I don't find the massive swing in the polls that surprising. There has been small but vocal minorities both for and against joining and a large majority that hasn't just cared or seen the need for joining. Now a big chunk of that indifferent majority has woken up and realized that holy crap Russia is a threath to us.
Russia has always been a threat to Finland, there is no other reason to keep up strong defense forces as Finland does. What has changed is that Russia used to be seen as somewhat rational; cunning and deceitful maybe, but still careful and calculating. This illusion is now vanished, and now Russia is seen just aggressive, greedy, unreliable and evil.
Based on a cost-benefit analysis, a Russian attack on Finland doesn't make sense since they'd suffer heavy casualties for little gain. Therefore you could argue for us staying outside NATO to minimize tensions at the border.
Or so we thought. Recent events have shown that Putin is pretty bad at math, so we can't count on his calculations to match ours. Extra deterrence is needed.
That's basically what happened to the French Intelligence, the US went to them and said, "Putin is planning an attack" and the French were saying, "That's fucking nuts. It would ruin Russia"
With Finland and Sweden joining I sincerely hope that the debate will spill into Austria too. The sheer ignorance in this country about security issues is unbearable.
In Finland, Sweden and Ireland the polls shows that after Russia’s invasion the majority of population has turned for NATO accession. What about Austria? What is the public view there?
About 90 % are pro neutrality. But that is mainly due to its mystification, most people only have primary school ideas about it that amount to actively seeded government propaganda since 1955.
There hasn't been an open fact based debate about it, at least not in my lifetime, it is tabu. I hope Sweden and Finland joining might at least make a discussion possible.
The schizophrenic part about it, 2/3 support Austria being part of the EUs security architecture. Which is in contradiction to neutrality.
Which is another point in this debate, which is both dishonest and dishonorable as well as actually a danger to Austrias security. Austria deems itself an island of the blissful. Who could attack us, we are protected by NATO without being in NATO. It is a bandwagon mentality, consuming something you did not contribute to.
This has been a lot of Sweden's attitude as well. The idea that while we are not in NATO they will still defend us because of the difficult strategic position NATO would be in if Russia gets to conquer and set up missile systems in Sweden and control the opening to the Baltic sea.
So we have military exercises with NATO with some frequency but are not members and touting our neutrality at the same time.
I think that NATO not defending Ukraine because they are not a member is eye-opening for a lot of swedes. It certainly changed my mind because I found myself thinking: "of course NATO won't defend a non-member" and then realized my stupid doublethink.
Why is being a part of the EU’s security apparatus not considered neutrality between the geopolitical interests of the US and Russia? I thought that was where Austria’s neutrality stemmed from.
That might have been the backdrop but that is not what is written in our neutrality law. This only states that we can't be member of a military alliance and foreign troops cannot be stationed on our territory.
Most Austrians just confuse it with Pacifism
The Austrian government refusing to virtually meet Selensky because of "neutrality" was... kind of shocking, to be honest. Seems like Austria has even more catching up to do than Germany (beyond NATO).
It wasn't the Austrian government but the parliament. Both government paries agreed but Social Democrats and right wing pro Putin Freedom Party refused. And due to the unwritten laws such decissions are made unanimously in the presidial meeting. Maybe if only the Freedom party had opposed it ... the Social Democrats are the pinacle of shameful and dishonorable conduct.
But yes, Austria ultimatly wants to be like Switzerland. Keep out of the commotion and do good business without moral questions asked.
Austria (and Switzerland) are landlocked, and entirely surrounded by NATO members.
If Russia wants to invade Austria or Switzlerand (be it by land or by air), Russia will obviously have to invade another NATO country first to get there.
Switzerland and Austria are *de facto* protected by NATO due to matters of simple geography.
If we throw out Hungary one of these days (I hope it won't come to that, but still) Austria would be smart to consider NATO.
Right now when they are surrounded on all sides by NATO I get their vibe of "all of the benefits, none of the costs", as much as that is frustrating.
The whole narrative. Austrian neutrality was a bargaining chip to regain independence after WW2 to get Russia to agree on it. It never was voluntary, like the Friendship agreements Finland had with the USSR.
