning international alliances spanning the globe. The late 1800s and early 1900s were one such occasion, and the 1930s were another.
In both cases, we saw world wars.
The world is composed of various power centers fighting for influence and territory using all the things in their disposal, and always has. And the more a NATO-type alliance expands and the more of them there are, the more flash points can create a global conflict between said power centers. Are we to myopically assume that tensions will just die off completely, forever, just because said countries are NATO members? Do we know how things will look like 20 or 25 years from now? How do we know that the tools we've used won't be turned onto us?
Of course the political will for war needs to exist, but that's something that tension can go a long way towards furnishing. When there is a sense of desperation or urgency, of course political leaders will find it relatively much more expedient to roll the dice.
The post-World War II world order could be destroyed by a major international war on multiple continents. We already see a proliferation of pacts and other things on the world stage. Biden himself understands this too, I think. He's flat-out committed to no Americans fighting in Ukraine. Good for him.
All this isn't "half-a**ed both sides analysis". It's recognition of geopolitical reality.
What you and I prefer is far from guaranteed to be the dominant paradigm globally anyway. To just assume that it will be in perpetuity, or act as such, is foolish. Geopolitical power knows neither morality nor political ideology. The real world ain't like a comic book where the baddies, as a rule, tend to lose in the end.

One can make such a generic "more International entanglements and alliances creates additional theoretical chances 4 some Flashpoint to occur leading to International conflict" about literally every treaty or military Alliance the US is involved in. By that logic perhaps we should attempt to dismantle NATO to reduce the number of flashpoints as you repeatedly refer to them.

But you are not being realistic. The issue here is rather whether or not Finland and Sweden likely joining NATO creates any tangible increased threat of War, balance versus the additional solidification of both Swedish and Finnish, plus general NATO and American interests, and likewise minimizes the chance that Russia would attempt to pull another Ukraine style invasion of Finland if and when they get the chance. The answers are quite clearly know, and absolutely yes in that order.

Overall, realistically, Finland becoming part of NATO markedly decreases the likelihood of War through reducing its primary threat being Russian expansionism. The cost benefit analysis of this is so lopsided that frankly this decision is pretty much a no-brainer, realistically speaking.