The Effects of Finland's Possible NATO Membership (2016) [pdf]
um.fi
um.fi
Currently as things stand, Finland most likely joins in few years. Next parliamentary election is most likely won by center-right who favors it, and president is from same faction.
It's a bit situationally dependent, if threats from Russia is seen as violent, it could change their calculus. However even center-left figures already agrees it's necessity, just not now. It could be seen as provocative.
I have always thought that Finland would be in NATO already if it was not seen meddling in middle east. It has really burned it's view among leftists.
This hypocrisy is prevalent and disgusting.
What are you saying?
The war in Afghanistan was obviously a complete and total failure given that the Taliban are now back in charge, but it's hard to argue that after all this time that the Iraqis aren't better off living in an (albeit flawed) democracy than under the rule of Saddam Hussain.
A different clique is on top in Iraq now, but Iraqi standard of living does not appear to be an improvement over the Saddam years.
If you’re Shi’ite there’s no doubt it’s better now, though.
99.9% of the population of any country mostly just want to live their lives and politically all they do is talk and maybe fill in a circle on a ballot once in a awhile. There's a useful fiction that they're all collectively responsible which is used for various illegitimate justifications.
Just like soldiers fight for the person next to them, insurgencies are born because your family members got killed by foreign solders who parked tanks in your cities. Once you leave the rationalizations of the political theater behind and get down to the reality of where the individual acts of homicide are happening in the war, it is all the same thing.
The invasion of Ukraine has invalidated this line of reasoning. NATO is the only definitive way to prevent a Russian invasion now, and every moment of delay puts Finland in greater danger. If Putin is crazy enough to invade a NATO Finland, then he is definitely crazy enough to invade a non-NATO Finland.
Joining NATO and giving it leverage over the Russian navy would vastly increase the chance of Finland being pulled into a hot conflict with Russia
Like they want Ukraine back, as it belonged to the Russian Empire, they also want back Finland, as it belonged to the Russian Empire.
In the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, written immediately before WWII, Russia stated once more their wish to incorporate Finland. Nothing has ever changed in their intentions since then until now.
They have waited until the time when they believed they are strong enough to regain control over Ukraine.
They will also wait a time when they will believe that they can successfully attack Finland. They will not give up on this idea until a completely different kind of government will replace Putin and those like him, which does not seem likely, unless he would suffer a shameful defeat in Ukraine.
Russias power is waning, and at the same time Ukraine-NATO integration is approaching the point of irreversibility. From the Russian perspective the window to stop Ukraine is closing. Finland has no such window right now unless they create one
I think Finland is on eggshells here...
Isn't Estonia already part of NATO? Granted the Finnish border is a lot longer, but in terms of straight-line distance to St Petersburg it would be nothing new.
> FINLAND IS NOT NEUTRAL. That's a common misconception. Finland just doesn't belong to a military alliance. But it is definitely aligned with EU/NATO.
> We are members of the EU. Use € as our currency. Have a close partnership with Nato. Have a military which is more Nato compatible than most of its member states. Participate in Nato exercises and crisis management. Purchased F-18 and F-35. Part of JEF, etc, etc. NOT NEUTRAL.
Russia wasn’t in the dark about it.
"...Irrespective of this, the Atlantic Alliance makes it clear that the organisation’s security guarantees apply to members only. Full access to collective defense planning, decision-making and military structures can only be reached via full membership.
This leads to the main paradox of the NATO partnership, namely that in the worst case it can be seen in the eyes of external actors to strengthen an ever-closer association with NATO without, however, supplying the deterrence provided by Article 5..."
Q1: Do existing NATO members consult their citizens (referendum or political party making pledge before national election or similar) before a new member state is admitted?
Q2: If not, why not?
bonus Q: Imagine Taiwan were to apply to join NATO...
One could imagine that if your country's citizens will be called upon to go to war to fight to defend a distant "country X", just because your country and "country X" happen to be in an alliance, that citizens informed consent would be desirable and required before signing such a treaty.
Despite what your politicians might say, joining an military alliance has a cost, it's not a freebie.
I imagine you would see a very similar response from China, probably a more swift and harsh than that of Russia.
Despite CCP's yelling that they want to invade the world has agreed to an awkward but stable status quo.
"NATO Enlargement & Open Door"
"...NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10 of the Alliance’s founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty (1949). The Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any “European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”. It states that any decision on enlargement must be made “by unanimous agreement”. .."
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_...
