Submitted by parandroidfinn t3_10p91pr in worldnews
oldspiceland t1_j6jszp4 wrote
Reply to comment by REOreddit in Haavisto: Finland has patience to wait for Nato membership — with Sweden. by parandroidfinn
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.
REOreddit t1_j6jt9gw wrote
Explain to me how Finland and Sweden outside of NATO is safer for Finland than Sweden out and Finland in?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_j6lahum wrote
[removed]
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.
[deleted] t1_j6lcid2 wrote
[removed]
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
REOreddit t1_j6o0xyx wrote
Ok, then do whatever Turkey asks you to do, problem solved.
TheBusStop12 t1_j6lxul8 wrote
War is not going to break out between now and July. We can wait
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments