It looks clear both Finland and Sweden are applying for NATO membership this summer. It seems they have agreed to submit simultaneous membership applications, as early as mid May.
According the the Swedish media, Finland has slowed their process a bit to get Sweden on board. Applying simultaneously is seen benefitting both countries, who are close partners in defence, too. The process has been more quick in FInland, where the approach has been rather pragmatic, while in Sweden it's been more ideological question.

The war in Ukraine changed the public opinion on NATO in both coutries, overningt. Putin has become the best NATO ambassador ever.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... 1650903119

IF this happens it will be the biggest negative side effect of this war for putin when it comes to propaganda and influence.
Germans, Austrians and Hungarians still hold hold the line but I don't think it will stay like this for too long and russian influence will go backwards for decades.

At first, I thought that they should apply immediately. Them waiting seems to be a good thing, though. The added Russian threats have just hardened the resolve of more of their populations.

Of course you'll have the usual suspects jumping up and down, claiming this is a further provocation of Russia.

But but but, this will provoke Russia even more, and we know Russia is a peace loving nation. Shouldn’t we offer them control of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden in exchange for peace?

There, saving them time, they can copy and paste.


I suspect this will be blocked by those in NATO who are aligned with Putin, so Hungary and Germany. Germany because it loves Russian fossil fuels and Hungary for obvious reasons. I really do hope this will succeed, it needs to happen to blunt Russian aggression.

If Hungary vetoes, maybe they can be voted out of NATO...or at least threatened with it.

johns624 wrote:

If Hungary vetoes, maybe they can be voted out of NATO...or at least threatened with it.

Hungary supports Finland, wrote the Finnish media after the Finnish president talked to his Hungarian counterpart. It seems a lot of is going on behind the scenes right now, there are no indications that any of the current members would exercise their veto. That would be embarrassing for NATO and would leave Finland and Sweden in a very awkward situation.

I wonder how Putin will spin this in Russia? Given his paranoia about the West and NATO, it feeds right into his playbook. Yet if/when it's reported in Russia, it only exposes his "special operations" plan as having backfired spectacularly.

Braybuddy wrote:

I wonder how Putin will spin this in Russia? Given his paranoia about the West and NATO, it feeds right into his playbook. Yet if/when it's reported in Russia, it only exposes his "special operations" plan as having backfired spectacularly.

In Putin's book, both Finland and Sweden have probably been a lost case for years already. Both countries have been close NATO partners for decades, as close as you can get without the actual membership. Naturally Russia will react somehow, perhaps cyber attacks on the way?

MareBorealis wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

I wonder how Putin will spin this in Russia? Given his paranoia about the West and NATO, it feeds right into his playbook. Yet if/when it's reported in Russia, it only exposes his "special operations" plan as having backfired spectacularly.

In Putin's book, both Finland and Sweden have probably been a lost case for years already. Both countries have been close NATO partners for decades, as close as you can get without the actual membership. Naturally Russia will react somehow, perhaps cyber attacks on the way?

What he's known for years and how he'll pretend to be offended today, are two different things.

Braybuddy wrote:

I wonder how Putin will spin this in Russia? Given his paranoia about the West and NATO, it feeds right into his playbook. Yet if/when it's reported in Russia, it only exposes his "special operations" plan as having backfired spectacularly.

Ballistic missile tests and threats of nuclear war?

johns624 wrote:

]What he's known for years and how he'll pretend to be offended today, are two different things.

Yeah Putin is unpredictable for sure. Finland has a rather pragmatic approach towards Russia, it has always been a potential threat so you just need to be prepared for everything.

The Financial times has a good article about Finland's idea of "comprehensive security". Finland has conscription and relatively large defence forces, almost a third of the adult population is a reservist. And basically every level of society is prepared for a crisis situation, perhaps a bit like what Israel has?

https://www.ft.com/content/c5e376f9-735 ... pe=nongift

My housing block in Finland has two mandatory emergency shelters for the residents. Before you often heard said these shelters are just waste of money, you don't hear that anymore.
The Helsinki city centre has a massive complex of shelters, used as sport facilities and storage space in normal times.

ABC News on the "underground city" in Helsinki: https://youtu.be/vFFhejGOTiM

MareBorealis wrote:

johns624 wrote:

]What he's known for years and how he'll pretend to be offended today, are two different things.

