Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

spiteful_rr_dm_TA t1_j6j3njj wrote

Honestly NATO only really needs Finland. Having the ability to move troops and equipment to such a large and important border is the most vital aspect of them joining.

65

grayfox0430 t1_j6j52zt wrote

Sweden allows the entirety of the Baltic sea with the exception of Kaliningrad and near St. Petersburg to be surrounded by NATO countries. That's vitally important

112

spiteful_rr_dm_TA t1_j6j5wc0 wrote

Yes but NATO dominates the entrance in and out of the Baltic sea with Denmark and Norway. Sweden is a nice to have, not a need to have. Finland opens a border that is too long to defend, and can cut off supplies between most of ruzzia and the militarily important Kola Peninsula, thanks to Finland being 100km from the railroad in some places.

I want both, but Finland is far more strategically important than Sweden if war breaks out

44

KakisalmenKuningas t1_j6jqyxo wrote

Nah, Sweden is essential to have from the Finnish point of view, not just a nice to have. Sweden makes logistics way easier, has a large manpower reserve of fit to serve who could be trained fairly easily in the event of war, is able to manufacture arms and resupply units, has a locally very powerful navy and air force (their army isn't bad either, just lacks a little manpower since they did away with conscription) with capabilities that are quite lacking with their neighbors, etc.

The Finnish and Swedish defense/armed forces have a very good working relationship. Perhaps Sweden isn't essential for NATO, but Sweden is essential for Finland regardless of if we are in NATO or not. Finland without Sweden also loses quite a bit of effectiveness and resilience in terms of providing security in the Baltic Sea area and around the Kola Peninsula.

57

REOreddit t1_j6js1ue wrote

Sweden can help defend Finland anytime they want, they don't need to be a NATO member to do that.

7

oldspiceland t1_j6jszp4 wrote

Right. Can. But hypothetically would you rather be between a bully and someone who will help you, or a bully and someone who can help you.

I don’t blame Finland.

24

REOreddit t1_j6jt9gw wrote

Explain to me how Finland and Sweden outside of NATO is safer for Finland than Sweden out and Finland in?

3

nineelevglen t1_j6jzpe2 wrote

I think you are vastly underestimating the historical ties between Finland and Sweden. Swedens draft of soldiers to support Finland in WW2 under the slogan "Finlands cause is yours" and the military alliance since is something you might disregard if look at the world as a game of Risk. But locally its a different story.

22

REOreddit t1_j6k14jp wrote

What has that to do with my question?

If some country attacks Finland today, Sweden will help them.

If some country attacks Sweden today, Finland will help them.

That will not change if only one of them (Finland) joins NATO. What will change is what other countries would join the fight if the one which joins NATO is attacked.

Of course, Finland can decide whatever they want, but it doesn't make it automatically a wise decision. Any country is free to shoot itself on the foot if they want (see Brexit).

1

Styrbj0rn t1_j6khi1e wrote

It's not safer for Finland. But, at this point it doesn't matter since Finland and Sweden have both gotten some security guarantees. Finland is just showing solidarity because it's still better if Sweden joins NATO. And even NATO still wants us to join together. Besides there is a small chance that Putin does something crazy like attack Gotland which seriously threatens Finland aswell.

4

MonsieurClickClick t1_j6l8kys wrote

> Besides there is a small chance that Putin does something crazy like attack Gotland which seriously threatens Finland aswell.

... In which case it would be better if Finland was in NATO.

1

oldspiceland t1_j6k6f19 wrote

I explained it pretty clearly. Finland sees joining NATO without a commitment from Sweden as putting themselves in a poor strategic situation.

Sweden is vital to Finland’s strategic security in the event of a war with Russia and if Sweden were to remain neutral in such a scenario it would be catastrophic for Finland as they would effectively be cut off.

This isn’t rocket science. Finland is trying to guarantee that they will have supply routes in case of a war, otherwise they aren’t willing to participate in that war. Theoretically joining NATO means that participation is not optional in this scenario. If Finland joins NATO without Sweden then Russia could potentially cut Finland off from NATO if Sweden were to remain neutral.

