Future NATO enlargement in Europe 11 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Rikupsoni

Victim of Forgotten HopeForum bystander

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

3,047 Posts

0 Threads

#1 6 years ago

NATO_in_Europe.png

This is an issue that has been on the hold for couple of years, since Albania and Croatia joined the NATO in 2009. Georgia was supposed to be invited too, but it seems unlikely atleast for now with their 2008 war with Russia. Even Ukraine had a membership-action plan, but their government has changed and actually passed a bill that it won't seek NATO membership. Macedonia can't join because of their name-dispute with Greece which vetoes their bid.

The obvious enlargement soon for sure is only Bosnia-Hertzegovina and Montenegro.

My main interest is with Finland and Sweden. Both countries now have a right-wing party as government coalition leader and in Finland the president changed to more NATO positive too. The NATO opposition in public is still on the majority, but Sweden moved into a fully professional army in 2011. I'm pretty sure this change from conscripts to professionals is making NATO a much better choice for Sweden. Besides, Sweden had a secret NATO agreement during the Cold War and they even participated in the Libya war.

In Finland the conscript reserve size was reduced from 350,000 to 230,000 this year. Simply, the main bulk equipment of the army, M/90 jaeger infantry brigade model gets obsolete in the 2020s and the reserve must be cut again. NATO is a must for Finland too in the future.

As for Austria, they seem to be moving into a professional army as Germany did. This most likely will too move the opinion in Austria more to favour NATO membership.

The Westen European Union was made defunct in 2011, and its operations were moved to EU agencies. But make no mistake, EU is not and will never be a military organisation. It doesn't have a command structure, which a valiable military alliance has to have. Besides, why would UK, France, Germany, Italy etc. all NATO members want to spend money on duplicate structure inside the EU?

It is still silly to claim Austria for example is "neutral", while they haven't been for decades and it's actually quite impossible with common foreign and security police of the EU. NATO should be the tool for European military cooperation, but let members choose to opt-out of operations like Libya like they did.

It seems that if Sweden and Finland join NATO, they will do it together. That would be quite a strategic difference for NATO in the Baltic Sea area too. I hope it happens.

But all this development is quite interesting with Russian missile plans and the direction of Putin's new policies.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#2 6 years ago

Russia is understandably paranoid about any increase in NATO membership, but I'd say it's only logical for Sweden and Finland to join NATO (and it's not like Russia was buddy-buddy with Sweden or Finland). A chain of command that allows for easy integration into allied efforts, (theoretical) supply chain simplification, and mutual defense. NATO already has an interest in keeping those countries secure, and ideologically I'd say they're quite similar to current NATO countries.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,008 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#3 6 years ago

An integration of Sweden and Finland makes more sense to me compared to including Georiga, the Uktraine or any number of Balkan states. I'd rather have politically stable countries with similar ideologies as part of a military alliance. I guess the way the NATO sees it a membership of countries like Georgia or the Uktraine in NATO is still better than letting them fall under the influence of Russia again.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#4 6 years ago

I can't help but wonder whether, had these countries been a part of NATO years ago, we'd have ended up in a war - or at least really shit relations - with Russia. The more NATO, traditionally aligned with American interests, encroaches on Russia's turf the less sense it seems to make at the moment.




Rikupsoni

Victim of Forgotten HopeForum bystander

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

3,047 Posts

0 Threads

#5 6 years ago
MrFancypants;5616314An integration of Sweden and Finland makes more sense to me compared to including Georiga, the Uktraine or any number of Balkan states. I'd rather have politically stable countries with similar ideologies as part of a military alliance. I guess the way the NATO sees it a membership of countries like Georgia or the Uktraine in NATO is still better than letting them fall under the influence of Russia again.

Well, for Finland it's 1300 km border with Russia, and while we have pretty good relations, Georgia 2008 wasn't exactly something you'd expect. It doesn't make sense to be out of NATO, but unfortunately the public opinion of NATO isn't that good after Iraq War - but it's not like those people care for defence issues anyway who only follow blind anti-Americanism.

For Sweden it's that with the modern high-tech armies, it's very expensive to have independent armed forces, and there's no reason why not to participate in Nato cooperation. It's also quite important for international operations. Almost all of Europe is in anyway. They can't really increase cooperation with Denmark or Norway because they're NATO members. I'm pretty sure that especially if us Finns joined, Russia with Putin's policies will have some kind of reaction because we have so much common border and we're close to St. Petersburg and their Arctic areas. That's why it would have been good if Finland and Sweden joined NATO with other countries in 2004, but the time was not ready.

And if Sweden and Finland were in NATO, the Baltic Sea would be completely bordered with NATO states. It's not exactly good for the credibilty of the Russian Baltic Fleet, but that's what they get. Georgia, on the other hand, seems to have a too dangerous relationship with Russia already that present Nato members don't seem to support its membership anymore.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,008 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#6 6 years ago

I suppose the US influence on NATO is a valid concern. Right now the situation is strangely reversed, with France and Britain spearheading the Libya campaign while the US tries to reduce its military activity. However, that mgiht change with the upcoming election.