Yeah Putin is unpredictable for sure. Finland has a rather pragmatic approach towards Russia, it has always been a potential threat so you just need to be prepared for everything.

The Financial times has a good article about Finland's idea of "comprehensive security". Finland has conscription and relatively large defence forces, almost a third of the adult population is a reservist. And basically every level of society is prepared for a crisis situation, perhaps a bit like what Israel has?

https://www.ft.com/content/c5e376f9-735 ... pe=nongift

My housing block in Finland has two mandatory emergency shelters for the residents. Before you often heard said these shelters are just waste of money, you don't hear that anymore.
The Helsinki city centre has a massive complex of shelters, used as sport facilities and storage space in normal times.

ABC News on the "underground city" in Helsinki: https://youtu.be/vFFhejGOTiM

Sounds a lot like Sweden which has a similar state of being prepared. You can all download the book - think it was called “If crisis or war comes”.

cpd wrote:

I suspect this will be blocked by those in NATO who are aligned with Putin, so Hungary and Germany. Germany because it loves Russian fossil fuels and Hungary for obvious reasons. I really do hope this will succeed, it needs to happen to blunt Russian aggression.

Germany is under threat of energy supply disruption by Russia. But aligned with Putin? Germany is closely aligned with many European countries.opposed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Whatever, if Finland and Sweden do apply to join NATO, Germany will have to choose whether to appease Russia or to support European neighbours seeking to bolster their security as a matter of urgency. I don't see appeasal as potentially increasing energy supply security - Putin could still disrupt energy supply to Germany at any point - so I see supporting Finland and Sweden's applications as the best course for Germany.

art wrote:

cpd wrote:

I suspect this will be blocked by those in NATO who are aligned with Putin, so Hungary and Germany. Germany because it loves Russian fossil fuels and Hungary for obvious reasons. I really do hope this will succeed, it needs to happen to blunt Russian aggression.

Germany is under threat of energy supply disruption by Russia. But aligned with Putin? Germany is closely aligned with many European countries.opposed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Whatever, if Finland and Sweden do apply to join NATO, Germany will have to choose whether to appease Russia or to support European neighbours seeking to bolster their security as a matter of urgency. I don't see appeasal as potentially increasing energy supply security - Putin could still disrupt energy supply to Germany at any point - so I see supporting Finland and Sweden's applications as the best course for Germany.

Germany will support Finland (and Sweden) here, the chancellor Olaf Scholz has already said Finland is welcome to NATO. At this point both Finland and Sweden would already have axed their project if not 100% clear that all NATO show green light.

Let us suppose 1 or 2 NATO member countries were to object to Finland or Sweden joining. If I was the Defence Minister of Finland, I would still be pushing ahead with applying for membership... it is likely that any objecting countries will be coerced behind the scenes into removing their objections

MareBorealis wrote:

johns624 wrote:

]My housing block in Finland has two mandatory emergency shelters for the residents. Before you often heard said these shelters are just waste of money, you don't hear that anymore.
The Helsinki city centre has a massive complex of shelters, used as sport facilities and storage space in normal times.

ABC News on the "underground city" in Helsinki: https://youtu.be/vFFhejGOTiM

This morning I was thinking about bomb shelters in public infrastructure, and how both Russia and Ukraine are full of them, indicative of the cold war mindset when they were built. My city was built starting in the 80's, there is nothing of the sort for me to shelter in (aside from my house being made out of poured concrete and cinder blocks). And I'm not sure I would want to shelter in 120 years old Paris metro stations either. I think camping in a forest far from any potential target, maybe find a place with some terrain, would be the best bet.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Let us suppose 1 or 2 NATO member countries were to object to Finland or Sweden joining. If I was the Defence Minister of Finland, I would still be pushing ahead with applying for membership... it is likely that any objecting countries will be coerced behind the scenes into removing their objections

There are dodgy NATO members right now (Turkey). Objecting to Ukraine getting in was easy to justify, it was already in a war with Russia since 2014. But objecting to stable, advanced democracies, fully politically aligned with the core of NATO (the USA and Western Europe), that's another story. If anything it would suggest you're the country that needs to be ousted from NATO while Finland and Sweden are accepted !

