[hmfrh]

> It all looks rosy now, but remember just a few years ago when Turkey shot down a Russian jet on the Syrian border and almost led to NATO involvement?

Remember when Russia invaded Ukraine and it didn't lead to NATO involvement? We have direct evidence that a European country can be attacked without NATO immediately jumping in to help. If Russia "only" wanted the Eastern "wilderness" of Finland, do you think the other European powers would immediately send in their own troops?

There's a reason that the smaller European countries that border Russia haven't been attacked and absorbed yet, and that's because they're NATO members.

Being a NATO member clearly has more upsides than downsides.

[codethief]

> We have direct evidence that a European country can be attacked without NATO immediately jumping in to help. If Russia "only" wanted the Eastern "wilderness" of Finland, do you think the other European powers would immediately send in their own troops?

Well, there is the Mutual Defence Clause (article 42.7 of the Treaty of the European Union): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/mutual_defence.ht...

So while the exact action is not specified there, an attack on Finland might already very well mean that some NATO states (and by implication all of NATO) would get involved in the situation you're describing.

[JumpCrisscross]

> there is the Mutual Defence Clause (article 42.7 of the Treaty [of Lisbon]

Article 42.7 “leaves more room for interpretation than one might expect for a clause in a legally binding text” [1].

If Finland and Sweden turned down NATO membership and then suffered territorial degradation, I doubt the U.S. would step in. That, in turn, might motivate EU members to exercise their opt outs or neutrality caveats, or find that all that can be done within their power is send non-lethal aid.

[1] https://ecfr.eu/publication/ambiguous-alliance-neutrality-op...

[avar]

To expand on this: It also explicitly provides for an opt-out to preserve the neutrality of countries like Sweden and Ireland, such a clause being added at their insistence.

I suspect that when the rubber hits the road nothing would happen, are Western European countries going to get into a potential nuclear exchange with Russia defending an EU member that's got a carve-out allowing them not to do the same for them?

That doesn't apply for Finland in the same way, but I'd still expect more of a "thoughts and prayers" response from the EU than anything else.

1. https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_article_427_an_explainer5...

[orwin]

Well, I'm pretty sure Europe is capable of sending nuclear missiles that would destroy any FOB Russia set in Finland (this wouldn't trigger Russia doctrine of only using nukes to defend its territory, not its troops).

Invasion would become way to costly for a demographically challenged country.

[fsloth]

Would EU countries waste their nukes in attrition of RU troops on aligned soil? There aren't that many (by official figures). I'm guessing most countries would prefer not to escalate to nukes unless their own territory was threatened.

[formerly_proven]

This is not how NATO works, and very likely not how the mutual defense clause works. Article 5 doesn't apply if you send your soldiers on some mission (e.g. defending Finland) on your own accord and Russia kills them. The EU clause is generally interpreted - from what I've read - to not require other EU members to offer direct military support to the attacked nation.

[dragonwriter]

> Article 5 doesn't apply if you send your soldiers on some mission (e.g. defending Finland) on your own accord and Russia kills them.

That depends where you send them, as Article 5 has geographical constraints specified in Article 6 (there is no general exceptions for troops being attacked after being voluntarily sent “somewhere”.)

Moreover, even without triggering Article 5, an attack on NATO member troops in the Euro-Atlantic region but outside the territory specified in Article 6 would probably be a trigger for regional security consultations under Article 4, which have produced more NATO interventions than Article 5.

[mywittyname]

Just because the EU gets involved, doesn't mean NATO will follow suit.

There's an argument that EU is the aggressor for the purposes of Article 5 if it comes to the aid of a non-NATO member. The USA and other non-EU members would have the option to sit that one out, if they wanted. Alternatively, they could offer support to only NATO members.

This is probably part of what's spurring NATO membership. I bet most Fins and Swedes thought that the USA would deploy forces the event of a conflict. Now they see that American policy will be aid only, regardless of the death and destruction.

[jeltz]

I have never heard of that being a common sentiment, or actually any Swede thinking that. Swedes have never assumed America will deploy troops.

[dragonwriter]

> There's an argument that EU is the aggressor for the purposes of Article 5

There is no such thing as “an aggressor for purpose of Article 5“; and the only case to be made for an “aggressor” status that would obviate Article 5 commitments is an aggressor under international law (that is, someone engaging in aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter, North Atlantic Treaty, and customary international law.)

