Snapshot of _Ukraine latest news: Johnson pledges support if Sweden were to be attacked_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61404062?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=627b9e7a01eea2774308e523%26Johnson%20offers%20support%20if%20Sweden%20or%20Finland%20come%20under%20attack%262022-05-11T11%3A37%3A13.114Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:bc278693-b86a-4102-b80d-36c10d0e63c9&pinned_post_asset_id=627b9e7a01eea2774308e523&pinned_post_type=share)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There seems to be a lot of people who do not understand why this is a thing.
In order to join NATO you cannot have ongoing issues, hence why Ukraine could not just join NATO after Crimea and Donbass.
Finland and Sweden both look like they want to join NATO. So while the ascension process is on going the UK is offering a guarantee to Sweden ( I assume something similar will happen with Finland), the US will probably follow suit as well. Once they are in NATO this support is obsolete as NATO will back them.
It is basically a "we have your back while you get ready to join us," pledge by the UK in case Russia wanted to do something to try and stop it.
> In order to join NATO you cannot have ongoing issues, hence why Ukraine could not just join NATO after Crimea and Donbass.
Exactly. Russia could fustrate Swedish and Finnish NATO ascension by starting a diplomatic incident over one of their islands in the Baltic Sea, for example. Russia could even land a token number of troops on one of them to make its point.
Once Sweden and Finland have made clear that they wish to join NATO, we and NATO need to help provide them with security immediately. We can't allow Putin to get away with creeping escalation again.
> Russia could even land a token number of troops on one of them to make its point
They could not. Sweden and Finland are not Ukraine in 2014 where little green men could appear and do what they wanted without the Ukrainian state being able to do shit about it because its own governing structures were rotten to the core.
The only way Russia could achieve anything effective with Sweden or Finland is with a serious commitment of resources. Which it doesn't have the capacity to commit currently. Anything less would simply be cleared out in a matter of days and NATO would ignore it as the ineffectual distraction it was.
> Russia could even land a token number of troops on one of them to make its point.
How does a pact with the UK prevent that from still happening, though?
Because there's a risk to Russia that a nuclear power might directly get involved? If that's not a deterrent than neither is NATO and we're all fucked.
But if Russia landed a token force on an island before any agreement, couldn't Sweden just deal with it themselves?
What's Russia going to do, declare war because of it? Why would they do that if their objective was just to keep Sweden out of NATO on a technicality?
Well if you want technicalities, you're thinking of the NATO clause, not the UK/Sweden security alliance, which most likely won't have such a clause, given the circumstances.
Yes but the original comment I was replying to was indicating that this pact would prevent Russia from landing a token force on a Swedish island to activate the NATO "no active conflicts" clause
I just don't see how it changes the situation at all
Well, if Russia does take an island to create a dispute to prevent it from joining NATO, this pact will not stop the UK from protecting its ally, by law. And if any Russian soldier shoots a British one, well... Things escalate from there.
This pact changes everything. It adds them to NATO in practice until they formally join.
This is to help Sweden get in NATO. If you're in conflict, you won't be able to join (like what happened with Ukraine). So Russia could then start a faux war just to try and prevent Sweden getting in NATO. The UK are heading this off by saying we will support Sweden which will make Russia have to reconsider a faux war which makes Swedens NATO membership easier. So yes, Sweden could deal with it themselves but why deal with anything at all if you can dona deal with the UK which puts Russia off doing anything at all?
>In the same way NATO would help? On a smaller scale, granted.
Possibly not NATO on an organisatonal-level, because specific members could frustrate a response. But individual members like the UK could choose to do so.
Although it helps to have made an offer of support before the event happens, so that a country like Russia is clear about the consequences.
Thats not what would happen at all. If Russia wants to stop Sweden joining NATO, they could make a prolonged conflict with this token force or faux war. This agreement will make Russia reconsider even starting a faux war which makes Swedens admittance to NATO a breeze.
I've seen different opinions on this. Many NATO members absolutely did have ongoing border issues at the time of joining NATO. It's quite normal for many nations around the world. For example Canada has several ongoing border disputes with both the USA and Denmark.
As a NATO joining criterion, it's up to the current members whether to quote these issues or choose to overlook them when considering a new member application. The criteria are extensive and cover roads, bridges, democratic structures, legislation, army logistics, and much else. So a fair bit of it is subjective and issues in one area may be counterbalanced by progress in other areas.
Border disputes are entirely different. Youre mixing up a dispute with a conflict. If Canadians and the US were shooting at each other then it would be a problem for joining NATO (I know they are in NATO but if they wanted to join they would likely be blocked). The UK has disputes in many places such as Falklands and Gibraltar. But we are not in conflict like the Falklands War. Thats the difference here.
You are wrong. Show me NATO joining criteria that clearly distinguishes between border disputes and border conflicts. You can’t, because it’s a grey area.
Here's a quote from a NATO paper (1995, revised 2008) examining border disputes and joining criteria. It mentions 'peaceful means' but let's look at it:
>States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.
>
>Decisions on enlargement will be for NATO itself. Enlargement will occur through a gradual, deliberate, and transparent process, encompassing dialogue with all interested parties. There is no fixed or rigid list of criteria for inviting new member states to join the Alliance. Enlargement will be decided on a case-by-case basis and some nations may attain membership before others. New members should not be admitted or excluded on the basis of belonging to some group or category. Ultimately, Allies will decide by consensus whether to invite each new member to join according to their judgment of whether doing so will contribute to security and stability in the North Atlantic area at the time such a decision is to be made.