Whether it’s likely or not doesn’t counter the catastrophe if it happens.

9

REOreddit t1_j6k7oxv wrote

So, let me understand this...

Sweden wants to join NATO. Being a member of NATO means that if another member is attacked, then all the rest must defend them. That attacked country could be any of them, including Turkey. So, basically Sweden is willing to defend Turkey, if they join NATO.

But, if they don't join NATO, and Finland does, Sweden might want to remain neutral, if Russia attacks Finland? Is that what you are saying? Because that makes exactly zero sense.

−5

oldspiceland t1_j6k87o1 wrote

Honestly I don’t understand how you think it doesn’t make sense. You explained it pretty well.

The point is that Finland is trying to leverage the possibility of this as a reason to not join as a lever to move Turkey to allow Sweden to join.

Like, the context here in the post is already pretty clear so?

7

REOreddit t1_j6k8n3l wrote

And Finland might not succeed, and they will be in a worse position than they would be if they join without Sweden.

2

oldspiceland t1_j6k9jg6 wrote

Your premise exists on the idea that the thing you called ridiculous (Sweden not coming to their defense regardless of treaty status) is not actually ridiculous at all.

None of this actually matters until it does. It’s not like NATO has ever actually been tested. Who knows, if Russia invaded Turkey, Greece might refuse the call to aid despite NATO. What is NATO’s recourse in that situation? Invading Greece? They will have larger issues to deal with.

1

MonsieurClickClick t1_j6l9rtm wrote

No, it is ridiculous. Sweden and Finland already have defense treaties outside of NATO. Both are EU members for example.

The idea that Sweden would sit by and refuse to let NATO run supply lines to Finland isn't just absurd, it's dumb.

3

oldspiceland t1_j6la4a5 wrote

The idea that Turkey would somehow be negatively effected by Sweden’s NATO membership is also dumb but here we are. Living in a world of dumb. Discussing dumb while talking about dumb theoretical situations.

2

MonsieurClickClick t1_j6la9q8 wrote

Lmao that's not why Turkey is being difficult. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about sweetheart.

−4

oldspiceland t1_j6lae71 wrote

Honey I probably know more about this whole situation than you and your four closest friends but please, entertain me further.

1

[deleted] t1_j6lahum wrote

[removed]

−1

oldspiceland t1_j6laqdx wrote

Mmm. I expected better honestly. 2/10. Unoriginal and boring. Constructive criticism: find the nearest patch of grass and touch it, then ask the grass what it thinks about the situation because it probably knows more about it than you do.

0

REOreddit t1_j6kaoxs wrote

And using the same argument, Sweden could remain neutral, even if they join NATO and Russia invades Finland. Then why bother at all with any of this?

1

oldspiceland t1_j6kdquh wrote

Because it’s ultimately beneficial to have both of them in NATO from the perspectives of them and other NATO member states. They’re hoping that by creating a buffer of states large enough they will be able to ensure that Russia’s aggressive tendencies are outweighed by the knowledge that anyone they attack will have NATO riding to defend them instead of might.

Might allows for a lot of room for stupid decisions.

2

REOreddit t1_j6kfz8s wrote

Nobody is arguing that it isn't better to have both in NATO. But the truth is that Sweden and Finland have a lot more to gain from joining NATO than Turkey. So basically, Turkey can prolong this situation forever, the same way their candidacy to the EU is frozen. If Sweden doesn't want to make key concessions to Turkey, then they will not join NATO, not today and not in 20 years from now. If Finland wants to share the same future, so be it, but everybody would be safer, including Sweden, if at least Finland they joins NATO. And Finland saying they will not join without Sweden doesn't have any effect on Turkey's position.

3

mmm__donuts t1_j6l597f wrote

Your question is getting a lot of hate for some reason, but it's a good one.

My answer: because being in NATO makes it possible that Finland will be pulled into a war with Russia. This most likely cause would be if the Ukraine conflict escalates. And in that case, being in NATO without Sweden means being at war with a country with which Finland shares a massive land border and not having the support of the powerful and nearby Swedish navy and air force.