"Article 6 states that the treaty covers only member states' territories in Europe and North America, Turkey and islands in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer, plus French Algeria. It was the opinion in August 1965 of the US State Department, the US Defense Department and the legal division of NATO that an attack on the U.S. state of Hawaii would not trigger the treaty, but an attack on the other 49 would.[47] The Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla on the North African shore are thus not under NATO protection in spite of Moroccan claims to them. Legal experts have interpreted that other articles could cover the Spanish North African cities but this take has not been tested in practice."
EU membership but NATO non-membership gives security to Finland, without hosting US military weapons aimed at Russia. In this way, it gives defensive security without making it a strategic threat to Russia.
Problem is apparently with it is wording, it makes requirement to help any ways available. But apparently it can be interpreted like "give humanitarian aid" or even "send troops to help", depending on reader. It's not clear it's defensive enough.
[1]: https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/niinisto-vaati-suoraa-ke...
Georgia was completely indefensible. Ukraine might have been, but preparations were not made for it. Finland can defend itself, so in a sense it is defensible, and in so far as Norway is a NATO member and a neighbor, there might be lines of transportation that might make Finland defensible by the alliance.
I don't actually know. Finland must be more defensible than the Baltic states (which are not at all defensible, but are in NATO). But evidence suggests that Putin doesn't care as much about Finland as about Ukraine, nor as much about the Baltic states as about the Ukraine. So this question may not matter as much as I suppose. Still, in a context where Putin sees NATO expansion as so provocative, it might not be a good idea to rush to expand NATO just yet -- it might be a good idea to first take stock and really see if we actually can defend the new entrants.
That's... not the point at all. NATO isn't an attempt to maximize the utility of a "fortress" in western Europe, it's an attempt to deter aggression by expressly recognizing an attack on one member as an attack on all.
If war is inevitable then we'll all be fighting on Finland's side anyway and NATO membership doesn't matter. The reason to join is to make it as clear as possible that attacking Finland is off limits, and thus prevent the war.
...and it appears the two mutual alliances pre-World War 1 basically ended up hastening the start of World War 1.
Why do we think that it would be different this time?
[1] With no doubt a handful of exceptions that people will point out. The Faulklands war comes to mind, where the UK deliberately did not invoke the treaty and chose to defend its territory itself, etc...
In 1980, the Greek foreign minister Konstantinos Mitsotakis made remarks about the situation where he could see Greece fully withdrawing from the organisation. However, later diplomatic pressure from the United States led to Greece fully re-integrating with the alliance.[10]"
That means Poland is now safe from attack.
All the new entrants being discussed are less defensible than Poland. With Ukraine being left to flap in the wind and lose, the value of discussing NATO entrance is now negative.
Without a definition of "attacked militarily" I'm not sure that claim is useful. Perhaps mostly due to the concept of countries "declaring war" on each other having rather gone out of fashion?
Back in 1943, Roosevelt asked (!) the Congress declare a state of war. These days it seems it's more like "shoot first and ask [strike]questions[/strike] Congress later"
No one -but no one- believes that NATO will fight a war with Russia over Finland, or over Ukraine, or Belarus, or Georgia, or at all. Certainly Putin does not. I assert certainty w/o being a mind reader and not truly knowing what's in going on in his mind, but it's pretty clear to any and all that Germans, French, British, Americans, etc, none of them want a shooting war with Russia even if it could be an easy win because a) it might not be an easy win, b) it might be ruinously costly in blood and treasure even if it were an easy win, c) it might lead to nuclear war where no one wins and everyone loses.
If, however, Finland is easily defended, and can defend itself by itself with little extra help from NATO, then that's a deterrence to invasion of Finland regardless of Finland's membership in NATO. I think the experience with the Winter and Continuation Wars makes it pretty clear that Finland can defend itself, at least for some time, so that alone is deterrence against Russia invading Finland. Inviting Finland into NATO would then seem mostly an empty gesture (since we all know NATO won't actually fight Russia), but also a provocative action (see Ukraine). It's lose-lose.
It's time for sane thinking to prevail at NATO. The status quo ante-Georgia was fine. The current state of play is not. We got here in large part because of overly-optimistic belief in NATO. Instead of deterring Putin, the inverse happened. The reason is simple: NO ONE believes that NATO would actually fight. Even back in the 80s under Reagan, no one believed any countries other than the U.S. and UK would really fight, but at least Western Europe was defensible and worth fighting for, and the U.S. being willing to fight was deterrence enough. Eastern Europe is now defensible and worth fighting for, and I do believe Poland would fight for itself, and so would other Eastern European countries, but I don't think any would fight for Ukraine, not even if Ukraine had been admitted a few months ago.
