Boris and bilateral security assurances: Sweden and Finland

[Ddraig Goch]

How do you think the Army, Navy and the RAF Chiefs of staff are feeling after Boris agreeing to come to Sweden and Finland's aid if attacked.
Are they saying this gives us a good chance of having an increased Defence budget or OMG we given most of our kit to the Ukrainians, any chance of setting the LDV again in case we're invaded by, say for argument, the French.
Before the flak I did a search for this thread and didn't find one.

[Sue Vêtements]

How do you think the Army, Navy and the RAF Chiefs of staff are feeling after Boris agreeing to come to Sweden and Finland's aid if attacked.

Are you assuming he's telling the truth this time? . . .

[Ninthace]

Are you assuming he's telling the truth this time? . . .
Beat me to it!! We all know what a Boris promise is worth.

[ORAC]

It’s an insurance cover note for the period between now and their application to join NATO being accepted and being covered under Article 5.

Since they’re already NATO compliant and do joint Nordic exercises that should be a matter of, at most months.

The other items mentioned in the press releases are areas such as Cyber where, again, it should be short term until they join the relevant NATO bodies and organisations

It’s an admirable gesture of solidarity at a time of risk in Europe to reassure the public which, as they are well armed, contributes to our combined defence and does not require any increase in deployable forces - Russia being in no position to present any military threat to either whilst being embroiled in Ukraine - and probably for decades to come.

[ORAC]

Beat me to it!! We all know what a Boris promise is worth.
I think you’ll find that trust in the UK across Northern and Eastern Europe, as a military ally as embodied in the person of the PM, is Sky high - far more so than in many other major European NATO nations such as France or Germany.

[Sue Vêtements]

as embodied in the person of the PM

I don't understand that part of your post

[roger4]

Given that both Sweden and Finland signed written agreements with Boris yesterday, and that these take some time to negotiate, I would find it hard to believe that the Chiefs of Staff were at all surprised by yesterday announcements.

In any case, don't the Military exist to discharge the security duties decided by the Government, and not the other way round?

[ORAC]

I don't understand that part of your post
In signing international treaties the PM is acting as the representative of the Queen in Parliament, not as an individual - it’s a constitutional point, which is why treaties don’t have to be approved by Parliament.

So it’s not “Boris” signing such a treaty, it’s the nation.

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf

“According to constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, Parliament has no formal role in treaty-making, as the power to do so is vested in the executive, acting on behalf of the Crown.”

[Prunus Dessicata]

It's an unfortunate time for NATO to be rattling the bars on Russia's cage by further expanding the relentless Eastward expansion all the way to the very doorstep of what the Russian people regard as their Rodina.

They know what happens when a hostile armed Power does that and they know the consequences to themselves in terms of blood sacrifice. For us, the German and French invasions seem like ancient history. For the Russian people, not so.

Timing this announcement to coincide with Russia's Victory Day was not mere happenstance. It's a deliberate provocation. NATO is like a gangster prodding a victim in the chest and yelling 'Wanna fight?'

Threatening to subsume Ukraine into NATO was bad enough. It provoked Russia into an insane military adventure. Shoving NATO's border right up to Russia's Eastern flank in Finland cannot possibly have a good outcome. Norway has a tiny border with Russia. Finland's border is huge.

[Sue Vêtements]

ok thanks. I thought that was probably what you meant. Just wasn't sure

[beardy]

It's an unfortunate time for NATO to be rattling the bars on Russia's cage by further expanding the relentless Eastward expansion all the way to the very doorstep of what the Russian people regard as their Rodina.

They know what happens when a hostile armed Power does that and they know the consequences to themselves in terms of blood sacrifice. For us, the German and French invasions seem like ancient history. For the Russian people, not so.

Timing this announcement to coincide with Russia's Victory Day was not mere happenstance. It's a deliberate provocation. NATO is like a gangster prodding a victim in the chest and yelling 'Wanna fight?'

Threatening to subsume Ukraine into NATO was bad enough. It provoked Russia into an insane military adventure. Shoving NATO's border right up to Russia's Eastern flank in Finland cannot possibly have a good outcome. Norway has a tiny border with Russia. Finland's border is huge.

Perhaps it's worth repeating: NATO is a defensive alliance of independent nations not a centralised hegemony. The Scandinavians have been reluctant to join, until recently, when they witnessed Russia march over its border to invade a neighbouring sovereign country. At that point they lost confidence in any Russian guarantees and sought a defensive pact with NATO.

[Not_a_boffin]

Perhaps it's worth repeating: NATO is a defensive alliance of independent nations not a centralised hegemony. The Scandinavians have been reluctant to join, until recently, when they witnessed Russia march over its border to invade a neighbouring sovereign country - despite having stated multiple times shortly before the event that it had no such intention. At that point they lost confidence in any Russian guarantees and sought a defensive pact with NATO.

Fixed FoC.

[MPN11]

I'm happy to separate ad homiem cries about the PM from the overall Political and Military realities all European Nations are now facing. I am deeply saddened that the fall of the USSR [which kindly led to my redundancy] has morphed into this RU v. The West scenario, with the predictable brutality and ill-discipline of RU forces.

From the UK's perspective, fiscally and militarily, IMO it's short term pain for long term gain. Putin has to be stopped, at whatever cost.

PS. I'm a Tory, and can't stand Boris.

[Not_a_boffin]

It's an unfortunate time for NATO to be rattling the bars on Russia's cage by further expanding the relentless Eastward expansion all the way to the very doorstep of what the Russian people regard as their Rodina.

They know what happens when a hostile armed Power does that and they know the consequences to themselves in terms of blood sacrifice. For us, the German and French invasions seem like ancient history. For the Russian people, not so.

Timing this announcement to coincide with Russia's Victory Day was not mere happenstance. It's a deliberate provocation. NATO is like a gangster prodding a victim in the chest and yelling 'Wanna fight?'

Threatening to subsume Ukraine into NATO was bad enough. It provoked Russia into an insane military adventure. Shoving NATO's border right up to Russia's Eastern flank in Finland cannot possibly have a good outcome. Norway has a tiny border with Russia. Finland's border is huge.

An interesting PoV.

At no point has NATO threatened to subsume Ukraine. Portraying NATO as a gangster and Russia as a victim suggests that the weather is somewhat different on your planet.

[[email protected]]

“According to constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, Parliament has no formal role in treaty-making, as the power to do so is vested in the executive, acting on behalf of the Crown.” That would be the same Crown he has lied to and repeatedly let down during his tenure I presume?

I'm sure other nations do still respect the UK but most of them appear to regard Boris himself as a scruffy clown.

[NutLoose]

It's an unfortunate time for NATO to be rattling the bars on Russia's cage by further expanding the relentless Eastward expansion all the way to the very doorstep of what the Russian people regard as their Rodina.

They know what happens when a hostile armed Power does that and they know the consequences to themselves in terms of blood sacrifice. For us, the German and French invasions seem like ancient history. For the Russian people, not so.

Timing this announcement to coincide with Russia's Victory Day was not mere happen stance. It's a deliberate provocation. NATO is like a gangster prodding a victim in the chest and yelling 'Wanna fight?'

Threatening to subsume Ukraine into NATO was bad enough. It provoked Russia into an insane military adventure. Norway has a tiny border with Russia. Finland's border is huge.

Go on, I will bite Comrade and the Ministry of Dissinformation and Bullsh*t you no doubt work in..

Far from both countries wanting to be absorbed into "Nato's relentless eastward expansion" they were quite happy with their independence until Russia invaded Ukraine, a Sovereign Nation who although had ambitions to join NATO were years away from that.

You all keep spouting the same sh*te about denazification... while following the WW2 german playbook to the letter, I notice you also seem to forget some facts, here is one, Russia signed up to partner with nazi Germany during WW2, they would have seen that through to the end of the war if it wasn't for Germany renaging on the alliance and invading you.

The ONLY reason Finland and Sweden wishes to join is to protect their Sovereignity and their peoples, and the only reason for that is because of Russias agression in Ukraine that has driven them to that.

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe the verbiage you are spouting, please enlighten us as to the difference in "Shoving NATO's border right up to Russia's Eastern flank" as opposed to Russia attempting to take over Ukraine and shoving Russia's border up to NATO's Western flank, I am all ears.

The Cold War finished and the Soviet Union collapsed due to the Russian economy failing, something that is starting to bite again with sanctions, and the west waking up to the fact that we need to live without your gas and fuel.
I often wonder is it jealousy that drives you, seeing the Wests standard of living and freedoms, anyone who appears to gain money in Russia appears to migrate to the west to live a life that they would never be able to attain at home... strange that, you built a wall to keep your population IN, not ours out.

No wonder they left, what a dump..

https://twitter.com/MarKittyKat/status/1523752513542918144


. (https://twitter.com/MarKittyKat/status/1523752513542918144)

[uxb99]

I thought the point in NATO was to stand together.
So why do countries have to make decisions themselves such as UK, Finland?
Shouldn't the UK make the proposal. Have it agreed in NATO and then NATO states "We will protect Finland etc"?
The point being no one country can then be singled out for retaliation.
If we have to make these decisions our selves (on behalf of NATO) because presumably NATO won't what's the point in NATO?

[beardy]

I thought the point in NATO was to stand together.
So why do countries have to make decisions themselves such as UK, Finland?
Shouldn't the UK make the proposal. Have it agreed in NATO and then NATO states "We will protect Finland etc"?
The point being no one country can then be singled out for retaliation.
If we have to make these decisions our selves (on behalf of NATO) because presumably NATO won't what's the point in NATO?
Finland is not yet part of NATO, in the interim and until it becomes a part the UK has promised assistance in the event of aggression. It is easier for an individual country to act swiftly than for a large group to negotiate and agree. The point of NATO is article 5 for members only. I agree that the UK has stuck its neck out, on its own, not as a NATO representative, but the risk is there only until Finland becomes a member.

[Not_a_boffin]

I thought the point in NATO was to stand together.
So why do countries have to make decisions themselves such as UK, Finland?
Shouldn't the UK make the proposal. Have it agreed in NATO and then NATO states "We will protect Finland etc"?
The point being no one country can then be singled out for retaliation.
If we have to make these decisions our selves (on behalf of NATO) because presumably NATO won't what's the point in NATO?


Sorry Ivan, the point of NATO is that countries apply to join voluntarily. That first decision/request has to be Finlands - and soon Sweden - and hopefully eventually Ukraine.

It's called being free countries......

[NutLoose]

Because at the moment they are not part of NATO, it is an agreement between two Countries to support each other in the interim independent of NATO until they are accepted and join NATO then Article 5 will come into play, where NATO will respond to any threats against an individual partner...

To paraphrase the Three Musketeers. All for one and one for all.

[MPN11]

... and each free Nation makes it's own decisions. Putin has successfully overturned National opinions across the continent. GE becoming
military, neutral SE getting off the fece and FI recalling it's 20th C history vis a vis RU/USSR.

[Sue Vêtements]

Shoving NATO's border right up to Russia's Eastern flank in Finland cannot possibly have a good outcome

You mean Western flank right?

