Sweden and Finland set to join NATO in May

[Badger]

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.

Did number one really occur though to a dramatic degree? I mean, ensuring that each European countries like Poland, Hungary a d the Baltics would have the protection of NATO to avoid what's happening in Ukraine is even in twenty-twenty hindsight a completely valid, Justified, and War risk reducing move. If anything the West was too timid in not extending such an agreement to Ukraine, which of course had it been accomplished would have avoided this entire bloody invasion.

I also don't recall that America's celebrations over the fall of Communism in Russia being of a particularly in your face Style.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

Did number one really occur though to a dramatic degree? I mean, ensuring that each European countries like Poland, Hungary a d the Baltics would have the protection of NATO to avoid what's happening in Ukraine is even in twenty-twenty hindsight a completely valid, Justified, and War risk reducing move. If anything the West was too timid in not extending such an agreement to Ukraine, which of course had it been accomplished would have avoided this entire bloody invasion.

I also don't recall that America's celebrations over the fall of Communism in Russia being of a particularly in your face Style.

I think America's far larger failure was that we didn't encourage Russian democracy, and the insofar as we did encourage Western systems and connections in and with Russia, we largely did so to the detriment of the Russian public and Russian institutions.

I'm not suggesting the US and its allies bear sole blame for Russia's current course - the Russian people and corrupt Russian leadership and institutions hold the lead there. But in hindsight, we didn't help, and did a lot of damage on the way to not helping.

[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)

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

Arguing that realism is archaic because of some incompetent leader is on par with claiming that tanks are outdated weapons because [insert conflict where tanks got destroyed here].
Incomplete thinking that fails to take into account everything and overlooks key facets.
Realpolitik has always been the most successful geopolitical policy.
In reality, it is not at all true that every state works logically, never has been, but it's a good working assumption and a good framework to see the world, both because you don't want to be caught napping, and because there are no alternatives that make zero application of it.

[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.

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.

The problem with how you are approaching this is thinking that my thinking is that ANY singular metric should alone determine our policy, as well as, one again, failing to understand that you have to look at the broader world, not just Eastern Europe.
In IR, maximalist thinking of any kind is probably bad. The key is flexibility. Not locking yourself onto one track; working to maximize or minimize things at will for sake of the national interest.
NATO existing is good. NATO choking out Russia to the point to which China has it as a vassal state is probably bad. (Of course, if we have a great relationship with China, it might actually be good)
Again, for a moment, forget about Ukraine. Think about the wider world, think long-term, think about how China has a full billion more people than us and how it's still a rising power. Some balance among second-tier states is good, but also, how said states interact is also important. Relative power is as important as absolute power. We need a critical mass of second-tier states on our side. That's why we have NATO. But we have the luxury of being able to avoid having China have a strong stable of allies while also having a stable of allies on our own side. Hence, there is a sweet spot that I think US policy should hone in on.

The Ukraine conflict may have key implications globally, but to conflate what is good in Eastern Europe with what is good globally, is mere tunnel vision.

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/TPKanslia/status/1524645891449270273?s=20&t=akBOdWXSJrqV...

[Torrain]

https://twitter.com/TPKanslia/status/1524645891449270273?s=20&t=akBOdWXSJrqVcJXCvCDscQ

Here we go…

Definitely feels like the right decision to me. I just hope we can move quickly enough to minimise Moscow’s scope for retaliation or ‘punishment’ via cyber attack etc.

Think I might go change a couple of passwords just in case…

[Torrain]

The estimated timetable for the applications, according to Alexander Stubb (former Finnish PM writing in the Financial Times - Britain’s least exciting, but most reliable newspaper):

• Joint statement by Finnish PM and President today (occurred this morning)
• Sweden makes similar statement within next 3-4 days
• Joint “expression of intent to formally apply” to come early next week.

We’ve got a NATO summit down in Madrid in June, so I assume we’ll see the process expedited so any major issues can be smoothed over then.

In theory, the application process could take up to 12 months (all members need to agree to their entry), but I’d imagine that there are: a) assurances made to the two countries as part of the pre-application discussions, and b) existing plans on the books to provide both members with an easy entry to the bloc in a time of upheaval.

NATO sources keep suggesting the process could be done in “weeks” rather than months, so I imagine the Secretary General has already made calls to members to see whether they could force through a quick and easy vote.

The Finns and Swedes already have delegates who sit in at meetings of the North Atlantic Council, the alliance’s decision-making body, and have run joint exercises with the bloc since the Crimean invasion in 2014. Reassuring the Hungarians and Croats, and placating them, may be the only barrier to a lightning-fast entry.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Sorry, got attrac..., um, distracted by Sanna Marin there for a minute.



Ayway, good decision by Finland. How ironic that Putin achieves the opposite of what he intended to achieve. But that's often the case with old men who are glued to the past, I guess.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Peskov says admission of Finland to NATO warrants a "symmetrical response" by Russia.

Wtf is this supposed to mean? They'll try to find a neutral, neighbouring country that wants to form a military alliance with them at this point?

[Torrain]

Peskov says admission of Finland to NATO warrants a "symmetrical response" by Russia.

Wtf is this supposed to mean? They'll try to find a neutral, neighbouring country that wants to form a military alliance with them at this point?

Belarus ‘voted’ to remove legal barriers to hosting Russian nuclear weapons earlier this year.
If I had to guess, Moscow may consider placing warheads there, and doing it in a publicised, confrontational display. I’m no expert though, so that may be well off the mark.

