"Will Finland Join NATO? " Topic

Russian Military Activity Leads Finns To Question Neutrality.

"Neutral Finland has increased cooperation with the NATO military alliance this year amid concerns about neighboring Russia's recent increase in military activity and purported involvement in the eastern Ukraine conflict. Finland has no plans to become a full NATO member, but continued Russia aggression could ultimately cause the Finnish government to consider options other than complete neutrality.

Finland has close economic ties with Russia, and recent polls showed that the majority of its people are against entrance into the NATO military alliance, the Christian Science Monitor reports. But recent incidents, including Russia's annexation of Crimea last March and its apparent support of pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine, represent a trend that concerns Finnish citizens.

"Finland doesn't feel threatened right now. … So there is this concern, which we must address, about where Russia is going, and how it will look 10 or 15 years down the road. For Finland, these are extremely important questions," Kirsti Kauppi, director of the Finland Foreign Ministry's Political and Security Department, told the Christian Science Monitor…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

We should remember that the integration of West Germany into NATO triggered the creation of the Warsaw Pact.

If we want to keep giving Putin an excuse to be more aggressive and anti-western this is the way to go about it.
Did Russia annexe Crimea before or after we helped overthrow the elected President of Ukraine? After.

We can argue about what the negotiations after the Berlin wall came down really meant, but it is obvious that the Russians believed they had a promise from the west that NATO would not expand eastwards. Look at what has happened since and it is amazing there have not been more Crimeas.

We could have been sensitive and sensible to the opportunity for inclusivity and peace in Europe, but someone seems to have an agenda to attack Russia for old times sake.

They aren't the Soviet Union, they aren't communists and we should remember that.

No – support for NATO membership is low (though rising), and it's already tacitly agreed that NATO will defend Finland if attacked.

Finland joining NATO would really, really, alarm the Russians.

Gwydion? They are not communists what? I agreed with you except for two points The Ukrainians Not WE overthrew that individual leader not the Govt. What The Us did was guarantee thier sovereignty if they gave up the Nukes in thier possession. Which the Soviets/Russians also pledged..

The Ukrainians Not WE overthrew that individual leader not the Govt.

The seeds of discontent were there with the common people for quite some time, independent of any western influence. In fact most of the very normal Ukrainians I know (personally) would be most insulted to be told that the current situation is solely due to western influence – they were fed up with the situation, corruption and lack of progress/development that they had put up with for 20 years, particularly as they had seen Poland develop and improve significantly by breaking away.

What The Us did was guarantee thier sovereignty if they gave up the Nukes in thier possession. Which the Soviets/Russians also pledged..

What the Budapest Agreement did was provide:

"…security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan"

Even if you believe that Russia is not directly involved in a blatant invasion, their current 'blind eye' to the border is a breach of this assurance, and I have no doubt Belarus and Kazakhstan are watching it slightly nervously.

Did Russia annexe Crimea before or after we helped overthrow the elected President of Ukraine?

There is now some evidence that preparations were already underway to annex it before, in the event that the opportunity presented itself. Maydan was simply a convenient excuse. However what right was granted to Russia to annex part of a territory they had given a security assurance towards by this change of government?

Finland has always felt pressured, so much so that a geopolitical term was named after it. While it has never gone so far as being a full NATO member, probably primarily due to the Finlandization effect, it has certainly never sided towards Russia as a military protector/partner, and in recent months has started to move more towards the mutual umbrella of western defence in the face of increased Russian intimidation:

link

link

Remember, even Estonia and Finland cooperated against Russia in the 1930s, until Soviet pressure on Estonia forced them to drop it in 1939.

It may be debateable whether Finland will take that actual final step to join NATO officially, but in most other senses she is already a pseudo-member.

I doubt it. The Finns are too smart to put their country's defenses and future into the hands of foreigners meeting in Belgium.

The Fins are neutral? So was that country those foreigners are meeting in… Not that it helped us Belgians in 14 or 40…
Take it from a Belgian, neutrality sucks

Unlikely. Putin knows that NATO is more bark than bite and Finland becoming a member has limited symbolic value. It would only further "provoke" Russian nationalism and increase Putin's support base.

Belgium has been a useful shortcut for armies on maneuver since before the Spanish & Austrians started hunting Protestants there.

Finland's geography is much different. They also have managed quite well being separate from the East & West's politics. Historically,the Finns know better than to trust on assistance showing-up during times of crisis. NATO membership will not strengthen their independence.

I doubt it. The Finns are too smart to put their country's defenses and future into the hands of foreigners meeting in Belgium.

I agree … but if they did … Putin would have a bear !

Every time there is a NATO exercise in the Baltic, there are usually more Swedes and Finns than NATO members!

Already aligned but in name only.

You know, I actually agree with Stu on this: Finland formally joining NATO would really alarm Putin.

Agree!

Amicalement
Armand

"If we want to keep giving Putin an excuse to be more aggressive and anti-western this is the way to go about it."

What makes you think he needs an excuse?

"We could have been sensitive and sensible to the opportunity for inclusivity and peace in Europe,"

We tried this once. The policy was called apeasment and it didn't work out.

