NATO membership for Sweden and Finland

[GaziPasha]

May be time to reconsider Hungary's & Turkey's membership.

All they have done so far is hinder the actions of NATO, the EU & US. We have already dropped Turkey from the F-35 program.

They both need to be reminded what they have gained from being in NATO.

I'm thinking, maybe we should remove the European countries that are ineffective in NATO. He did great work Turkey, in Afghanistan, in Yugoslavia, in Libya. He participated in the Korean War for NATO.

[Albany Rifles]

I'm thinking, maybe we should remove the European countries that are ineffective in NATO. He did great work Turkey, in Afghanistan, in Yugoslavia, in Libya. He participated in the Korean War for NATO.

1. Before you come at me over NATO just understand I served in NATO and was a member of several committees under NATO. I know how NATO works and what members have contributed. Don't need to be told.

2. I recognize fully Turkeys contributions. BTW, Korea wasn't & isn't NATO; it was and is under the auspices of the United Nations, a totally different organization.

3. As of late Turkey has been leaning too closely to Russia (see your country's buying of the S-400 systems). Also in Libya, again not a NATO mission and no NATO involvement, Turkey has been violating arms embargoes and providing weapons which keeps the tension needlessly high.

4. The US and NATO have worked with Sweden & Finland in the past and they bring quite a bit to the table.

5. And I am now speaking as a moderator now, as a newcomer you need to go visit these 2 sites before you post more:

https://www.worldaffairsboard.com/fo...ll-new-members

https://www.worldaffairsboard.com/fo...survival-guide

[Albany Rifles]

Ireland, I want Ireland in the 'club'. That will put the wind up Putin's skirt.

I want the Irish fishermen on our side. They chased away the Russian Northern Fleet PDQ!

[Red Team]

I want the Irish fishermen on our side. They chased away the Russian Northern Fleet PDQ!

"Why are all these Irish fishermen giving us reverse peace symbols?"

[TopHatter]

Putin’s Next Big Farce Is Happening Right Under Our Noses

As Finland and Sweden’s political leadership posture to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—Russian President Vladimir Putin’s worst nightmare—Putin is suddenly projecting calm, stating just this week that he has “no problems” with Finland and Sweden joining the collective defense organization.

“As for the expansion, including the accession of two prospective new members, Finland and Sweden, I would like to inform you, colleagues, that Russia has no problems with these states,” Putin said Monday at a summit of the Russian-led military alliance, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). “No problems at all!”

The somewhat frantic claim that he is keeping his cool has garnered headlines around the world, particularly because his comments stand in stark contrast to some of his previous threats. Just earlier this month Moscow warned about consequences of NATO expansion, threatening a military response if Finland were to join NATO.

“Finland's accession to NATO will cause serious damage to bilateral Russian-Finnish relations and the maintaining of stability and security in the Northern European region,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said earlier this month. “Russia will be forced to take retaliatory steps, both of a military-technical and other nature, in order to neutralize the threats to its national security that arise from this.”

But the impending expansion of NATO, which was designed to counter Russian influence in Europe in the first place, is almost certainly stirring panic for Putin and his inner circle, and all his statements showing he’s keeping his cool are all just an act, former U.S. intelligence officials and Putin watchers warn.

Rather than turning a new leaf, Putin is now likely just trying his best to tamp down his panic about an expanding NATO and bide his time, rather than let it look like his worst fears about NATO are actually coming true, according to Josh Manning, a former Russian military analyst at the Defense Department’s European Command.
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting of the leaders of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

“It was a 180 from where they were a few days ago,” Manning told The Daily Beast. “We’ve seen that... throughout this entire conflict is that there's all this bluster, but then when you actually kind of call them out or actually try to… poke the bear, the bear kind of yawns a little bit.”

Putin’s veneer of calm about more European nations joining NATO now, just days after his foreign ministry puffed up its chest about the news, is just a classic example of “Russian bluster” faltering, Manning said.

“When you see it play out in real time, it really just kind of falls on its face,” said Manning, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst. We’re “seeing that kind of walking back.”

But the statement isn’t just about acting unbothered—the step back from saber-rattling might help give Putin some wiggle room to reposition himself on the world stage to recover from some of his missteps in the war, which has nearly gone on for three months now without any decisive victory.

Putin’s military forces have suffered great losses since the beginning of the war—they’ve lost one third of the ground combat force so far, according to British government intelligence analysis shared this week—and they have been incapable of achieving most of Putin’s ambitious goals, such as capturing the Ukrainian capital, since Putin launched the war.