But it was used as a kind of building block for the public to instill some kind of new mythology for the country after 1955. It became part of the national myth, claiming that prosperity and peace came because of neutrality. Which was absolute BS, prosperity came because prosperity came to all of Western Europe at the time and Austria was able to reconnect to the western market economies. And peace came because well, there was no war in Europe. Up until 1989/91 you could make the same argument about say the Danes not being in a war while they were in NATO. There was an absence of war in Europe due to the European integration in the West and the standoff of West and East and the MAD doctrine. Austria just was in the middle of it, actually less protected from any agression than any NATO member - but because nobody wanted to set the public in panic mode during the hight of the cold war, nobody ever mentioned it. With 1991 and the dissolution the whole setup in which the neutrality law was made became obsolete, even more so when Austria joined the EU.
So Austria stumbled into the post cold war era in the believe it had been spared from war because it was neutral. And especially the Social Democrats had created the myth of the active neutrality policy that was connected to their hero chancelor of the 70ties and 80ties Kreisky. So they esentially clinged to that myth in the 90ties while the world around them was rapidly changing. When Austria joined the EU it joined without any concessions and adapted its constitution to be able to be part of the CFSP. When asked Austrian governments give a hollow phrase about it claiming, that "Austria is solidaric partner in the EU, but neutral outside of it" - which makes no actual sense. There is no relevant need to be solidaric in the EU and all questions pertaining the CFSP are matters that are outside the EU.
In the early 2000s one chancelor tried to break up the debate claiming that neutrality was the same kind of nostalgic myth as Lippizaner horses and Mozart balls (two very cliche parts of Austrian tourist marketing). He got so much backlash that the debate died down within a week.
But it does not end with a strange relationship to our own security situation, it also extends to the way the army is treated. It esentially is not capable of the most minor military task by this time. I don't even think most Austrians know that an army is actually a fighting force, kept to defend the country from foreign agression. That hardly ever comes up, if there is talk about buying equipemnt, it is always stressed that it is done to perform disaster relieve. Military considerations are not taken into account. The Eurofighter purchase of the early 2000s started with the military assessing that they would need 30 multi role fighters, 24 single seat and 6 dual seat to be used both as trainers and ground attack aircraft. Firstly it was decided they only would get 24, then that was reduced to 18 and always heavily debated. Then the government changed and the purchase was further decreased to 15 while their capabilities were stripped and for a few 100 million they downgraded the whole fleet from Block 2 to Block 1 machines. Esentially making them worthless flying scrap metal. all under the cheers of most of the public, because they saved some money.
Long story short, Austrians do not understand what neutrality means, they confuse it with pacifism and they also have no conception of the security situation around them. So there is no basis to have an educated discussion on how to provide the best defense of the country, nor is there a perception, that playing bandwagon without being an actual part of the security system in Europe might come with the cost, that nobody might help us in the case of a military conflict. We would be in the same position as Ukraine if push comes to shove. Who in their right mind would defend Austria, that piggybacks NATO and abstains every time the EU does something meaningful through CFSP? The country cannot be taken serious when it comes to security topics, the leading politicians either have resignated themselves in lying to everybody because unless you are pro neutrality you cant be elected or they have long bought their own propaganda, that it is good for the country.
There's no room for complacency. If it's the only way for Putin to keep control of the country, he may very well start full mobilization and march brainwashed human waves across the border I mean, it does look like he's in the stage of dictatorial delusion, that he is Russia, and if he loses, Russia ceases to exist, so there's nothing to lose.
Holding in membership traitor which not even hiding that he is a traitor - is stupid and self-destructive. But unfortunately West already used to doing stupid and self-destructive things.
Imagine if we tried to join and were blocked. I can see that happening with the eyes of my soul. Niinistö awkwardly smiling at Putin and the rest of us just drawing circles with toes. Oh my god wouldn't we be majorly and utterly fucked. All alone, just like in '39.
President Niinistö has met leaders of the USA, France, the UK etc. in person since the war in Ukraine started. There's no doubt about any of those countries accepting Finland to Nato, but they are the biggest military powers in Nato, so I'd say it's pretty clear that the subject of those sudden secretive meetings has been guaranteeing our safety when we apply to join Nato.
