Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Finland & Sweden, and NATO membership.

From the Guardian -

Finland must apply to join Nato 'without delay': Finnish president and PM​

Finland must apply to join the Nato military alliance “without delay”, Finnish President Sauli Niinisto and Prime Minister Sanna Marin said this morning, Reuters reports, indicating a major policy shift triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Nato membership would strengthen Finland’s security. As a member of Nato, Finland would strengthen the entire defence alliance. Finland must apply for Nato membership without delay,” Niinisto and Marin said in a joint statement. “We hope that the national steps still needed to make this decision will be taken rapidly within the next few days.”

Yesterday, a Gallup poll commissioned by Helsingin Sanomat reported that 73% percent of respondents believe that Finland should join the military alliance as Nato. The figure was eight percentage points higher than in a similar survey at the end of April.

Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frederiksen has already responded this morning by saying that Finland would be welcomed into Nato and that she will work for a quick process.

----

Estonia’s prime minister Kaja Kallas has said that her country supports Finland’s rapid accession to Nato. In a tweet she said:

"History being made by our northern neighbours. You can count on our full support. We support a rapid accession process. From our side will make necessary steps quickly."
 
The different between the US & UK deals, is the US one only comes into play if they apply for NATO membership, whereas the UK one is not dependant on that. But, there's a good point here, the UK has basically just put in place the mutual assistance which was there when we were in the EU.

Wednesday’s new security agreements with the UK – after similar deals signed with the US – are an attempt to address concerns about the so-called “grey zone” both countries will enter after their Nato applications but before accession.
Click to expand...
Swedish security analyst Malena Britz suggested the Swedish-UK deal goes some way to restoring elements of the EU security and mutual assistance clause in article 42.7 of the Lisbon treaty.

“You could say that we are regaining the support we had from the Brits before they left the EU,” said Ms Britz to Sweden’s TT news wire.

“They discussed supporting with all possible resources, including militarily, and that’s pretty much exactly what is covered in current EU legislation.”
Click to expand...

www.irishtimes.com

Finland expected to indicate intention to join Nato

UK agrees to provide support to Finland and Sweden in case of Russian aggression
www.irishtimes.com www.irishtimes.com
 
Meanwhile regarding Sweden -

Swedish newspaper Expressen is leading with what it claims is an exclusive that Sweden will move forward with an application to join Nato on Monday. Helena Gissén reports:

The government is holding an extra meeting on Monday to make the formal decision on a Swedish Nato application. Immediately after the meeting, the application will be submitted if nothing unforeseen occurs, sources told Expressen. LINK
Click to expand...
 
cupid_stunt said:
The different between the US & UK deals, is the US one only comes into play if they apply for NATO membership, whereas the UK one is not dependant on that. But, there's a good point here, the UK has basically just put in place the mutual assistance which was there when we were in the EU.




www.irishtimes.com

Finland expected to indicate intention to join Nato

UK agrees to provide support to Finland and Sweden in case of Russian aggression
www.irishtimes.com www.irishtimes.com
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree with the EU thing - I've been involved in both NATO and EU military structures at various stages of my career, including right up until the UK left the EU, and I promise you that none of the EU states take 42.5 to be anything like NATO's chapter 5.

It might have the same words, but it's just fluff - akin to UN aspirations.

There are some in the EU structures who think it's the same, but not in the states who actually provide the force, and I can certainly say that Finland and Sweden, and the eastern states, barely considered it to amount to warm words - you might get a 'deeply concerned' tweet out of it, and perhaps someone at the EU might change their Facebook profile to an image of your flag - but it wasn't worth spit when the shit hit the fan.
 
They are just repeating what they said weeks ago, and has been ignored by the Finns and the rest of the world.
 

MSN

www.msn.com

Yes, msn, but interesting anyhow.

If they don't join Nato Johnson has committed us to help defend them against Russia.
 
This strikes me as Johnson posturing unnecessarily here for political reasons. While it is probably right that no invasion is going to happen between now and Sweden and Finland joining NATO, Johnson is actually banking on that.

This is going to sound harsh, but why offer this? What is in it for the UK? Potentially lots of dead soldiers. Kind of thing that triggers world wars. Why not just let the NATO process happen?
 
littlebabyjesus said:
This strikes me as Johnson posturing unnecessarily here for political reasons. While it is probably right that no invasion is going to happen between now and Sweden and Finland joining NATO, Johnson is actually banking on that.

This is going to sound harsh, but why offer this? What is in it for the UK? Potentially lots of dead soldiers. Kind of thing that triggers world wars. Why not just let the NATO process happen?
Click to expand...