...another thing you got wrong :(

[Prunus Dessicata]

what's the point in NATO?

Europe, and some parts of the Middle East, would be a lot more peaceful if NATO had dissolved itself after its raison d'etre ceased to exist. The hoax of the 'threat' of hordes of Cossacks pouring through the Fulda Gap was a money-making con trick by the military-industrial complex. Immensely lucrative, of course, but it was just a con trick that most of us, myself included, fell for.

Scaring the Russians is not a clever idea. It's pretty much the same thing as poking a bear with a sharp stick. As we say in Scotland: gonnae nae dae that.

Boris needs a war for diversionary political reasons. Tail wagging the dog and all that stuff. He's got the war he craves. For him it's a win-win because this time it won't be Union flag draped coffins being paraded through that town near Brize Norton. For the merchants of Death it's a massive bonanza. All those missiles and other weaponry being poured into Ukraine like petrol onto a forest fire will have to be re-bought by the tax-payer and the National Debt. Money galore.

[pasta]

Europe, and some parts of the Middle East, would be a lot more peaceful if NATO had dissolved itself after its raison d'etre ceased to exist. The hoax of the 'threat' of hordes of Cossacks pouring through the Fulda Gap was a money-making con trick by the military-industrial complex. Immensely lucrative, of course, but it was just a con trick that most of us, myself included, fell for.
It takes a certain amount of doublethink to call the Russian threat a hoax at the very same time they're attempting to invade Ukraine.

The difference between Russian expansion and NATO expansion is that NATO expands when someone wants to join it (if the rest of NATO is happy to have them), whereas Russia expands by invading countries that don't want to join it.

[Prunus Dessicata]

You mean Western flank right?

...another thing you got wrong :(


Yes, I meant the Western flank. The one most exposed to NATO aggression.

Ukraine is the vulnerable soft underbelly of Russia. An immensely rich prize for NATO to pluck. We will be able to put nuclear missiles within two or three hundred miles of Moscow. Russia scared the bejasus out of JFK when short range missiles were being placed in Cuba, thousands of miles beyond range of being able to whack Washington. Imagine the worries the Russian equivalent of The Pentagon have over the prospect of NATO putting missiles so close to their own capital. You can be sure that they recognise the fact that the US, which is NATO, is the only country in the world which has used nuclear weapons and that their use was intended to terrorise Russia, not the already beaten Japanese.

[Prunus Dessicata]

Pasta,

Which countries has post-Communist Russia bombed and invaded in the past three decades or so? More than one?

How many countries have been bombed and/or invaded by the US since the end of WW2? More than one? More than a dozen? How many dozen?

[pasta]

Which countries has post-Communist Russia bombed and invaded in the past three decades or so? More than one?

How many countries have been bombed and/or invaded by the US since the end of WW2? More than one? More than a dozen? How many dozen?
I don't think any country is trying to join the US. Why would you? The discussion is about joining NATO. When did NATO last try to invade a sovereign country?

[beardy]

Pasta,

Which countries has post-Communist Russia bombed and invaded in the past three decades or so? More than one?

How many countries have been bombed and/or invaded by the US since the end of WW2? More than one? More than a dozen? How many dozen?
There you go again with another round of your logical fallacies. You seem incapable of sticking to the point and just slide off into fantasy land at the earliest opportunity. This thread is not about the USA nor nationalistic jingoism.

[Ninthace]

And by the way, Prunus Dessicata, that town near Brize Norton is Royal Wootton Basset and is is near Lyneham not Brize Norton!

[Beamr]

Pasta,

Which countries has post-Communist Russia bombed and invaded in the past three decades or so? More than one?


More than one? Even one is too many mate! But apparently you need to be reminded of the likes of Chechnya (twice), Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Syria. Belarus was invaded by Russians without firing a shot.

However, on topic: UK's support in these dangerous times is highly appreciated in Finland. One may think what they will of an individual but what that individual represents is valued greatly.

[Prunus Dessicata]

In signing international treaties the PM is acting as the representative of the Queen in Parliament, not as an individual - it’s a constitutional point, which is why treaties don’t have to be approved by Parliament.

So it’s not “Boris” signing such a treaty, it’s the nation.

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf

“According to constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, Parliament has no formal role in treaty-making, as the power to do so is vested in the executive, acting on behalf of the Crown.”


A good point, ORAC.

Nevertheless, Parliament does have to approve War. That's why some wars are conducted under false pretences in such a way as to be deniable. Oman in the 1970s is a prime example. RAF officers flying combat missions were posed as being employees of Airwork Services. Tier One UKSF fighting forces were labelled "Training Teams" etc.

HMG is somewhat squeamish about admitting that the wars it fights are actually "Wars". Euphemisms are routinely deployed. Korea, for example, was labelled a "police action". The Falklands War was a "Campaign" not a war.. Afghanistan was labelled something other than a War, though I can't quite remember what euphemism was used for that one. The rather inappropriately named "First(sic) Gulf War" was admitted to be a War because it was approved by the Security Council of the United Nations.

Boris, as you have pointed out, takes the same viewpoint as Louis Quatorze: l'état, c'est moi. His attitude towards his non-compliance with his own lockdown laws is just one example of that. His frequent lying to Parliament about his own malfeasances is another.

His pattern of lying, which goes right back to his days as a jobbing journalist in Brussels and beyond, is such that he feels no need to connect his lies with the Truth. For him, it is simply enough to say what he wants people to believe, regardless of the disconnect between what he says and Truth.

He's a bloody dangerous man to have in charge of nuclear weaponry. So was Trump, with whom he shares some narcissistic characteristics, but that's another matter

[pasta]

And by the way, Prunus Dessicata, that town near Brize Norton is Royal Wootton Basset and is is near Lyneham not Brize Norton!
To be fair, they must look close from 1600 miles away.

[pasta]

That's why some wars are conducted under false pretences in such a way as to be deniable.
You mean like calling it a "Special Military Operation"? ;-)

[Prunus Dessicata]

And by the way, Prunus Dessicata, that town near Brize Norton is Royal Wootton Basset and is is near Lyneham not Brize Norton!

Yup. That's the one. Thanks for the correction.

I just couldn't remember the name of the town, though I do remember the images of those dignified corteges carrying the remains of brave men who died for nothing in a stupid and pointless and unwinnable war. Two such wars, actually.

My mis-quote of Brize was simply a brain-fart

[NutLoose]

There you go again, NATO is a defensive organisation and is simply there to defend those member countries against aggression or attack, Finland and Sweden are totally independent sovereign countries who after seeing Russias invasion of a nearby sovereign nation look like they now desire to join.
Why is a coalition of countries joined together for the sole purpose to defend themselves against an attack, a threat to Russia at all, unless of course if they have ambitions to invade any of the future member states, it is just like Russia is a federation of states who form an alliance to defend themselves..

NATO isn’t the big bad wolf in all of this, NATO hasn’t invaded anyone, Russia has, don’t forget that.

[Prunus Dessicata]

You mean like calling it a "Special Military Operation"? ;-)


Yup! Exactly like that.

Our own propaganda claimed that Putin was going to upgrade it to a "War" in a speech to be made on the Victory Day parade, but that was just crap, as is so much of our own NATO propaganda.

[NutLoose]

Not really, he could simply have read the western intel and chose to call their bluff.

Just because stuff isn’t announced does not mean plans are not in the works, his news programs are already hinting at rearmament

[Lonewolf_50]

I'll just leave this here.
https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/639666-ukraine-about-have-war-273.html#post11229108

Prunus, you have an incomplete grasp of NATO out of area operations.

1. NATO's out of area operation in Former Yugoslavia that began in 1995 (on land) was a substantial change in direction from NATO's purpose up to November/December of 1995. (IFOR). It was done as a peace enforcement operation under Article 51 of the UN charter (follow on the UNPROFOR (unsuccessful) attempts at stopping a civil war) and was explicitly based on a peace agreement ironed out (grudgingly) in 1995 in Dayton Ohio between the three major parties in the conflict. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

It is my view that the same cannot be said for the subsequent operations in 1999, although they were certainly related politically. I thought it was a bad idea at the time, and as time has gone on it has looked even worse than when I informed that opinion at the time.

2. The decision by various NATO members to support the US in what became ISAF in Afghanistan was a conclusion reached in multiple capitals that an attack on the US (a NATO member) was within the Article V scheme.
Osama and his crew were based in Afghanistan at the time. (In part because his own national government in Saudi found him persona non grata). You can argue about whether any NATO nation should, or should not, have been involved until you are blue in the face. That's opinion, not fact.
There was massive international support (not just NATO support) for that operation in 2001, and in the early 00's.
When I was involved with that op we had Kiwi and Ozzie support, neither of which were NATO nations, and IIRC some Eastern Bloc nations contributed troops. (But that was going on as I rolled back home so memory does not serve, at the moment, if it was Hungarians or someone else).

You choose to ignore that Afghanistan's government in the late 1990's was providing support and sanctuary for the terrorist group that attacked the two US embassies in Eastern Africa (Kenya, Tanzania). Sadly, the Tomahawk strikes that were sent towards a few of those terrorist group's bases didn't take out their leadership ... if they had maybe the world would be a different place today. That same group set up the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and IIRC the Bali attacks.
Afghanistan/Taliban did not have clean hands.

[beardy]

Lonewolf50

Prunus, you have an incomplete grasp of NATO out of area operations.

I beg to differ. The wrinkly prune knows that, but it doesn't fit his brief.

[MPN11]

Prunus … have a free read of a grown-up book.Routledge Handbook of U.S. Counterterrorism and Irregular Warfare Operations
. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B098TW8TQJ/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o05?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[langleybaston]

The highly probable accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is a very good example of the law of unintended consequences.

In an autocracy they don't dare address worst case scenarios.

That is one huge extra border, with a very good army, added to Putins paranoia.

[MPN11]

The highly probable accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is a very good example of the law of unintended consequences.
In an autocracy they don't dare address worst case scenarios.
That is one huge extra border, with a very good army, added to Putin’s paranoia.
And that last bit is what worries me the most. Not per se the prolonged War, because I can believe the Western Democracies can support Ukraine materially as Russia’s manpower losses and consumption of high-tech weaponry continue.

But Putin will not, and cannot, back down. So the more pressure applied, the more he is likely to over-react irrationally.

[pilotmike]

My mis-quote of Brize was simply a brain-fart
Wot - and the rest wasn't?

[Sue Vêtements]

Yes, I meant the Western flank. The one most exposed to NATO aggression

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what it is you're trying to say here

Are you saying that NATO shouldn't allow Finland to join because it would then abut Russia? but if so, what should NATO do once Russia attacks Finland like they did to Ukraine? Should they then remove Sweden [1] from NATO because now they abut Russia? and just keep going like that until we reach the Atlantic coast?

And the reason for this is what again? That we might make Russia angry and they might attack us with what's left of their military? I mean it's not like they're an impressive fighting force, though I suppose they could always attack unarmed civilians. Seriously now, the last 10 weeks have been a constant embarrassment for them.



[1] yes I know they're not part of NATO ... yet

[beardy]

A good point, ORAC.