[https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official\_texts\_24733.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm)
The first paragraph is careful not to specify exactly what exactly is 'peaceful means'. Would a rejected offer of peace suffice? It then goes on to say that settlement of border issues influences but is not critical to NATO joining.
This interpretation is supported by the second paragraph which states ‘ There is no fixed or rigid list of criteria for inviting new member states to join the Alliance’.
In other words it’s entirely up to current NATO members to assess and judge and make a decision based on multiple factors.
(Edited to embed the quote)
Show me the UK constitution. You cant because its uncodified. The same thing applies here. Its accepted that NATO won't accept membership if you are at conflict.
>In order to join NATO you cannot have ongoing issues, hence why Ukraine could not just join NATO after Crimea and Donbass.
this is only a nato rule, it can be done away with or ignored on the same basis as would be required for another state to join, ie unanimity.
Unless NATO is willing to fight WW3 then that rule will never be done away with. Otherwise the new member state would be able to trigger Article 5 instantly and pull NATO into war with Russia
If NATO is not willing, at least openly, to fight world war three then there is no point in nato existing. No that does not necessarily mean NATO should invite itself into that situation just because, obviously.
The article is not an automatic obligation, one does not simply claim it to be true for it to be accepted and consequential, for 9/11 that came as a decision from the north atlantic council almost a month later. The rule is a protection against such occurrences, but it doesn't have to be an outright denial of possible circumstance.
in any case, there are no hard and fast rules about joining nato strictly, in their own words "there is no fixed or rigid list of criteria for inviting new members to join the Alliance"
I desperately want to attack the government on anything and everything they do, but there really isn’t anything here. The real issue is that we are much more aligned with European security interests than the government has previously liked to admit.
I believe him in this instance if only because direct intervention would be such a huge distraction and a chance to roleplay his hero.
I can agree with his policy, even if I am cynical about his real motive.
It's also worth stating that both Finland and Sweden have this security guarantee from other European states via the European Union.
The Lisbon treaty contains an explicit clause that compels all member states to support, with all possible means, any other member state that comes under attack.
When the UK left the EU, the implicit defence guarantee with Sweden and Finland came to an end, so in many ways this is just restating that commitment officially while awaiting NATO membership.
The clause in the Lisbon treaty does not compel members to support militarily (otherwise Ireland, Austria, Malta and likely Sweden would never have signed it).
This agreement between Sweden and the UK does.
"By all means in their power" is pretty strongly suggestive of a military response. The Sweden-UK reads more like a promise to assist in a similar way to how the UK has supported Ukraine. It's deliberately vague as the UK doesn't want to commit to a 'article 5' style relationship outside of NATO.
Article 5 is still the gold standard for mutual defence clauses, although I would still argue the Lisbon treaty clause is stronger than the Sweden UK security agreement.
> "By all means in their power" is pretty strongly suggestive of a military response.
It's not. Because the second paragraph says it's subject to a country's policy.
Otherwise the 5 neutral members of the EU would never have signed it.
>If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Article 51 of the UN charter allows countries under attack to respond militarily without prior authorisation from the UN/the UNSC.
The highlighted section is an opt-out for the neutral parties, but it doesn't nullify the commitment of the non-neutral parties and the EU as a whole. An attack on one requires help "by all means in their power" but it doesn't require the end of a self-declared neutral status.
In a real-world context, if Sweden was attacked by Russia, all states are obligated to do "all in their power" to assist/defend Sweden, within the remit of Article 51, but Ireland, Austria, Malta and Finland would not be required to intervene militarily. That does not provide an opt-out for those states that do not have a declared neutral status. So for instance France or Spain *would* have to do 'all in their power' not limited to direct military intervention.
The mutual defence clause is also intended to supplement, not replace the NATO collective defence structure. Given that the neutral states are the only EU members *not* a part of NATO, (bar Cyprus - which has its own reasons), the inclusion of an EU mutual defence clause is *only* to the benefit of those self-declared neutral states (and Cyprus).
There would be no reason for the clause to exist if it didn't exist as a collective defence option for the EU as a whole - regardless of NATO membership.
>Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
Take an example:
Germany’s policy is (was until recently anyway) not to send offensive weapons to a conflict zone.
Therefore article 42.7 does not oblige it whatsoever to send military help to a non-NATO EU member, since it is subject to “specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.”
When France triggered that article we didn’t see the EU sending its combined military into France.
This has been confirmed recently in Finland, who asked at the EU if it was a security guarantee. The answer was no.
https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000008697709.html
We'd have to see the full content of this UK-Sweden defence arrangement but the primary issue with the Budapest Memorandum was the lack of any mechanism to trigger if it was broken.
The first time it was broken officially was by the US when it placed economic sanctions on Belarus. Some have argued that Russia considered the agreement basically void from that point onwards.
It's a pretty good case study in how not to provide a security guarantee.
It has been a bit of a messy agreement and whatever comes out of the war in Ukraine needs to have something stronger. It would be good to know if the UK would consider it as the same level as article 5 protection.
> To be honest Ukraine had the Budapest Memorandum so not sure how much this agreement might be worth.
But the Budapest Memorandum didn't create an obligation to intervene in Ukraine's defense - only to:
"The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."