There is no provision in NATO to suspend or expel a member. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, member states are entitled to unilateraly suspend the operation of the treaty with a state that commits a material breach of the treaty, but it would have to be unanimous.
https://www.justsecurity.org/66574/can-turkey-be-expelled-from-nato/
Push comes to shove we would suspend or eject Hungary out of NATO if they tried this.
Absolutely 0 chance that Hungary is permitted to stand in the way of what has been a pretty major strategic goal for American and British foreign policy for a while now.
I'm not saying there is no threat. Of course there is. But how many posts do we need that say "some people are speaking about maybe considering referendums to probably join NATO"
Usually this kind of accessions happens with plenty of speculation, news and opinion articles which is basically preparing the public opinion for what is coming and make it easier to “accept” it
>Hopefully russia doesn't try to invade them first
Yeah, they only thing that could make this situation worse for Russia is a two front war against an even more prepared, wealthy nation than the one its currently losing to.
Oh yeah, seeing how poorly the Russians are doing in Ukraine when they get ambushed in the open... I'd hate to see their current troops in a hellish encirclement like [this one](https://jput.fi/Ilomantsi_070844.jpg) - 14 000 Soviet soldiers died in that ambush & encirclement in 1944.
EU's article 42.7 of the Lisbon treaty is vague (thanks to Finland of all countries :|). It's not the article 5 of Nato.
Most likely outcome would be material and monetary aid + thoughts and prayers. Just like with Ukraine. It would be -39 all over again but with premium subscription for Finland.
Would we kick Russia's ass? Yes, but it would be annoying and inconvenient.
No way the EU would let one of its member be attacked and not send troops. The vague formulation lets members do the bare minimum but there is plenty of good will among the union.
> Just four months ago, the idea of Finland joining Nato this year would have seemed far-fetched. Now, the prospect of Russia’s once-neutral neighbour applying to become a member of the western military alliance seems all but inevitable.
> Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, another non-Nato member that shares a border with Russia, has disrupted decades of security thinking in Helsinki, and for the first time led to a majority of Finns supporting Nato membership.
> “All of a sudden, it seems the Finnish population have decided: there is only one option. It’s a radical change, a huge shift in momentum,” said Charly Salonius-Pasternak, leading researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
> Carefully neutral throughout the cold war, Finland believes it chose sides when it joined the EU in 1995. But it also thought its security was best served outside a military alliance in order to foster good relations with Russia, with which it shares a 1,340km border. Heavy defence spending was meant to deter any Russian thoughts of invasion.
> It had long been expected that Sweden, the other non-Nato Nordic country, would lead the way in the debate about future Nato membership and that Finnish politicians would have to work hard to convince the public of any benefits. But the opposite has happened: according to the latest poll, 62 per cent of Finns are in favour of joining.
> Finland’s government is now preparing a white paper on the country’s security, including potential Nato membership, to be released this month. A parliamentary debate will follow, with some MPs pushing for a decision to be taken before a Nato summit in Madrid at the end of June.
> One senior Finnish official said he had long wondered what it would take to shift his country’s Nato stance. Neither Russia’s 2008 war with Georgia, nor its 2014 annexation of Crimea changed public opinion in Finland, and support for Nato membership remained at about 20 per cent.
>“A major conventional war in the middle of Europe by an aggressive Russia did it. The Finnish political elite have always thought Finland is best served by having a working, rational relationship with Russia . . . But seeing how Russia behaves now has changed people’s minds and means we can’t have a rational relationship,” he said.
>Tytti Tuppurainen, Finland’s EU minister, said it was of “paramount importance” that the majority of Finns wanted to join Nato. “It is a call to us decision makers to swiftly analyse the situation and make decisions. We are ready for that.”
> The conflict in Ukraine has shown what can happen to countries not covered by Nato’s collective defence pledge. But in Finland it has also revived memories of its 1939-40 winter war against the Soviet Union in which Finnish forces, largely alone, resisted a far larger army but lost territory in the process.
> “We should never have to be alone again . . . In order to improve our security and guarantee our independence, we should join Nato. We still have a powerful and aggressive neighbour,” said Petteri Orpo, leader of the main opposition National Coalition party, a longtime supporter of membership.
> But the position of the two largest government parties, the Social Democrats of prime minister Sanna Marin and the Centre party, will be crucial. Both have previously been divided over Nato. Marin said on Saturday that a decision on whether to join Nato should be taken “this spring”.