Look at the choice from Finland's point of view: Being in NATO protects Finland to the extent that they expect Russia to attack Finland and puts Finland in danger to the extent that they expect a NATO-Russia war to happen over something else. Given the damage it has suffered in Ukraine, Russia isn't going to have the strength to attack Finland for years. It's far more likely that NATO will end up at war with Russia as a result of something happening in Ukraine than it is that Russia will invade Finland soon. So, it makes sense for them to wait for Sweden so that Sweden's NATO membership can ameliorate the risk of being drawn into a war with Russia.

3

REOreddit t1_j6m1cr6 wrote

But I think your premise is wrong, Finland will always have the support of Sweden, no matter what. For starters, both are in the EU, which has a mutual defense pact. Also, I don't know if those two (or the Nordic countries) have a bilateral defense treaty, but they could and they should. NATO is not exclusive to other military alliances. If the US were attacked, you can be sure Australia would help them however they could, and the US shares as much intelligence (five eyes) with them as they want.

3

mmm__donuts t1_j6nftxv wrote

If NATO decided to intervene in Ukraine, would Sweden be willing to take the risk of participating in the fighting even after NATO wouldn't have them? What if the war was over Russia's invasion of Turkey? If Finland is in NATO, there are a whole bunch of reasons they might end up at war with Russia besides an attack on Finland, and mutual defense pacts don't cover those.

1

REOreddit t1_j6njvtc wrote

If NATO attacks Russia without Russia attacking them first, I wouldn't expect any help from any country outside of NATO, but of course any country could join the war if they wanted.

If Finland ends up in a war with Russia for other reasons than self defense, any help from Sweden would depend on the circumstances, and the potential threat to Sweden. Yes, I agree that mutual defense pacts don't cover every eventuality, but I don't see a problem with that. Otherwise you are bound to blindly follow any stupid decisions from your allies.

Having said that, if Russia were to attack Turkey, that would be such a crazy move that no country in Europe would be safe, and it would probably be in Sweden's interest to intervene, at least to defend Finland, if not in a more active role.

1

mmm__donuts t1_j6nseuo wrote

>If NATO attacks Russia without Russia attacking them first, I wouldn't expect any help from any country outside of NATO, but of course any country could join the war if they wanted.

And Finland would be one of the most exposed countries in NATO should that happen without Sweden being a member. It's a good reason for them to wait.

>If Finland ends up in a war with Russia for other reasons than self defense, any help from Sweden would depend on the circumstances, and the potential threat to Sweden. Yes, I agree that mutual defense pacts don't cover every eventuality, but I don't see a problem with that. Otherwise you are bound to blindly follow any stupid decisions from your allies.

Being in NATO vastly increases the chances of a war for reasons other than self defense. As you point out, that's the risk of joining any alliance. Being in NATO without Sweden makes that war much more difficult for Finland to fight.

>Having said that, if Russia were to attack Turkey, that would be such a crazy move that no country in Europe would be safe, and it would probably be in Sweden's interest to intervene, at least to defend Finland, if not in a more active role.

Sweden's military isn't going to be the deciding factor in that war. It makes far more sense for them to hold back and let other people do the fighting.

1

[deleted] t1_j6nzk01 wrote

How are Sweden supposed to do that with a target on us, exactly? Russia might just say we will nuke you and be done with it. Sweden would be forced to close transportation for nato and just accept the target is there and we have no way of participating since we are outside Nato with guns pointed at us. Would that country not have to look out for themself in that situation? What if there comes a new government who says differently? If you weren't so blind you would see the next best thing for Russia is that finland joins and Sweden doesn't. This is their goal now and it seems like it's working. You really think solidarity matters when you are on your own with a target on you? Ofcourse we wont and cant do much in that situation with a target on us.

That's what would happen and it's amazing people can't use logic anymore.

1

REOreddit t1_j6o0xyx wrote

Ok, then do whatever Turkey asks you to do, problem solved.