The US has also made security guarantees for the period between them applying for NATO membership and them being accepted.
 
Magnus McGinty said:
TBH this should all have been happening when Putin was murdering British citizens on UK soil with chemical weapons and whatnot. We’re perhaps where we are now because the govt were unwilling or unable to stand up to him.
Click to expand...
Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean by "this", but I don't think Putin murdering British citizens on UK soil with chemical weapons and whatnot actually made many people in either Finland or Sweden change their minds about their long-term neutrality, certainly not to the extent of wanting to join NATO.
 
andysays said:
Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean by "this", but I don't think Putin murdering British citizens on UK soil with chemical weapons and whatnot actually made many people in either Finland or Sweden change their minds about their long-term neutrality, certainly not to the extent of wanting to join NATO.
Click to expand...

Fair point. But I would have thought that those actions by Putin should have been the red lights on the dashboard starting to flash, or the canary in the mine, whichever your preferred idiom, as to how Putin viewed his European neighbours.
Somehow it took an invasion of its neighbour, despite a previous incursion, for scales to fall from eyes as to the threat he posed.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
This is going to sound harsh, but why offer this? What is in it for the UK? Potentially lots of dead soldiers. Kind of thing that triggers world wars. Why not just let the NATO process happen?
Click to expand...
All the Billy Bookcases and Nokia phones we can eat...
 
andysays said:
Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean by "this", but I don't think Putin murdering British citizens on UK soil with chemical weapons and whatnot actually made many people in either Finland or Sweden change their minds about their long-term neutrality, certainly not to the extent of wanting to join NATO.
Click to expand...
Someone will be along shortly to explain why the murder of Dawn Sturgess was actually the fault of NATO.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
This strikes me as Johnson posturing unnecessarily here for political reasons. While it is probably right that no invasion is going to happen between now and Sweden and Finland joining NATO, Johnson is actually banking on that.

This is going to sound harsh, but why offer this? What is in it for the UK? Potentially lots of dead soldiers. Kind of thing that triggers world wars. Why not just let the NATO process happen?
Click to expand...
Because they need the guarantee while the Nato application runs its course?

Also it's a mutual arrangement, are we sure it's not them protecting us. :D
 
Magnus McGinty said:
Fair point. But I would have thought that those actions by Putin should have been the red lights on the dashboard starting to flash, or the canary in the mine, whichever your preferred idiom, as to how Putin viewed his European neighbours.
Somehow it took an invasion of its neighbour, despite a previous incursion, for scales to fall from eyes as to the threat he posed.
Click to expand...

TBF neither of those was a fundamental threat to their security, nor was 2014. The Soviets (and others) assassinated defectors relatively frequently all over the place, and as long as it was only defectors dying it could be tolerated (to an extent). Them nabbing pro-Russian bits of other countries also wasn't that unusual.

With this though, I think its much more about the chat on Russian TV, Parliament and other places and especially the government denials beforehand (diplomatic denials rather than those in the Press). Everyone (especially the Finns) understood that the post-WW2 Soviets wouldn't clobber you as long as you didn't do X, Y and Z, and of course that was a strong incentive not to do whatever that was. If they are going to clobber you anyway (and for no real reason) there is much less incentive not to do that.
 
agricola said:
TBF neither of those was a fundamental threat to their security, nor was 2014. The Soviets (and others) assassinated defectors relatively frequently all over the place, and as long as it was only defectors dying it could be tolerated (to an extent). Them nabbing pro-Russian bits of other countries also wasn't that unusual.

With this though, I think its much more about the chat on Russian TV, Parliament and other places and especially the government denials beforehand (diplomatic denials rather than those in the Press). Everyone (especially the Finns) understood that the post-WW2 Soviets wouldn't clobber you as long as you didn't do X, Y and Z, and of course that was a strong incentive not to do whatever that was. If they are going to clobber you anyway (and for no real reason) there is much less incentive not to do that.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t a direct threat to their security at that point, perhaps, but it was a direct threat to the UK’s, which seemed to be largely ignored by everyone.
I mean, it’s fucking nuts. The use of chemical and radioactive material to carry out murder on foreign soil in peace time to silence critics.
What is NATO actually for if that was shrugged off?
The fact it was can only have increased Putin’s confidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AmateurAgitator
The Pro-NATO Left
Replies
17
Views
1K
belboid
belboid
shambler
  • Poll
Should the EU/NATO use direct military action to help defend Ukraine?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
167
Views
7K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
Back
Top Bottom