Finland & Sweden, and NATO membership.
- Thread starter cupid_stunt
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Why not kick off the discussion by sharing your opinion of the matter
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
and say something about yourself and why you are here
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
For me the thing of which this is a part is how badly Russia has misjudged everything in a way which makes our own foundering government look halfway competent. Pushing Finland and Sweden to abandon long held defence policies in favour of joining nato marks something of a nadir for Russia, when their stated aim was against NATO expansion. It adds a greater element of knowledge and capabilities in Arctic warfare but one thing I imagine the British and Americans are eyeing is the potential for weapons and equipment sales as I suppose certain things are standard across the alliance. Sure kebabking can tell us of those stanags
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Both Finland and Sweden have quite developed defence indutries - they take the view that neutrality, and defence, means not being beholden to others, they also both take resilience very seriously (far more seriously than us for example), and they both sell a lot of gear to NATO states.
Most of their gear is STANAG (Standardisation Agreement) compliant, there are nearly 1400 STANAG's, they cover everything from clothing sizes, pallets, tyres, rifle ammunition, the attachment lugs on aircraft pylons and external stores, pins on tank tracks, fuelhose attachments, radio frequencies, and we'll, pretty much everything.
Finland used to operate a diplomatic mix of western and Soviet aircraft, but as soon as the Sovs fell they ditched all the Sov gear and used F/A-18's. They've just bought 64 F-35A, which will make them one of the most tooled up nations in Europe. They also have the largest Artillery force outside the US Army.
Both have been exercising with NATO for years - Swedes go to Joint Warrior in Scotland, there was a group of Finnish F-18's on ex at RAF Learning in the last few months, the Swedish Air Force Int gathering aircraft have been flying over the Baltic States, Poland and Slovakia in rotas with NATO Int gatherers, the Royal Marines exercise in Sweden quite regularly, and there was a joint ex with the US last year where the USAF flew in a battery of US Army HIMARS GMLRS trucks to Sweden, and the Swedes took them up north for a firing exercise.
One might argue that it's NATO applying to join Finland and Sweden....
Most of their gear is STANAG (Standardisation Agreement) compliant, there are nearly 1400 STANAG's, they cover everything from clothing sizes, pallets, tyres, rifle ammunition, the attachment lugs on aircraft pylons and external stores, pins on tank tracks, fuelhose attachments, radio frequencies, and we'll, pretty much everything.
Finland used to operate a diplomatic mix of western and Soviet aircraft, but as soon as the Sovs fell they ditched all the Sov gear and used F/A-18's. They've just bought 64 F-35A, which will make them one of the most tooled up nations in Europe. They also have the largest Artillery force outside the US Army.
Both have been exercising with NATO for years - Swedes go to Joint Warrior in Scotland, there was a group of Finnish F-18's on ex at RAF Learning in the last few months, the Swedish Air Force Int gathering aircraft have been flying over the Baltic States, Poland and Slovakia in rotas with NATO Int gatherers, the Royal Marines exercise in Sweden quite regularly, and there was a joint ex with the US last year where the USAF flew in a battery of US Army HIMARS GMLRS trucks to Sweden, and the Swedes took them up north for a firing exercise.
One might argue that it's NATO applying to join Finland and Sweden....
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Europe is tooling up. 
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Europe is tooling up.
Given the neighbours, that seems quite sensible.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Europe is tooling up.
There's a certain inevitability to it (or at least it doesn't come as a great shock), but I can't see it as anything to celebrate, TBH
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Pretty much ecstatic.
The open door has long been NATO policy - they've long met all the requirements for membership, and it's always been made clear that they were welcome, and that if they felt that membership was in their interests NATO would looks to progress that as quickly as possible.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
There's a school of thought - which I agree with - that the expansion of NATO from the 1990s onwards was a major mistake, which helped produce the filthy depravity of Putin's war on Ukraine. The trouble with that one is that it usually doesn't go far enough: it doesn't stop to ask why no one had the wit or imagination to come up with some security alternative to the treaty organization (nor does it ever discuss the fatally bad economic advice that was foisted on Russia in the 1990s). Maybe there was no real alternative . . .
Was one possible reason for the expansion a perceived need to balance the alliance against a newly enlarged, mightier, united Germany? If balancing power within the alliance is necessary, what does this apparent shift in the balance of power imply for NATO's future?