Putin was so confident of his military might that he had drawn up plans to install a pro-Kremlin puppet regime in Kyiv, which has also fallen flat on its face.

Putin, at this point, is probably feeling quite powerless in the face of an expanding NATO—particularly because his plans in the buildup to the so-called “special” military operation in Ukraine included demands that NATO roll back its military buildup to 1997 levels when NATO membership was significantly smaller—Dan Hoffman, a former CIA Moscow chief of station, told The Daily Beast.

“He’s saying that not because they are not a threat but because he can’t do anything about it,” Hoffman said.

Putin’s seemingly blasé statement this week on Finland and Sweden belies both the fear he has about an expanding NATO and the anxiety he almost certainly feels given the war in Ukraine hasn’t been a swift victory or gone according to plan—an already grim reality for Putin that’s just hastened the interest in NATO, Ronald Marks, a former special assistant to the assistant director of central intelligence for military affairs at the CIA, told The Daily Beast.

“He’s really caught off base here,” Marks, a former CIA clandestine service officer, said. “The invasion didn't work the way he planned. They certainly didn't have any idea that he just gave a reason for NATO to come into existence again. And Sweden and Finland are a big blow.”

In many ways, he has precipitated the very outcome he didn’t want—a stronger NATO—instead of downgrading it, and now has to accept sitting back on his haunches and see the consequences of his bad decision-making play out.

“He really blew it and I think is trying to downplay it at this point,” Marks said.

Putin hasn’t abandoned all posturing about NATO’s expansion, though. Although Putin claimed in remarks early this week to have no problem with Finland and Sweden joining NATO, in the same breath, just moments later, Putin clarified he does have a problem if there are military implications from their accession—and there almost certainly will be given NATO is a defense organization.

“There is no direct threat to Russia in connection with NATO’s expansion to these countries,” Putin said. “But the expansion of its military infrastructure to these territories will certainly evoke a response on our part.”

He didn’t go so far as to detail how Russia’s response would take shape or when he would determine what “threats” would come from Finland and Sweden’s accession.

“He really envisioned himself as being… someone who is one of the major players in the world… and I think he was looking at this as a breakout moment… a way of him showing himself off,” Marks said. “And not only did he not do that, but he's embarrassed himself worldwide.”

Now, Putin is likely looking for some kind off-ramp, and pretending that Finland and Sweden aren’t actually that threatening is the perfect route to take.
_________

Bingo bingo bingo....

One could say this is Putin's way of lulling NATO, Sweden and Finland into a false sense of security so he can try a sucker punch in the interim before full NATO membership....

...but I have a feeling he's pulling a Pee-Wee Herman (no, not that thing in the movie theater...that's the Russian Army in Ukraine)

[TopHatter]

Finland and Sweden to buy firearms, anti-tank weapons together

HELSINKI (Reuters) - Finland and Sweden will buy portable firearms and anti-tank weapons together, Finland's defence ministry said on Wednesday, as the two Nordic country's handed in their applications to join the Western military alliance NATO.

The two countries will step up their cooperation in defence procurement by Finland joining an agreement to acquire anti-tank weapons from Swedish weapons maker Saab Dynamics, a subsidiary of Saab, the ministry said.

Finland's defence minister Antti Kaikkonen also authorised preparations for a joint purchase of small fire arms including assault rifles, shotguns and arms for personal protection, the ministry said.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine prompted Finland and Sweden to apply to join NATO.

The agreement for anti-tank weapons enables purchases of missiles, recoilless rifles, ammunition and other related equipment, it said, adding the purchases are pending separate investment decisions.

"Joint procurement made possible by the enforcement documents will improve the availability of critical defence equipment in Finland and Sweden as the countries will be able to operate through the same commercial agreement," it said.
______

[Albany Rifles]

Finland and Sweden to buy firearms, anti-tank weapons together

HELSINKI (Reuters) - Finland and Sweden will buy portable firearms and anti-tank weapons together, Finland's defence ministry said on Wednesday, as the two Nordic country's handed in their applications to join the Western military alliance NATO.

The two countries will step up their cooperation in defence procurement by Finland joining an agreement to acquire anti-tank weapons from Swedish weapons maker Saab Dynamics, a subsidiary of Saab, the ministry said.

Finland's defence minister Antti Kaikkonen also authorised preparations for a joint purchase of small fire arms including assault rifles, shotguns and arms for personal protection, the ministry said.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine prompted Finland and Sweden to apply to join NATO.