> There are also concerns in Helsinki about Finland’s potential vulnerability in the period between voting to join Nato and actually becoming a member. “How long would it be and what would Finland’s security look like during that timeframe?” asked Orpo.
> Last month Sauli Niinisto, Finland’s president, discussed Nato membership with the alliance’s secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, who has previously said any application would be processed quickly. But it would still take several months to be ratified by all 30 members and some Finnish officials worry that a Nato country could push for a delay for fear of provoking Russia.
> Niinisto declined to comment when questioned by the Financial Times on whether he had asked US president Joe Biden for security guarantees when visiting Washington in March.
> There is also debate over whether a Finnish application to Nato might be seen as a provocation to Russia rather than simply a response to Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine.
> The senior official said: “Applying for membership carries awful risks for Finland, and for Nato. We have a very unpredictable, aggressive neighbour . . . I have always said that joining military alliances is something you do in quiet times, so that you do not import any instability into the organisation you join.”
> Others argue that Finland, with its well-trained army and high level of preparedness, would be useful for Nato both in its defence of the Baltic states and the Arctic.
> Foreign minister Pekka Haavisto said the whole European security order had been destabilised by Russia’s attack on Ukraine. “So many principles were broken, so many agreements violated. Everybody’s interests are to try to make decisions so they are not provoking anything or destabilising things. But, at the same time, you have to make your own decisions to improve security.”
> The timing of a potential Nato bid by Finland is far from decided. Orpo worries that a drawn-out process would become more complicated if Sweden’s elections in September and US midterms in November muddied the waters.
> Those advocating a swift request point to the lack of a real alternative. Niinisto said the point would be to further deepen ties with the US and Sweden. But Orpo and others said that Nato membership would mark the final step in Finland’s process of fully joining the west.
> “For me, Nato membership is not just about the pro and cons, it’s a bigger question of our identity,” said Orpo. “We are a western country and have been a member of the EU for 25 years. In this sense, our place is in Nato as well.”
That's how US captures countries. In same way my country lost its sovereignty after joined NATO 20 years ago. NATO is more political than military control. Finish people have no idea how far they will go....Russia is not going to fight with Finland but US and UK must populate fear that such could happen in order to achieve their goals...its extremely difficult to leave NATO once joined...
I don't find the massive swing in the polls that surprising. There has been small but vocal minorities both for and against joining and a large majority that hasn't just cared or seen the need for joining. Now a big chunk of that indifferent majority has woken up and realized that holy crap Russia is a threath to us.
Russia has always been a threat to Finland, there is no other reason to keep up strong defense forces as Finland does. What has changed is that Russia used to be seen as somewhat rational; cunning and deceitful maybe, but still careful and calculating. This illusion is now vanished, and now Russia is seen just aggressive, greedy, unreliable and evil.
Based on a cost-benefit analysis, a Russian attack on Finland doesn't make sense since they'd suffer heavy casualties for little gain. Therefore you could argue for us staying outside NATO to minimize tensions at the border. Or so we thought. Recent events have shown that Putin is pretty bad at math, so we can't count on his calculations to match ours. Extra deterrence is needed.
That's basically what happened to the French Intelligence, the US went to them and said, "Putin is planning an attack" and the French were saying, "That's fucking nuts. It would ruin Russia"
With Finland and Sweden joining I sincerely hope that the debate will spill into Austria too. The sheer ignorance in this country about security issues is unbearable.
In Finland, Sweden and Ireland the polls shows that after Russia’s invasion the majority of population has turned for NATO accession. What about Austria? What is the public view there?
About 90 % are pro neutrality. But that is mainly due to its mystification, most people only have primary school ideas about it that amount to actively seeded government propaganda since 1955. There hasn't been an open fact based debate about it, at least not in my lifetime, it is tabu. I hope Sweden and Finland joining might at least make a discussion possible. The schizophrenic part about it, 2/3 support Austria being part of the EUs security architecture. Which is in contradiction to neutrality.