1

TheBusStop12 t1_j6lxul8 wrote

War is not going to break out between now and July. We can wait

2

KakisalmenKuningas t1_j6jxmap wrote

Absolutely - at a risk to themselves. Just like how we can help any of our NATO neighbors at a risk to ourselves. Given the current situation (Russian troops being tied in Ukraine) that risk is very small, but it is there.

There are also certain restrictions for access to information systems for non-allied (formally) countries. If Finland has a formal alliance with Sweden, then the opportunities for cooperation and coordination are much greater. There's much less red tape to worry about, and things will in general go much smoother.

Now, if Sweden doesn't want to be in NATO, then that's an entirely different matter. If they do, then I think we should support that in the best way we can. If that means being a "package deal", then I think that's in our best interests.

3

Truth_is_Liberal t1_j6k2m5i wrote

In reality, the US's existing partnership with Finland is all the protection they need during NATO accession. If Putin so much as blinks at the Finnish border, every Russian troop near it will be dead by the end of the week. Heck, the Finns will probably get it done by themselves.

2

_PurpleAlien_ t1_j6kbuhe wrote

> Heck, the Finns will probably get it done by themselves.

This is something that seems is often forgotten in these comments. Finland is not some poor small country without a real army or lacking a means to defend itself. It's got one of the largest artillery capability in Europe and all those weapons are pre-aimed at the eastern border and a people very willing to defend their country.

8

Truth_is_Liberal t1_j6kejva wrote

People talk about NK artillery, but they don't understand how much better and more accurate Western systems are. If people believe NK can flatten Seoul, they better believe the Finns can wreck most of the Russian border crossings within a day. Most folks don't understand how close Finland is to Russian population centers as well, while Finland's population centers are better protected from land invasion.

A sea route will never be viable for Russia, as their Baltic fleet capability is vastly overrated. They have little to no amphibious capability by modern standards. They have limited missile cruisers which would be utterly annihilated within the first 2-3 days.

If it turned into a conventional warhead ballistic missile fight, the entirety of Europe will invade Russia within the week.

3

NeilDeCrash t1_j6k5rsd wrote

Erdogan could still ratify Finland just to stir the pot, there is nothing Finland can do about it. Both Sweden and Finland have already applied and it is down to members to ratify.

Then it comes down to should Finland itself accept and sign the NATO documents ascending it to NATO. Considering our geographical location i don't see the benefit of waiting as Finland being in NATO would benefit both Finland and Sweden as Sweden would be surrounded by NATO countries.

If the roles were reversed things would be much more hairy.

2

--Muther-- t1_j6ms2y1 wrote

Yeah okay, but shouldn't we also be granted the same security assurances if we are going to be doing that?

1

REOreddit t1_j6mt24y wrote

Who is we?

1

--Muther-- t1_j6mtbwj wrote

Sweden

1

REOreddit t1_j6mutwp wrote

Yes, of course!

First, you are already covered by the EU mutual defense pact, which people tend to dismiss very easily. It's not like article 5 of NATO automatically puts all NATO armed forces under a single command, individual countries still can decide on their own what specific resources they would commit. I do not doubt that the most powerful military forces in the EU would treat an attack on Sweden as seriously as an attack on a NATO member. And most probably others like the UK and the US would also help.

Second, I'm in favor of signing any new bilateral or multilateral military treaties that would deal with Sweden's security concerns. Accepting only Finland in NATO shouldn't be a fuck you to Sweden, it should be a fuck you to Turkey.

By applying for NATO, Sweden has already signaled that they don't want to remain a neutral country, so that opens the door to any new military alliance.

​

Edit: Changed Article 7 to Article 5.

1

[deleted] t1_j6n20ny wrote

[deleted]

2

spiteful_rr_dm_TA t1_j6n2kum wrote

Yes, but not as beneficial as having a huge border that can cut train supply routes to the Kola Peninsula, put us within 350km of St Petersburg, and trapping the baltic fleet between Finland and Estonia, a 200 nautical mile gap. NATO could easily hold the FE gap.

0

BPhiloSkinner t1_j6jaskq wrote

Shhhh, take gentle. Finland and Sweden haven't always played nice with each other; if they now wish to hold hands and waltz into NATO whilst gazing lovingly into each other's eyes...