The agreement for anti-tank weapons enables purchases of missiles, recoilless rifles, ammunition and other related equipment, it said, adding the purchases are pending separate investment decisions.

"Joint procurement made possible by the enforcement documents will improve the availability of critical defence equipment in Finland and Sweden as the countries will be able to operate through the same commercial agreement," it said.
______

This makes a ton of sense. I would also like them to reach out to Norway & Denmark as well. Keeps the logistics easier.

[TopHatter]

How Turkey spoiled NATO's historic moment with Finland, Sweden

ISTANBUL/WASHINGTON/BRUSSELS (Reuters) -When Finland and Sweden signalled they were thinking of making the historic decision joining NATO, the alliance expected a tough response from Moscow, not from one of its own.

Yet at a gathering of NATO foreign ministers with their Finnish and Swedish counterparts on Saturday to celebrate the biggest shift in European security in decades, Turkey's participant darkened the mood.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu was "in crisis mode", a NATO diplomat told Reuters of the evening meeting in Berlin. A day earlier Turkey's president, Tayyip Erdogan, had shocked fellow NATO members by saying he could not support membership for either Finland or Sweden.

Cavusoglu not only set conditions for Turkey accepting the membership bids but raised his voice at Sweden's Ann Linde in what three NATO diplomats said was an "embarrassing" break in protocol.

"For us it was a historic moment and yet Cavusoglu said he was irritated at Linde's 'feminist policy', bringing so much drama," another NATO diplomat said, describing a very tense atmosphere in the German foreign ministry in Berlin, in which many allies opted for silence to calm the situation.

"We were trying to understand what our Turkish colleague wanted - you know, really wanted," said the diplomat, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "It was embarrassing."

Ankara's main demands are for the Nordic countries to halt support for Kurdish militant groups present on their territory, and to lift their bans on some sales of arms to Turkey.

A Turkish diplomatic source said Cavusoglu had outlined Turkey's stance respectfully, rejecting what he said was an allegation from Linde that its opposition was due to Sweden's feminist foreign policy.

"Her comments are not helping Sweden's NATO bid, while the statements coming from Finland are carefully crafted," the source said. Sweden's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment after business hours.

Spurred on by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, both countries applied to join NATO on Wednesday.

Russia, which says the threat posed by NATO expansion was a major reason it sent troops into Ukraine, has played it cool.

While Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Finland and Sweden joining was a "grave mistake" with "far-reaching consequences", President Vladimir Putin said on May 16 their bids to join NATO posed no direct threat to Russia.

CONTACT MADE

The souring mood at Saturday's meeting was all the more surprising because NATO diplomats had told Reuters in early May that all 30 allies supported Finland and Sweden's accession to the alliance because of the security benefits it would bring.

NATO allies had wanted to seal their accession in record time as a way of solidifying their response to Russia, yet on Monday, Erdogan said the Swedish and Finnish delegations should not come to Ankara as planned.

On Wednesday, the Turkish presidency said a key Erdogan adviser had spoken with counterparts from Sweden, Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and United States. NATO membership progess was only possible if Turkey's expectations were met, it said.

One person close to the situation gave a more upbeat assessment, saying the conversation with Sweden was positive and opened the door for the delegation visits next week. Yet the calls on Wednesday came after five days of struggles by the Nordic countries to reach Erdogan's office, the person said.

"All this is muddying the waters, but not holding up the overall accession plan," the person said, under condition of anonymity.

Ankara says the arms ban - adopted by the Nordic countries in response to Turkey's 2019 military incursion into northern Syria against Kurdish militants - is inappropriate for prospective members of a security pact.

Turkish state broadcaster TRT said Sweden and Finland had not approved Turkey's request for the repatriation of 33 people with alleged links to groups it sees as terrorists. The chairman of the Swedish parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, Kenneth Forslund, said a solution could be found, but elsewhere.

"That Sweden would start expelling people who are not considered terrorists according to the terror lists the EU has, that’s totally unthinkable," he said.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Diplomats in European capitals say they have seen brinkmanship from Erdogan before leading to a deal. An unpredictable but strategically crucial NATO ally, Turkey under Erdogan has pursued an independent foreign policy but remains a big contributor to NATO missions.

The tension has clouded ties between Washington and Ankara just as they appeared to have improved following five years of disagreements on Syria, Turkey's closer ties with Moscow, and the erosion of rights and freedoms in the country.

Cavusoglu met U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in New York later on Wednesday.

"We are seeing the winds of the Cold War again," Cavusoglu told members of the Turkish American community late on Tuesday.