Aesma wrote:

There are dodgy NATO members right now (Turkey). Objecting to Ukraine getting in was easy to justify, it was already in a war with Russia since 2014. But objecting to stable, advanced democracies, fully politically aligned with the core of NATO (the USA and Western Europe), that's another story.!

Yes, on what grounds could any member object to Finland, Sweden joining NATO except that it would upset Vlad the Bad? I don't accept that as a valid ground.

Aesma wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Let us suppose 1 or 2 NATO member countries were to object to Finland or Sweden joining. If I was the Defence Minister of Finland, I would still be pushing ahead with applying for membership... it is likely that any objecting countries will be coerced behind the scenes into removing their objections

There are dodgy NATO members right now (Turkey). Objecting to Ukraine getting in was easy to justify, it was already in a war with Russia since 2014. But objecting to stable, advanced democracies, fully politically aligned with the core of NATO (the USA and Western Europe), that's another story. If anything it would suggest you're the country that needs to be ousted from NATO while Finland and Sweden are accepted !

Some people think Turkey would object, but I'm not sure on what basis.

Turkey has shown it's not a slave to Moscow - they shot down a Russian fighter, they told Russia it couldn't sail warships into the Black Sea that weren't already based there and it's supplying Ukraine with those very handy Bayraktar drones.

Could Montenegro possibly put in some objection, under pressure from Serbia ? Would Greece, Bulgaria, or Hungary say anything ?

Every Nato member has given a green light for both Sweden and Finland, it also stated that they would be "Net members" within Nato (Don't know exactly what that means). Both countries have political decisions to go to military spending of 2% GDP as soon as possible. UK and US have also promised military presence during the application process which seems to be the period at risk of some sort of Russian aggression.

art wrote:

cpd wrote:

I suspect this will be blocked by those in NATO who are aligned with Putin, so Hungary and Germany. Germany because it loves Russian fossil fuels and Hungary for obvious reasons. I really do hope this will succeed, it needs to happen to blunt Russian aggression.

Germany is under threat of energy supply disruption by Russia. But aligned with Putin? Germany is closely aligned with many European countries.opposed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Whatever, if Finland and Sweden do apply to join NATO, Germany will have to choose whether to appease Russia or to support European neighbours seeking to bolster their security as a matter of urgency. I don't see appeasal as potentially increasing energy supply security - Putin could still disrupt energy supply to Germany at any point - so I see supporting Finland and Sweden's applications as the best course for Germany.

There are some in Germany who are the Putin sympathizers. Those Germans typically work for and manage the industrial companies that have made a lot of money using cheap Russian gas or exporting to Russia. Also, the politicians who are aligned with those companies are Putin sympathizers.

Based on my observation, those Germans feel entitled to keep making money with Russia's help, regardless of what happens in Ukraine. Under the pretense of peace, they want Ukraine to surrender quickly and quietly, so things can go back to the old status quo.

max999 wrote:

art wrote:

cpd wrote:

I suspect this will be blocked by those in NATO who are aligned with Putin, so Hungary and Germany. Germany because it loves Russian fossil fuels and Hungary for obvious reasons. I really do hope this will succeed, it needs to happen to blunt Russian aggression.

Germany is under threat of energy supply disruption by Russia. But aligned with Putin? Germany is closely aligned with many European countries.opposed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Whatever, if Finland and Sweden do apply to join NATO, Germany will have to choose whether to appease Russia or to support European neighbours seeking to bolster their security as a matter of urgency. I don't see appeasal as potentially increasing energy supply security - Putin could still disrupt energy supply to Germany at any point - so I see supporting Finland and Sweden's applications as the best course for Germany.

There are some in Germany who are the Putin sympathizers. Those Germans typically work for and manage the industrial companies that have made a lot of money using cheap Russian gas or exporting to Russia. Also, the politicians who are aligned with those companies are Putin sympathizers.

Based on my observation, those Germans feel entitled to keep making money with Russia's help, regardless of what happens in Ukraine. Under the pretense of peace, they want Ukraine to surrender quickly and quietly, so things can go back to the old status quo.

I would hazard a guess that it's not only in Germany where they view a preference of profit over lives.
(For example the BASF boss spoke out against the gas embargo as BASF uses a lot if gas to produce chemicals.)

There are those who want 'business as usual' and I'd guess they are fearing for their annual bonuses if output and therefore turnover and profit goes down.
Probably also quite a few in Londongrad, too. But that's not the subject of this topic.

