Finland, Sweden + NATO

[The Brain]

Yeah right now they leave the Kremlin-hugging to the far left.

[Threviel]

Yeah, lots of old lefties have come out of the woodwork to rally against Nato. I think some of them believe that we are in a situation resembling the cold war rather than the interwar period.

But a lot of them are old communist "peace" activists saying that we should disarm, the war is our fault and so on. Useful idiots.

I don't really understand why, Russia is a fascist threat, they should want it contained. But logic is always a scarce resource on the outer edges of politics.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Yeah, lots of old lefties have come out of the woodwork to rally against Nato. I think some of them believe that we are in a situation resembling the cold war rather than the interwar period.

But a lot of them are old communist "peace" activists saying that we should disarm, the war is our fault and so on. Useful idiots.

I don't really understand why, Russia is a fascist threat, they should want it contained. But logic is always a scarce resource on the outer edges of politics.

Because that type of leftism is permeated by hate for the west and its freedoms

[Threviel]

Apparently Erdogan does not want Sweden in Nato, since we have a history of supporting PKK.

Which is a fair point I guess, I had just assumed that every member state already had been asked and that they could have aired grievances before we stick our necks out.

Likewise Hungary might veto if the Russians tell them to, I was assuming that they had already given their ok.

[Duque de Bragança]

Yeah right now they leave the Kremlin-hugging to the far left.

Being geographically close to Russia does that, to the far-right.

[Threviel]

Ohh, apparently the Swedish and Turkish foreign ministers spoke two days ago and nothing was mentioned. There's apparently been lots of meetings where this could have been mentioned. It seems Erdogan waited until our necks were out to force the issue.

Someone should kick that ass out of Nato.

[CountDeMoney]

Someone should kick that ass out of Nato.

Well, if we're not going to kick anti-Nato Hungary out, I don't see us kicking out non-Nato Turkey.

[The Brain]

If it's anything more than their usual fishing for bribes, and they actually block us, then we will have to do without NATO. It's not like it's Hungarian and Turkish aid we count on to deter Russia. Defensive alliances with the US and UK will do.

[Sheilbh]

Finnish Foreign Minister has apparently requested formal defence guarantees (like from the UK) from France, Germany, Italy and Spain. I believe France and Germany have already indicated they would offer this.

But given those countries it sounds like the Finns aren't satisfied with the ambiguity of Article 42.7 - and, in fairness, the Finns have pushed for clarity on that for years, but have now decided that in the current context an ambiguous part of a treaty isn't sufficient anymore. Understandably, I think.

[Jacob]

That's a pretty dick move by Turkey if true. Especially since - if handled a bit better - they could probably have parlayed their assent into Sweden providing less support to PKK.

EDIT: It appears the Turkish reservations apply to both Finland and Sweden. Seems like Erdogan is trying to butter both sides of his toast with respect to Russia here.

[Duque de Bragança]

That's a pretty dick move by Turkey if true. Especially since - if handled a bit better - they could probably have parlayed their assent into Sweden providing less support to PKK.

EDIT: It appears the Turkish reservations apply to both Finland and Sweden. Seems like Erdogan is trying to butter both sides of his toast with respect to Russia here.

My favorite part is when he says allowing them to enter would be a mistake such as accepting Greece. 

[Josquius]

What's vague on 42.7?
It sounds like a fairly clear mutual defence no?

[Jacob]

What's vague on 42.7?
It sounds like a fairly clear mutual defence no?

Pretty sure various parties have expressed that it's ambiguous as well, in terms of what they'd have to do. And if people say it's ambiguous, then there's uncertainty.

[Sheilbh]

What's vague on 42.7?
It sounds like a fairly clear mutual defence no?

Not really - there's tensions and ambiguities in it. There's been a lot of academic writing about what it might mean. That is absolutely normal in European law which is often a little vague and ambiguous. (normally because it's a compromise) - but states who think they may need to rely on it have tried to add a little definition to what it means and when it applies without much success.

For example, the original draft it was drawn from explicitly mentioned "military assistance". Article 42.7 moved that down to "mutual aid and assistance" - possibly to try and accommodate neutral states like Sweden, Ireland and Austria. But it's not clear what the requirement is in terms of "mutual aid and asssistance". Certain countries have wanted to try and clarify/operationalise that - especially Greece and Finland. Others say it means what it says so is limited and others see pragmatism in keeping it vague because it allows flexibility for member states. But it in no way requires mutual defence or any military assistance at all, or an Article 5 style "an attack on one is an attack on all".

It also explicitly refers out to NATO obligations but it's not clear how they're meant to interact, or how 42.7 interacts with Article 222 of the TFEU (which is about what the EU should do, while 42.7 is about what member states should do). 222 explicitly calls out military resources and the circumstances when it can be triggered, obviously the issue with that is the EU doesn't have much in the way of military resources, while the member states do.

There's also been debate about what constitutes "armed aggression" - for example would it include terrorism or cyber attacks within a countries territory? Practically that would be settled by the member states and an invasion would certainly constitute "armed agression", but it's not impossible to imagine a situation where a member state considers that they're facing "armed aggression" and the rest of the EU disagrees - this has almost happened a couple of times with Greece and Turkey. That's one of the reasons France and Greece entered their mutual defence pact.

The ambiguity is probably deliberate because, for example, Ireland is constitutionally neutral. It is not providing arms to Ukraine and it is not a member of NATO. It would be an issue for Ireland if they had some mutual defence obligations through the EU if, for example, a convoy of equipment from NATO countries was attacked in Poland on the way to Ukraine was attacked.

[Jacob]

An "mutual aid and assistance" could also mean "we'll supply you weapons and sanction Russia if they invade your country, but we won't provide a single soldier or attack any Russian assets". If you're say Finland, you may want something a little more robust.