Nevertheless, Parliament does have to approve War.


That's not true for the UK.

[DaveReidUK]

To be fair, they must look close from 1600 miles away.

Both not far from Salisbury, with its must-see spire ...

[Rockie_Rapier]

Boris needs a war for diversionary political reasons. Tail wagging the dog and all that stuff. He's got the war he craves. For him it's a win-win because this time it won't be Union flag draped coffins being paraded through that town near Brize Norton. For the merchants of Death it's a massive bonanza. All those missiles and other weaponry being poured into Ukraine like petrol onto a forest fire will have to be re-bought by the tax-payer and the National Debt. Money galore.

Boris is clearly a lot smarter than I'd imagined if he somehow persuaded Putin to invade Ukraine. This was his strategy to distract the press from Partygate perhaps?

Nigel Farage here cautions against poking the Russian bear. He seems to share a few more of your ideas.NF On NATO expansion

Could you both be working to the same brief?

[tartare]

Not so sure I buy the poking the bear argument.
At the risk of exhausting a metaphor, said big-scary bear has actually turned out to be pretty skeletal, flea infested, with a bad case of mange and missing most of it's teeth.
It keeps growling and threatening to pull the house down - but is sounding increasingly lame.
If all you effectively have is a nuclear deterrent to threaten people with - then that leaves a lot of wiggle room for your opponent to ratchet up the pressure in small incremental steps doesn't it?

[truckflyer]

Pasta,

Which countries has post-Communist Russia bombed and invaded in the past three decades or so? More than one?

How many countries have been bombed and/or invaded by the US since the end of WW2? More than one? More than a dozen? How many dozen?

Why don't you ask the people from East Europe, what they think about the Russians?
I visited East Germany shortly after the Berlin wall fell, what the Russians did there and in other Eastern European countries was no better than the war crimes committed by Germany during WW2.

People were massacred or shipped out to Siberia.
Why don't you ask people from the Baltic countries, Poland, Czechoslovakia, your view the Red comrade will be a lot less flattering.
Let's not forget their failed Afghanistan invasion.
Let's not forget Russias total destruction of parts of Georgia, Chechnya, and their support for their puppet in Belarus.

I have Russians friends, I have worked with Russian companies outside Russia on several occasions, wonder why most of them NEVER want to return to live in Russia, when they get the chance to live or escape somewhere else.

Unfortunately the amount of Russian disinformation is still dominating what Russian people get of news, and having local knowledge of how Belarus keep their power, by paying their police officers and army large amounts of cash and giving them privilege's only other people could dream of, the corruption is from within, and will be very hard to break down. These are both corrupt s.. countries who have very little regard for human life.

[Flyhighfirst]

I thought the point in NATO was to stand together.
So why do countries have to make decisions themselves such as UK, Finland?
Shouldn't the UK make the proposal. Have it agreed in NATO and then NATO states "We will protect Finland etc"?
The point being no one country can then be singled out for retaliation.
If we have to make these decisions our selves (on behalf of NATO) because presumably NATO won't what's the point in NATO?

There is no mechanism to propose, or indeed come to an agreement for NATO to protect a third country. NATO is solely there as a defensive mechanism that binds other members to come to
the aid of a meme et who is attacked. If the NATO country was the one who started the attack, NATO protection isn’t enacted and the country is on its own.

[fdr]

Since 907, Russia has been involved in at least 175 wars. Of those, they were the assumed victors in 107 cases, and one of those is illogical but counted. In the rest, they were defeated or fought to a standstill. They are involved in 3 different active wars today, 2 of which are going to be long-term disasters for Russia, but there they are. Over their history of war the most striking observation is that a treaty carries little meaning in the Russian language, they get signed, and then, 1-2 years later the war starts up again. The wins that the Russians have had almost invariably been revisited at a later date. A term that gets used in relation to Russia is the concept of "defensive expansionism". Despite Russia being the aggressor in the majority of wars, the insecurity they feel results in taking action to attack a neighbor to protect their border with that neighbor. They then have a new border to be anxious over, and then attack that country. The term "trust" is not one that describes dealings with Russia over the last 1,000 years.

Finland and Sweden have every reason to be wary of Putin and his horde. The UK's declaration of support for Finland during the NATO membership process is one of the very few things that adds some credibility to the UK as a free state.

[Flyhighfirst]

More than one? Even one is too many mate! But apparently you need to be reminded of the likes of Chechnya (twice), Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Syria. Belarus was invaded by Russians without firing a shot.

However, on topic: UK's support in these dangerous times is highly appreciated in Finland. One may think what they will of an individual but what that individual represents is valued greatly.

Don’t forget the ever successful invasion of Afghanistan by the soviets as well.

[BANANASBANANAS]

Yes, I meant the Western flank. The one most exposed to NATO aggression.

Ukraine is the vulnerable soft underbelly of Russia. An immensely rich prize for NATO to pluck. We will be able to put nuclear missiles within two or three hundred miles of Moscow. Russia scared the bejasus out of JFK when short range missiles were being placed in Cuba, thousands of miles beyond range of being able to whack Washington. Imagine the worries the Russian equivalent of The Pentagon have over the prospect of NATO putting missiles so close to their own capital. You can be sure that they recognise the fact that the US, which is NATO, is the only country in the world which has used nuclear weapons and that their use was intended to terrorise Russia, not the already beaten Japanese.

NATO (USA) could destroy Moscow without leaving its own shores. Western technology has moved on (as Russian forces in Ukraine are discovering to their considerable cost) and the only reason that Ukraine may join NATO is because it wants to. That is a concept that may appear difficult to comprehend in your part of the world but it is called freedom of choice, the right to self determination if you like.

[dead_pan]

I caught Beth RIgby's interview with Russia's ambassador to the EU yesterday on Sky. She kind of missed a trick because she didn't ask him about Russia's actions earlier this year, when they were almost daring Sweden and Finland to dispense with their neutrality, with the Russian embassy in Helsinki asking their citizens in Finland to report instances of Russophobia, and sending its aircraft into Swedish airspace. Of course this could have been their response to both of these countries sending military aid to Ukraine.

[Beamr]

Don’t forget the ever successful invasion of Afghanistan by the soviets as well.
How could we forget, but the question was post-communist Russia era bombings and rapings of innocent civilians by Russian troops and/or mercenaries.
However we could add Central African Republic to the list.

[dead_pan]

Ukraine is the vulnerable soft underbelly of Russia.

Then why didn't Russia simply militarize the border (guard posts, minefields, razor wire, layered defences, the whole nine yards), like the USSR did back in the day? FWIW I think the most potent threat to Russia is Russia itself; it really is its own worst enemy.

An immensely rich prize for NATO to pluck.

You do struggle with the concept of sovereignty. Also, given the events of the past three weeks, do you not think Ukraine's fears, hence their desire to join NATO, was justified?

We will be able to put nuclear missiles within two or three hundred miles of Moscow.

We have been able to do that for decades, but haven't - Latvia is just as close. Why is that, do you think?

[Beamr]

This pretty much sums it up

https://twitter.com/mbk_center/status/1524697932552974337

[Flyhighfirst]

How could we forget, but the question was post-communist Russia era bombings and rapings of innocent civilians by Russian troops and/or mercenaries.
However we could add Central African Republic to the list.

Sorry. My mistake. Thought we were talking about post WW2.

[Buster15]

It's an unfortunate time for NATO to be rattling the bars on Russia's cage by further expanding the relentless Eastward expansion all the way to the very doorstep of what the Russian people regard as their Rodina.

They know what happens when a hostile armed Power does that and they know the consequences to themselves in terms of blood sacrifice. For us, the German and French invasions seem like ancient history. For the Russian people, not so.

Timing this announcement to coincide with Russia's Victory Day was not mere happenstance. It's a deliberate provocation. NATO is like a gangster prodding a victim in the chest and yelling 'Wanna fight?'

Threatening to subsume Ukraine into NATO was bad enough. It provoked Russia into an insane military adventure. Shoving NATO's border right up to Russia's Eastern flank in Finland cannot possibly have a good outcome. Norway has a tiny border with Russia. Finland's border is huge.

You can not always choose your timing. And events often dictate policy.
While I support the policy, if it is not backed up by military strength, it is meaningless.
If you are going to talk tough, you need to be able to be tough. And given all the other competing needs of the UK, defense has to be given a priority.

I would also hope that the UK will not be an outlier on this.

[Senior Pilot]

FYI, Prunus Dessicata has no declared Military service nor association, and is no longer able to Access this Military Forum following his determined trolling of this thread.

[Mogwi]

Well said SPLOT!

[Brewster Buffalo]

Nevertheless, Parliament does have to approve War

That's not true for the UK.

Yes and no!
Courtesy of Commons Library
"The deployment of the Armed Forces is currently a prerogative power. Parliament has no legally established role and the Government is under no legal obligation with respect to its conduct.
In 2011 the Government acknowledged that a convention had emerged whereby the House of Commons would have the opportunity to debate the deployment of military forces, prior to doing so, except in the event of an emergency.
The defeat of the Government in a vote on military action in Syria in August 2013 was widely viewed as an assertion of Parliamentary sovereignty on such matters. Yet many have argued that the convention lacks clarity and remains open to interpretation and exploitation. Indeed, the recent limited airstrikes against the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capabilities have been undertaken without recourse to Parliament, with the Government justifying its actions on humanitarian grounds. The lack of Parliamentary consultation has reignited the debate about formally legislating for Parliament’s role in such matters.
Despite having committed to legislating on this issue in 2011, the Government dropped its proposals in April 2016."

[henra]

Yes, I meant the Western flank. The one most exposed to NATO aggression.

Could you maybe elaborate how this aggression exactly manifests itself?


Ukraine is the vulnerable soft underbelly of Russia. An immensely rich prize for NATO to pluck. We will be able to put nuclear missiles within two or three hundred miles of Moscow. Russia scared the bejasus out of JFK when short range missiles were being placed in Cuba, thousands of miles beyond range of being able to whack Washington. Imagine the worries the Russian equivalent of The Pentagon have over the prospect of NATO putting missiles so close to their own capital.

??? NATO could place Nukes in the Baltics if they really, really wanted.
But what for? At the moment it is Russia that is moving Nukes to Kaliningrad in order to get them closer to European Mainland. NATO is not (yet) doing the same.
NATO doesn't have massive Short Range Nuclear Missiles designed to wipe out Big Cities. The Tactical Nukes are just that - Tactical Nukes for Battlefield Use. Wiping out Moscow, St. Petersburg et al is the Job of the 'Big Sticks'. So Ukraine being in NATO or not (which isn't and wasn't really even on the Agenda) wouldn't make much of a difference military strategically for NATO.

On the other hand- if you read Putins essays regarding Ukraine the rational behind this 'Special Military Operation' gets a whole different perspective. You might want to have a brief look on what your 'Big Boss' himself writes as his stance re Ukraine. There is not much talk of NATO but lots of Talk about this all being Russia and having no right for existance as an own Country. So - No it is not self- defence against an aggressive NATO- it is simply good old medieval conquering of a sovereign foreign Country to include it into his own 'Reich'. The same way Old Adolph wanted to take all those neighbouring Countries 'Heim ins Reich'. There you will find your real similarities.