But as much influence as the US may have, all members are still sovereign states and only really have to react in case the US is attacked, not if the US attacks someone else.

As for Russia - better to anger them now than to wait until they have modernized their military and reduced their dependence on energy exports.




Destroyer25

Overuses :cort:

50,545 XP

23rd March 2008

0 Uploads

4,732 Posts

0 Threads

#7 6 years ago
Rikupsoni;5616297NATO_in_Europe.png This is an issue that has been on the hold for couple of years, since Albania and Croatia joined the NATO in 2009. Georgia was supposed to be invited too, but it seems unlikely atleast for now with their 2008 war with Russia. Even Ukraine had a membership-action plan, but their government has changed and actually passed a bill that it won't seek NATO membership. Macedonia can't join because of their name-dispute with Greece which vetoes their bid. The obvious enlargement soon for sure is only Bosnia-Hertzegovina and Montenegro.[/QUOTE] I feel bad about Georgia, they made such serious contributions to the war in Iraq and USA kind of left them in the lurch. As for Ukraine, I'd rather not have countries with rampant political divisions within NATO. half of Ukraine is pro Ukraine and the other half seems to be pro Russia. With regard to Greece and Macedonia, I don't want their. Macedonia is dirt poor and Greece is self explanatory. They were better off under the Ottomans, and the Ottoman economy was a pretty big basket case, so that's really saying something.
Rikupsoni;5616297My main interest is with Finland and Sweden. Both countries now have a right-wing party as government coalition leader and in Finland the president changed to more NATO positive too. The NATO opposition in public is still on the majority, but Sweden moved into a fully professional army in 2011. I'm pretty sure this change from conscripts to professionals is making NATO a much better choice for Sweden. Besides, Sweden had a secret NATO agreement during the Cold War and they even participated in the Libya war. In Finland the conscript reserve size was reduced from 350,000 to 230,000 this year. Simply, the main bulk equipment of the army, M/90 jaeger infantry brigade model gets obsolete in the 2020s and the reserve must be cut again. NATO is a must for Finland too in the future. [/QUOTE] Finland's National Coalition Party is hardly Conservatives, and nor is Sweden's Moderate Party for that matter. Beyond being pro NATO the NCP is pretty Socially Liberal. Their economic policy is hardly Neoliberal enough to be considered Conservtive, and their social policy is relatively Socially Liberal, which I personally agree with as a Progressive Conservative, but combined with their lack of strong Fiscally Conservative values makes them more Liberal than anything else. From what I gather they seem to resemble the Liberals under Paul Martin here in Canada, policy wise. As for Sweden, the Moderate Party seems even less Conservative. They decided against pushing for NATO membership and instead decided to waste more money on the failed concept that is foreign aid. Personally I'd love to have Finland and Sweden in NATO. With Fenno-Scandinavia in NATO along with the Baltics, the Baltic Sea pretty much becomes a NATO lake.
Rikupsoni;5616297As for Austria, they seem to be moving into a professional army as Germany did. This most likely will too move the opinion in Austria more to favour NATO membership.[/QUOTE] They're more than welcome IMO.
Rikupsoni;5616297The Westen European Union was made defunct in 2011, and its operations were moved to EU agencies. But make no mistake, EU is not and will never be a military organisation. It doesn't have a command structure, which a valiable military alliance has to have. Besides, why would UK, France, Germany, Italy etc. all NATO members want to spend money on duplicate structure inside the EU? It is still silly to claim Austria for example is "neutral", while they haven't been for decades and it's actually quite impossible with common foreign and security police of the EU. NATO should be the tool for European military cooperation, but let members choose to opt-out of operations like Libya like they did. [/QUOTE] NATO members are under no obligation to participate in offensive wars, only defensive wars. eg Afghanistan: USA, and later, Spain, the UK, among others, were attacked, and thus everyone was obligated to fight back. In Libya, the UN sanctioned the NFZ and NATO led the mission. Participation was voluntary and not regulated to NATO members, although they would be taking operational orders from Bouchard and NATO though.
Rikupsoni;5616297It seems that if Sweden and Finland join NATO, they will do it together. That would be quite a strategic difference for NATO in the Baltic Sea area too. I hope it happens.[/QUOTE] Agreed.
Rikupsoni;5616297But all this development is quite interesting with Russian missile plans and the direction of Putin's new policies.
Russia is using economic warfare to get themselves in an advantageous geopolitical and geostrategic position over Europe. So they can't complain if their neighbors are locking themselves into defensive alliances. I find it hilarious that Russians actually bitch about NATO. It's like they expect everyone to respect Russia's intent to pursue their national interests but then complain when other people do the same. [QUOTE=Crazy Wolf;5616306]Russia is understandably paranoid about any increase in NATO membership, but I'd say it's only logical for Sweden and Finland to join NATO (and it's not like Russia was buddy-buddy with Sweden or Finland). A chain of command that allows for easy integration into allied efforts, (theoretical) supply chain simplification, and mutual defense. NATO already has an interest in keeping those countries secure, and ideologically I'd say they're quite similar to current NATO countries.