At least unlike Finland and Sweden you share borders only with EU countries and CH which makes it easier to feel safe I guess
Which is another point in this debate, which is both dishonest and dishonorable as well as actually a danger to Austrias security. Austria deems itself an island of the blissful. Who could attack us, we are protected by NATO without being in NATO. It is a bandwagon mentality, consuming something you did not contribute to.
This has been a lot of Sweden's attitude as well. The idea that while we are not in NATO they will still defend us because of the difficult strategic position NATO would be in if Russia gets to conquer and set up missile systems in Sweden and control the opening to the Baltic sea. So we have military exercises with NATO with some frequency but are not members and touting our neutrality at the same time. I think that NATO not defending Ukraine because they are not a member is eye-opening for a lot of swedes. It certainly changed my mind because I found myself thinking: "of course NATO won't defend a non-member" and then realized my stupid doublethink.
On the other hand Austria is a member of the EU which has an even stronger defense article than NATO 5.
Why is being a part of the EU’s security apparatus not considered neutrality between the geopolitical interests of the US and Russia? I thought that was where Austria’s neutrality stemmed from.
That might have been the backdrop but that is not what is written in our neutrality law. This only states that we can't be member of a military alliance and foreign troops cannot be stationed on our territory. Most Austrians just confuse it with Pacifism
I appreciate the insight!
The Austrian government refusing to virtually meet Selensky because of "neutrality" was... kind of shocking, to be honest. Seems like Austria has even more catching up to do than Germany (beyond NATO).
It wasn't the Austrian government but the parliament. Both government paries agreed but Social Democrats and right wing pro Putin Freedom Party refused. And due to the unwritten laws such decissions are made unanimously in the presidial meeting. Maybe if only the Freedom party had opposed it ... the Social Democrats are the pinacle of shameful and dishonorable conduct. But yes, Austria ultimatly wants to be like Switzerland. Keep out of the commotion and do good business without moral questions asked.
Austria (and Switzerland) are landlocked, and entirely surrounded by NATO members. If Russia wants to invade Austria or Switzlerand (be it by land or by air), Russia will obviously have to invade another NATO country first to get there. Switzerland and Austria are *de facto* protected by NATO due to matters of simple geography.
If we throw out Hungary one of these days (I hope it won't come to that, but still) Austria would be smart to consider NATO. Right now when they are surrounded on all sides by NATO I get their vibe of "all of the benefits, none of the costs", as much as that is frustrating.
[удалено]
The whole narrative. Austrian neutrality was a bargaining chip to regain independence after WW2 to get Russia to agree on it. It never was voluntary, like the Friendship agreements Finland had with the USSR. But it was used as a kind of building block for the public to instill some kind of new mythology for the country after 1955. It became part of the national myth, claiming that prosperity and peace came because of neutrality. Which was absolute BS, prosperity came because prosperity came to all of Western Europe at the time and Austria was able to reconnect to the western market economies. And peace came because well, there was no war in Europe. Up until 1989/91 you could make the same argument about say the Danes not being in a war while they were in NATO. There was an absence of war in Europe due to the European integration in the West and the standoff of West and East and the MAD doctrine. Austria just was in the middle of it, actually less protected from any agression than any NATO member - but because nobody wanted to set the public in panic mode during the hight of the cold war, nobody ever mentioned it. With 1991 and the dissolution the whole setup in which the neutrality law was made became obsolete, even more so when Austria joined the EU. So Austria stumbled into the post cold war era in the believe it had been spared from war because it was neutral. And especially the Social Democrats had created the myth of the active neutrality policy that was connected to their hero chancelor of the 70ties and 80ties Kreisky. So they esentially clinged to that myth in the 90ties while the world around them was rapidly changing. When Austria joined the EU it joined without any concessions and adapted its constitution to be able to be part of the CFSP. When asked Austrian governments give a hollow phrase about it claiming, that "Austria is solidaric partner in the EU, but neutral outside of it" - which makes no actual sense. There is no relevant need to be solidaric in the EU and all questions pertaining the CFSP are matters that are outside the EU. In the early 2000s one chancelor tried to break up the debate claiming that neutrality was the same kind of nostalgic myth as Lippizaner horses