As said above I can't see many vetoing Sweden and Finland. They already train, exchange etc with NATO and their integration will probably be easier than previous countries that joined.

I do find it funny that Russia is complaining about neighbours being in NATO when Norway shares (a short) border and let's not forget that Alaska is only a few miles away from Russia!

Fine. They both join NATO.

1) will they meet their obligation on percentage of GDP for defense?

2) will - if it becomes necessary - they actually send troops and equipment when required, or will they just offer to hold the coats for those doing the actual fighting?

WesternDC6B wrote:

Fine. They both join NATO.

1) will they meet their obligation on percentage of GDP for defense?

2) will - if it becomes necessary - they actually send troops and equipment when required, or will they just offer to hold the coats for those doing the actual fighting?

All you need to do is take a look at the size and equipment of their respective armed forces. For their population base, they are much better prepared than many similar (or larger) current NATO members. There's a good chance that any "actual fighting" will be done on their territory.

johns624 wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

Fine. They both join NATO.

1) will they meet their obligation on percentage of GDP for defense?

2) will - if it becomes necessary - they actually send troops and equipment when required, or will they just offer to hold the coats for those doing the actual fighting?

All you need to do is take a look at the size and equipment of their respective armed forces. For their population base, they are much better prepared than many similar (or larger) current NATO members. There's a good chance that any "actual fighting" will be done on their territory.

Exactly, the Swedes in particular have designed their whole posture around rapid mobilisation, dispersal (which has influenced the design of every Swedish jet fighter), good equipment - sometimes very specific to this, witness the S Tank of the Cold War - with a strong defence/industrial base. (Were developing and deploying top attack anti tank missiles before the rest as an example).
Much the same is true of Finland, in the Cold War they had a unique relationship with the USSR and the West based on geographic pragmatism and recent history, however since then they are more like Sweden, fully independent of the now Russian orbit.
And wanting to keep it that way.

How will Putin respond? Much the same way as with Western help for Ukraine, anger, threats, how seriously we should take them and is assessed here by someone who has had the 'pleasure' of meeting him;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIhDeP-eK1Y

johns624 wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

Fine. They both join NATO.

1) will they meet their obligation on percentage of GDP for defense?

2) will - if it becomes necessary - they actually send troops and equipment when required, or will they just offer to hold the coats for those doing the actual fighting?

All you need to do is take a look at the size and equipment of their respective armed forces. For their population base, they are much better prepared than many similar (or larger) current NATO members. There's a good chance that any "actual fighting" will be done on their territory.

Yeah Finland and Sweden are very much NATO ready. Finland (pop.5,6m) never gave up conscription, the wartime strength 280k, 900k trained reservists. Big investments in defence recently, the F-18 fighters are being replaced by F-35.

WesternDC6B wrote:

Fine. They both join NATO.

1) will they meet their obligation on percentage of GDP for defense?

2) will - if it becomes necessary - they actually send troops and equipment when required, or will they just offer to hold the coats for those doing the actual fighting?

1) I read somewhere (I thought it was in a link in this thread but can't find it) that they have both agreed to meet the 2% target

2) Finns have Sisu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisu?wprov=sfla1)

About the 2% GDP target - as Russia has a lower GDP than Germany - would/when Germany spends 2% they will be spending more than Russia who spends about 4%. So perhaps Germany will finally get the equipment their troops need. Unless most of it goes on consultants.

WesternDC6B wrote:

Fine. They both join NATO.

1) will they meet their obligation on percentage of GDP for defense?

2) will - if it becomes necessary - they actually send troops and equipment when required, or will they just offer to hold the coats for those doing the actual fighting?

Sweden have already participated in various conflicts abroad, including Afghanistan, with fighting units.

https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/var-ve ... utomlands/
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_i ... fghanistan

ReverseFlow wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

Fine. They both join NATO.

1) will they meet their obligation on percentage of GDP for defense?

2) will - if it becomes necessary - they actually send troops and equipment when required, or will they just offer to hold the coats for those doing the actual fighting?

1) I read somewhere (I thought it was in a link in this thread but can't find it) that they have both agreed to meet the 2% target

2) Finns have Sisu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisu?wprov=sfla1)

About the 2% GDP target - as Russia has a lower GDP than Germany - would/when Germany spends 2% they will be spending more than Russia who spends about 4%. So perhaps Germany will finally get the equipment their troops need. Unless most of it goes on consultants.