Participating in individual or mutual self-defense action outside the scope of NATO doesn't void Article 5 (we know, because it didn't, despite definitely being part of the scenario, in the only actual Article 5 invocation in history.)

[mywittyname]

Mutual defensive pacts are not transitive. Germany being in NATO does not mean that every country Germany has a defense pact with is de facto in NATO.

Finland probably doesn't want to find out the hard way how the USA is going to decide to roll here. Being a NATO member removes all doubt as to what happens.

[fsloth]

The EU defense clause is no NATO replacement and in a state of war it is highly unclear would it even merit material transfers. Currently it's more of a gesture or suggestion for future collaboration.

[IlliOnato]

Unfortunately, no, not by implication. Chapter 5 only means defending a country that's attacked. So if Russia invades Finland, and say France send troops to defend it, and Russia retaliates against France, then US, UK, and Turkey are not obliged to defend France. As far as NATO is concerned it's France's affair.

In reality of course the the non-EU NATO members will probably decide to get involved one way or the other, but they are not legally bound to it.

[dragonwriter]

> Chapter 5 only means defending a country that's attacked.

This is true, but there are no limitations on the circumstances of the attack. For instance, if the US was fighting a low-grade global war with an Afghanistan-based terrorist network that has not previously attacked the US anywhere covered by Article 5 because of the geographic constraints of Article 6, and in retaliation for the acts of the US in that war that global terrorist network attacked, say, New York and D.C., then Article 5 would apply, there is no “well, you chose to fight them for other reasons before they attacked you” exclusion.

Now, if Russia only retaliated against French troops in Finland, Article 6 would geographically exclude Article 5 applicability.

[wonderwonder]

I think there is a pretty large chance countries like Germany figure out some way to ignore that. IMO the only thing keeping a European country exempt from Russian military action is the presence of US forces.

[yucky]

>Remember when Russia invaded Ukraine and it didn't lead to NATO involvement? We have direct evidence that a European country can be attacked without NATO immediately jumping in to help.

Yes, because Turkey is in NATO and Ukraine isn't. It has nothing to do with Ukraine being in Europe. Not all of Europe is in NATO, and not all of NATO is in Europe.

[cute_boi]

I don't understand this argument. Turkey is a NATO country, Ukraine is not a member? So, why would it lead to NATO involvement. If Russia had attacked turkey due to Turkey's strike on Russia Jet it would be debacle.

[geysersam]

> Remember when Russia invaded Ukraine and it didn't lead to NATO involvement?

That's not the same situation at all. Turkey is a member of NATO. Ukraine is not.

[aaaaaaaaata]

> We have direct evidence that a European country can be attacked without NATO immediately jumping in to help.

What about the NATO planes above Ukraine..?

[VictorPath]

If Finnish land helped Russian national interests, it would have been taken in 1944 or 1945. By early 1943, Russia was pushing back Germany, and Finland would not have been a problem.

Finland would be in more danger if it joined NATO, not less.

[fsloth]

"Finland would be in more danger if it joined NATO, not less."

What nonsense is this.

Russians respect force. The more the better. NATO gives Finnish Defense Forces enough credibility to deter any Russian aggression specifically targeting Finland for the next 50 years at least by making the cost of invasion psychologically and analytically too high.

[lnxg33k1]

It has a lot of upsides for the military establishment, remember when Russia was not a threat and NATO decided to have 3 trainings in Ukraine and start talks about a Russia bordering country joining a Russia enemy conglomerate? Remember when a bordering state of US tried to put enemy weapons on their territory and the US almost deleting that state from earth logs?

I think US right now, especially if this announcement is true is the main european Enemy, US is expanding it's world oversight by expanding NATO on European borders at expense of European stability, this is due to the shallowness of european leaders

It's US wagering European lives for its interests

[dragonwriter]

> remember when Russia was not a threat and NATO decided to have 3 trainings in Ukraine

No.

I remember when Ukraine tossed out a Russian puppet and Russia nearly immediately invaded and has been continuously at war with Ukraine since.

When was this time that Russia wasn't a threat and Ukraine was having trainings with NATO?

[BbzzbB]

We can drop the "nearly".

Yanukovych left Kyiv on Feb 21nd 2014, was ousted as president by the 22d and fled to Russia by the 26th. [0, 1]

Russia invaded Crimea with boots on the ground by Feb 22-23d. [2]

I wager people who still accept the NATO pretense never checked the timelines of how this started in the first place.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War#2014_Russi...