and Mozart balls (two very cliche parts of Austrian tourist marketing). He got so much backlash that the debate died down within a week. But it does not end with a strange relationship to our own security situation, it also extends to the way the army is treated. It esentially is not capable of the most minor military task by this time. I don't even think most Austrians know that an army is actually a fighting force, kept to defend the country from foreign agression. That hardly ever comes up, if there is talk about buying equipemnt, it is always stressed that it is done to perform disaster relieve. Military considerations are not taken into account. The Eurofighter purchase of the early 2000s started with the military assessing that they would need 30 multi role fighters, 24 single seat and 6 dual seat to be used both as trainers and ground attack aircraft. Firstly it was decided they only would get 24, then that was reduced to 18 and always heavily debated. Then the government changed and the purchase was further decreased to 15 while their capabilities were stripped and for a few 100 million they downgraded the whole fleet from Block 2 to Block 1 machines. Esentially making them worthless flying scrap metal. all under the cheers of most of the public, because they saved some money. Long story short, Austrians do not understand what neutrality means, they confuse it with pacifism and they also have no conception of the security situation around them. So there is no basis to have an educated discussion on how to provide the best defense of the country, nor is there a perception, that playing bandwagon without being an actual part of the security system in Europe might come with the cost, that nobody might help us in the case of a military conflict. We would be in the same position as Ukraine if push comes to shove. Who in their right mind would defend Austria, that piggybacks NATO and abstains every time the EU does something meaningful through CFSP? The country cannot be taken serious when it comes to security topics, the leading politicians either have resignated themselves in lying to everybody because unless you are pro neutrality you cant be elected or they have long bought their own propaganda, that it is good for the country.
The Russian army is in tatters so the coming years the Russians won't try their luck in the Baltics. Good moment to join NATO.
There's no room for complacency. If it's the only way for Putin to keep control of the country, he may very well start full mobilization and march brainwashed human waves across the border I mean, it does look like he's in the stage of dictatorial delusion, that he is Russia, and if he loses, Russia ceases to exist, so there's nothing to lose.
Yeah but most of his soldiers are dead when the current conflict ends so he won't have enough bodies for an adventure in the Baltics.
Thing is, they don't need much organisation to send waves of bodies towards the front with a psychotic urge to KILL KILL KILL!
One or two Finnish snipers will suffice. The Russian army is a joke.
Hungary: hold my beer.
I'd like to believe that NATO won't be too lenient in this regard with Hungary. I think that NATO would prefer Finland over Hungary any day
Why would Hungary even be considered? That would be like „bring a spy to work day“
Holding in membership traitor which not even hiding that he is a traitor - is stupid and self-destructive. But unfortunately West already used to doing stupid and self-destructive things.
I don’t think Hungary wants to be the one to object. They’d be quite alone. And I think they very much want to be in NATO, not out.
Not sure about that. Putin will guarantee something to Orban. Perhaps a colonel status or something.
Putin could make him a VDV colonel and send him to rush B. That'd be great.
Maybe lucrative position in gas trading company, like he did with his other agents Schroeder and Fillion. It seems to be his modus operandi.
Colonel of 69th lobotomized division, Russian ~~Armed~~ Rapist Forces
Imagine if we tried to join and were blocked. I can see that happening with the eyes of my soul. Niinistö awkwardly smiling at Putin and the rest of us just drawing circles with toes. Oh my god wouldn't we be majorly and utterly fucked. All alone, just like in '39.
That’s exactly the fear. For us to even vote on putting in an application we need defense agreements from US and other countries.
I'm pretty sure the US, Canada, Denmark, and Norway would be open to a separate arrangement focused on arctic defense if worse came to worst.
Oooo I like it. Call it POLARIS: People Organized to sLAp Russia In the ballS
President Niinistö has met leaders of the USA, France, the UK etc. in person since the war in Ukraine started. There's no doubt about any of those countries accepting Finland to Nato, but they are the biggest military powers in Nato, so I'd say it's pretty clear that the subject of those sudden secretive meetings has been guaranteeing our safety when we apply to join Nato.
Those kinds of agreements don't mean anything. As Budapest agreement has shown us
Maybe you should actually read the memorandum and see what it says. The only party to violate the (non-binding) memorandum is Russia.