To both you and Thunderboltdragon, thank you.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

Fine. They both join NATO.

1) will they meet their obligation on percentage of GDP for defense?

2) will - if it becomes necessary - they actually send troops and equipment when required, or will they just offer to hold the coats for those doing the actual fighting?

Sweden have already participated in various conflicts abroad, including Afghanistan, with fighting units.

https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/var-ve ... utomlands/
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_i ... fghanistan

The Americans should have gone with the CV90 as a IFV after Afghanistan.

ReverseFlow wrote:

Unless most of it goes on consultants.

you can only sink a couple of hundred million for those.

Problem is a 12.000 staff position procurement system (much to much) with almost 3000 open slots that combinded have quite efficently prevented anything from happening in the last 20 years. Almost everything new was "Einsatzbedingter Sofortbedarf" (deployment related urgent demand) while almost all procurement project make the 787 development seem smooth and flawless.

"Hey, lets buy a new IFV with a crew comparment too low for half our troops to sit in it ....." (Puma is still an amazing piece of kit)

Or the ongoing lack of spare parts. Ok, they have long lead times, but not a decade.

Or being unable to order new digital radios, even Mil-COTS systems like the PRC-117G *allready in use (that Einsatzbedingter Sofortbedarf) in the armed forces*, before the situation got dire enough to pay Thales 600+ Million EUR to recreate the old 1979 vintage SEM90 at 20k EUR a pop, with the 117G only costing half......

best regards
Thomas

Polish and Bulgarian officials say Russia is cutting off gas deliveries to their countries after their refusal to pay in Russian roubles, a demand made by President Vladimir Putin as the West tightened sanctions over the war in Ukraine.

Poland’s state-owned PGNiG, citing the Russian energy giant Gazprom, said the suspension would come into effect at 8am local time (06:00 GMT) on Wednesday.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/2 ... m-gas-cuts

It has started then.

EU - In 2021 40% of gas consumed in EU came from Russia.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/ ... as-import/

Finland - Russian gas constitutes 6% of the country's total consumption
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politi ... ssian-gas/

Sweden - Only two per cent of the total Swedish energy supply consists of natural gas, and an estimated half of this could currently come from Russia.
https://www.government.se/articles/2022 ... f-ukraine/

It sounds like any threat to cut the export of gas to the two countries if they apply to join NATO would be ineffective.

ReverseFlow wrote:

I do find it funny that Russia is complaining about neighbours being in NATO when Norway shares (a short) border and let's not forget that Alaska is only a few miles away from Russia!

The Norwegian border is actually very close to the naval base at Murmansk

Throughout the Cold War, NATO submarines would often be on patrol "off the coast of Norway". This was worded to make the mass public think NATO submarines were somewhere near Bergen or Stavanger and thus quite routine... those NATO submarines would far more often be found near the Soviet naval base of Murmansk. This is territory which NATO has been very interested in for a LONG time

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Throughout the Cold War, NATO submarines would often be on patrol "off the coast of Norway". This was worded to make the mass public think NATO submarines were somewhere near Bergen or Stavanger and thus quite routine... those NATO submarines would far more often be found near the Soviet naval base of Murmansk. This is territory which NATO has been very interested in for a LONG time

Correct. Which is why I'm sure some people in the RN right now wish they had a few more Astutes...

Just read that the British army will be training with Finnish forces.

"Troops from the Queen’s Royal Hussars have been deployed and will be embedded in an armoured brigade in Finland, which shares an 830-mile land border with Russia."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... dApp_Other

Perhaps as an assurance for if/when Finland applies to NATO.

Looks like the Finnish Govt decided to join NATO at least a few weeks ago and told the UK as much.

Finland is known to have taken the decision to join NATO already weeks ago; they are currently just waiting to formalise their request to do it together with Sweden: that way both can join together which is much better than with few weeks in between both.

Sweden needs more time as public opinion towards membership hasn't swung as massively as in Finland (yet), although there's now a popular majority for NATO membership in both countries, so the decision in Stockholm needs to be a bit more underpinned in oder to cover politicians U-turn who've long been against NATO membership.