The source close to the process said Cavusoglu is taking a hard line publicly, pushed by Erdogan, but that there is a risk foreign allies will isolate Turkey if he goes too far.

At home, Erdogan faces tight elections by mid-2023 and his jabs at Europe play to domestic nationalist sentiment.

The United States is still confident of a solution. Blinken told a news conference on Sunday talks were ongoing over the differences between Turkey, Finland and Sweden.

"When it comes to the membership process, I am very confident that we will reach consensus," he said.
_________

It'll be interesting to see if there are any Fifth Columnists in Congress that try to muck up the works.

[Albany Rifles]

_________

It'll be interesting to see if there are any Fifth Columnists in Congress that try to muck up the works.

Can we nominate names?

Cause I can say at least one each from Missouri, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Kentucky and maybe Idaho will likely be in that camp.

[TopHatter]

Can we nominate names?

Cause I can say at least one each from Missouri, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Kentucky and maybe Idaho will likely be in that camp.

Yeah they'll definitely all have something in common that's for damn sure.

[TopHatter]

Sullivan: ‘We will not tolerate any aggression’ toward Sweden, Finland during NATO process
National security adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday warned the U.S. would “not tolerate any aggression” toward Sweden and Finland as the Nordic countries prepare to join the security alliance NATO.

During a White House press briefing Wednesday, Sullivan said Article 5, which rules an attack against one NATO nation is an attack against all, would not apply to Finland and Sweden until the countries were ratified by all 30 members.

But Sullivan said the U.S. and NATO allies were “prepared to send a very clear message” to any potential aggressors, such as Russia, during the application process.

“We will not tolerate any aggression toward Finland or Sweden,” Sullivan said. “And there are practical measures that we can take along those lines.”

Russia last week signaled it might have to take “retaliatory steps” against Finland and Sweden if they joined the security block. Russia invaded Ukraine in late February in part because of Kyiv’s increasing desire to potentially join the military alliance.

U.S. experts have determined Russia is likely to launch, at the very least, small cyberattacks against Finland and Sweden following their NATO applications.

Sullivan said the U.S. “stands ready” to ensure defense capabilities for Finland and Sweden if needed, although he noted they do not get security from NATO’s Article 5 until they are ratified.

On Sunday, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö said Russian President Vladimir Putin took the news of his country joining NATO “calmly,” despite the rhetoric from last week.

“Altogether the discussion was very, would I say, calm and cool,” the Finnish leader said. “He didn’t repeat those threats he had earlier.”

Some hurdles to Finland’s and Sweden’s NATO applications remain, including resolving objections from Turkey over what they say is the harboring of terrorists in the Nordic nations.

President Biden will be meeting with Niinistö and Sweden’s prime minister at the White House on Thursday to discuss the application.

Sullivan on Wednesday said he was confident that Turkey’s concerns would be addressed. He added the U.S. fully supports Finland and Sweden, calling them “highly capable security partners.”

“We believe that Russian aggression has only reinforced the argument for the kind of defensive alliance that NATO presents,” he said.
___________

And that, as they say, is that.

[Mithridates]

I think the benefits of having Finland and Sweden in NATO are oversold. First off, they're not allowing nukes or NATO bases on their soil. Second, they are wealthy countries rather than war-damaged economies vulnerable to both ideological subversion and conventional invasion, as many NATO countries were, right after WWII. Ultimately, the best outcome would be to invite them in and have Turkey veto their entry.

The real objective for their NATO application comes down to keeping their defense expenditures down so they can continue to feed their bloated welfare states. Ultimately, we would be better off if they stayed out and committed to massive military buildups. Given the problems the Ukrainians are presenting to Russian advances, I think it's obvious that neither Finland nor Sweden would be a pushover even fighting alone. And we could certainly arm them if push came to shove.

[Monash]

I think the benefits of having Finland and Sweden in NATO are oversold. First off, they're not allowing nukes or NATO bases on their soil. Second, they are wealthy countries rather than war-damaged economies vulnerable to both ideological subversion and conventional invasion, as many NATO countries were, right after WWII. Ultimately, the best outcome would be to invite them in and have Turkey veto their entry.

That first bit about the nukes is overblown because NATO's nuclear deterrent strategy doesn't actually involve forward positioning nuclear weapons near the Russian border. In fact as far as I am aware NATO currently doesn't even possess any short to medium ranged land based nuclear weapon systems. It used to but not now. Today deterrence is provided by long range land based systems in America and sub launched systems plus air launched bombs, only a few of which are stationed in Europe. And those that are stationed in Europe are, as far as I am aware stationed well back from the Russian border to hinder them being taken out of commission by a preemptive strike. So Russia is currently the only power with short ranged nuclear weapons.

