Finland, Sweden + NATO

[grumbler]

I don't agree that India was truly non-aligned after about 1960.  They've been closely tied to the USSR/Russia, and just pay lip service to non-alignment.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I for one often think people are too hard on India. India has a very Indian-centric foreign policy, which for some reason is often portrayed as negative when that is basically true of all foreign policies everywhere.

India has had a unique history. Unlike many European countries, it was never at serious risk of Soviet invasion, so it had no immediate reason to view the USSR as an existential threat. Given its 200 year history prior to that time, if anything, it had many reasons to view Western imperialism and Western meddling in India as a far bigger threat.

Given a default stance of Western-skepticism and lack of existential fear of Russia, it has never felt a need to not utilize a relationship with Russia to its advantage. This does not IMO suggest any ideological "siding" with either the USSR or now Putin's Russia, it just simply takes advantage of this relationship when it feels it can do so for its own benefit. It likewise utilizes its relationship with the United States to its benefit when it feels it can, too.

This sort of transactional attitude in many ways actually underlies Western policy as well, but because India is doing it outside of a formal alliance system it is portrayed as more craven or self-interested. This ignores that the multilateral world the United States has promoted since WW2 is a world that was built to protect and serve the interests of the United States. Now, obviously I agree ideologically with much of American policy in the Cold War and even now, but that's from the perspective of an American. I don't actually think India's position is immoral or terrible given India's own unique, distinct history and society.

On top of all that, there is also a simple economics--Russia is willing to work with India to sell it very cheap weapons, until very very recently any proposed U.S. weapons deals with India have always been price-prohibitive. I believe we're entering into agreements now where we will lease out manufacturing of some American weapons to India subcontractors working in Indian factories, which will allow them to start adopting some American weapons at a much lower cost.

I also think the United States needs to be honest that its bellicosity towards the Indian nuclear weapons program was unjust and probably ill advised. That nuclear weapons program likely protects Indian against serious invasion from China, and pretending they don't have concerns that would justify such a program is silly. Obviously the big fear has always been more that Pakistan and India will engage in a nuclear exchange, but there is a strong national logic to India's development of nuclear weapons and it's always IMO been insane that we really thought one of the world's largest countries bordering multiple dangerous enemies would just decide to never develop weapons its enemies were developing "because the West says so."

There are plenty of avenues where we can build a robust relationship with India--but it will have to be built on areas of mutual concern--like China, you aren't going to be able to bully India into joining you in an anti-Russia group when India has no reason to participate in such a thing.

The Global South is actually as a rule fairly similar--they are largely not interested in joining agreements in which the West can impose Western political and cultural values on them in exchange for economic development and military aid, they are interested in a relationship in which mutual interests can be allowed to progress and they are left to work out domestic political and cultural issues on their own--by the way, which is how the West worked through those issues itself, it is odd we assume it is our job to do for other countries what we did ourselves.

[OttoVonBismarck]

At this point I think that Sweden should withdraw its NATO application. Tell NATO that we're here when they have figured their shit out, but for now enough is enough. It's obvious that NATO doesn't want Sweden to join right now, and desperately sucking up to Turkey is not a great look. The government's inept handling of things also hurts Sweden as a society, since they want to curb private expression of opinion in Sweden to placate Turkey.

Also, even if increased US pressure on Turkey possibly may bring about some improvement in NATO's position, the dominant power of the alliance leaning on a member to support the interest of a non-member is not a great look. More ominously it would mean that every member's veto isn't actually considered important by the US, which would make NATO more risky to join.

The critical thing is that Finland joins. Not Sweden. I understand that the Finns worry that if Sweden isn't in NATO a future nutjob Swedish government may not only not help Finland, but actually stop NATO from using Swedish airspace and territory, damaging the prospects of Finland stopping the Russians near the border (in a few decades it's theoretically possible that the Russian military has improved, so this has to be planned for). But I still think that Finland is safer in NATO, even in a situation where Sweden is not in NATO.

Part of being in an alliance is having to make compromises to accommodate other countries. If Sweden was too stupid to realize that when they asked to join, they probably should withdraw. There was never any promise that Sweden was going to get to join under special rules that do not apply to any other alliance members about the entire alliance agreeing to let you in with no strings attached. NATO by its very nature, has strings attached.