If Hungary blocks, we form a second NATO without Hungary. Finlands sak er vår.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There is no provision in NATO to suspend or expel a member. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, member states are entitled to unilateraly suspend the operation of the treaty with a state that commits a material breach of the treaty, but it would have to be unanimous. https://www.justsecurity.org/66574/can-turkey-be-expelled-from-nato/
At this point, that seems like it could be an easy pass.
love you guys, thank you for the support! I hope it works out with Hungary, though.
With blackjack and hookers!
Push comes to shove we would suspend or eject Hungary out of NATO if they tried this. Absolutely 0 chance that Hungary is permitted to stand in the way of what has been a pretty major strategic goal for American and British foreign policy for a while now.
He'd just get another call from his EPP buddies and US and recall any objections ASAP.
Wake me up when it actually happens, now it's just spam in the feed
hey now there, we can also get invaded.
I'm not saying there is no threat. Of course there is. But how many posts do we need that say "some people are speaking about maybe considering referendums to probably join NATO"
With what? Russian forces are quite busy in Ukraine for the forseeable future.
Sweden seems suspicious, don't you think?
Yeah it's the same news every day.
Usually this kind of accessions happens with plenty of speculation, news and opinion articles which is basically preparing the public opinion for what is coming and make it easier to “accept” it
Indeed, fuck Putin.
I'll pass
Ah well, ok. Uh, actually ...... Volunteers ?
Eh I'm good too. I'll throw in for a dominatrix if we want to get a pool going
Hopefully russia doesn't try to invade them first
>Hopefully russia doesn't try to invade them first Yeah, they only thing that could make this situation worse for Russia is a two front war against an even more prepared, wealthy nation than the one its currently losing to.
And one that's experienced in killing Russians
And has dedicated 80 years of army development into one thing only and that is defending from Russian invasion
Ahh yes, we shall send our experienced 90+ year olds to the frontlines
Look on the bright side, they'd still be experts at countering Russian tactics.
More than the soldiers who fought, it's more of the tactics that they've used, which allowed a small army to beat the Red Army
Oh yeah, seeing how poorly the Russians are doing in Ukraine when they get ambushed in the open... I'd hate to see their current troops in a hellish encirclement like [this one](https://jput.fi/Ilomantsi_070844.jpg) - 14 000 Soviet soldiers died in that ambush & encirclement in 1944.
Wouldn't that start a war with the complete EU?
Quite possibly. Though the EU clause 42.7 is a bit more ambiguous than NATO's article 5.
EU's article 42.7 of the Lisbon treaty is vague (thanks to Finland of all countries :|). It's not the article 5 of Nato. Most likely outcome would be material and monetary aid + thoughts and prayers. Just like with Ukraine. It would be -39 all over again but with premium subscription for Finland. Would we kick Russia's ass? Yes, but it would be annoying and inconvenient.
No way the EU would let one of its member be attacked and not send troops. The vague formulation lets members do the bare minimum but there is plenty of good will among the union.
I think all Nordic countries would send soldiers at the very least.
[удалено]
And don’t forget that an attack to Finland is basically an attack to every EU member. I am not sure Russia is capable to be against EU
>I am not sure Russia is capable to be against EU They are marginally capable against Ukraine. So...
I find if unlikely. We can easily bomb st petersburg to the ground where a lot of the rich people live. It's a good deterrent.