[dead_pan]

Its odd those Putinists who claim the West is weak and in terminal decline, then in the very next breath bleat about how aggressive and provocative it is.

They've been saying all along that Putin only respects strength, yet the moment countries on Russia's border do likewise they play their victimhood card.

[Buster15]

Its odd those Putinists who claim the West is weak and in terminal decline, then in the very next breath bleat about how aggressive and provocative it is.

They've been saying all along that Putin only respects strength, yet the moment countries on Russia's border do likewise they play their victimhood card.

Classic bully boy tactics.
To any reasoned thinking person, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has backfired for the arch bully Putin in the most comprehensive manner.
It has been welcome news on the other hand for NATO, and of course Boris Johnson.
Only a couple of years ago, Trump was telling everyone including Putin that NATO was outdated and insignificant.
It may be outdated, but now certainly not insignificant.

Russian fighting forces on the other hand has been exported as having major structural weaknesses, which hopefully Putin will not live to correct.

[Timmy Tomkins]

So, if Russia were to attack Finland now, catching some UK forces in the process, does NATO wade in to help the UK?

[Wokkafans]

Turkey says it cannot support Sweden and Finland's plans to join NATOTurkish President Tayyip Erdogan has said it will not be possible for his country to support plans for Sweden and Finland to join NATO.

Yesterday, Finland confirmed it will make a bid to join the military alliance, with Sweden expected to echo this decision in the coming days.

Mr Erdogan claimed the Nordic countries are "home to many terrorist organisations", without providing any further details.

Turkey has been a member of the North Atlantic Alliance since 1952, and has typically supported enlargement of the group.


https://livecenterimagesnorth.azureedge.net/lc-images-2021/lcimg-3421e569-28eb-4581-ad0e-1ff753f55a51.jpg?bypass-service-worker

Its opposition to Finland and Sweden's bids could pose an issue for them, as new members need unanimous agreement to join.

Mr Erdogan said: "We are following the developments regarding Sweden and Finland, but we don't hold positive views.

"As Turkey, we don't want to repeat similar mistakes. Furthermore, Scandinavian countries are guesthouses for terrorist organisations.

"They are even members of the parliament in some countries. It is not possible for us to be in favour."

Earlier, NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg said the Finns would be "warmly welcomed" and promised a "smooth and swift" accession process.

[henra]

Furthermore, Scandinavian countries are guesthouses for terrorist organisations.

"They are even members of the parliament in some countries.
You learn something new every day.
If he hadn't reminded me again I would really have forgotten about all those nasty Bomb attacks by Rogue Finns you read about in the Newsapers all the time...

Btw. What is the process to throw a Country out of NATO?

[petit plateau]

Pasta,

Which countries has post-Communist Russia bombed and invaded in the past three decades or so? More than one?

Ukraine, twice - 2014 )ongoing) and 2022 (ongoing)
Georgia, twice - South Ossetia and Abkhazia (both ongoing)
Moldova (Transnystria)
Chechnya (twice)
Ingushettia

... and that is before one gets to the 'interventions 'in the various Stans, and the internal repression, and the external actions (novichok, pollonium, etc), not to mention some poor behavior in the Balkans, and not forgetting Syria, Mali, CAR, Libya ..... oh and Belarus a few times

[pasta]

Finland and Sweden do both have weapons-grade mosquitoes, but I'm not sure their governments are entirely to blame.

[macmp419]

Btw. What is the process to throw a Country out of NATO?

There is no legal process to remove or suspend a member from the alliance.

[Lonewolf_50]

Btw. What is the process to throw a Country out of NATO? My Greek colleagues would now and again ask me that when working in NATO back in the day. He said he also did not want to repeat Turkey’s past “mistake” from when it agreed to readmit Greece into NATO’s military wing in 1980. He claimed the action had allowed Greece “to take an attitude against Turkey by taking NATO behind it.” I will offer the following speculation: the US and the UK (among others) provided a greenback incentive for that "yes" vote behind the scenes ...

Mr Erdogan, you are for sure consistent: you do you! But first tell me: How is Turkey North or Atlantic, again? :E

[Beamr]

This was anticipated at some level and by given countries. Turkey probably would love to use this opportunity to get some concessions and/or support to its goals eg EU membership or other hot potatoes.

In essence nothing new in the political world. Most probably it'll all of the sudden turn out to be a great idea to mr. Erdogan.

[NutLoose]

In the meantime Macron is asking Zelensky to hand over parts of his country to appease Putin and help him save face.. UNBELIEVABLE, France denies it, but I wouldn't put it passed Macron.

https://www.politico.eu/article/zelenskyy-macron-asked-ukraine-concession-help-putin-save-face/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter

French President Emmanuel Macron asked Ukraine to make concessions on its sovereignty to help Russian leader Vladimir Putin save face, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.

In an interview (https://fb.watch/c_7OWOKxGy/) with Italian TV channel RAI’s Porta a Porta talk show broadcast Thursday evening, Zelenskyy was asked about Macron’s comments (https://presidence-francaise.consilium.europa.eu/en/news/speech-by-emmanuel-macron-at-the-closing-ceremony-of-the-conference-on-the-future-of-europe/) on Monday, in which he warned Europe must avoid humiliating Putin.

“We want the Russian army to leave our land — we aren’t on Russian soil,” Zelenskyy replied. “We won’t help Putin save face by paying with our territory. That would be unjust.” Zelenskyy added that Ukraine would never recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

[Flyhighfirst]

So, if Russia were to attack Finland now, catching some UK forces in the process, does NATO wade in to help the UK?

In short no. Any British troops there would be there as British troops and not part of NATO. Hence they would have no NATO protection, meaning article 5 would not be invoked.

[Timmy Tomkins]

True but Britain would have been attacked by Russia inasmuch as its citizens were. A fine line surely

[macmp419]

This was anticipated at some level and by given countries. Turkey probably would love to use this opportunity to get some concessions and/or support to its goals eg EU membership or other hot potatoes.

In essence nothing new in the political world. Most probably it'll all of the sudden turn out to be a great idea to mr. Erdogan.

<TIC mode On>
Perhaps he is worried about the extended warranty on his S-400's being being declared null and void - or his chums flicking a remote "kill switch" leaving him with a pile of expensive, but worthless tat :E
<TIC mode Off>

[Lonewolf_50]

True but Britain would have been attacked by Russia inasmuch as its citizens were. A fine line surely Not really. The Article V bit was originally a territory thing. However, some allies may stand shoulder to shoulder with UK should that occur, due to general bilateral agreements of various kinds, with Article V / NATO protections never entering into it.
Perhaps he is worried about the extended warranty on his S-400's being being declared null and void - or his chums flicking a remote "kill switch" leaving him with a pile of expensive, but worthless tat https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif Laughed, I did. :ok:

[DuncanDoenitz]

In short no. Any British troops there would be there as British troops and not part of NATO. Hence they would have no NATO protection, meaning article 5 would not be invoked.
So NATO probably wouldn't intervene.

But the USA might. Norway might. Denmark might. Latvia might. France might. Poland might ...........

[luckyrat]

As the Isle of Man 🇮🇲 is not part of NATO, will Boris guarantee my safety on my holiday next week?

[911slf]

Luckyrat.


Go to Hull for your holidays. Russians don't know how to pronounce "H" and they call it Goole - really! If they ever target it, they will miss.

Don't go to Goole!!!

If you want to know what Hull is like - read Phillip Larkin.

[luckyrat]

Luckyrat.


Go to Hull for your holidays. Russians don't know how to pronounce "H" and they call it Goole - really! If they ever target it, they will miss.

Don't go to Goole!!!

If you want to know what Hull is like - read Phillip Larkin.
ironically I was born in Hull

[Beamr]

The size of the balls of Finnish president is staggering: he called V. Putin this morning and told him "we're gonna join NATO and there's nothing you can do about it."

Man I would've loved to see Putlers face during that discussion.

https://www.presidentti.fi/en/press-release/president-niinisto-spoke-with-russian-president-putin-6/

[Beamr]

Erdogans negative statements turned out to be political arm twisting just as anticipated. They are basically referring to Kurds in Sweden.

Reuters: Turkey 'not closing door' to Sweden, Finland NATO entry, Erdogan advisor says

ISTANBUL, May 14 (Reuters) - Turkey has not shut the door to Sweden and Finland joining NATO but wants negotiations with the Nordic countries and a clampdown on what it sees as terrorist activities especially in Stockholm, President Tayyip Erdogan's spokesman said on Saturday.

"We are not closing the door. But we are basically raising this issue as a matter of national security for Turkey," Ibrahim Kalin, who is also the president's top foreign policy advisor, told Reuters in an interview in Istanbul.

https://www.reuters.com/world/exclusive-turkey-not-closing-door-sweden-finland-nato-entry-erdogan-advisor-says-2022-05-14/

[fdr]

So 1:00 AM Saturday Russia cuts power supplies to Finland in retaliation to the announced request to join NATO.
Finland's power included 14% of the total supply from Russia. The electric generation is diversified, and can also tap power from Sweden. Putin will have caused Finland to bring forward the termination of imports from Russia of electricity, coal, oil, and gas. Effectively Russia has again sanctioned itself and confirmed they are an unreliable trading partner. At this rate they will be hardpressed to export anything other than vodka, Matryoshka dolls and snow globes of St Basil's.

[Barksdale Boy]

Luckyrat.


Go to Hull for your holidays. Russians don't know how to pronounce "H" and they call it Goole - really! If they ever target it, they will miss.

Don't go to Goole!!!

If you want to know what Hull is like - read Phillip Larkin.
Using Goole Swing Bridge as an OAP? Where is Flixton Works when you need it?

[Beamr]

Russian website made an analysis of Finnish army due to NATO joining ambitions. Very superficial but nevertheless interesting read as nothing gets published in Russian that is against Kremlin line.

Article is in Russian but modern day online translators seem to be efficient.


Finland is the new front. What is the Finnish army? Guerrilla in high-tech mode


https://www.ferra.ru/review/techlife/finnish-army.htm

[Yellow Sun]

Using Goole Swing Bridge as an OAP? Where is Flixton Works when you need it?

For the enlightenment of younger readers, the above statement is not about the State Pension but the fact that Goole Swing Bridge is a large metal structure that stands out well on radar.

😉 YS

[ORAC]

Link to the Google Translate version of the paper posted by Beamr above.

https://www-ferra-ru.translate.goog/review/techlife/finnish-army.htm?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

As usual its as interesting for what it lets slip about the Russian forces themselves. e.g.

".....There are 100 such machines in the entire army + the same number in storage...... Their condition and how long they can be brought into combat condition are unknown. But you need to understand that the Finns are unlikely to have them half-rotten and without engines.".....

[Barksdale Boy]

For the enlightenment of younger readers, the above statement is not about the State Pension but the fact that Goole Swing Bridge is a large metal structure that stands out well on radar.

