Finland in NATO

[Verneri_Pulkkinen]

The NATO discussion has also surfaced on an investment-themed forum, for understandable reasons.

The discussion has muddled the “European Security Situation and Russian Aggressions” thread, whose main topic, however, is aggressions, as its name suggests. Currently, the thread is an excellent source of information for following the war in Ukraine.

Several members have hoped that, for the sake of clarity, the discussion on Finland’s NATO membership would take place in a different thread.

Without further ado, let’s move the discussion here.

Information on what NATO actually is can be found on NATO’s website, if your memory is rusty https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

This is what it looks like

[Samsam]

Finland should have joined NATO a long time ago, at the same time as the Baltic countries. I can’t think of a single good reason why Finland shouldn’t be a NATO member. One often hears mostly tired arguments that Russia might get angry. As we have seen recently, Russia might get angry and attack even without NATO membership. Membership would bring us significant security. So, into NATO and fast!

[Torniojaws]

The trade Finland had with Russia was probably the only reason to maintain some kind of relationship. Now that’s in the past, and I think it’s time to cut the umbilical cord and permanently join the West. Russia is no longer of any use to us, and it has nothing to offer (with the advent of electric cars and Olkiluoto 3). The band-aid has been ripped off, but it only stings once.

[Ottoman]

If you’re wondering why Finland has never joined NATO, well, there are a few reasons, the biggest being the politicians chosen by the people. The first names that come to mind are Halonen, Lipponen, Tuomioja, Aho, and other heroes swimming in rubles. The public has also been systematically brainwashed against NATO with the most peculiar arguments. Russia’s trade, which was so important to Finland before, is now and has long been frozen, so there’s no longer an obstacle to joining on that front either.

[Avokado]

I have supported NATO my entire adult life, for the past 25 years. Now my mind has started to change, because it’s unlikely we can join NATO without the risk of war. A safer way to preserve our country’s independence might be to “blatantly play with three cards” as described below.

1. Seek alliance with the United States. No need to explain why.
2. Flatter Russia at appropriate junctures. If Russia says there is no war in Ukraine, then it is not a war. Israel and China are currently engaged in similar behavior, flattering both the West and the East. Criticism from Western powers can be blocked with something like: “It’s easy as hell to shout from Spain when there’s no nuclear gangster behind your own border.”
3. Promote a common EU defense. When there are EU votes on joint debts or other matters, we must brazenly link common defense as part of these votes. That is, no joint debt without a common defense.

[Jurpo2]

Anyway, I sense that the Social Democrats and the Greens are already leaning towards NATO (although Iiris Suomela still seems to be plagued by USA-phobia). This change seems even more difficult for the Centre Party than for the Left Alliance, as their politicians don’t even seem to be able to say the word NATO out loud. The attempt to say “NATO” comes out of the mouths of Centre Party ministers as “the summer party meeting, where Finland’s future security arrangements will be discussed.”

The Centre Party has a long history where the relationship with Russia has secured them various political advantages. Furthermore, the party’s style of policymaking is fundamentally to oppose anything that doesn’t directly benefit them, either intrinsically or as a bargaining chip. On the other hand, the Centre Party is always for sale, and I’m just waiting to see what price they’ll put on NATO. Military bases in the provinces?

[Jurpo2]

Finland should join NATO regardless of Sweden’s stance. But Sweden needs NATO even more and faster than Finland.

Russia currently does not have the military strength to attack Finland. But Russia has both the military strength and a great interest in occupying Gotland, even during the war in Ukraine. I believe that if Russia attacks in the Baltic Sea, Sweden will be at the top of the list.

[Jurpo2]

With many cards, playing is no longer possible. Before the war in Ukraine, all EU countries played with many cards. We saw where that led. Now that even Germany has tasted the flavor of Russia’s bloody diarrhea in its mouth, the time of two cards is over in the EU. It is no longer possible to be in an intermediate state; one must choose either the EU or Russia. We are already supplying Ukraine with weapons and are participating in the same sanctions. But at the same time, we bark at Russia without NATO security guarantees. Not very smart. That’s why NATO.