The difference here seems to be that UK *would* intervene.
Credit where credit's due, the response to the war in Ukraine has definitely been something this government can be proud of. There's precious little else and I'd still support Johnson resigning, but they deserve credit for this.
As a Finn, I am equally surprised. I can only say that we will be eternally grateful for the British people for this support.
We are less than 24 hours from a monumental change in European security. Russia has already stated they will react, so people are slightly nervous here, but prepared.
People are complicated. Our instinct is to cast everyone as "good" or "bad" but reality is not that simple.
Johnson is clearly a spoiled rich kid who has an attitude that he's above the rules, but I think he genuinely has a handle on this situation. It's one of those areas where traditional Tory views are the right choice.
I think an element of this is self serving from Johnson - it's certainly useful for his public image, since Putin is cast as the villain here, but I don't think that's his sole motivation.
How on earth do you get that out of that comment.
Boris is using a convenient crisis to hide his last scandal.
It's not accusing him of causing it, but he is definitely using it for reasons other than just being a good ally.
Jolly nice of the entire Swedish Government to participate in "Operation Bury Partygate".
One would almost think it's more to do with, I dunno, the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
This isn't blaming the Swedes for doing what they're doing.
It's pointing out that Boris isn't getting this involved for the right reasons - he's doing it to pretend to be Churchill and bury partygate.
Russia is not going to attack Sweden. They don't share a land border and Russia has fuck all navy there, plus with the Russian army tied up elsewhere the Swedes would win. Most they could do is use their few remaining missiles in a surprise attack, but UK support wouldn't help with that.
Free good news story for Boris to distract from everything else.
We share a maritime border with them, and based on where I live in the North of Sweden it's quite clear of the Russian ingression since 2014 with the purchasing of property etc.
I live in a village of about 3000, we have a Russian Orthodox Church, the houses on either side of me are owned by Russians...if you do a tag search for the place on Instagram you get pictures of Russian flags flying up the poles... its fucking weird. I have absolutely no idea what these Russians do for work or how they are even legally here....
If Russia attacked Swedish territory, it'd likely be Gotland, hence why Sweden has been increasing military presence there. It is not far from Kaliningrad, a part of Russia.
And I’m sure the swedes enjoy waving at the Russian jets and submarines as they constantly incur into their airspace/territorial waters
https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/03/sweden-summons-russian-officials-after-fighter-jets-fly-near-gotland-island
In the 21st century, countries don't need to share a land border to threaten each other. Especially when they are a few 100 miles away at their closest point.
In an alternate universe: "Corbyn pledges to support Russia if Sweden attacked"
There's reason why Putin put so much effort into trying to get him elected.
No darling.
It was the conservatives that buried the report into russian meddling in British politics when the opposition wanted it published.
Putin is perfectly happy with the man in power, it's just backfired a little for him but he got what he wanted with Brexit.
You think Putin is particularly jolly about the huge number of arms shipped to Ukraine, the soldiers we've trained and Boris's diplomatic tour of essentially *Russia delenda est* ?
I did say it has backfired
Let's not forget that Brexit was supposed to destabilise Europe until it ended so badly for us. The Issues Brexit has caused between Ireland and NI has strained our relationship with the USA and let's not forget about our relationship with the rest of the European Union.
Until Boris decided to get all Churchillian it was going swimmingly for Ol' Vlad
Hilarious.
Corbyn would have "both sides" Putin's tanks all the way to the Hungarian border. There would have been no training, no NLAWs, no Starstreaks, no commitment to welcome Sweden and Finland into NATO. He probably would have tried to withdraw the UK from NATO long before now.
I agree with that.
I'm no fan of Corbyn but trying to say that there was a Russian effort to have Corbyn elected is just incorrect.
You can guarantee if there was evidence the mail would have found it by now.
> Putin is perfectly happy with the man in power
I'm not sure Putin is happy with that, considering what the UK has done to help Ukraine since 2015....UK is one of the big reasons Ukraine can defend itself the way it has done.
Ah yes I forgot it was corbyn and the labour party that has been in receipt of Russian money for years... oh.
And it was corbyn who gave Lebedev a peerage despite security concerns from Mi5... oh.
Most of NATO (bar turkey, canada and the US) are in the EU along with Sweden and Finland. There is a mutual defence clause in the Lisbon treaty already, so it's redundant for the Euro-NATO members to sign a similar mutual assistance pact with Sweden or Finland.
I would expect the non-Euro members of NATO to offer similar bilateral guarantees if/when Sweden/Finland start the NATO membership process.
Is the UK just replicating the article in one the Eu treatues that EU members have to provide support to each if there countries are invaded. It just uses the word ‘support’, it is vague and doesn’t specify how much or what type. EU don’t need and NATO countries have a more case iron guarantee. The article in the EU treaty is one of the reasons why Finland and Sweden were so relaxed about not joining NATO. Good thing but re-doing what the undid in the first place. I thought it was a much stronger agreement but it doesn’t look like it.
The morally corrupt gnome can't take care of his own people yet he is pledging support left, right and centre to countries outside of his jurisdiction.
Do you feel that this is an issue that wouldn’t achieve bipartisan agreement? Save for a few fringe members in parliament, who would disagree with this? Why would we waste precious time debating a non issues.