😉 YS
Thanks for that YS and of course it should be Flixborough. I really do need the first of the day.

[Flyhighfirst]

So NATO probably wouldn't intervene.

But the USA might. Norway might. Denmark might. Latvia might. France might. Poland might ...........

Exactly. NATO as an organisation is a defence pact only, but each individual member can still do whatever they think is in their national interests.

[Flyhighfirst]

True but Britain would have been attacked by Russia inasmuch as its citizens were. A fine line surely

No fine line at all. NATO was defined by territory. NATO doesn’t care if your citizens are attacked. It cares if your territory is attacked.

I think NATO has become a red herring. In your scenario other countries, such as the US, France, Germany… may come to their aid but not under the auspices of NATO.

I think other countries would rally together, before any invocation of article 5 could take place.

[Beamr]

There is a press conference currently going on by Finnish president and government and it is now official: Finland will request to join NATO. Request will be delivered to NATO next tuesday - thursday time frame.

[Finningley Boy]

According to a Turkish Admiral on LBC today, they object to Finland and Sweden joining NATO because they harbour terrorists in their midst?

FB

[henra]

I think NATO has become a red herring. In your scenario other countries, such as the US, France, Germany… may come to their aid but not under the auspices of NATO.

And they would. For sure. At least with Air strikes on invading troops. And the attackers being largely restricted to Roads and Railroads these Air Strikes would be absolutely fatal for the invader. That would be a massacre on the BMPs, BTRs, MBTs and Trucks. Not even Mad Vlad' can be THAT stupid.

I think other countries would rally together, before any invocation of article 5 could take place.

Yup.

[henra]

According to a Turkish Admiral on LBC today, they object to Finland and Sweden joining NATO because they harbour terrorists in their midst?

They are unhappy that PKK is finding a bit of a safe harbour in Scandinavian Countries. Expect a little bit of bargaining around this. But I would be suprised if they wouldn't finally give in. There will be MASSIVE pressure not the least by the US to get Finland (and Sweden) in quickly. Would make it also much easier to defend the Baltic states if Finland would be NATO territory. Strategically a big plus.

[Beamr]

Would make it also much easier to defend the Baltic states if Finland would be NATO territory. Strategically a big plus.
The Finnish AF could help defend the baltic airspace from home bases if necessary. It's a big change in NATO defence planning compared to the current situation.

[fdr]

They are unhappy that PKK is finding a bit of a safe harbour in Scandinavian Countries. Expect a little bit of bargaining around this. But I would be suprised if they wouldn't finally give in. There will be MASSIVE pressure not the least by the US to get Finland (and Sweden) in quickly. Would make it also much easier to defend the Baltic states if Finland would be NATO territory. Strategically a big plus.

Turkey needs NATO as much as NATO needs Turkey. The PKK will end up with some issues to deal with almost certainly, and there really needs to be a negotiated peace between Turkey and PKK. How that happens is above my paygrade, but they got close in 2013 to 2015 until the incident in Ceylanpinar which the PKK denied being involved in.

[Beamr]

To add some (naval)aviation content, the USS Kearsarge is steaming close to the Swedish coast on the Baltic Sea.
There are some joint amphibious exercises going on there as the Swedish naval HQ is in Karlskrona. USS Kearsarge is accompanied by USS Gravely and USS Gunston Hall.

Thats a big ship for the Baltic Sea with quite some equipment. Makes a statement.

[Lonewolf_50]

Makes a statement.
“A man-of-war is the best ambassador.” ~ Oliver Cromwell ~

[etudiant]

To add some (naval)aviation content, the USS Kearsarge is steaming close to the Swedish coast on the Baltic Sea.
There are some joint amphibious exercises going on there as the Swedish naval HQ is in Karlskrona. USS Kearsarge is accompanied by USS Gravely and USS Gunston Hall.

Thats a big ship for the Baltic Sea with quite some equipment. Makes a statement.
Given the recent events in the Black Sea, is such gunboat diplomacy still effective?

[Beamr]

Given the recent events in the Black Sea, is such gunboat diplomacy still effective?
theres a slight difference in the level of diplomacy as the Russian fleet is doing their deed as uninvited but the US fleet has been invited.
The Russian fleet is killing innocent women, children and men while actively invading a sovereign country. Meanwhile the US fleet is practicing with friends how to protect the innocent civilians from an unjust attack.

The main difference being as always: were you invited or not.

[Clop_Clop]

Socialdems in Sweden changed their stance yesterday now saying it's better to be in NATO, so there is a large majority in parliament to vote it through and then file the application...

[Beamr]

Swedish prime minister Magdalena Andrrsson just officially annouced that Sweden will apply to join NATO and will do it together with Finland. That's it then.

[Ninthace]

Socialdems in Sweden changed their stance yesterday now saying it's better to be in NATO, so there is a large majority in parliament to vote it through and then file the application...
Don't forget the decision to admit a country into NATO has to be unanimous, Turkey will want something in return for agreeing.

[Davef68]

Don't forget the decision to admit a country into NATO has to be unanimous, Turkey will want something in return for agreeing.

And Hungary may block them too - their President seems another Putin fanboy

[DaveReidUK]

Don't forget the decision to admit a country into NATO has to be unanimous, Turkey will want something in return for agreeing.

Sweden's Foreign Minister put it very succinctly:

"If [we] were to decide to do take that alternative (joining NATO) I think we would get very, very strong support from large and important countries who are members with whom Turkey has an interest in having good relations"

Notwithstanding Erdogan's huffing and puffing, there is no way Turkey is going to veto either Sweden's or Finland's application to join NATO.

[Expatrick]

And Hungary may block them too - their President seems another Putin fanboy

Wrong. And Hungary's President is female - and has condemned Putin's actions.

[macmp419]

And Hungary may block them too - their President seems another Putin fanboy

You have confused PM and President 👍

[Davef68]

You have confused PM and President 👍

I have indeed. these two tier democracies confuse my old brain! Apologies to the Hungarian President (If she reads this)

[Beamr]

The Foreign Minister of Finland mr. Pekka Haavisto has just signed the letter requesting to join NATO. To my understanding mr. Jens Stoltenberg will receive it tomorrow.

here's the letter,


Your Excellency,

the President of the Republic of Finland has decided to confirm to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Finland's interest to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty and in engaging in the accession talks with NATO. The Parliament of Finland was heard in the process.

I have therefore the honor to convey this interest to you on behalf of the Government of Finland.

I would also like to confirm that Finland’s decision to apply for NATO membership enjoys wide parliamentary and public support.

Yours sincerely,

Pekka Haavisto

Minister for Foreign Affairs

Finland

https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/10616/finland-declares-its-interest-to-accede-to-nato

[etudiant]

theres a slight difference in the level of diplomacy as the Russian fleet is doing their deed as uninvited but the US fleet has been invited.
The Russian fleet is killing innocent women, children and men while actively invading a sovereign country. Meanwhile the US fleet is practicing with friends how to protect the innocent civilians from an unjust attack.

The main difference being as always: were you invited or not.
No argument on that aspect, my point was solely that big ships in confined seas are demonstrably very vulnerable, which undercuts their utility as a show of force.

[Beamr]

My misunderstanding, apologies.

I am no navak warfare expert but I would say that the Russians don't even dream of making an attack against any US asset after their categorical failure to use any military force in Ukraine. So I'd say it's a rather safe way to deliver a message.

[GlobalNav]

My misunderstanding, apologies.

I am no navak warfare expert but I would say that the Russians don't even dream of making an attack against any US asset after their categorical failure to use any military force in Ukraine. So I'd say it's a rather safe way to deliver a message.

Probably so, but so far Putin’s most effective weapons are threats, and I wouldn’t put much stock in hopes of rational behavior.

[Beamr]

The Finnish and Swedish applications has been handed over to NATO.

Happens at 16:45 in the video on the tweet.

https://twitter.com/NATOpress/status/1526803575749353472

[Asturias56]

" my point was solely that big ships in confined seas are demonstrably very vulnerable"

It's 75+ years since big ships were used in any seas in large numbers. I suspect we'd be in for a shock if it ever happened now. Attack options have come on a lot further than defensive ones since 1945.

[Lonewolf_50]

It's 75+ years since big ships were used in any seas in large numbers. I suspect we'd be in for a shock if it ever happened now. Attack options have come on a lot further than defensive ones since 1945. Do you know how many CVBGs were in the Persian Gulf for the 1991 war? (Yeah, that was 30 years ago). I think it was four. (Well, three then four (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_United_States_Naval_Aviation_Units_in_the_Gu lf_War), memory was imperfect there). The other two were in the Red Sea. Also in the PG was a major amphibious flotilla, and plenty of Cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates, and supply ships. Lots of big ships there.

[Ninthace]

I wonder how long it is since one big ship sank another big ship directly as distinct from the use of air power?

[magyarflyer]

Erdogan refuses admission of Nordic countries into NATO he won’t budge no matter what there is the end of the proposal
i don’t see see any way around it diplomatically or otherwise
wonder how much Putin influences Erdogan decision

[Lonewolf_50]

Erdogan refuses admission of Nordic countries into NATO he won’t budge no matter what there is the end of the proposal
i don’t see see any way around it diplomatically or otherwise
wonder how much Putin influences Erdogan decision I think that Turkey is looking to take advantage of any Russian problems in the Black Sea area.
Some interesting commentary from a Turkish observer here (https://www.mei.edu/publications/russia-violating-spirit-montreux-using-civilian-ships-war)in that regard.
Granted, he's an analyst, not a foreign minister or a prime minister.
When Ukraine wins the war, the balance of power in the Black Sea region will change fundamentally. Having exposed its own profound operational problems, Russia will no longer enjoy the perception of superiority. Expect more challenges, especially from Black Sea countries. Ukraine will emerge from the war stronger, with an experienced army and coastal defenses strengthened by new Western anti-ship weapons that will further reduce Russia’s ability to patrol coastal waters. Both Romania and Georgia are interested in a greater U.S. and NATO presence in the Black Sea.

Turkey’s approach to Russia will change too. Its navy is already the strongest in the Black Sea, powered by new frigates armed with new indigenous technologies, and a growing submarine fleet that already outnumbers Russia’s Black Sea Fleet three to one.. It also has new gas fields in the Black Sea to protect. These changes are likely to affect implementation of the Montreux Convention. When Montreux was written, the Black Sea was understood to be under the control of the Soviet Union and Turkey, with the Soviet Union superior. Everything has changed now. Ukraine, Romania, and Georgia will want to review the limitations that Montreux currently imposes on ships from non-Black Sea countries in its waters.

For now, Turkey must use all its means to end the war sooner by choking off Russia’s illegal activity and revenues. Closer inspection is required of vessels transiting the Turkish Straits. NATO should be more vigilant about inspecting ships possibly carrying arms. Ro-ros bound for the Black Sea that are likely carrying suspicious cargo should be boarded and inspected in the international waters of the Mediterranean. Closure of the Turkish Straits to merchant ships working for the Russian war effort should be considered. Turkey should prevent civilian merchant vessels from supplying Russia’s wars by carrying military cargo.