−12

AlanZero t1_j6je47i wrote

Yes we have, sort of. Finland was colonised and belonged to Sweden for 600 years, until we essentially lost it to russia. After the russian revolution Finland was independent.

Swedish influence was a big part of Finnish history and I’d like to think that our relationship has been very good at least since after the Finnish civil war and through Sweden coming to Finland’s aid during WW2.

In any case, if you want our troubled relationship that has been anything but nice - look west, to the bloody Danes!

16

Stock_Regular8696 t1_j6jiv6p wrote

Hold up, what are you calling Norway? 🧐

5

xXxMemeLord69xXx t1_j6js07o wrote

What are you referring to? Yes we have. Sweden and Finland was the same country for most of history. The only reason we are seperate contries today is because Russia invaded Finland in 1809. We have never been enemies.

5

KatsumotoKurier t1_j6jvqz7 wrote

>Finland and Sweden haven't always played nice with each other

Uh... what history books are you reading? That's how I'd describe the relationship between Britain and France. Sweden and Finland though? Two peas in a pod by comparison.

3

spiteful_rr_dm_TA t1_j6j6027 wrote

Also, Finland and Estonia can pretty much close the gap to St Petersburg and the Baltic on their own

1

princekamoro t1_j6jt9ys wrote

They also make the Kaliningrad gap a lot less of an issue.

1

Matsisuu t1_j6j5lko wrote

But you pretty much need Sweden to get those arms into Finland, and Swedish navy to secure baltic sea. And together Sweden, Finland and Norway has very strong airforce.

16

spiteful_rr_dm_TA t1_j6j6sp5 wrote

Finland and Estonia together can seal off the Baltic Sea from ruzzia, thanks to the narrow gap between them. NATO certainly has the airpower and naval capacity to move large numbers of troop and equipment. Plus what makes you think we couldn't get the supplies through Sweden? Even if they aren't in NATO, they would definitely allow the passage of weapons if war breaks out.

And yes, but the US has the 1st, 2nd, and 4th strongest airforces in the world, and no small portion of those resources are in Europe. The Finish and Norwegian airforces would be more than enough to bolster NATO forces in Europe with US airpower.

Plus you act like Sweden won't just sign treaties with other NATO members. The options are not just NATO, ruzzia, or perfectly neutral. Nothing is stopping them from just signing mutual defense pacts with Norway, Finland, the baltic states, Poland, the UK, Iceland, Denmark, and the US, so that they can join the war effort without being in NATO. Ultimately, being in NATO is more or less symbolic at this point.

4

Matsisuu t1_j6jfi8r wrote

Estonia and Finland can't secure baltics that well, we don't have that much equipment. US air forces is needed also in southern if war occurs between NATO and Russia, northern countries likely covers air mainly by themselves. It's not about can we fet, but will we get supplies trough Sweden. Uncertainty is not good thing, with NATO membership, it is certain.

And Sweden can sign their own treaties, but will they?

2

[deleted] t1_j6o4fzj wrote

Well dont mind us making our own nuclear bombs then that U.S fought us on. At this point it feels like some are more interested in giving Russia the middlefinger than the actual safety of these countries. You should know by now they intend to use those nuclear on us, so we would be held hostage in that situation, without the protection we simply has to stay out meaning we cant have nato on our soil as that puts an target on us with no proper protection. What would deter them from trying then? Nothing really, we would be guessing, russia might be tempted and guess what, then we would absolutely have to make a hard choice and that's sad, because we do not want to be put in this position again but not surprised the zero care in this situation for the possible outcome of such a sollution and what would happen to all us us, it would affect everyone. And you bring in Iceland they dont fucking have a military.

1

spiteful_rr_dm_TA t1_j6o4tkz wrote

You do realize there are more options than NATO, ruzzia, or strict neutrality, right? That countries are capable of signing mutual defense treaties outside of NATO? Sweden and Finland can each or both sign mutual defense treaties with the US and other NATO members independently, and use that as the same level of safety that NATO can provide

1