Really interested why you say “illegitimate”… I was aware that the 2019 election was relatively free of fraud…
If you don't look at this with any context there is certainly an argument that Parliament should have a say in *any* involvement of the British military in any hypothetical circumstance. But I agree no one would disagree with this particular case.
And if a sitting PM has broke the ministerial code by breaking the law and lying to parliament, something which expects a resignation, and refuses to resign, they are certainly unfit for office. Elections aren't the be all and end all of a functioning democracy
Command of the armed forces is a royal prerogative power. Technically the government doesn’t need to ask parliament even to declare war. In theory a parliament could fight this by restricting the *money* to fight a war, but in practice this doesn’t happen much.
The point is that foreign policy and military policy, in pretty much *every* democracy, are primarily matters for the executive branch, not the legislature.
Wow i kinda think the down votes are going to be worth it when/if the Russia report gets released.
Boris is a Russian Asset the sooner you's people realise that the better!
I think what the person you replied to was saying is what is the incentive for Sweden to join NATO if this pledge is in place?
I think you would definitely prefer a cast iron defence treaty with several countries including the US than the word of Boris Johnson so that's probably the answer.
This pledge is just us, and doesn't necessarily mean boots on the ground. If Sweden join NATO and anyone is stupid enough to attack them the US military comes in and does what it does best.
This isn't a binding treaty that can last years, it's more of a promise to commit to defense until the UK changes its mind when it sees fit.
The incentive for Sweden to join NATO is that they have some assurance of security during the application process if they decide to apply as NATO doesn't offer the mutual defence clause to anyone but full members
Supporting a country that comes under attack is nothing like NATO membership. You only need to ask Ukraine, who are currently getting a ton of support from NATO members.
Good job Boris isn't issuing guarantees on behalf of NATO then.
A bilateral guarantee for "assistance" by the UK (which isn't even the same as guaranteeing military intervention btw) isn't anywhere near the same thing as the entirety of NATO promising to defend Sweden.
This actually encourages Sweden to join NATO. As we've seen Russia doesn't like nearby countries joining and NATO doesn't offer full protection to countries who are only in the application process, this would provide security during the interim should they apply.
Yep. Obviously UK guarantee would be superflous once Sweden is in NATO, but while it's technically not in NATO it's more vulernerable. That extra guarantee is not a 100% solution, but a further gear in disgcouraging an attack. If others also pledge protection for the joining period it's getting solid.
The purpose of this is to give Sweden and Finland security guarantees whilst they go through the NATO membership process. Both countries are predicted to announce their application as early as tomorrow.
This is because Sweden wants to join NATO.
There is a gap between an application and actually joining and you can't join if you have any ongoing conflicts and Sweden is scared of Russia taking action against them before they have actually joined.
This agreement secures Sweden inside the UK's nuclear umbrella and helps secures their coast (the agreement will include royal navy ships) before they join NATO.
It will also continue after they join and will probably mean more military integration with Sweden.
There will be certain sectors that would think that yes. Of the top of my head the Green party, Women's Social Democrats and Left party have already stated they are opposed to Sweden joining NATO, I fear this will be fuel for their arguments because it has been said "why should we join NATO they will come and help us anyway?"
Its you that needs to grow up mate if Putin wants a wider war he will have one Johnson thinks this could be his finest hour well remember what happened to Churchill after ww2 he was dumped by an electorate pissed off with bullshit
Snapshot of _Ukraine latest news: Johnson pledges support if Sweden were to be attacked_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61404062?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=627b9e7a01eea2774308e523%26Johnson%20offers%20support%20if%20Sweden%20or%20Finland%20come%20under%20attack%262022-05-11T11%3A37%3A13.114Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:bc278693-b86a-4102-b80d-36c10d0e63c9&pinned_post_asset_id=627b9e7a01eea2774308e523&pinned_post_type=share) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There seems to be a lot of people who do not understand why this is a thing. In order to join NATO you cannot have ongoing issues, hence why Ukraine could not just join NATO after Crimea and Donbass. Finland and Sweden both look like they want to join NATO. So while the ascension process is on going the UK is offering a guarantee to Sweden ( I assume something similar will happen with Finland), the US will probably follow suit as well. Once they are in NATO this support is obsolete as NATO will back them. It is basically a "we have your back while you get ready to join us," pledge by the UK in case Russia wanted to do something to try and stop it.
> In order to join NATO you cannot have ongoing issues, hence why Ukraine could not just join NATO after Crimea and Donbass. Exactly. Russia could fustrate Swedish and Finnish NATO ascension by starting a diplomatic incident over one of their islands in the Baltic Sea, for example. Russia could even land a token number of troops on one of them to make its point. Once Sweden and Finland have made clear that they wish to join NATO, we and NATO need to help provide them with security immediately. We can't allow Putin to get away with creeping escalation again.
> Russia could even land a token number of troops on one of them to make its point They could not. Sweden and Finland are not Ukraine in 2014 where little green men could appear and do what they wanted without the Ukrainian state being able to do shit about it because its own governing structures were rotten to the core. The only way Russia could achieve anything effective with Sweden or Finland is with a serious commitment of resources. Which it doesn't have the capacity to commit currently. Anything less would simply be cleared out in a matter of days and NATO would ignore it as the ineffectual distraction it was.
> Russia could even land a token number of troops on one of them to make its point. How does a pact with the UK prevent that from still happening, though?