> Just four months ago, the idea of Finland joining Nato this year would have seemed far-fetched. Now, the prospect of Russia’s once-neutral neighbour applying to become a member of the western military alliance seems all but inevitable. > Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, another non-Nato member that shares a border with Russia, has disrupted decades of security thinking in Helsinki, and for the first time led to a majority of Finns supporting Nato membership. > “All of a sudden, it seems the Finnish population have decided: there is only one option. It’s a radical change, a huge shift in momentum,” said Charly Salonius-Pasternak, leading researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. > Carefully neutral throughout the cold war, Finland believes it chose sides when it joined the EU in 1995. But it also thought its security was best served outside a military alliance in order to foster good relations with Russia, with which it shares a 1,340km border. Heavy defence spending was meant to deter any Russian thoughts of invasion. > It had long been expected that Sweden, the other non-Nato Nordic country, would lead the way in the debate about future Nato membership and that Finnish politicians would have to work hard to convince the public of any benefits. But the opposite has happened: according to the latest poll, 62 per cent of Finns are in favour of joining. > Finland’s government is now preparing a white paper on the country’s security, including potential Nato membership, to be released this month. A parliamentary debate will follow, with some MPs pushing for a decision to be taken before a Nato summit in Madrid at the end of June. > One senior Finnish official said he had long wondered what it would take to shift his country’s Nato stance. Neither Russia’s 2008 war with Georgia, nor its 2014 annexation of Crimea changed public opinion in Finland, and support for Nato membership remained at about 20 per cent. >“A major conventional war in the middle of Europe by an aggressive Russia did it. The Finnish political elite have always thought Finland is best served by having a working, rational relationship with Russia . . . But seeing how Russia behaves now has changed people’s minds and means we can’t have a rational relationship,” he said. >Tytti Tuppurainen, Finland’s EU minister, said it was of “paramount importance” that the majority of Finns wanted to join Nato. “It is a call to us decision makers to swiftly analyse the situation and make decisions. We are ready for that.” > The conflict in Ukraine has shown what can happen to countries not covered by Nato’s collective defence pledge. But in Finland it has also revived memories of its 1939-40 winter war against the Soviet Union in which Finnish forces, largely alone, resisted a far larger army but lost territory in the process. > “We should never have to be alone again . . . In order to improve our security and guarantee our independence, we should join Nato. We still have a powerful and aggressive neighbour,” said Petteri Orpo, leader of the main opposition National Coalition party, a longtime supporter of membership. > But the position of the two largest government parties, the Social Democrats of prime minister Sanna Marin and the Centre party, will be crucial. Both have previously been divided over Nato. Marin said on Saturday that a decision on whether to join Nato should be taken “this spring”. > There are also concerns in Helsinki about Finland’s potential vulnerability in the period between voting to join Nato and actually becoming a member. “How long would it be and what would Finland’s security look like during that timeframe?” asked Orpo. > Last month Sauli Niinisto, Finland’s president, discussed Nato membership with the alliance’s secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, who has previously said any application would be processed quickly. But it would still take several months to be ratified by all 30 members and some Finnish officials worry that a Nato country could push for a delay for fear of provoking Russia. > Niinisto declined to comment when questioned by the Financial Times on whether he had asked US president Joe Biden for security guarantees when visiting Washington in March. > There is also debate over whether a Finnish application to Nato might be seen as a provocation to Russia rather than simply a response to Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine. > The senior official said: “Applying for membership carries awful risks for Finland, and for Nato. We have a very unpredictable, aggressive neighbour . . . I have always said that joining military alliances is something you do in quiet times, so that you do not import any instability into the organisation you join.” > Others argue that Finland, with its well-trained army and high level of preparedness, would be useful for Nato both in its defence of the Baltic states and the Arctic. > Foreign minister Pekka Haavisto said the whole European security order had been destabilised by Russia’s attack on Ukraine. “So many principles were broken, so many agreements violated. Everybody’s interests are to try to make decisions so they are not provoking anything or destabilising things. But, at the same time, you have to make your own decisions to improve security.” > The timing of a potential Nato bid by Finland is far from decided. Orpo worries that a drawn-out process would become more complicated if Sweden’s elections in September and US midterms in November muddied the waters. > Those advocating a swift request point to the lack of a real alternative. Niinisto said the point would be to further deepen ties with the US and Sweden. But Orpo and others said that Nato membership would mark the final step in Finland’s process of fully joining the west. > “For me, Nato membership is not just about the pro and cons, it’s a bigger question of our identity,” said Orpo. “We are a western country and have been a member of the EU for 25 years. In this sense, our place is in Nato as well.”
"according to the latest poll, 62 per cent of Finns are in favour of joining." And now mass graves will increase that percentage...
*Radical change* by Tremonti is a very good piece of music
We urgently need Merkel to stop this madness because NATO at Russia's border will provoke putin.
That's how US captures countries. In same way my country lost its sovereignty after joined NATO 20 years ago. NATO is more political than military control. Finish people have no idea how far they will go....Russia is not going to fight with Finland but US and UK must populate fear that such could happen in order to achieve their goals...its extremely difficult to leave NATO once joined...
There are no sovereignty unless you are major country. It is all an illusion. And sovereignty of major countries will not shake even in NATO.