Expect it to come in time for the NATO summit in Madrid in June.

As evidenced by facts and public comments, NATO is preparing to already offer security guarantees to both EU countries from the moment they officially apply for NATO membership, even before their formal acceptance.

I always thought Russia had a case for the former SSRs as well as Finland and Sweden not joining NATO. Gorbachev thought the same. But, Mr Putin, you are no Gorbachev. It is increasingly clear that Putin has wished war on the world. The world will respond.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I always thought Russia had a case for the former SSRs as well as Finland and Sweden not joining NATO. Gorbachev thought the same. But, Mr Putin, you are no Gorbachev. It is increasingly clear that Putin has wished war on the world. The world will respond.

There are now almost as much ex-SSRs in the NATO or submitting applications as the number of Western countries. So I think it can be said that half of NATO is now USSR successor.
There are even more ex-USSR countries in NATO than number of ex-USSR countries in Russia's CSTO treaty. In this sense it could even be said that NATO is more proper inheritor of USSR than Russia.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I always thought Russia had a case for the former SSRs as well as Finland and Sweden not joining NATO. Gorbachev thought the same. But, Mr Putin, you are no Gorbachev. It is increasingly clear that Putin has wished war on the world. The world will respond.

There is a decent book on it called "Not One Inch" by Sarotte.

I don't think Putin wishes war on the world, and I'm sure he's been shocked by the response to his further invasion of Russia after 2014 that was essentially allowed to occur by the West. There is lots of data that Putin in his own mind views this war as his Yugoslavia or Iraq and is wondered why the West has had sudden change of heart of realpolitik.

I think that one of bigger issues we faced in 1990-1995 was the issue of Russia at once being the successor state to the USSR but not held accountable for the crimes of the Soviet Union, which fell disproportionately on many former SSRs and the Eastern Europeans. These nations had their own reasons to seek alternative security arraignments, and did so. The political leaders at the time were trying to extemporize a response to the collapse of the Soviet Union they didn't anticipate, and frankly probably couldn't really change.

sabenapilot wrote:

Sweden needs more time as public opinion towards membership hasn't swung as massively as in Finland (yet), although there's now a popular majority for NATO membership in both countries, so the decision in Stockholm needs to be a bit more underpinned in oder to cover politicians U-turn who've long been against NATO membership.

Time is needed for the social democratic party to U-turn, they have been against Nato membership for a while now. But if they make a U-turn, there will be a massive pro-Nato majority in parliament.

ReverseFlow wrote:

Just read that the British army will be training with Finnish forces.

"Troops from the Queen’s Royal Hussars have been deployed and will be embedded in an armoured brigade in Finland, which shares an 830-mile land border with Russia."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... dApp_Other

Perhaps as an assurance for if/when Finland applies to NATO.

Yes, perfect timing, though planned well advanced. According to Finnish media the British group coming to Finland was originally ment be smaller but expanded when the war started. Both Finland and Sweden have been close partners to NATO for years, exercising together regularly. In March Finland and Sweden joined NATO's Cold Response in Norway, in January the US Air Force tankers were in Finland exercising with Finnish F-18's.

My assumption would be that Sweden and Finland will announce that they will apply for Nato membership on 17-18 May when
the Finnish president comes to Stockholm on an official visit.

https://government.se/press-releases/20 ... m-finland/
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/nato ... slinjen-ut

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

My assumption would be that Sweden and Finland will announce that they will apply for Nato membership on 17-18 May when
the Finnish president comes to Stockholm on an official visit.

https://government.se/press-releases/20 ... m-finland/
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/nato ... slinjen-ut

Would be even better if they announced it on 8 May, just in time to spoil a little celebration in Moscow

Looks like the momentum for Finland is unstoppable;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcyZRtLaWOw

Braybuddy wrote:

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

My assumption would be that Sweden and Finland will announce that they will apply for Nato membership on 17-18 May when
the Finnish president comes to Stockholm on an official visit.

https://government.se/press-releases/20 ... m-finland/
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/nato ... slinjen-ut

Would be even better if they announced it on 8 May, just in time to spoil a little celebration in Moscow

That would be better, wouldn't it?

We can talk about Russia moving closer to Europe in the future when it's not starting wars in Europe in the present. Essentially, Sweden and Finland have a greater obligation to what is than what might be, in my opinion.