Action must also be taken to re-establish global food security. Russia is stealing Ukrainian commodities on an industrial scale and selling them; profits from these illegitimate sales extend the war. Great amounts of stolen commodities end up in Turkey, some even carried inexplicably by the Syrian government shipping company SYRIAMAR. Buyers, including companies in Turkey, are wrong to get involved in this illegal trade. Turkey should instead focus on rebuilding Ukraine. While Russia continues to blockade Ukraine’s most essential ports at Odessa and Chornomorsk, its ships should be denied commercial access to the Turkish Straits.







Erdogan sees a situation that he can turn to his advantage, so he's going to make the most of it. And what he wants are concessions, or perhaps more 'yes' votes from Sweden and Finland and Germany (etc) as regards Turkey joining EU, among other things. (Yes, that's a bit of speculation on my part).
I wonder how long it is since one big ship sank another big ship directly as distinct from the use of air power?
Are you including collisions at sea in that musing? :}

[Flyhighfirst]

Erdogan refuses admission of Nordic countries into NATO he won’t budge no matter what there is the end of the proposal
i don’t see see any way around it diplomatically or otherwise
wonder how much Putin influences Erdogan decision

I think NATO would rather lose turkey and gain Sweden and Finland. As there is no mechanism to remove a country from NATO, that also means there is no impediment to NATI just chucking them out.

[GlobalNav]

I think NATO would rather lose turkey and gain Sweden and Finland. As there is no mechanism to remove a country from NATO, that also means there is no impediment to NATI just chucking them out.

As much as I’d like to agree, I’m afraid Turkey is a very strategic ally to have so adjacent to a very troubled and dangerous part of the world and having had them as an ally has had tremendous national security benefits. To have Turkey on the opposite side of key geopolitical matters would cost the US and other NATO countries terribly.

I’d hope we can reach a diplomatic solution within NATO. But if that fails in the near term, perhaps explore the formation of a new treaty organization of Northern European countries including France, Germany, UK, USA, Canada, Scandinavia and former Warsaw Pact countries for the particular mutual security of its members. Granted it could be a bit awkward, but we cannot afford to leave Turkey out of NATO.

[ATSA1]

I dont think that Turkey is much interested in NATO as a defence organisation, just a lever to extract what it wants from the West. With inflation spiralling out of control, Turkey is using everything it can to extract help from the West.
With the purchase of the Russian Air Defence system, despite pleas from NATO not to, Turkey is moving away from an alliance with the West, more as a non aligned nation, if not moving towards closer ties with Russia.
I disagree that NATO needs Turkey any more, particularly as Turkey has shown little interest in being a constructive member, its only a matter of time before Turkey leaves of its own accord anyway
There must be some way that Finland and Sweden can be admitted to full de facto member ship of NATO, without troublesome Turkey's veto...

[Ninthace]

The fact remains, NATO has some very useful facilities in Turkey which right now I am sure it would rather keep.

[Haraka]

I remember many yeas ago listening to the politicking about Turkey joining the EU. Concerns about such factors as the EU then bordering Iran.....

[pasta]

Erdogan sees a situation that he can turn to his advantage, so he's going to make the most of it.
^ this.
If he said that having Sweden and Finland in NATO was a fundamentally bad idea, we might have an intractable problem, but that's not the case at all. If he's saying "I won't support their membership unless XYZ" he's not fundamentally opposed, and it's therefore negotiable. Ditto Croatia.

[ORAC]

Ditto Croatia.
Croatia is just internal politics which won’t affect their vote.

The President says he is opposed, but he has no say in international affairs which are the responsibility of the government, who have said they support membership.

[Barksdale Boy]

I think that Ninthace is spot on.

[Jack the Russell]

Spent many many months in Inserlik. Jaguar years, Yes we need Turkey onside.

[Flyhighfirst]

The fact remains, NATO has some very useful facilities in Turkey which right now I am sure it would rather keep.

NATO doesn’t have any facilities in turkey. The US does. Turkey in or out won’t change that. If you don’t think the US are paying a prime price for those facilities then you are mistaken.

You have to remember that NATO isn’t a physical entity. Countries do what they want with who they want. NATO is a fall back option.

[Ninthace]

NATO doesn’t have any facilities in turkey. The US does. Turkey in or out won’t change that. If you don’t think the US are paying a prime price for those facilities then you are mistaken.

You have to remember that NATO isn’t a physical entity. Countries do what they want with who they want. NATO is a fall back option.
That is not how the Turks see it. They think there are 24 bases there, or at least there were in 2013.
https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2013/03/24/natos-eastern-anchor-24-nato-bases-in-turkey/

[Flyhighfirst]

That is not how the Turks see it. They think there are 24 bases there, or at least there were in 2013.
https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2013/03/24/natos-eastern-anchor-24-nato-bases-in-turkey/

I can guarantee you that turkey could be kicked out of NATO tomorrow and nothing would change. The money, influence, perks that turkey gets for hosting these bases has nothing to do with NATO.

[ORAC]

Politico:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has set out why he is opposed to Swedish and Finnish membership of NATO in an article for the Economist (https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/05/30/recep-tayyip-erdogan-on-nato-expansion?utm_medium=pr&utm_source=uk-e), writing that the two countries have failed to oppose terrorism.

He confirms Turkey will block the countries’ membership bids, and also finds time to criticize French President Emmanuel Macron for saying NATO was becoming “brain dead” back in 2019.

[fdr]

I think NATO would rather lose turkey and gain Sweden and Finland. As there is no mechanism to remove a country from NATO, that also means there is no impediment to NATI just chucking them out.

The 1949 NATO treaty has no mechanism within the 14 paragraphs to throw out a member state. Any state can leave, they can't be pushed as such. NATO change 7.1 can always happen, and everyone else leaves the building.... but Turkey is a significant country to have as an alliance member, they are not going to permit access to the Black sea if they are acted against. Turkey's issues with Sweden and Finland need a face-saving solution for all concerned, and preferably one that doesn't affect the human rights of the PKK members that Turkey classifies as terrorists. By the same token, Russia is a terrorist state, and it would be a nice touch to throw out all of its ambassadors and consulate officials, representatives, and delegates from.... USA, EU etc, specifically, out of 405 E 42nd St, New York, NY 10017, USA, USA, USA!. There is absolutely nothing in the US INS regs that requires the USA INS or CBP etc to permit any official related to a terrorist state to enter or remain on US soil. That would be a nice move, followed by a bit of a vote at the said address.

Getting Turkey out of sorts is a complication, and Russia seems to be able to do that all by themselves in recent days anyway.

Now, if I was a US citizen, I would be having a word with my representatives and senators and giving them a question on why the Democratic party is happy to have representatives of a terrorist state as announced by the white house sullying my USA turf and drinking lattes and eating pizza in the big apple instead of having them man some BTR's and T-72's in their own land, where they are not considered to be terrorists. :}

[Lonewolf_50]

The 1949 NATO treaty has no mechanism within the 14 paragraphs to throw out a member state. Any state can leave, they can't be pushed as such. And they do need to give a one year notice of leaving.
Turkey's issues with Sweden and Finland need a face-saving solution for all concerned Prediction: the Kurds will be hung out to dry, yet again. :mad::(
Getting Turkey out of sorts is a complication, and Russia seems to be able to do that all by themselves in recent days anyway. True enough. There is absolutely nothing in the US INS regs that requires the USA INS or CBP etc to permit any official related to a terrorist state to enter or remain on US soil.
Now, if I was a US citizen, I would be having a word with my representatives and senators and giving them a question on why the Democratic party is happy to have representatives of a terrorist state as announced by the white house sullying my USA turf and drinking lattes and eating pizza in the big apple instead of having them man some BTR's and T-72's in their own land, where they are not considered to be terrorists. :} While that got me chuckling, I am not sure if the political backbone to try that move is currently present. Check back in a month to see what has changed.

Now, if they do get the boot, make sure to fly them in a 737 Max (OK, ducking the incoming now!) to Alaska, and then across the Bering Straits to be delivered somewhere like Vladivostok. They can arrange bus fare home from there.

[Clop_Clop]

Prediction: the Kurds will be hung out to dry, yet again. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gifhttps://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif


They are probably Swedish citizens as well now and there are no extradition treaty between Turkey and Sweden as i understand it. So bit of a headache for the SocDems to deal with... Sending some Kurds to Turkey to please Erdogan in exchange for a NATO membership (which many SocDems doesn't agree with regardless) is not going to go down well in the upcoming election... The arms embargo maybe easier to tweak...

[Jackonicko]

It takes a certain amount of doublethink to call the Russian threat a hoax at the very same time they're attempting to invade Ukraine.

The difference between Russian expansion and NATO expansion is that NATO expands when someone wants to join it (if the rest of NATO is happy to have them), whereas Russia expands by invading countries that don't want to join it.

Bang on!

"Shoving NATO's border right up to Russia's Western flank" is based on democratic sovereign nations feeling threatened by Russian nationalism, militarism and posturing and applying to NATO.

"Shoving Russia's border up to NATO's Eastern flank" is based on democratic sovereign nations being invaded after feeling threatened by Russian nationalism, militarism and posturing.

[Flyhighfirst]

The 1949 NATO treaty has no mechanism within the 14 paragraphs to throw out a member state. Any state can leave, they can't be pushed as such. NATO change 7.1 can always happen, and everyone else leaves the building.... but Turkey is a significant country to have as an alliance member, they are not going to permit access to the Black sea if they are acted against. Turkey's issues with Sweden and Finland need a face-saving solution for all concerned, and preferably one that doesn't affect the human rights of the PKK members that Turkey classifies as terrorists. By the same token, Russia is a terrorist state, and it would be a nice touch to throw out all of its ambassadors and consulate officials, representatives, and delegates from.... USA, EU etc, specifically, out of 405 E 42nd St, New York, NY 10017, USA, USA, USA!. There is absolutely nothing in the US INS regs that requires the USA INS or CBP etc to permit any official related to a terrorist state to enter or remain on US soil. That would be a nice move, followed by a bit of a vote at the said address.

Getting Turkey out of sorts is a complication, and Russia seems to be able to do that all by themselves in recent days anyway.

Now, if I was a US citizen, I would be having a word with my representatives and senators and giving them a question on why the Democratic party is happy to have representatives of a terrorist state as announced by the white house sullying my USA turf and drinking lattes and eating pizza in the big apple instead of having them man some BTR's and T-72's in their own land, where they are not considered to be terrorists. :}


I think most would accept that having Sweden and Finland in NATO is a greater goal than keeping turkey, irregardless of rights to the Black Sea.

Although no provision under NATO for booting a member there is under article 60 - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi9-dSj7JrlAhXQNcAKHQXsBMYQFjAGegQIABAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftreaties.un.org%2Fdoc%2Fpublication%2Funts %2Fvolume%25201155%2Fvolume-1155-i-18232-english.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2zzZv59RqyD9wwuLYXzZTZ). It would have to be a case that was made, but with all other members on board it should be successful. Let’s face it, turkey has never been, nor never will be a member in the true spirit of the treaty. You couldn’t count on them to fulfil their obligations, or indeed count on them not joining the other side if it suited them.