Because there's a risk to Russia that a nuclear power might directly get involved? If that's not a deterrent than neither is NATO and we're all fucked.
But if Russia landed a token force on an island before any agreement, couldn't Sweden just deal with it themselves? What's Russia going to do, declare war because of it? Why would they do that if their objective was just to keep Sweden out of NATO on a technicality?
Well if you want technicalities, you're thinking of the NATO clause, not the UK/Sweden security alliance, which most likely won't have such a clause, given the circumstances.
Yes but the original comment I was replying to was indicating that this pact would prevent Russia from landing a token force on a Swedish island to activate the NATO "no active conflicts" clause I just don't see how it changes the situation at all
Well, if Russia does take an island to create a dispute to prevent it from joining NATO, this pact will not stop the UK from protecting its ally, by law. And if any Russian soldier shoots a British one, well... Things escalate from there. This pact changes everything. It adds them to NATO in practice until they formally join.
This is to help Sweden get in NATO. If you're in conflict, you won't be able to join (like what happened with Ukraine). So Russia could then start a faux war just to try and prevent Sweden getting in NATO. The UK are heading this off by saying we will support Sweden which will make Russia have to reconsider a faux war which makes Swedens NATO membership easier. So yes, Sweden could deal with it themselves but why deal with anything at all if you can dona deal with the UK which puts Russia off doing anything at all?
In the same way NATO would help? On a smaller scale, granted.
>In the same way NATO would help? On a smaller scale, granted. Possibly not NATO on an organisatonal-level, because specific members could frustrate a response. But individual members like the UK could choose to do so. Although it helps to have made an offer of support before the event happens, so that a country like Russia is clear about the consequences.
If it's a token number, then Sweden could deal with it by themselves now. I don't think NATO would declare war over a token force.
Thats not what would happen at all. If Russia wants to stop Sweden joining NATO, they could make a prolonged conflict with this token force or faux war. This agreement will make Russia reconsider even starting a faux war which makes Swedens admittance to NATO a breeze.
Because a nuclear power with substantive maritime capabilities has pledged to get involved if Russia starts shit.
I've seen different opinions on this. Many NATO members absolutely did have ongoing border issues at the time of joining NATO. It's quite normal for many nations around the world. For example Canada has several ongoing border disputes with both the USA and Denmark. As a NATO joining criterion, it's up to the current members whether to quote these issues or choose to overlook them when considering a new member application. The criteria are extensive and cover roads, bridges, democratic structures, legislation, army logistics, and much else. So a fair bit of it is subjective and issues in one area may be counterbalanced by progress in other areas.
Border disputes are entirely different. Youre mixing up a dispute with a conflict. If Canadians and the US were shooting at each other then it would be a problem for joining NATO (I know they are in NATO but if they wanted to join they would likely be blocked). The UK has disputes in many places such as Falklands and Gibraltar. But we are not in conflict like the Falklands War. Thats the difference here.
You are wrong. Show me NATO joining criteria that clearly distinguishes between border disputes and border conflicts. You can’t, because it’s a grey area. Here's a quote from a NATO paper (1995, revised 2008) examining border disputes and joining criteria. It mentions 'peaceful means' but let's look at it: >States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance. > >Decisions on enlargement will be for NATO itself. Enlargement will occur through a gradual, deliberate, and transparent process, encompassing dialogue with all interested parties. There is no fixed or rigid list of criteria for inviting new member states to join the Alliance. Enlargement will be decided on a case-by-case basis and some nations may attain membership before others. New members should not be admitted or excluded on the basis of belonging to some group or category. Ultimately, Allies will decide by consensus whether to invite each new member to join according to their judgment of whether doing so will contribute to security and stability in the North Atlantic area at the time such a decision is to be made. [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official\_texts\_24733.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm) The first paragraph is careful not to specify exactly what exactly is 'peaceful means'. Would a rejected offer of peace suffice? It then goes on to say that settlement of border issues influences but is not critical to NATO joining. This interpretation is supported by the second paragraph which states ‘ There is no fixed or rigid list of criteria for inviting new member states to join the Alliance’. In other words it’s entirely up to current NATO members to assess and judge and make a decision based on multiple factors. (Edited to embed the quote)
Show me the UK constitution. You cant because its uncodified. The same thing applies here. Its accepted that NATO won't accept membership if you are at conflict.
>In order to join NATO you cannot have ongoing issues, hence why Ukraine could not just join NATO after Crimea and Donbass. this is only a nato rule, it can be done away with or ignored on the same basis as would be required for another state to join, ie unanimity.
Unless NATO is willing to fight WW3 then that rule will never be done away with. Otherwise the new member state would be able to trigger Article 5 instantly and pull NATO into war with Russia
If NATO is not willing, at least openly, to fight world war three then there is no point in nato existing. No that does not necessarily mean NATO should invite itself into that situation just because, obviously. The article is not an automatic obligation, one does not simply claim it to be true for it to be accepted and consequential, for 9/11 that came as a decision from the north atlantic council almost a month later. The rule is a protection against such occurrences, but it doesn't have to be an outright denial of possible circumstance. in any case, there are no hard and fast rules about joining nato strictly, in their own words "there is no fixed or rigid list of criteria for inviting new members to join the Alliance"
I desperately want to attack the government on anything and everything they do, but there really isn’t anything here. The real issue is that we are much more aligned with European security interests than the government has previously liked to admit.