The real objective for their NATO application comes down to keeping their defense expenditures down so they can continue to feed their bloated welfare states. Ultimately, we would be better off if they stayed out and committed to massive military buildups. Given the problems the Ukrainians are presenting to Russian advances, I think it's obvious that neither Finland nor Sweden would be a pushover even fighting alone. And we could certainly arm them if push came to shove.

Again I disagree. Polls continually showed that both countries populations clearly favored the status quo, right up until Russia invaded Ukraine. That's the moment when opinions on joining NATO flipped. And I think that's because, naively or not a majority of both counties had bought into the idea of an unwritten covenant with Moscow. 'We stay neutral and Russia doesn't attack Europe'. Putin broke that covenant and slapped Finns and Swede's in the face when he did so. It was a wake up call. They'd kept their end of the bargain and he broke it.

[Albany Rifles]

That first bit about the nukes is overblown because NATO's nuclear deterrent strategy doesn't actually involve forward positioning nuclear weapons near the Russian border. IN fact as far as I am aware it doesn't even possess any short to medium ranged land based nuclear weapon systems. It used to but not now. Today deterrence is provided by long range land land based systems in America and sub launched systems plus air launched bombs, only a few of whihc are stationed in Europe. And those that are stationed in Europe are, as far as I am aware stationed well back from the Russian border to hider them being taken out of commission by a preemptive strike. So Russia is currently the only power with short ranged nuclear weapons.




Again I disagree. Polls continually showed that both countries populations clearly favored the status quo, right up until Russia invaded Ukraine. That's the moment when opinions on joining NATO flipped. And I think that's because, naively or not a majority of both counties had bought into the idea of an unwritten covenant with Moscow. 'We stay neutral and Russia doesn't attack Europe'. Putin broke that covenant and slapped Finns and Swede's in the face when he did so. It was a wake up call. They'd kept their end of the bargain and he broke it.

You nail it Monash. We destroyed our theater based nuclear weapons with the end of the wall. All artillery, Pershing and GLCM warheads were removed from Europe and demilled and destroyed. The Strategic weapons still exist and the Tomahawk retains the capability for nuke strike but in limited numbers. The reticence of Sweden and Finland to hosting nukes is shared by most others in NATO. And Sweden and Finland both bring a robust military and naval capabilities to the Baltic. This is hardly a move to offset allegedly bloated social networks. These social system match up well with the other Nordics and has a wide backing by their populations. They will more than pull their own weight going forward in NATO.

[Bigfella]

I think the benefits of having Finland and Sweden in NATO are oversold. First off, they're not allowing nukes or NATO bases on their soil. Second, they are wealthy countries rather than war-damaged economies vulnerable to both ideological subversion and conventional invasion, as many NATO countries were, right after WWII. Ultimately, the best outcome would be to invite them in and have Turkey veto their entry.

The real objective for their NATO application comes down to keeping their defense expenditures down so they can continue to feed their bloated welfare states. Ultimately, we would be better off if they stayed out and committed to massive military buildups. Given the problems the Ukrainians are presenting to Russian advances, I think it's obvious that neither Finland nor Sweden would be a pushover even fighting alone. And we could certainly arm them if push came to shove.

I think you are missing a fair bit here, and the 'bloated welfare state' line is a right wing talking point, not analysis of any sort.

Finland already spends near enough to 2% of GDP on defence and isn't the sort of society that is interested in being dependent on others to defend it (as opposed to wanting NATO as a deterrent against Russian stupidity, which is what is happening here). Sweden's spending is lower, but there was a committment to sharply increase it basically as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine. These nations will pay their own way. These aren't facsimilies of the Baltics, with very limited resources & combat capabilities.

There are a couple of excellent videos on precisely this. The first is an hour, but packed full of useful facts & good analysis. Here are a few takeaways:

*Finland has a big army (over 250,000 in wartime) & a decent airforce (soon to improve) and Sweden has a big airforce for its size and some impressive defence industries. These are genuine additions to NATO combat power.

*These two nations futher shift the balance of power in the Baltic, which makes the Baltic states more secure. Just making a Russian invasion of Gotland less likely is a massive win. Adding to NATO air & sea power makes invading the Baltics in hopes of a 'quick victory' less likely.

*The position of Finland means Russia will have to guard that border to a greater extent than previous, further stretching limted resources.

This one is shorter & is a bit more focussed on strategic position.