As with all other regional “power brokers” they see themselves in a regional sense and use all available means to increase their influence and power in their region. That includes membership of NATO.

[Lonewolf_50]

They are probably Swedish citizens as well now and there are no extradition treaty between Turkey and Sweden as i understand it. So bit of a headache for the SocDems to deal with... Sending some Kurds to Turkey to please Erdogan in exchange for a NATO membership (which many SocDems doesn't agree with regardless) is not going to go down well in the upcoming election... The arms embargo maybe easier to tweak... After two reads of your post, looks like a sound analysis from here. Sadly. I'd love to have the Swedes (and Finns) join the club.

For Flyhighfirst: nice link, I'll have a look at it tomorrow over a coffee. I vaguely recall reading through that a quarter of a century ago as I was doing research on some UN and International Law of the Sea treaty stuff. Thanks.

[henra]

Let’s face it, turkey has never been, nor never will be a member in the true spirit of the treaty. You couldn’t count on them to fulfil their obligations, or indeed count on them not joining the other side if it suited them.

I would possibly not be 100% as harsh as you but in a general direction I share your doubts. I would not consider them nearly as reliable as most other NATO members. Turkey has its own territorial/area of influence Agenda. And you can see this in several conflicts in Near/Middle East up to Armenia/Azerbaidschan. NATO has been a vehicle for them to aquire Top Notch Equipment and having its back covered while stirring the pot in the region.

[Lonewolf_50]

I would possibly not be 100% as harsh as you but in a general direction I share your doubts. I would not consider them nearly as reliable as most other NATO members. Turkey has its own territorial/area of influence Agenda. And you can see this in several conflicts in Near/Middle East up to Armenia/Azerbaidschan. NATO has been a vehicle for them to aquire Top Notch Equipment and having its back covered while stirring the pot in the region. I have mixed feelings about this. I worked for a Turk in NATO, and learned to appreciate their position as a significant regional power, but, I am very much a supporter of a Kurdish homeland.
(Come on, man: if we supported one for Bosniaks and Kosovars, how about a little love for the Kurds, eh?)
I would occasionally refer to the war in Iraq as "Operation Kurdish Freedom" and was only partly joking. Alas, it didn't work out that way.

[Asturias56]

" I would not consider them nearly as reliable as most other NATO members."

historically the Turks have fought the Russians far more than any other country in NATO

[ORAC]

They have indeed - which is why the joined NATO and the other members would respond to an Article call if they were attacked again.

The doubts are as to their reliability as an ally if another member came under attack.

How whole hearts would Erdogan be in response, for example, to an attack on Lithuania?

[unmanned_droid]

The thing that gets me about all these PKK guys in Sweden and Finland is the chances are high that they passed through Turkey to get there. I feel Turkey is going to become increasingly problematic as it feels its position becomes more important (which it may well be), and their internal capabilities grow, which they are.

[ORAC]

Report dared the 4th, so meeting is this week.

https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-chief-to-meet-with-finnish-swedish-turkish-officials-in-brussels/

NATO chief to meet with Finnish, Swedish, Turkish officials in Brussels

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg will hold talks with officials from Sweden, Finland and Turkey in Brussels next week to discuss Ankara’s reservations about the two Nordic countries’ bids to join the Western military alliance.

In a visit to Washington this week, Stoltenberg said (https://www.nato.int/cps/kz/natohq/opinions_196030.htm?selectedLocale=en) he would convene officials from all three countries in Brussels “in the coming days … to ensure that we make progress on the applications of Finland and Sweden to join NATO,” adding that both countries were “ready to sit down and to address” Turkey’s concerns.

That meeting is set to take place in NATO’s Brussels headquarters next week, according to the Associated Press….

[Lonewolf_50]

On the other hand, why would anyone want to Join NATO? Maybe NATO is beyond its expiry date. This isn't me, an American, throwing shade at NATO, this is a Brit:
Edward Lucas is a nonresident fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Liberal Democratic candidate for the British Parliament, a former senior editor at The Economist, and the author, most recently, of Cyberphobia: Identity, Trust, Security and the Internet. Twitter: @edwardlucas (http://www.twitter.com/edwardlucas)NATO Is Out of Shape and Out of Date (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/07/nato-ukraine-russia-war-alliance-reform-geopolitics-military/?utm_source=PostUp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Editors%20Picks%20OC&utm_term=43212&tpcc=Editors%20Picks%20OC)With the bloc’s unity over Ukraine showing cracks, NATO needs an overhaul.By Edward Lucas (https://foreignpolicy.com/author/edward-lucas/), a nonresident fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis.Is NATO brain-dead or back in business? Less than three years ago, French President Emmanuel Macron famously diagnosed (https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11/07/emmanuel-macron-warns-europe-nato-is-becoming-brain-dead?gclid=CjwKCAjwv-GUBhAzEiwASUMm4o9ezcpHpQRF_9Czud-Xr0Ft63LolHAV89tm09-n0dZAGY9x64T2PBoC4jMQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) “the brain death of NATO.” Rhetoric aside, his point was fair at the time: Europe’s dearth of strategic thinking combined with the unpredictability of U.S. policy under then-President Donald Trump spelled serious trouble for the Cold War-era alliance.

Now, all talk is of NATO’s revival and resurgence. Russia’s war on Ukraine has given an urgent new relevance to the bloc’s core mission of territorial defense. NATO members appear to have found a new unity of purpose, supplying Ukraine with weapons, reassessing the threat from Russia, hiking defense budgets, and bolstering the security of the alliance’s eastern frontier. But the “honeymoon,” in the words of Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, was brief. As the war drags on, strains are showing, and the alliance is still shaky.

It’s true that NATO has come a long way. Only 14 years ago, the alliance’s top-secret threat assessment body, MC 161, was explicitly prohibited by its political masters from even considering any military danger from Russia in its scenarios. The pressure came not only from notorious Russia-huggers such as Germany but also from the United States, which was eager to keep east-west ties friendly. The Kremlin, the conventional wisdom insisted, was a partner, not an enemy. As a result, NATO’s most vulnerable members—Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—remained second-class allies. They were in the bloc, but only on paper. There were no significant outside forces on their territory, and the alliance expressly refrained from making contingency plans to reinforce or even defend them in the event of attack. Poland demanded such plans and was told that they could be drawn up to defend the country against an attack by Belarus—but not by Russia.

Since Russia’s first attack on Ukraine in 2014, NATO plans and deployments have become more serious. There are 1,000-strong tripwire forces in the three Baltic states and a larger U.S. force in Poland. Since the start of the invasion in February, that presence has increased sharply. Moreover, two of the most advanced smaller military powers in Europe, Finland and Sweden, are banging on the alliance’s door. Assuming objections from Turkey can been smoothed out, they will be members by year’s end. That will fundamentally change the military geography of northeastern Europe.

Still more important is the stiffening of spines among the members. Trump’s much publicized distaste for NATO was based, in part, on the European members’ chronic underspending. At one point, the exasperated U.S. leader even tried to present a bill to his German counterpart, Chancellor Angela Merkel. Now, defense spending is rising across the alliance. That makes NATO an easier sell in Washington, especially as the case for U.S. engagement in European security is bolstered by the war in Ukraine.

Scholzen (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Scholzen) is a German neologism for “dither,” while makronic (https://polishnews.co.uk/the-word-makronic-in-ukrainian-a-reference-to-the-attitude-of-emmanuel-macron/) in Polish (and its equivalent in Ukrainian) can be roughly translated as “vacuous grandstanding while doing nothing.”

Germany, the most notorious laggard, is suddenly splurging money on its decrepit armed forces—tanks that can’t trundle, ships that can’t go to sea, and soldiers who exercise with broomsticks instead of guns. It has agreed to meet NATO’s defense spending benchmark of 2 percent of GDP, set in 2006 and largely ignored thereafter. The latest country to announce a big hike in defense spending is Spain, currently lagging at barely 1 percent of GDP. The prime minister announced that this will double by 2024. That sets the scene nicely for the NATO summit in the Spanish capital later this month.

Yet look a little more closely, and the picture is far less rosy. Notwithstanding its apparent unity of purpose since the start of Russia’s war, NATO looks out of shape and out of date. In the run-up to their summit, the allies have been furiously haggling over the language in their new strategic concept, which will frame the alliance’s mission for the coming years and will be unveiled in Madrid. What will it say about Russia? About China? What sacrifices and risks are the member states really willing to accept? Are they willing to pool sovereignty in order to streamline decision-making?

Nothing in recent weeks suggests that these questions will get clear answers. For starters, the 30-strong alliance is unwieldy. In military terms, only a handful of members matter—above all, the United States—but in political terms, even little Luxembourg and Iceland get a voice. Worse, the political divides are huge.
Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a semi-authoritarian state that flirts with Russia and fumes at what it considers European meddling over human rights. Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orban is taking a different but downward path, fusing wealth and power into a new system of control at home and undermining U.S. and European attempts to put pressure on Russia and China.
Macron’s relentless posturing and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s foot-dragging create constant obstacles and distractions.
The two leader’s weaknesses, on glorious display since the start of the war, have already enriched the language: Scholzen (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Scholzen) is a German neologism for “dither,” while makronic (https://polishnews.co.uk/the-word-makronic-in-ukrainian-a-reference-to-the-attitude-of-emmanuel-macron/) in Polish (and its equivalent in Ukrainian) can be roughly translated as “vacuous grandstanding while doing nothing.”

Macron and Scholz corrode decision-making with their foibles and thus place a big question mark over the alliance’s credibility and cohesion. Any threat or provocation from Russia is unlikely to be clear or conveniently timed. More likely it will be something deliberately ambiguous, such as a Russian drone that “accidentally” strays onto the territory of a front-line state and hits a target. Some countries would favor a tough response. Others would fear escalation and want dialogue. Still others would take the ambiguity as a convenient excuse to do nothing. Would the 30—soon to be 32—national representatives in the North Atlantic Council, the alliance’s deliberative body, really make a speedy and tough decision on how to react? More likely, some of them would plead for delay, diplomacy, and compromise. Those actually facing the possibility of attack would be far more hawkish, preferring a sharp military confrontation to even the smallest Russian victory. “Not one inch, not one soul,” a senior military figure from one of the Baltic states, speaking anonymously, told me. “We have seen what they did in Ukraine.”

The political weaknesses are matched by military ones. By far the most important country in the alliance is the United States. The U.S. security guarantee to Europe—with its threat of devastating conventional and, if necessary, nuclear response to any attack—is the cornerstone of the alliance. “All for one and one for all” sounds fine, but nobody in the Kremlin will tremble at the thought of Spanish, Dutch, or Canadian displeasure. Yet the result of this is a colossal dependence on U.S. capabilities, ranging from ammunition and spare parts (of which European countries’ stockpiles are notoriously skinny) to military transports that move forces quickly and efficiently over long distances. Even if Europe’s new defense spending plans materialize, they will not change the fact that only U.S. armed forces can move with the scale and speed necessary to defend territory from a country like Russia.