On the contrary, Finland deemed it necessary to maintain a large military, which has been trained, equipped and organized to fight a defensive war specifically against Russia. I don't blame them after 1939. Russia has never had any problems with violating other countries sovereignty to ensure their own safety from real or perceived conventional threats.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5616314]An integration of Sweden and Finland makes more sense to me compared to including Georiga, the Uktraine or any number of Balkan states. I'd rather have politically stable countries with similar ideologies as part of a military alliance. I guess the way the NATO sees it a membership of countries like Georgia or the Uktraine in NATO is still better than letting them fall under the influence of Russia again.

Too late for Ukraine already IMO. As for Georgia, I'm generally supportive of their membership. They've proven to be reliable allies to NATO who are committed to combating Islamic Extremism.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5616360]I suppose the US influence on NATO is a valid concern. Right now the situation is strangely reversed, with France and Britain spearheading the Libya campaign while the US tries to reduce its military activity. However, that mgiht change with the upcoming election.

USA's interests weren't really at stake in Libya.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5616360]But as much influence as the US may have, all members are still sovereign states and only really have to react in case the US is attacked, not if the US attacks someone else.

The defense obligations of NATO members are not exclusively for America. If any state is attacked the rest must come to her aid.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5616360]As for Russia - better to anger them now than to wait until they have modernized their military and reduced their dependence on energy exports.

Agreed.




Rikupsoni

Victim of Forgotten HopeForum bystander

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

3,047 Posts

0 Threads

#8 6 years ago
Destroyer25;5616476 Finland's National Coalition Party is hardly Conservatives, and nor is Sweden's Moderate Party for that matter. Beyond being pro NATO the NCP is pretty Socially Liberal. Their economic policy is hardly Neoliberal enough to be considered Conservtive, and their social policy is relatively Socially Liberal, which I personally agree with as a Progressive Conservative, but combined with their lack of strong Fiscally Conservative values makes them more Liberal than anything else. From what I gather they seem to resemble the Liberals under Paul Martin here in Canada, policy wise. As for Sweden, the Moderate Party seems even less Conservative. They decided against pushing for NATO membership and instead decided to waste more money on the failed concept that is foreign aid.

You're pretty much right on them. Wikileaks revelead that in 2009 the Finnish NCP had "promised" US diplomats that they would be pushing for NATO membership the next time there is a NCP-ran government. Well, now there is and a NCP president too.

With Sweden, they seem to tie the NATO membership on Finland. It seems it won't be a topic for them until there is coordination with Finland, which would realize the project (Finland, Sweden and Austria actually joined the EU together in 1995, the situation could be the same for NATO now.)

But to get some actual links, US ambassador to NATO had his worries about this already in 2009: Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Concerns About Finland Joining NATO | News | YLE Uutiset | yle.fi

I don't believe Finland would be just a burden to NATO though. We have 62 F-18s, 100 Leopard 2A4s and numerically the strongest artillery in any EU country. That's far more than what the Baltic states have that did join in 2004. Sweden has less troops but a developed arms industry and a strong air force.

Are there any Austrians here anymore that could enlight us about the state of NATO discussion in the country?




Destroyer25

Overuses :cort:

50,545 XP

23rd March 2008

0 Uploads

4,732 Posts

0 Threads

#9 6 years ago

Rikupsoni;5616486You're pretty much right on them. Wikileaks revelead that in 2009 the Finnish NCP had "promised" US diplomats that they would be pushing for NATO membership the next time there is a NCP-ran government. Well, now there is and a NCP president too.

With Sweden, they seem to tie the NATO membership on Finland. It seems it won't be a topic for them until there is coordination with Finland, which would realize the project (Finland, Sweden and Austria actually joined the EU together in 1995, the situation could be the same for NATO now.)

But to get some actual links, US ambassador to NATO had his worries about this already in 2009: Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Concerns About Finland Joining NATO | News | YLE Uutiset | yle.fi

I don't believe Finland would be just a burden to NATO though. We have 62 F-18s, 100 Leopard 2A4s and numerically the strongest artillery in any EU country. That's far more than what the Baltic states have that did join in 2004. Sweden has less troops but a developed arms industry and a strong air force.

Are there any Austrians here anymore that could enlight us about the state of NATO discussion in the country?

Did FF ever have Austrians?




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#10 6 years ago

Erm, yeah. Karst, I think.




  • 1
  • 2