America isn't going isolationist any time soon, but the internal crisis of American society isn't going away. No matter who replaces Johnson, Brexit is going to complicate things for the foreseeable future in UK's case. France and Germany are going to have to maintain their shotgun marriage, regardless of anything else. This creates a lot of space for the eastern members of NATO, now joined by the Scandi twins, to make the running for a new, militant policy. If this Ukraine war is followed by a new "time of troubles" in Russia that's going to have security implications for everyone, but the eastern border states most of all - hence their need for that new, militant policy I just spoke of.
Was one possible reason for the expansion a perceived need to balance the alliance against a newly enlarged, mightier, united Germany? If balancing power within the alliance is necessary, what does this apparent shift in the balance of power imply for NATO's future?
America isn't going isolationist any time soon, but the internal crisis of American society isn't going away. No matter who replaces Johnson, Brexit is going to complicate things for the foreseeable future in UK's case. France and Germany are going to have to maintain their shotgun marriage, regardless of anything else. This creates a lot of space for the eastern members of NATO, now joined by the Scandi twins, to make the running for a new, militant policy. If this Ukraine war is followed by a new "time of troubles" in Russia that's going to have security implications for everyone, but the eastern border states most of all - hence their need for that new, militant policy I just spoke of.
2hats
Dust.
Though they have been conducting SIGINT ops beyond the Baltic and collecting along the PL/BY/UA border for several days now. Perhaps sending a signal as well as collecting some.
MrCurry
right after this urgent rest
If it’s at the point where it’s openly discussed in the public arena you can be sure it’s already been agreed behind the scenes - not just that they will be welcome to join but what assistance NATO will be able to offer them in the interim period between the decision being taken and it becoming a reality. It’s not usually a quick process for countries to join NATO after all - I dimly recollect 10-11 months as being “the record“ but haven‘t a source for that.
You can be sure that this was all being discussed and agreed when the Finnish president recently hurriedly met with Biden and I guess the Finns heard what they needed to hear to proceed with a risky move into the transition period before they become full members.
Nordic twins please. Finland is not a part of Scandinavia.
maomao
普費斯
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Good thread, but I am not sure why this caught analysts and him by surprise, there's been several articles & TV news reports discussing this possibly since well before the war started, together with some polls showing the shift in opinions regarding NATO membership by the public in both countries.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
What security alternative could have been made that would have been that much less threatening to paranoid Putin? Security for a country would necessarily mean a collective threat to whoever is attacking it. Part of what makes Ukraine successful is its size. Lithuania wouldn't benefit so much with the stand-offish support.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
I was surprised. Certainly there's been a direction of travel, and it was never in doubt which 'side' they would take, and who they were alligned with, and what feelings would be stirred up, particularly on the Finnish side - but the speed of the change of policy/mentality, and the leaping over other options like a Swedish-Finnish mutual defence pact, or some EU option, has been remarkable.
A year ago, if you'd have said Finland would be in NATO by midsummer, I'd have laughed in your face.
ska invita
back on the other side
Why are they so ecstatic do you think?
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
TBF I am not sure about “militant policy” - there has certainly been dickishness (the attacks on memorials and discrimination against Russian speakers / people of Russian descent for example) but almost all of this is a response to the behaviour and especially the words of the Russian elite.
Where there are obvious wrongs (like mentioned above) they do need to be fixed.
People who can shoot while skiing are pretty cool tbf.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Both countries are significant military powers who would contribute, rather than being overall recipient states, and the Finnish membership particularly closes off a potential route of Russian operations in the Baltic.
There are issues, suddenly the actual NATO- Russia border has gone from about 350 miles to 1200 miles, so simple proximity has dangers, though one could argue that those dangers existed anyway given the political, diplomatic, and military relationships between the Nordic states and the rest of Europe.
Personally I think it makes conflict less likely, it takes any silliness from 'could be risky, but has X domestic political benefits' to 'no, absolutely not'. Russia will go up the wall, but it doesn't have any openings - unless, of course, it asks itself why all its neighbours are so desperate to join NATO...
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
I would have joined you in laughing a year ago, but reports like this started popping-up back in Dec. & Jan.
That's when I first spotted a change coming, and not surprising the war has super-charged that change, and the idea of membership.
Well they declared war on Ukraine for that very reason (partly) but that doesn’t seem to be going very well for them.