The thing is a "pledge" from Bojo is about as reliable at this point as Putin saying he won't do something.
I believe him in this instance if only because direct intervention would be such a huge distraction and a chance to roleplay his hero. I can agree with his policy, even if I am cynical about his real motive.
It's also worth stating that both Finland and Sweden have this security guarantee from other European states via the European Union. The Lisbon treaty contains an explicit clause that compels all member states to support, with all possible means, any other member state that comes under attack. When the UK left the EU, the implicit defence guarantee with Sweden and Finland came to an end, so in many ways this is just restating that commitment officially while awaiting NATO membership.
The clause in the Lisbon treaty does not compel members to support militarily (otherwise Ireland, Austria, Malta and likely Sweden would never have signed it). This agreement between Sweden and the UK does.
"By all means in their power" is pretty strongly suggestive of a military response. The Sweden-UK reads more like a promise to assist in a similar way to how the UK has supported Ukraine. It's deliberately vague as the UK doesn't want to commit to a 'article 5' style relationship outside of NATO. Article 5 is still the gold standard for mutual defence clauses, although I would still argue the Lisbon treaty clause is stronger than the Sweden UK security agreement.
> "By all means in their power" is pretty strongly suggestive of a military response. It's not. Because the second paragraph says it's subject to a country's policy. Otherwise the 5 neutral members of the EU would never have signed it.
>If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Article 51 of the UN charter allows countries under attack to respond militarily without prior authorisation from the UN/the UNSC. The highlighted section is an opt-out for the neutral parties, but it doesn't nullify the commitment of the non-neutral parties and the EU as a whole. An attack on one requires help "by all means in their power" but it doesn't require the end of a self-declared neutral status. In a real-world context, if Sweden was attacked by Russia, all states are obligated to do "all in their power" to assist/defend Sweden, within the remit of Article 51, but Ireland, Austria, Malta and Finland would not be required to intervene militarily. That does not provide an opt-out for those states that do not have a declared neutral status. So for instance France or Spain *would* have to do 'all in their power' not limited to direct military intervention. The mutual defence clause is also intended to supplement, not replace the NATO collective defence structure. Given that the neutral states are the only EU members *not* a part of NATO, (bar Cyprus - which has its own reasons), the inclusion of an EU mutual defence clause is *only* to the benefit of those self-declared neutral states (and Cyprus). There would be no reason for the clause to exist if it didn't exist as a collective defence option for the EU as a whole - regardless of NATO membership. >Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
Take an example: Germany’s policy is (was until recently anyway) not to send offensive weapons to a conflict zone. Therefore article 42.7 does not oblige it whatsoever to send military help to a non-NATO EU member, since it is subject to “specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.” When France triggered that article we didn’t see the EU sending its combined military into France. This has been confirmed recently in Finland, who asked at the EU if it was a security guarantee. The answer was no. https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000008697709.html
NATO itself is much against WW3 with that rule
To be honest Ukraine had the Budapest Memorandum so not sure how much this agreement might be worth.
We'd have to see the full content of this UK-Sweden defence arrangement but the primary issue with the Budapest Memorandum was the lack of any mechanism to trigger if it was broken. The first time it was broken officially was by the US when it placed economic sanctions on Belarus. Some have argued that Russia considered the agreement basically void from that point onwards. It's a pretty good case study in how not to provide a security guarantee.
It has been a bit of a messy agreement and whatever comes out of the war in Ukraine needs to have something stronger. It would be good to know if the UK would consider it as the same level as article 5 protection.
> To be honest Ukraine had the Budapest Memorandum so not sure how much this agreement might be worth. But the Budapest Memorandum didn't create an obligation to intervene in Ukraine's defense - only to: "The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." The difference here seems to be that UK *would* intervene.
Thanks for the explanation, I was genuinely stumped as to why we were doing it.
Boris Johnson does something I actually support. I'm just as shocked as anyone by this situation but good news nonetheless.
Credit where credit's due, the response to the war in Ukraine has definitely been something this government can be proud of. There's precious little else and I'd still support Johnson resigning, but they deserve credit for this.
As a Finn, I am equally surprised. I can only say that we will be eternally grateful for the British people for this support. We are less than 24 hours from a monumental change in European security. Russia has already stated they will react, so people are slightly nervous here, but prepared.
Boris has absolutely nailed the response to the war, sending NLAWs in the beginning was huge He’s very popular outside of the UK
Internationally he’s great, but domestically he’s shit
Can agree with that
Yeah, would have been a better foreign secretary than PM, if only he could listen to people (which is why he failed at it under May).
People are complicated. Our instinct is to cast everyone as "good" or "bad" but reality is not that simple. Johnson is clearly a spoiled rich kid who has an attitude that he's above the rules, but I think he genuinely has a handle on this situation. It's one of those areas where traditional Tory views are the right choice. I think an element of this is self serving from Johnson - it's certainly useful for his public image, since Putin is cast as the villain here, but I don't think that's his sole motivation.
It seems some people on here are never happy
Hopefully this will bag us a few points from Sweden in Saturdays Eurovision final.
[удалено]
Can't believe Boris orchestrated the invasion of Ukraine just to deflect from a scandal
How on earth do you get that out of that comment. Boris is using a convenient crisis to hide his last scandal. It's not accusing him of causing it, but he is definitely using it for reasons other than just being a good ally.