[Frodo]

We couldn't have done it without you, Vladimir:

https://twitter.com/NewsHour/status/1524878668689989653

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Welcome aboard Finland.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Peskov says admission of Finland to NATO warrants a "symmetrical response" by Russia.

Wtf is this supposed to mean? They'll try to find a neutral, neighbouring country that wants to form a military alliance with them at this point?

Russia has CSTO, but it lacks credibility in ways the Warsaw Pact did not. Russia and Armenia are the only members who answer other members’ calls to arms to any extent, and Russia did less for Armenia than it could have in the most recent Karabakh War because it wanted to keep improving its relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey. It was even worse than America in the Falklands, and I think it’s one of the reasons they don’t have CSTO support in the Ukrainian conflict.

It’s still worth something, of course, but I can’t see anyone jumping to join it at the moment. Serbia is an observer; perhaps they could be coaxed into full membership.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Erdogan now says he's opposed to Finland joining NATO. F**k Erdogan.

Also, Turkey should NOT be apart of NATO. KICK THEM OUT!

[CumbrianLefty]

Erdogan is doing the usual bargaining thing.

[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...?

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

Hey, did something like this worked?

Because, well...

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-inter-rao-halt-power-exports-finland-due-lack-payment-2022-05-13/

Those Johnson things would have at least shown that they felt the need of something to be done all of a sudden, those guys have read that thread or something?

And, if that is the only mighty Russian reaction after all that fuss on NATO and now potentially having 1300km of it, then Russia might be really too busy right now, or doesnt dare, or, well, let's just be cautious about whatever could still happen as well

Something like a UK involvement might help to think, but what would UK take the risk of doing against Russia, it's not sure either, because then that would mean potentially directly putting NATO on the line too, and maybe they'll talk this before in case any decision had to be taken

[Middle-aged Europe]

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1525140318487826433

[Helsinkian]

Energy imports from Russia would have been ended soon anyways, so good riddance. Imports from Russia have been no more than 10 percent of Finland's energy usage in recent times.

[Helsinkian]

BTW, in Erdogan's comments regarding Finland's and Sweden's NATO membership, he complained about how Kurdish terrorists are being protected in Sweden and the Netherlands... So maybe that's an indication of how well-informed he is. I also remember that he once spoke about the "King of Finland" a few years ago...

[President Johnson]

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1525140318487826433

Putin is a triggered snowflake, example 8,954.

Too bad when you whine about NATO all the time, start a war with war crimes committed, just to find out NATO expands further in a matter of months.

We actually need another Downfall video with "Putin finds out Finland and Sweden joined NATO".

[Alben Barkley]

Putin's goals when launching this "special military operation" included:

1. Proving Russian military might is still strong.

Russian tanks have been equipped with "cope cages" and getting stuck in the mud, teenage conscripts deserting in droves, generals getting shot dead left and right, air force falling into the ocean and failing to firmly establish air superiority, flagship sunk by a country with no Navy, army routed and sent flying back in their failed attempt to quickly take Kyiv, massive casualties that exceed in two months US casualties in two decades of the "War on Terror." The Russian military is now the laughing stock of the whole world.

2. Preventing NATO "expansion."

He now has two countries which have gone out of their way to try to play nice with Russia by not joining NATO clamoring to join ASAP, including one right on his border that famously humiliated his hero Stalin.

3. "De-Nazify" Ukraine.

Russian claims about how ackshually Jews were the real bad guys in the Holocaust have been roundly condemned and have contributed to the once-neutral Israel turning firmly against Russia.

Could it be that Putin himself is actually the greatest anti-Putin asset around???

[Santander]

Ukraine has a massive Nazi problem but the West doesn't care because they hate Russia more.

[Alben Barkley]

Ukraine has a massive Nazi problem but the West doesn't care because they hate Russia more.

Tell me again how the large country that is committing genocide against a small neighboring country under the justification of "liberating" a population of "ethnic" native speakers of their predominant language, and is going around raping and murdering that country's women and executing its men in cold blood with their hands tied behind their backs with a bullet to the head, is the one that does NOT have a "massive Nazi problem" in this situation?

Hell even the Azov battalion, the so-called "Nazi" boogeyman of Ukraine, has readily accepted Jews as members and leaders, and the vast majority show no signs of actual Nazi ideology; they are just expressing (well-justified) anti-Russian sentiment and Ukrainian nationalism. Under normal circumstances I might strongly disagree with these people on most political matters. But times of gross international atrocities demand that people overlook even enormous ideological differences to face a common threat and enemy. Ironically, just as the West did with the USSR against the Nazis back in the day. And I gotta say, those Azov motherf--kers have been fighting tooth and nail to the end in Mariupol, some real Spartan s--t.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Ukraine has a massive Nazi problem but the West doesn't care because they hate Russia more.

You haven't provided any facts to back up that claim (just like the Russian government usually does), so I'll just say that reality unfortunately disagrees with.

Okay, I just don't leave it that, because here's a fact: The ultranationalist "Svobod" party which notoriously was a junior member in the Ukrainian government back in 2014, has held only a single seat in the 450-member strong Ukrainian parliament since the last legislative election in 2019.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Erdogan now says he's opposed to Finland joining NATO. F**k Erdogan.

Also, Turkey should NOT be apart of NATO. KICK THEM OUT!

Turkey has been neutral in the Ukraine war, the drones that they have sent are ones that Ukraine bought pre war, it's not military aid. Turkey has been useless in the war like Hungary. The EU is lucky Turkey is not a member.