The idea of a common EU defense is very strange, because the EU is already almost the same as NATO. The only essential difference is that NATO also includes Britain, the USA, and Canada. One could say that only the Left talks about a common EU defense, because for ideological reasons they cannot stand the USA. Unfortunately, however, it has again been noted that Putin is also playing the nuclear card, with which he could pressure the EU to abandon the practical implementation of common defense. Ideology must now be separated from this matter even for them.

[Patapata]

Just call me “Finlandized,” but in the name of honesty, I admit that this NATO situation is making me nervous.

My nervousness consists of several parts:

• There are rumors from Ukraine and Russia that negotiations are progressing and a possible ceasefire could happen in 2-3 days. How quickly can Russia gather its troops and continue its conquest, so to speak, “with the same momentum”?

• Couldn’t NATO somehow get entangled in the aforementioned negotiations and be committed to stopping its expansion?

• Does our elected state leadership have things under control and the courage to make the fastest possible moves, instead of the sad “no-yes-can’t-don’t have the authority” dithering seen in the management of the pandemic?

• Related to the above, in the Russia thread, the “bears” have already speculated, judging by Sale’s (Sauli Niinistö’s) shoe-tip posture, that talks with Biden have thwarted our NATO chances.

Go figure these things out, many things that an ordinary person shouldn’t worry about, but try to be calm in this situation. I want to defend this country, but I would find much better motivation for it if I knew there was strength from the front, back, sides, sea, and air.

This is just a stream of thought. As someone in my early thirties, I haven’t really been aware of “Finlandization” as a concept until these past few weeks. But now that the facts are staring me in the face, it’s terrible to realize how deeply the neighbor has penetrated our national subconscious. Someone who knows and studies psychological phenomena better could probably already draw cause-and-effect relationships from this to Finland’s economy.

Summa summarum, I hope that the first day of our NATO membership will be a flag day, our second Independence Day.

[Singulariteetti]

Military non-alignment is not a success story; it is a burden.

It is only a success in the imaginary reality that has been drummed into us, and from which not all politicians may ever wake up. Some have now woken up to the reality that the so-called NATO option does not exist at all, and the truth that we are alone when the going gets tough is slowly dawning.

When I read articles about world politics, I get the impression, in part, that US interests may not necessarily include Finland’s NATO membership right now. The reasons given are that an additional 1300km of border with Russia is one thing, but the main reason why the US might not warm to Finland’s NATO membership would be that Finland has been a “reliable and neutral” interpreter between East and West. Do they want to change this if it has worked for the last 70 years? JFK asked Kekkonen to his place in the 60s to tell him what the Soviet Union was thinking; now the same practically repeats with Niinistö. I can, of course, imagine this chain, and the matter is not like this

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/07/finland-mattered-why-matters-again-00014580

The Baltic countries would certainly support Finland’s membership, but I’m not sure about the USA. Awkwardly or fortunately, Finland’s salvation is that the Baltic countries are NATO members. Russia’s bloodlust is now directed further south, and pressure on Finland will not come in the same way as if convoys of vehicles were besieging Tallinn.

Finland does not have a proper national strategy. The current government, in particular, is reactive and states obvious truths about how a strong economy is a prerequisite for strong national defense, even though it’s the other way around. I fear that Finland’s appeal will fall to rock bottom as long as we imagine non-alignment to be a strength.

https://twitter.com/MikaIhamuotila/status/1502636996572979207

There are hopes, or wishful thinking, about how Finland’s NATO membership is now being promoted behind the scenes.
But after Niinistö’s and Sweden’s PM’s statements, it would be strange to say one thing and do another. Why create any more backdrops for membership efforts? The opponent has shown its face, and there is no need to build backdrops.

Finland chose to belong to the West over 100 years ago. NATO membership should be applied for immediately; it is then in other hands what the timetable will be and what the outcome of the application will be.

[Silvio_Dante]

We should have joined as soon as it was possible, and now we should join immediately before the door closes. This “neutrality” is just foolish self-deception. As can be seen from the current situation, we are not truly neutral. We are part of the West, but without military allies. We suffer all the disadvantages of sanctions, but if the situation deteriorates here, no help is to be expected.