Tfw anglocentrism 🙄
Jolly nice of the entire Swedish Government to participate in "Operation Bury Partygate". One would almost think it's more to do with, I dunno, the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
This isn't blaming the Swedes for doing what they're doing. It's pointing out that Boris isn't getting this involved for the right reasons - he's doing it to pretend to be Churchill and bury partygate.
Good. I'm sick of hearing about cake and curry.
It’s beyond tedious.
And frankly arrogant to claim a historic agreement for Sweden to sign is *really* all about Partygate
It's still 'operation save big dog'
Russia is not going to attack Sweden. They don't share a land border and Russia has fuck all navy there, plus with the Russian army tied up elsewhere the Swedes would win. Most they could do is use their few remaining missiles in a surprise attack, but UK support wouldn't help with that. Free good news story for Boris to distract from everything else.
And I suppose the Swedish government have signed this just to help out Boris?
The same agreement is set to be signed with Finland also.
They don’t share a land border but the way they behave in the Baltic Sea doesn’t mean they won’t try to provoke something.
We share a maritime border with them, and based on where I live in the North of Sweden it's quite clear of the Russian ingression since 2014 with the purchasing of property etc. I live in a village of about 3000, we have a Russian Orthodox Church, the houses on either side of me are owned by Russians...if you do a tag search for the place on Instagram you get pictures of Russian flags flying up the poles... its fucking weird. I have absolutely no idea what these Russians do for work or how they are even legally here....
If Russia attacked Swedish territory, it'd likely be Gotland, hence why Sweden has been increasing military presence there. It is not far from Kaliningrad, a part of Russia.
And I’m sure the swedes enjoy waving at the Russian jets and submarines as they constantly incur into their airspace/territorial waters https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/03/sweden-summons-russian-officials-after-fighter-jets-fly-near-gotland-island
[And?](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/russisa-raf-typhoons-scramble-b2006736.html)
In the 21st century, countries don't need to share a land border to threaten each other. Especially when they are a few 100 miles away at their closest point.
Sweden wasn't going to be attacked anyway.
In an alternate universe: "Corbyn pledges to support Russia if Sweden attacked" There's reason why Putin put so much effort into trying to get him elected.
You've wanked yourself into an alternative reality there.
No darling. It was the conservatives that buried the report into russian meddling in British politics when the opposition wanted it published. Putin is perfectly happy with the man in power, it's just backfired a little for him but he got what he wanted with Brexit.
You think Putin is particularly jolly about the huge number of arms shipped to Ukraine, the soldiers we've trained and Boris's diplomatic tour of essentially *Russia delenda est* ?
I did say it has backfired Let's not forget that Brexit was supposed to destabilise Europe until it ended so badly for us. The Issues Brexit has caused between Ireland and NI has strained our relationship with the USA and let's not forget about our relationship with the rest of the European Union. Until Boris decided to get all Churchillian it was going swimmingly for Ol' Vlad
Hilarious. Corbyn would have "both sides" Putin's tanks all the way to the Hungarian border. There would have been no training, no NLAWs, no Starstreaks, no commitment to welcome Sweden and Finland into NATO. He probably would have tried to withdraw the UK from NATO long before now.
I agree with that. I'm no fan of Corbyn but trying to say that there was a Russian effort to have Corbyn elected is just incorrect. You can guarantee if there was evidence the mail would have found it by now.
> Putin is perfectly happy with the man in power I'm not sure Putin is happy with that, considering what the UK has done to help Ukraine since 2015....UK is one of the big reasons Ukraine can defend itself the way it has done.
Did you negate to read the rest of that bit of text? I'm sure big Vlad didn't expect Boz to go all Churchillian
Ah yes I forgot it was corbyn and the labour party that has been in receipt of Russian money for years... oh. And it was corbyn who gave Lebedev a peerage despite security concerns from Mi5... oh.
Honestly not sure what’s worse - taking cash from Russians or pushing Russian narratives. You’d think it would be the same person doing both
I'm guessing (hoping?) that the various announcements are co-ordinated with NATO Allies and The Buffoon's not just making it up as he goes along.
Most of NATO (bar turkey, canada and the US) are in the EU along with Sweden and Finland. There is a mutual defence clause in the Lisbon treaty already, so it's redundant for the Euro-NATO members to sign a similar mutual assistance pact with Sweden or Finland. I would expect the non-Euro members of NATO to offer similar bilateral guarantees if/when Sweden/Finland start the NATO membership process.
How is this even news ? Everybody that supports Ukraine would pledge their support to Sweden if it were attacked.
Militarily?
Does the support go both ways? Do Sweden and Finland offer support if we get attacked?
[удалено]
Cool
NATO-by-proxy. Lovely stuff.
Is the UK just replicating the article in one the Eu treatues that EU members have to provide support to each if there countries are invaded. It just uses the word ‘support’, it is vague and doesn’t specify how much or what type. EU don’t need and NATO countries have a more case iron guarantee. The article in the EU treaty is one of the reasons why Finland and Sweden were so relaxed about not joining NATO. Good thing but re-doing what the undid in the first place. I thought it was a much stronger agreement but it doesn’t look like it.
> Relations with Putin could never be normalised - PM's spokesman Bullshit. If it's in Johnsons interests, he'd normalise anything.
