Posted on 04/15/2022 2:07:44 PM PDT by algore
The prime ministers of Sweden and Finland, Magdalena Andersson and Sanna Marin, both signaled Wednesday that they will likely be applying for membership in NATO.
The “prospect” is most “welcome,” says The Washington Post: “Finland and Sweden Should Join NATO.”
The editorial was titled “A Way to Punish Putin.”
Before joining the rejoicing in NATO capitals, we might inspect what NATO membership for these two Nordic nations would mean for the United States.
Finland is a nation the size of Germany, but with a population only 4% of that of Russia and a border with Russia that is 830 miles long.
Should Finland join NATO, the United States, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, would be obligated to go to war with the world’s largest nuclear power to retrieve Finnish lands that an enraged Russia might grab.
Moscow has already indicated that, should Sweden and Finland join NATO, Russia will introduce new nuclear weapons into the Baltic region.
Why is it wise for us to formally agree, in perpetuity, as NATO is a permanent alliance, to go to war with Russia, for Finland?
Given the war in Ukraine and concomitant crisis in Eastern Europe, it is understandable why Stockholm and Helsinki would seek greater security beneath the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
why would we voluntarily agree to give Sweden and Finland these war guarantees? Why would we commit to go to war with Putin’s Russia, a war that could, and likely would, escalate to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, especially if Russia were losing?
Finland was neutral during the Cold War. Sweden has been neutral since the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th century.
How did we suffer from their neutrality?
In Helsinki and Stockholm, the benefit of a U.S.-NATO commitment to go to war for Finland or Sweden is understandable.
But how does it benefit our country, the USA, to be obligated to go to war with a nation that commands the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons — over some quarrel in the Baltic Sea or Gulf of Finland that does not affect us?
"Finland" Dream of Aug 17, 2017:
I was on a plane going who knows where, and he -- the Messiah -- was the pilot. Several times he stated his first name, and he was speaking much so I heard his voice a lot. There was also an in-flight info video where he called himself [name redacted], and saying he was in Finland. He was in room with a lot of books. It looked like a quiet library or study area with numerous bookcases. He was making his presentation standing at a large, wooden table. Dark wood/stain, highly polished.
It was a paradox if he were the pilot, and the video were a recording from when he was previously in Finland, or if he were in Finland at that time, not on the plane. Or if the cockpit were the library study room. It was obviously in real-time though, not a recording.
The video appeared on all of the screens on the back of the seats. It was meant to be instructional, but not the standard info about the flight or flight safety, more pertaining to his own knowledge base of his profession. I don't remember anything specific about the content, just that it was what he knew, and that's what he was teaching the passengers.
That's all I remember -- his paradoxal location, his first name repeated a lot, sometimes as a double, and also the place Finland, when the location was actually in an airplane.
***
Later that day I looked at the wiki page for Finland but nothing jumped out. The next day, August 18th, there were a couple of ROP "lone jihadist" -type stabbing attacks, all over the news. Happened in Finland at different town squares. At the time I thought, "When is Finland ever in the news -- pretty much never." I had the odd dream the day before, so I followed the news to locate on a map, the town and the squares of the stabbings. Maybe something would jump out.
Then as I was clicking on various businesses to mark where I was looking about, or whatever (no place in particular), I noticed that the phone numbers all began with 358.
I then went back to the wiki page. Somehow I missed that the dialing code for Finland is 358.
Well there you go, an in-flight, real-time instructional video from "358". Paradox resolved.
Cute, but makes no sense.
Russia does not want Finland or Sweden, but Russia wants to prevent what Finland and Sweden represent: the fact is, Russia is, for how large it is, an amazingly indefensible country. The terrain from Germany to the Ural Mountains is basically one flat plain. The last time they had to defend against a determined foe on that terrain they lost approximately 20 million men, and the only reason they were able to turn the tables was because the United States gave them everything they needed. By the end of WW2 Russia was bled white.
So, assume you are Russia. NATO, which was originally conceived as a defensive measure to prevent Soviet troops from pouring through the Fulda Gap (I remember those days) has decided that it is not obsolete; rather, it has decided that you are the enemy. Working on that premise, NATO has pushed the front-line ever closer to your borders, threatening Belarus as an indefensible salient and putting your line of defense approximately 300 miles from Moscow. In addition, NATO has threatened one of your two warm-water ports in the process.
If you are Russian, and if you see NATO as an aggressive force, how would you act any different?
Criminals always fear the people who deal with criminals.
Antifa and BLM criminals fear the police.
Russian criminals fear NATO.
Some find comfort in over simplified explanations. It’s easier than looking at all the facets of important issues.
Unfortunately that tendency does not lend itself to complete understanding, much less workable solutions.
Given that it’s starting to look like Finland is joining NATO sometime next week then the debate will shortly be over.
Finland will join NATO and then we’ll see if Russia really wants to make good on their pedantic and tiresome threats.
If they do I know you’ll be right there on the front line.:)
“If they do I know you’ll be right there on the front line.:)”
Hey, since you’ll be on the other side maybe we can shoot at each other? That’d be cool!
Nah. I’ll leave the foreign entanglements to you.
“I wonder what would happen if all those countries he’s invaded were to attack Russia at the same time?”
Logistics, weather, terrain would almost defeat you. The fourth threat would be a relentless asymmetrical effort, not unlike Ukraine’s as modern weps are dedigned to transit the asymmetrical theater.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Each NATO member decides as a sovereign state on the course of action, if any, to take in a given situation. If Russia attacked Finland or Sweden, we could decide to do for them essentially the same things we are doing for Ukraine now.
Russia wants to imprison all nations near their borders.
It is what they do.
As they expand their Empire they get more nations near their border.
If we give them Finland then Russia will want Sweden.
If we acquiesce again they will think we are pussies and will take Denmark. Then Germany.
Then with an Empire stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok they will realize the Slavophile dream of Russia World.
Bingo!
Seems to be a missing element in the conventional chain of reasoning.
Throw in an agreement that Finland, who shares a border with Russia, would not maintain an arsenal that could be reasonably considered as a threat and there is no reason for Russia to react.
Pat Buchanan didn’t believe in defending the U.S. when he was military age, managing to avoid the draft. So, why would he believe in defending any place else?
So your willingness to fight for Putin and Russia is limited to the internet?
I’m sure that every last Finn and Swede are right now breathing a sigh of relief at that revelation.
I disagree about Finland limiting its defense to appease Russia when Russia is proven to violate such agreements.
Also this:
“No country was ever attacked because it was too strong!”
- President Ronald Reagan
Finland used to have an ice-free port—Petsamo, on the Arctic Ocean. The Soviets seized it during WWII and renamed it Pechenga.
That is unfortunate, because my comment builds on your very sensible premise; in any event, there is no agreement for Russia to violate
Your Reagan quote doesn't apply, if Finland is made a NATO member it would arguably be too strong to attack.
Have a nice weekend.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about. But have a great weekend.
Revised Title....CIA/State Department seeking larger sphere of war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.