The only good thing about non-alignment has been that our own defense has not been dismantled, as those who joined NATO have done. Although the same parties who have hindered NATO membership have tried hard to do so.

[Johnnyboy]

Good tidbit thread about NATO stuff (hope it’s not a repost):

https://twitter.com/HenriVanhanen/status/1502583459721666561

[RipaRapa]

A simple answer to a simple question. Finland to NATO. We’ve been on our way there for a while, but without threats, it hasn’t felt important. Now there’s a threat, and NATO feels important. It’s unlikely that the threat will disappear within a few years. Therefore, there is nothing unclear about this.

[Johnnyboy]

If Finland were to publicly seek NATO membership without security guarantees, how could Finland react if Russia were to occupy, for example, a small island off Hamina—such as Kivikartti, or a small piece of land in the “arm” region—citing a difference of opinion on whether the border lines were drawn correctly in light of “new information”? Of course, the Finnish Defence Forces have ready plans for different scenarios, but what could these be?

The armed force wouldn’t necessarily need to be very large to create a very difficult situation for Finland.

[Jurpo2]

Excellent question. NATO would not allow Russia to use its own rules against it, especially not after this invasion of Ukraine. Russia does not decide on the interpretation of the NATO charter; the NATO countries themselves do.

This would bring the question back to whether the EU and NATO would have enough geopolitical and other political interests to stop Russia’s attempts to seize Finland. Would they allow an EU country to fall under Russia’s influence?

This would have rather interesting consequences for the EU. The EU is full of decisions that require unanimous decision-making. Could the EU allow Finland to vote with Russia’s voice? The EU also has a common market. Could the EU allow Finland to make separate trade agreements with Russia? I conclude that Finland’s falling into Russia’s sphere of influence would be a greater problem for the EU than for Finland.

And how would all this look in the US? What would the Democrats’ midterm elections look like if Joe Biden allowed Russia to take Finland, which is in the middle of the NATO process?

Ukraine’s once-rejected NATO application looked quite different. Ukraine was not an EU member, and it had just managed to lose Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine without a fight. Ukraine appeared to NATO countries as very difficult to defend from Russian aggression. It did not look like the Ukraine it looks like now.

In reality, the EU, and thereby NATO, would have no other option but to defend Finland if it has started the membership application process. Without NATO membership, Finland would be a backdoor for Russia to disrupt the entire EU’s operational capacity.

[Taavetti]

I’ve been wondering why the application process and its procedural nature have been referenced so many times.

Does one really have to be perfectly compatible before being a member versus what the former NATO Secretary General said, that the window is open right now? Or is the real sticking point here the unanimous decision of 30 countries to grant membership and the time it takes for those countries to reach that decision?

[Taavetti]

What’s a reasonable time to wait for Finland’s NATO decision? I’ve started considering semi-seriously moving to a NATO country for as long as it takes for Finland to realize it should join. Even disregarding the fact that practically, moving would mean “starting from scratch” professionally and possibly even unemployment and living off savings until the very end.

[99467113346872865432]

I believe that many of our war veterans, while lying under Russia’s deadly fire, prayed, “Don’t leave us alone!”

In my opinion, there are no two options here.

No Finn should tolerate or fear the cowardly actions of the Russian power elite. They must not come here uninvited.

[Samsam]

https://twitter.com/Himantero/status/1502967491391275010?s=20&t=beSf_bos0hlWdI4QNFQpkw

[Jurpo2]

It is widely known that Putin has a greater interest in the Baltic states than in Finland, because:

1. The Baltics were part of the Soviet Union and consequently have a large ethnic Russian population.
2. The paranoid view that an attack on Russia always comes through the Baltic states.
3. Connecting Kaliningrad to Russia by land.
4. Domination of the Baltic Sea, which also involves Gotland, opening up new lines of attack to the west.

At the same time, it must be said that historically, Russia has always attacked Finland after first attacking Lithuania. Therefore, it is important to make the entire attack route unrealistic for Putin. Russia must not be allowed to pick off countries one by one; it must be forced to escalate and involve all of NATO.