[The Brain]

At this point I think that Sweden should withdraw its NATO application. Tell NATO that we're here when they have figured their shit out, but for now enough is enough. It's obvious that NATO doesn't want Sweden to join right now, and desperately sucking up to Turkey is not a great look. The government's inept handling of things also hurts Sweden as a society, since they want to curb private expression of opinion in Sweden to placate Turkey.

Also, even if increased US pressure on Turkey possibly may bring about some improvement in NATO's position, the dominant power of the alliance leaning on a member to support the interest of a non-member is not a great look. More ominously it would mean that every member's veto isn't actually considered important by the US, which would make NATO more risky to join.

The critical thing is that Finland joins. Not Sweden. I understand that the Finns worry that if Sweden isn't in NATO a future nutjob Swedish government may not only not help Finland, but actually stop NATO from using Swedish airspace and territory, damaging the prospects of Finland stopping the Russians near the border (in a few decades it's theoretically possible that the Russian military has improved, so this has to be planned for). But I still think that Finland is safer in NATO, even in a situation where Sweden is not in NATO.

Part of being in an alliance is having to make compromises to accommodate other countries. If Sweden was too stupid to realize that when they asked to join, they probably should withdraw. There was never any promise that Sweden was going to get to join under special rules that do not apply to any other alliance members about the entire alliance agreeing to let you in with no strings attached. NATO by its very nature, has strings attached.

I don't follow. Why would the idea of such a promise exist?

[Solmyr]

The critical thing is that Finland joins. Not Sweden. I understand that the Finns worry that if Sweden isn't in NATO a future nutjob Swedish government may not only not help Finland, but actually stop NATO from using Swedish airspace and territory, damaging the prospects of Finland stopping the Russians near the border (in a few decades it's theoretically possible that the Russian military has improved, so this has to be planned for). But I still think that Finland is safer in NATO, even in a situation where Sweden is not in NATO.

Finland, unfortunately, has tied itself to Sweden on this.

Is the reasoning that Finland is safer outside of NATO if Sweden isn't in it?

I think the reasoning is that Sweden is our "big brother", so we have to do everything together.

[The Brain]

The critical thing is that Finland joins. Not Sweden. I understand that the Finns worry that if Sweden isn't in NATO a future nutjob Swedish government may not only not help Finland, but actually stop NATO from using Swedish airspace and territory, damaging the prospects of Finland stopping the Russians near the border (in a few decades it's theoretically possible that the Russian military has improved, so this has to be planned for). But I still think that Finland is safer in NATO, even in a situation where Sweden is not in NATO.

Finland, unfortunately, has tied itself to Sweden on this.

Is the reasoning that Finland is safer outside of NATO if Sweden isn't in it?

I think the reasoning is that Sweden is our "big brother", so we have to do everything together.

I'm sorry.

[Threviel]

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. We've had nitwits leading us since '96...

[The Brain]

Protesters in Turkey have burnt Swedish flags. OMG who tf cares?

[mongers]

How many of these useful idiots do the Russians have in reserve?

Maybe they can keep trolling Turkey so that Sweden never gets the nod from beyond the Bosporus?

[Jacob]

Protesters in Turkey have burnt Swedish flags. OMG who tf cares?

It's in response to Paludan publicly burning a Quran in Sweden. I wouldn't be surprised if Paludan is Putin aligned one way or the other.

[Sheilbh]

Also it is election season in Turkey and the polling looks not great for AKP.

[Valmy]

Also it is election season in Turkey and the polling looks not great for AKP.

Well I am not going to get my hopes up, but it certainly looks shakier than I would expect.

[Legbiter]

Also it is election season in Turkey and the polling looks not great for AKP.

Well I am not going to get my hopes up, but it certainly looks shakier than I would expect.

If all else fails, Sweden can just join Finland 2 minutes after Finland is accepted into NATO.

[Josquius]

Also it is election season in Turkey and the polling looks not great for AKP.

Well I am not going to get my hopes up, but it certainly looks shakier than I would expect.

The opposition gets 54% of the vote.
Erdogen wins anyway with 86% of the vote.

[Tonitrus]

I think the best thing the US could probably do, in the face of Turkey's intransigence is to just sign our own full mutual defense treaty with Sweden/Finland and encourage all the remaining NATO states to do as all together in one big summit. It would accomplish the same goal while also being a low-level way making Turkey look stupid.