Conversely, the countries that most need defending—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—are the least able to bear the burden themselves. They need advanced weapons, particularly for air and missile defense, that they cannot afford themselves. The thin neck of land along the Polish-Lithuanian border, the so-called Suwalki Gap, is particularly vulnerable to attack from Russia’s militarized Kaliningrad exclave and Belarus, from which Russia attacked Ukraine. Poland and Lithuania both want a big U.S. military presence—either a permanent base or a persistent rotation of forces—to safeguard this strategic chokepoint.

Yet NATO command structures and planning do not fully reflect the imbalance of forces between the United States and Europe. They rely on the fiction that the European allies are more or less equal partners. Even military lightweights need to have important-sounding jobs and installations, making the North Atlantic Council the military version of a parliament dividing out the pork.

The resulting command structure is like a tangled pile of spaghetti. In the Baltic region alone, NATO has several multinational headquarters, one divisional headquarters split between Latvia and Denmark, another divisional headquarters in Poland, and a corps headquarters at a different location in Poland. Overall responsibility for the defense of Europe is divided between three Joint Forces Command headquarters in Naples, Italy; Brunssum, the Netherlands; and Norfolk, Virginia. But the top U.S. military commander in Europe, Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters, is based at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe in Mons, Belgium. A maritime strategy for the Baltic Sea region has yet to be decided—which is just as well, because NATO has yet to create a naval headquarters for the region. Nor has the alliance drawn up real military plans for the reinforcement and defense of its northeastern members, let alone decided who would actually provide the forces and equipment in order to make them credible. Military mobility is meant to be the responsibility of Joint Support and Enabling Command, headquartered in Ulm, Germany, and originally set up as part of the European Union’s own defense policy.

Europe is, in theory, big and rich enough to manage its own defense—but its persistent political weakness prevents that.

A further problem is exercises: NATO does not conduct fully realistic, large-scale rehearsals of how it would respond to a Russian attack. One problem is that these are costly and disruptive. Another is that they expose the huge weaknesses of some NATO members, which can cope with a carefully scripted exercise but lack the ability to improvise. A third reason is the fear, in some countries, that practicing war-fighting would be provocative. Also lacking are detailed plans for fighting a war against Russia, covering such issues as reinforcing of front-line states, countering a Russian attack, regaining any temporarily occupied territory, and—most of all—dealing with a nuclear or other escalation. As a result, nobody is quite sure how anything would work in a crisis. Instead, another assumption reigns: that in a crisis, the United States would take over and do the heavy lifting on all fronts—logistics, intelligence, and combat.

To be fair, NATO is working on these problems, and all of them are fixable. But that does not mean that they are anywhere near being fixed. Wishful thinking remains the alliance’s besetting sin.

Worse, NATO is unprepared for the changing nature of modern warfare. Russia’s old-style assault on Ukraine is all too familiar. But the artillery bombardments and missile strikes that are grinding down Ukraine’s defenses are only part of the Kremlin’s arsenal. Its most effective weapons are nonmilitary: subversion, diplomatic divide-and-rule tactics, economic coercion, corruption, and propaganda. The most burning current example of nonmilitary warfare is Russia’s weaponizing of hunger. By blocking Ukraine’s grain exports, Russia has raised the specter of famine over millions of people, including in volatile and fragile countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Mass starvation is not just a humanitarian catastrophe, but its consequences include political unrest and mass migration, a direct threat to Europe. Yet NATO is ill-equipped to deal with this. It cannot mandate more economical use of grain—for example, by feeding less to livestock and stopping grain’s conversion to fuel. It has no food stockpiles to release to a hungry world. It cannot build new railways to ship Ukrainian grain through other routes. Nor can it insure merchant vessels that might—for a price—be willing to run Russia’s Black Sea blockade. NATO has little in-house expertise in countering Russian disinformation and almost zero influence in African and other countries susceptible to Kremlin narratives blaming the West for the food shortages that are already starting now.

NATO could acquire these capabilities. Or it could regain them: During the Cold War, the alliance had an economic warfare division and ran a program called the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls to prevent the Soviet bloc from acquiring sensitive technologies. But in the strategic timeout that followed the collapse of the Soviet bloc, these agencies and their skill sets shriveled and died.

But as with NATO’s military shortcomings, identifying the problems is not the same as solving them.

And given the bloc’s unwieldy structure and issues with key members, it might be wise to lower expectations about NATO returning to Cold War levels of consistent readiness and effectiveness. A more realistic vision for the alliance would be to treat it as a framework for the most capable and threat-aware members to form coalitions of the willing. These groupings already exist: The British-led Joint Expeditionary Force, for example, is a 10-country framework for military cooperation, chiefly aimed at enabling very rapid deployments to the Nordic-Baltic region in the event of a crisis. France has a similar venture, the European Intervention Initiative. The five Nordic states have their own military club, called the Nordic Defence Cooperation, while Poland has close bilateral ties with Lithuania. A similar network of bilateral and multilateral ties would greatly strengthen the alliance’s floundering presence in the Black Sea and other regions, including North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. These groupings would not supplant NATO but improve action and interoperability on top of the alliance’s established structures and mechanisms.

The difficult and underlying question here is the role of the United States. Europe is, in theory, big and rich enough to manage its own defense. But its persistent political weakness prevents that. The paradox is that only U.S. involvement makes NATO credible—yet overdependence on the United States also undermines the alliance’s credibility, while stoking resentment in France and elsewhere. The task for Washington is to encourage European allies to shoulder more of the burden and start thinking strategically again, even as it retains the superpower involvement that gives the alliance its decisive military edge. That is entirely doable. But don’t expect it to happen in Madrid—or anytime soon. On the other hand, for the Finns and Swedes, maybe joining NATO is the best worst option.

[etudiant]

On the other hand, why would anyone want to Join NATO? Maybe NATO is beyond its expiry date. This isn't me, an American, throwing shade at NATO, this is a Brit:
Edward Lucas is a nonresident fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Liberal Democratic candidate for the British Parliament, a former senior editor at The Economist, and the author, most recently, of Cyberphobia: Identity, Trust, Security and the Internet. Twitter: @edwardlucas (http://www.twitter.com/edwardlucas)NATO Is Out of Shape and Out of Date (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/07/nato-ukraine-russia-war-alliance-reform-geopolitics-military/?utm_source=PostUp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Editors%20Picks%20OC&utm_term=43212&tpcc=Editors%20Picks%20OC)With the bloc’s unity over Ukraine showing cracks, NATO needs an overhaul.By Edward Lucas (https://foreignpolicy.com/author/edward-lucas/), a nonresident fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis. On the other hand, for the Finns and Swedes, maybe joining NATO is the best worst option.

My understanding is that grain shipments from Odessa are currently blocked because Ukraine has mined the channel to prevent any Russian naval attack.
So Russia has a free hand to discuss allowing grain shipments and blame Kiev for any holdups. Am only surprised they have not offered Mariupol as a grain terminal afaik.

[Lonewolf_50]

My understanding is that grain shipments from Odessa are currently blocked because Ukraine has mined the channel to prevent any Russian naval attack.
So Russia has a free hand to discuss allowing grain shipments and blame Kiev for any holdups. Am only surprised they have not offered Mariupol as a grain terminal afaik.
This reply should have been to the post where I addressed the Turkish efforts at moving grain, though. ;)

[fdr]

My understanding is that grain shipments from Odessa are currently blocked because Ukraine has mined the channel to prevent any Russian naval attack.
So Russia has a free hand to discuss allowing grain shipments and blame Kiev for any holdups. Am only surprised they have not offered Mariupol as a grain terminal afaik.

There would be an option that would be hard to argue against from Russias side and which would alleviate the risk of famine resulting from Russian aggression. shipment goes via rail to Romania, and is shipped out from there. UN provides peace keeping for humanitarian needs for grain. to rest of world.

avoids mines/mine clearing;
provides global food supply stability (kind of);
add same trade of grain from Russia to countries facing famine;
UN convoy escort through to dardanelles.

If Putin objected, he goes down in history, and there is no veneer over his disregard for the countries that are affected by the impending grain shortages. Not sure that it would even need UNSC support, it is not military, it is mine clearing.... that should be a UNGA matter, maybe.

As for NATO being past it's use by date, the structure has issues, but the need remains. In 1949, it evolved out of the threat that the USSR was perceived to be to Europe, and the insanity of the UNSC PM status. That was a shambles from the start, and was probably the best of a bad set of choices at that time, but it led to the need for NATO, which circumvented the UNSC PM impasse.

Dealing with an aggressive and paranoid neighbour who has no regard for collateral damage and any rules of law or ethics needs collective defense to provide a measure of restraint. The problem in Ukraine today is that Obama had zero interest in foreign affairs, even when the consequences of Russias action in 2014 in Crimea and the east of Ukraine that could destabilise the world that he was a prominent leader. When Russia shot down MH-17, nothing was done... The risk to the rest of the world just from the interference with grain is real, and still the UN merely wrings its hands. NATO has a vested interest in having a war on someone else's backyard, that is simply god housekeeping.

Ukraine is legally entitled to mine their own waters to deny aggressor nations. It is illegal to mine other countries waters, or international waters.

At some point in the future the whole sordid back office actions of all of the countries involved will come into to light, "Lux en tenebris" like this little bit of nostalgia from January, 1917:


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/504x1053/screen_shot_2022_06_09_at_9_03_41_pm_67930b8f2b6a12d6bef0e12 0b7e638eafdbcace5.png

[etudiant]

Zimmermann telegram presumably.
Highlights the perils of poor quality cipher systems.
Admiral Yamamoto would concur.

[oceancrosser]

No, Turkey is not part of the EU, it is not party to the sanctions, and has no obligation to observe any. Just like Chinese airlines are merrily doing the trans-siberian route to Europe.
The EU only prohibits Russian (and Belorussian) airlines from entering its airspace, and Russia is banning all EU airlines in return. All other airlines can come and go as they please as log as they have flight plans approved on both sides.

And so why should Turkey stay in NATO when it is the one single member not taking part in the sanctions? Let them out and let Finland and Sweden in.
Turkey´s NATO inclusion has basically only been to help the US meddle in ME affairs AFAIK.

[ORAC]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/17/unacceptable-russian-warship-accused-of-violating-danish-waters

‘Unacceptable’: Russian warship accused of violating Danish waters

[Beamr]

Just out, Turkey has agreed going onward with the FIN and SWE applications to join NATO. To be seen how fast this track will be as some of the other NATO countries have alreadu agreed on it in their respective parliaments eg Estonia and Norway.

https://twitter.com/jensstoltenberg/status/1541869030226726912

[Ninthace]

Let Putin put that in his pipe and smoke it.

[Lonewolf_50]

And the ante gets raised, again.
https://twitter.com/nickschifrin/status/1542063170172452868?s=20&t=GVfCsrw-Sch6oZLlyggkZQ
He has a follow on post that includes two more points:
5. Deploy 2 additional Navy destroyers to Spain, bringing total from 4 to 6
6. Deploy "additional" air defense to Germany, Italy

[NutLoose]

Yup, his speech is in the Ukraine thread