How does NATO benefit?
Examples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Launched_Small_Diamet...
PS: Not sure why parent is getting down voted for asking a neutral question. Curiosity!
Phrasing of that question is a classic bait for flame wars.
At some point {subject} {verb} is just {subject} {verb}.
And given the abnormally terse formulation, I'd expect GP was explicitly trying to decolor their interrogative.
Of course, Sweden was already a member of the EU and a NATO partner, so it's not a huge difference in practice.
It completely neutralizes the Russian Baltic Fleet.
The only railway line supporting Murmansk is less than 200km beyond the finnish border, which means the Nordic Fleet is also compromised.
Potential disadvantages of additional members are added political instability as can be seen with Hungary and Turkey. There is little chance of this with both countries.
Basically you dont defend members, you defend borders and adding Finland and Sweden to the pact makes for a far easier and better developed front. The Finns have been building bunkers and training their population for the next Russian invasion since WW2.
Having Finland as a member strengthens the position of the Baltics, who are threatened by the Suwalki corridor.
Basically it strengthens and stabilizes the northern border to Russia/Belarus.
Also, a bigger alliance requires each member to contribute fewer troops to manage a common defense.
Sweden is a fairly wealthy country that can contribute the required amount to NATO.
Sweden's ports are beneficial in a potential Arctic conflict.
Finally, Sweden does not bring any new potential conflicts/enemies with it.
How? Norway (long a member) has Arctic ports, Sweden does not touch the Arctic.
Not since the 1940s.
Except the part where Trump said he'd pull the US out of NATO if elected.
Congress blocked his ability to do that without their approval: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/16/...
EDIT: since other commenters don't know, yes it was signed into law, Sec 1250A of the 2024 NDAA:
>The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
But who knows, maybe he can sabotage the alliance in other ways, or find some other way out.
https://www.uso.org/stories/3518-one-year-later-how-the-uso-...
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
But in same time European allies has also increased their NATO soldiers.
The fact that Ukraine hasn't been easy for him makes it less likely that Putin will attempt that, but it's clearly been on his mind.
There is a reason forces of core NATO states farther from the Eastern flank are deployed to Poland and the Baltic states; it is practically impossible for Russia to attack them without attacking the forces of core NATO states, not just in a "legally, under Article 5, we must treat this as an attack" way, but in a "Russian troops are killing troops of those states" way.
Even the good relations between EU and Russia pre-2014 were just theater on Russia's part. Here in Finland during those years shady Russian businessmen kept buying properties that made no financial sense, but were located close to critical infrastructure or military locations. They have never acted in good faith.
AFAICT this topic has been mostly avoided by the Finnish media. I guess everyone just kinda trusts that the government is on top of the situation.
Baltics have always been the biggest risk. They are very small population-wise and can be "easily" cut off (Suwalki gap). But the addition of Sweden and Finland to the alliance will significantly improve the defense posture (airfields, maritime logistics).
For example if the US were to leave NATO, they miss out on all the benefits that European NATO members provide, but also would not need to defend Europe, which is where any war involving NATO members is likely to happen.
It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.
NATO membership also means NATO equipment, which the US's military-industrial complex disproportionate benefits from, but also serves as lock-in: those extremely expensive aircraft are basically scrap without the appropriate service contracts and part availability, meaning any military that aligns itself with the US's tech is far less likely to be able to wage wars we don't approve of.
NATO also brings stability: nuclear red-line borders are unlikely to be invaded, reducing the chances of conflicts that are bad for business. A peaceful world is a profitable world, and those profits disproportionately go to the US.
NATO also provides soft power projection: NATO membership is a huge boon to its members, which grants the US leverage politically to encourage member states to adopt pro-US policies.
In other words, there has been a strong streak of national self-interest (correctly calculated IMHO -- at least until the end of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union) in the US's contributions to NATO.
NATO is the only reason why the EU buys so much US weapons in the first place, the benefit to the US is enormous.
So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ?
From me a Romanian, feels very shitty that our soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan for America but now if we will need help Trumpists will not help back.
Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.
1 That was not an Article 5 thing,
2 how many USA soldiers gave their life in Kosovoa?
3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.
The American strategy in WWII was "Germany First" despite it having been the Japanese that attacked us.
Anyway we talking about NATO, USA used Art5 and Europeans died for USA, but now Trumpists complain that we are not doing enough and USA will not return the favor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_W...
Based on a quick wiki scan looks like two. This accounts for all NATO casualties. No Romanians were killed in Kosovo.
A combined total of 30 Romanians were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A defense pact, in case shit hits the fan.
A deterrence, to make war too difficult to undertake.
Adding additional countries around the edge of NATO does two things for the countries currently in the pact, even if they aren't economic or military powerhouses. First, those countries are less likely to be attacked, and not having your neighbors be embroiled in war is good. Germany is much happier if there is no land war going on next door in Poland, bombs occasionally falling on the wrong side of the border, civilian refugees looking to them for safety.
Second, adding someone else to the pact puts someone else on the front lines to test the defense provided by the pact, if shit hits the fan. Sure, if Russia wanted to, they could try to bypass Poland on the way to Germany, but practically speaking with Poland in NATO, Germany will get to see how NATO responds to an invasion of Poland, rather than finding out how they respond to an invasion of Germany. Poland, likewise, would be much happier seeing how NATO responded to the invasion of Ukraine-the-NATO-member, rather than watching the invasion of Ukraine and wondering how NATO will respond to the invasion of Poland if Ukraine falls.
As opposed to countries that do not design and manufacture such things themselves.
It also means NATO controls the Baltic Sea completely.
As a kid, I used to loooooove spending the day at Ikea, bouncing around all the beds and hiding in the fake rooms, but mostly just because we'd end up at the food court at the end... mmmm.
Yes, I'm fun at parties.
and boy howdy do those NLAWs work.
I know. I'm always in pain when my NLAWS come to visit.
Also a very interesting distributed defense doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90
Tidal flows. Hull detection. Passage protocols.
And it's a lot easier to justify military spending than it is research.
Same reason NASA is the way it is, but we still have a space program.