Quote:
Originally Posted by Imaginary F(r)iend
No way NATO brings any kind of nuclear weapons to Finland. Also I doubt that NATO membership increases the military budget which is based on conscription that creates relatively big reserves. The Finnish defensive doctrine is based on causing massive damage to the attacker (Russia) and tying up forces. The eastern border is somewhat already militarized. NATO membership would not change any of it, only somewhat guarantee that someone comes to help.
Right. "Somewhat guarantee" is the key here. I think they recognize NATO's Article 5 is essentially one big semi-bluff. It's deterrence.
That's not to say Article 5 is a completely unsupported security commitment, either. But you have to put yourself in a scenario where Russia sees an attack on Finland as a rational thing to do; it seems like in almost ~all of those scenarios, you're in a global cataclysmic total war scenario. Is securing Finland's territorial integrity going to be NATO's top priority? Probably not? Norwegian oil, Turkey, preventing unfettered incursion into Central Europe ...sure, OK, those are going to be NATO's top priorities. Not confident Finland would be.
I think Finland has correctly guessed that the costs of provocation of Russia by joining NATO > the benefits gained by the "somewhat guarantee of collective defense" they get by joining NATO. Obviously they would get the full statutory protections of Article 5, but practically and effectively, in the real world, in scenarios where Russia has decided to attack/invade -- it's not at all clear what that offers Finland.
Quote:
This is the part that some other Finns make as well and I don't personally buy at all. Finland is part of EU, it's part of Russia sanctions. Finland is not neutral. Russia is again lead by a person who utilizes weakness and sees the world as a playing field. Being the easiest border target is not something Finland should be. Antagonizing Russia doesn't really matter, they do them anyways.
Sure, I agree to an extent that Finland is trying to get the best of both worlds: they're gambling that any Russian provocation would ultimately draw the rest of the west to their defense, but they don't have to bother paying for NATO just to get a guarantee of collective defense that effectively exists anyway.
I think the points about Russia being a second-tier world power and Finland already having a decent effective deterrence via their own military are well-founded but ultimately unconvincing for why Finland doesn't join NATO, or further my point. Finland wants just enough deterrence (their own military) to signal to Russia an invasion would be costly and bog them down and waste their time/money/resources, but don't want to signal what might be seen as aggression (joining NATO, further military build up on the border). The retort is always "well Finland could join NATO but effectively not militarize the border further" but then the question is what Finland gets; the answer is the "somewhat guarantee" thing wherein they get a promise of collective defense that's practically vague.
I mean put really glibly, what's stopping Trump / Tucker Carlson style politics from pervading in such a scenario. We just saw these guys explicitly say this about Montenergo. "Oh, Russia's invading? Well, Article 5 was more of a non-binding guideline, not a rule per se; why should we go send American boys and treasure to go defend Finland, lol we can't even tell the Nordics apart on a map!" Ultimately, the promise of collective defense remains a semi-bluff. Wonderful on paper, but practically and realistically dependent on perpetual consensus from the west that Finland would be worth fighting for AND a bunch of legitimate practical military concerns about how you can realistically even defend Finland's borders on short-notice in the face of Russian aggression. As I said, it would take Russia a long time to march into Germany such that the promise of collective defense effectively buttressed by a country across the ocean can be effective. Finland? Not so much.
And remember, too, that the promise of collective defense isn't practically great either EVEN IF you assume NATO will definitively and always meet their commitments, immediately and forcefully. Does Finland really want to be the stage for WWIII anyway? Take WWI.
Would you rather have been Belgium (in league with the Allies, recipients of "collective defense" guarantees)? Or Switzerland?
If I were Finland, I'd much rather WWIII or whatever scenario we're imagining play out in Poland or Turkey or Hungary than my backyard.
Last edited by DVaut1; 07-19-2018 at 04:38 AM.