If the Finns do join, does that mean the Mess Hall has to serve pickled herring ?!?

That's Swedes and Danes…..

We tried this once. The policy was called apeasment and it didn't work out.

If you're thinking about WWII that is magnificently irrelevant.
History never repeats itself – all circumstances are unique and the 1930s and Germany and the beginning of this century and Russia are in no way analogous.

We may now have forced a position where moderation may be taken as weakness but why the hell did we need to engineer this tension?

Putin wasn't looking to invade or threaten anywhere in Europe until we started moving the military bases Eastwards, ignoring the understandings on which the post Cold war position was based and undermining the legitimate governments of pro-Russian states.

There was no need for 'appeasement' and nothing to 'stand up to' until we made a need.

Bangorstu
That's Swedes and Danes…..

Sorry stu, but I bet if I ever was in Finnland, I'd be able to get pickled herring ! And I bet a Burger and Fries there too ! According to this link Finns eat pickled herring … link

There are many styles of pickled herring which is a common appetizer and also served around Midsummer accompanied by small potatoes …

Putin wasn't looking to invade or threaten anywhere in Europe until we started moving the military bases Eastwards, ignoring the understandings on which the post Cold war position was based and undermining the legitimate governments of pro-Russian states.

Except that the former Warsaw Pact nations actively petitioned to become NATO members. The US and older NATO members did not go to Poland or the Czech Republic, etc and ask if they wanted to join, they approached NATO because they did not want to be invaded by the Russians again.

Was just thinking … I actually had to prove to stu, that Finns eat pickled herring … on a thread about NATO !? WDF !?!?!?!?

The joys of the internet :)

Still, I'd assume than given Danish membership, it's already on the menu…

I do like some good pickled herring. I remember having it at Octoberfest in Munich in '88. We don't have that at our local county fairs … too bad !

We do eat pickled herring here, but it aint that big thing it would be added into any inventory :P Mostly seen in christmas table, and even there not that common.

Also, for the actual subject: We are not questioning our "neutrality" (= We are in EU allready, and allready operating in EU taskforces, so its kinda misleading to use term neutral to indicate someone who aint in WPact or NATO.. :D) any more than we are usually.

At the very moment finnish newspapers are mostly wondering (along backwashes of eurovision song contest, parlamentary elections and ice hockey world championships!) how the rest of the world has suddenly gained interest towards the case of "reservist letter" or how on earth that has anything to do with preparing of war.

Long story short: Polls are still saying no, though balance has shifted a bit – but to note, we are pretty much in same numbers what we were in 1998.
Poll done in february 2015 (rounded); For NATO 26%, against NATO 43%, IDK 32%. And to give more context, diagram based on those same cyclic & annual polls, no idea why few years are missing:

Green being pro NATO, white being IDK and red being against.

History never repeats itself

But man does. Voltaire.

…undermining the legitimate governments of pro-Russian states.

Still no evidence that any of this situation was caused by undermining, certainly not to any lesser a degree than it was caused by the people themselves. Conspiracy theories are just so much more exciting to believe.

Except that the former Warsaw Pact nations actively petitioned to become NATO members. The US and older NATO members did not go to Poland or the Czech Republic, etc and ask if they wanted to join, they approached NATO…

Whatever their motivation for doing so, whether it was mutual defence, political, financial associated with membership to the EU (NATO membership demonstrates a commitment to border control, which is a condition for EU membership), it was certainly very much the case that they petitioned to join (and were not refused) than they were dragged in kicking and screaming.

Finland may not be a fully paid up member, but she certainly has held associate membership with a gold card for some time..

The former Soviet satellites may have joined (or wanted to join) NATO of their own volition, but Russia sees these encroachments in her sphere of influence with increasing alarm. The US will probably feel the same way if Canada and Mexico decide to sign bilateral economic and military agreements with Russia. Heck, we almost started WWIII when Cuba was going to base Russian missiles in '62.

Would in the current world would the USA annex bits of Canada and work to destabilise the rest if Canada was to seek economic and mural protection with Russia or China? If the answer is yes (HELL YES!) then Canada needs to look to self defence and such alliances because you can never effectively appease a bully/paranoid. I understand Russia's history, but the world has changed since the wall came down and paranoia about NATO, the EU or the UN can easily be resolved – Russia could ignore them or join them. NATO is not going to invade.

Ps "sphere of influence" just describes a relationship, usual geographical, it does not justify that relationship nor does it mean that the relationship can not change over time.

War game relevance – a number of board games have diplomacy as an alternative/adjunct to the combat rules. Eg The War of The Roses.

Absolutely. A sphere of influence is not a right of eternal domination, and if your sphere is turning against you perhaps you need to be looking inward to see why they are rejecting your influence for another?

It is equally possible for the people and the head of the country to have diametrically opposed views on which sphere they should be unfluenced by, which is what leads to revolution. It certainly did in Ukraine. Note that there was very little pro-Russian support either in Kyiv or eastern Ukraine, until after Yanukovich had fled. Even then, the majority of support has spread from the border, rather than risen organically from within.

Should Finland decide to join NATO, would we see similar objection from those people closest to the Russian border? Somehow I doubt it.