[fsloth]

100% This is not about NATO.

This is about Russia attempting a genocide of the Ukrainian people.

This is not the first time Russian state attempted such a thing. Holodomor was an engineered famine with the intent of destroying Ukraine. And now they are at it again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Generally as a state Russia is just horrible to all of the nations at it's borders it feels it has enough force to subjugate.

They are not idiots - they realize NATO would never invade Russia.

However, what NATO would have done, is give Ukrainian so much force projection capability within their territory Russia could never threaten them militarily again.

This about a narcissistic bully wanting to subjugate as many people by fear under it's thumb as possible.

[lnxg33k1]

Wait, about the first reply, because trainings are objective, differently from who is a threat to whom

Sept 2021: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h... https://www.army.mil/article/250444/us_nato_ukraine_enhance_...

But one training can still be seen as a threat on the border of a superpower? IS Army.mil news credible enough for US people outside the reach of russian propaganda? Does it reply your question when was US training on the border of Russia? Can we accept US as a enemy of europe? Or better, can we accept the fact that US is only giving important to ITS own interests without care of the safety of anyone else? (makes sense, it should be european leaders representing europeans interests), but someone should be able to say, european leaders currently suck, damaging their people in order to represent US interests in ukraine

[dragonwriter]

September 2021 was 7 years into the war that started with the 2014 invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

It does not count as a time when Russia was not a threat.

Yes, NATO conducted trainings with Ukraine during the ongoing war started by Russia.

[lnxg33k1]

Yes but you asked me when was the time when NATO trained on the border with Russia, now you move the goalpost? I think Russian invading Crimea is despiseful and the referendum is fake because there was no campaign or anything, but I also understand that superpowers earn different treatments due to the fact that they can cause nuclear blasts and end the world in minutes. Russia invaded Crimea when the political sentiment in Ukraine started considering the sentiment of joining NATO/EU, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#United_S...

I think the issue is that US has been involved in the political environment of a EU bordering country, without any opposition from European leaders.

[dragonwriter]

> Yes but you asked me when was the time when NATO trained on the border with Russia

No, I asked, and I will quote directly, “When was this time that Russia wasn't a threat and Ukraine was having trainings with NATO?”

That was the claim: that NATO conducted multiple trainings with Ukraine when Russia was not a threat, and that this was the casus belli for Russian aggression. Leaving aside that this would not be legitimate casus belli in any case, it is simply factually false: all the NATO trainings occurred during the war, after Russian aggression against Ukraine began. There cannot retroactively justify the aggression.

[fsloth]

"Can we accept US as a enemy of europe?"

This is absurd. US has been the guarantor of European peace and indenpendence after the second world war.

European union basically started as a Washington think tank project.

Yes, US wants to advance it's own interests. No, it does not make US enemy of "Europe". Which is a silly way to put it. "Europe" is not a single polity or a state (not yet at least). It is still a collection of independent nation states. Most of which want to be aligned with US.

Nobody is forcing them to be aligned with US.

China or Russia would be happy to welcome them into their fold of corrupt autocracy.

Europe and US are strongly aligned economically, culturally and politically, while the world around them turns authoritarian.

Sure, they sometimes play against each other.

But, US and the nations of Europe are first and foremost allies.

[lnxg33k1]

The fact that you think that a union of european states is a product of US think thank is straight bullshit, like that even if you don't know that there were italian politicians saying that union of european states would be the best way to have stability in europe in 1800s (Like Giacomo Matteotti in Italy, but I'm sure others in other nations had the same idea), you would still have to ignore the fact that in 1920 we had already a league of nations

[fsloth]

Of course EU needs to have the actual countries it is constituted of engaged in it.Ideologically the projecthas many predecessors.

But the current EU started after the second world war.

The entity considered the progenitor of EU is the European Coal and Steel community

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun...

This was peak cold war and US influence in Europe was non-neglible to say the least.

While the reporting around the subject is a bit hyperbolical, strong Washington backing was always a cornerstone of the project

https://web.archive.org/web/20220130132451/https://www.teleg...

[BbzzbB]

>Nobody is forcing them to be aligned with US.

Nor would they get denazified™ if they decide to align closer to another power.

[fsloth]

No. This is Mearsheimer brand of bullshit.

Not everything is a US plot. Countries join NATO by their own volition. Because they want to.

East European countries wished to join NATO. Exactly because they knew what Russia is - like we all do now, based on the events in Ukraine.