One possible solution currently considered is to ask Article 5 protections from NATO for the duration of the membership process.
https://yle.fi/news/3-12272467
> "If Finland and Sweden applied for membership, we could decide on it overnight. You could be a member the very next day because you meet all the necessary membership criteria," said Rasmussen, who was Nato Secretary General from 2009 to 2014.
More interesting is that just a couple of years later all is forgotten and Russia is selling Turkey its most advanced S-400 air defense system, thus precipitating a diplomatic crisis with the US.
Middle Eastern politics: never a dull moment.
The report discusses this, and mentions two reasons against doing that:
- What happens if you do it, and then the referendum votes against joining? You're screwed from both ends.
- Due to the previous reason, there will be extreme pressure to vote for joining in the referendum, making it not very democratic.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12043017/64-3-56998 (Finnish-language)
- "The citizens' initiative, which calls for a referendum on Finland's NATO membership, has collected more than 50,000 statements of support."
- "This means that the citizens' initiative is being considered by Parliament. The initiative was launched on Monday of this week."
- "The citizens' initiative states that a consultative referendum will be held in Finland on Finland's NATO membership."
"Now Czechia, or we'll nuke you."
There comes a point where that bluff has to be called, and we're approaching it.
Then tell them they can do whatever they want with little response. Has the EU drawn up a surrender treaty yet?
According to reports, only a third of the force deployed around Ukraine are actually in Ukraine.[1] So, about 50-60,000. So, there are as many Russian troops currently deployed in Ukraine as US troops currently stationed in Japan, give or take a few thousand.[2]
[1] Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Is Just Beginning (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/25/russia-invasion-ukraine...)
[2] United States Forces Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Japan)
5-15% of their Army is locked up, and by all accounts, they did not deploy their newer and more expensive tanks, airforce, and equipment.
Clearly we’ll let you into NATO es the bluff.
"We'll leave you alone if you promise never to join NATO" is the bluff, and it's been proven to be a lie this month.
It didn’t, but it intended to: "In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine’s Constitution entered into force." [1]
Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, has every right to desire entry into NATO.
Russia, on the other hand, is in clear and direct violation of their own agreements, where Ukraine gave up nukes in exchange for permanent security guarantees against exactly what's happening now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
This is a very short range view of history. Ukraine tried to get into NATO in 2008, but was put on the back burner. Anti-NATO government came to power in 2010, and overthrown in 2014 by Pro-NATO Poroshenko, directly leading to the annexation. Since then Ukraine has steadily drawn closer to joining NATO up until the current situation.
Ukraine has every right to do that. They're a sovereign nation, not a Russian province. Russia has no more standing to demand they stay out of NATO than they have the right to dictate the speed limit in Kiyv.
Sure, I totally agree. They are free to make their own decisions. NATO countries are also free to make their own decisions, and I wish that they would close the NATO door to Ukraine. I have no interest in the US and NATO being the world police.
Suppose my neighbor is a thug. A gang member. And he doesn’t like me. I have every right to date his little sister. We’re all free adults. My intentions are constitutional! What could go wrong? If he threatens me, I’ll just tell the police, because he has no right. What could go wrong?
There’s the way you wish things were, and the way things are. I understand the desire to make things how they ought to be. But in the meantime, there is sometimes a gulf between theory and practice.
https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000008515424.html
Another interesting sign of people warming up to joining NATO is a gallup that suggested 63% either "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree" to "accepting Finland joining NATO if it was recommended by the president and the government".
https://www.iltalehti.fi/politiikka/a/057dcd1a-dbca-403b-af1...
Perhaps we should take that approach for NATO membership.
In his big speech last week, Putin said it was "madness" that the Baltic nations were allowed to become independent nations. Their re-conquest is next on his list.
Germany seems to be smelling which way the winds are blowing and is sending 1,000 antitank arms and 500 stinger missiles to Ukraine.
The question right now probably isn't who else Putin invades, but how long he manages to last in control of Russia.
In practice, somewhat true; in design, well, see Chapter VII, and particularly Articles 42-47, of the Charter.
When you share a huge border with an aggressive psychopath, whose army is massively larger than yours, you need strong military allies.
Edit: nevermind, clearly my understanding of Eastern European politics is weak, shouldn’t have commented
Therefore all talk of Belarus joining NATO is fantasy.
Fantasy isn't going to stop war in Ukraine.
Fantasy can only cause war.
Time to get real.