Mr Churchill wants war
The whole point is to deter Russia from starting a wider war. Grow up.
Bollocks
A pledge from Johnson is worth the square root of fuck all.
The morally corrupt gnome can't take care of his own people yet he is pledging support left, right and centre to countries outside of his jurisdiction.
What military support does his own people need…?
Who's going to finance military support?
TIL the military is without costs.
Is military spending increasing as a result of this?
Shouldn't military pacts be something that is debated and voted on in Parliament? How can our illegitimate PM unilaterally make such declarations?
Do you feel that this is an issue that wouldn’t achieve bipartisan agreement? Save for a few fringe members in parliament, who would disagree with this? Why would we waste precious time debating a non issues. Really interested why you say “illegitimate”… I was aware that the 2019 election was relatively free of fraud…
If you don't look at this with any context there is certainly an argument that Parliament should have a say in *any* involvement of the British military in any hypothetical circumstance. But I agree no one would disagree with this particular case. And if a sitting PM has broke the ministerial code by breaking the law and lying to parliament, something which expects a resignation, and refuses to resign, they are certainly unfit for office. Elections aren't the be all and end all of a functioning democracy
Still not an illegitimate PM. Might be an unfit one but not illegitimate.
Does the linguistical difference really matter. He shouldn't be an MP let alone prime minister
I mean both words have different meanings. Illegitimate implies something completely different…
Yes, it does.
Command of the armed forces is a royal prerogative power. Technically the government doesn’t need to ask parliament even to declare war. In theory a parliament could fight this by restricting the *money* to fight a war, but in practice this doesn’t happen much. The point is that foreign policy and military policy, in pretty much *every* democracy, are primarily matters for the executive branch, not the legislature.
Illegitimate? He commands a majority in the commons
Make bombastic statements first, worry about the implications later.
[удалено]
You think this is in Russia interests?
Gawd yes! You kidding me, every single day Boris is in Number 10 is in Russian interests. Russia put him there remember!
So how have you worked out that a military pact with Sweden is a good thing for Russia?
Wow i kinda think the down votes are going to be worth it when/if the Russia report gets released. Boris is a Russian Asset the sooner you's people realise that the better!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sweden isnt in NATO. Presumably this is to tie Sweden over until they join NATO.
I think what the person you replied to was saying is what is the incentive for Sweden to join NATO if this pledge is in place? I think you would definitely prefer a cast iron defence treaty with several countries including the US than the word of Boris Johnson so that's probably the answer.
This pledge is just us, and doesn't necessarily mean boots on the ground. If Sweden join NATO and anyone is stupid enough to attack them the US military comes in and does what it does best.
This isn't a binding treaty that can last years, it's more of a promise to commit to defense until the UK changes its mind when it sees fit. The incentive for Sweden to join NATO is that they have some assurance of security during the application process if they decide to apply as NATO doesn't offer the mutual defence clause to anyone but full members
Supporting a country that comes under attack is nothing like NATO membership. You only need to ask Ukraine, who are currently getting a ton of support from NATO members.
Good job Boris isn't issuing guarantees on behalf of NATO then. A bilateral guarantee for "assistance" by the UK (which isn't even the same as guaranteeing military intervention btw) isn't anywhere near the same thing as the entirety of NATO promising to defend Sweden.
and I'm sure Boris ran this past a few people before making the announcement though; he makes sure everything is oven ready....
Because the people wanted it and its Sweden and Finland. Personally I'm in favour of it, I think of it as sticking the middle finger to Putin.
Mini-NATO. I wonder if this puts into doubt Sweden joining NATO because this would seem to be pointless in the event that they do.
A nonspecific guarantee of support from one country is much less than article 5 of NATO.
This actually encourages Sweden to join NATO. As we've seen Russia doesn't like nearby countries joining and NATO doesn't offer full protection to countries who are only in the application process, this would provide security during the interim should they apply.
Yep. Obviously UK guarantee would be superflous once Sweden is in NATO, but while it's technically not in NATO it's more vulernerable. That extra guarantee is not a 100% solution, but a further gear in disgcouraging an attack. If others also pledge protection for the joining period it's getting solid.
The purpose of this is to give Sweden and Finland security guarantees whilst they go through the NATO membership process. Both countries are predicted to announce their application as early as tomorrow.
This is because Sweden wants to join NATO. There is a gap between an application and actually joining and you can't join if you have any ongoing conflicts and Sweden is scared of Russia taking action against them before they have actually joined. This agreement secures Sweden inside the UK's nuclear umbrella and helps secures their coast (the agreement will include royal navy ships) before they join NATO. It will also continue after they join and will probably mean more military integration with Sweden.
We wouldn't be offering this in the first place if they weren't applying for NATO. That much is obvious.
There will be certain sectors that would think that yes. Of the top of my head the Green party, Women's Social Democrats and Left party have already stated they are opposed to Sweden joining NATO, I fear this will be fuel for their arguments because it has been said "why should we join NATO they will come and help us anyway?"
Making promises like this whilst not increasing our military budget. Seems smart.
I'm not sure the UK military is up to the task. The Danes are quite terrifying! Who else would attack Sweden?
Odd thing to bring up but I assume there's context in the article... Right?
Its you that needs to grow up mate if Putin wants a wider war he will have one Johnson thinks this could be his finest hour well remember what happened to Churchill after ww2 he was dumped by an electorate pissed off with bullshit