Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

REOreddit t1_j6k7oxv wrote

So, let me understand this...

Sweden wants to join NATO. Being a member of NATO means that if another member is attacked, then all the rest must defend them. That attacked country could be any of them, including Turkey. So, basically Sweden is willing to defend Turkey, if they join NATO.

But, if they don't join NATO, and Finland does, Sweden might want to remain neutral, if Russia attacks Finland? Is that what you are saying? Because that makes exactly zero sense.


oldspiceland t1_j6k87o1 wrote

Honestly I don’t understand how you think it doesn’t make sense. You explained it pretty well.

The point is that Finland is trying to leverage the possibility of this as a reason to not join as a lever to move Turkey to allow Sweden to join.

Like, the context here in the post is already pretty clear so?


REOreddit t1_j6k8n3l wrote

And Finland might not succeed, and they will be in a worse position than they would be if they join without Sweden.


oldspiceland t1_j6k9jg6 wrote

Your premise exists on the idea that the thing you called ridiculous (Sweden not coming to their defense regardless of treaty status) is not actually ridiculous at all.

None of this actually matters until it does. It’s not like NATO has ever actually been tested. Who knows, if Russia invaded Turkey, Greece might refuse the call to aid despite NATO. What is NATO’s recourse in that situation? Invading Greece? They will have larger issues to deal with.


MonsieurClickClick t1_j6l9rtm wrote

No, it is ridiculous. Sweden and Finland already have defense treaties outside of NATO. Both are EU members for example.

The idea that Sweden would sit by and refuse to let NATO run supply lines to Finland isn't just absurd, it's dumb.


oldspiceland t1_j6la4a5 wrote

The idea that Turkey would somehow be negatively effected by Sweden’s NATO membership is also dumb but here we are. Living in a world of dumb. Discussing dumb while talking about dumb theoretical situations.


MonsieurClickClick t1_j6la9q8 wrote

Lmao that's not why Turkey is being difficult. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about sweetheart.


oldspiceland t1_j6lae71 wrote

Honey I probably know more about this whole situation than you and your four closest friends but please, entertain me further.


[deleted] t1_j6lahum wrote



oldspiceland t1_j6laqdx wrote

Mmm. I expected better honestly. 2/10. Unoriginal and boring. Constructive criticism: find the nearest patch of grass and touch it, then ask the grass what it thinks about the situation because it probably knows more about it than you do.


REOreddit t1_j6kaoxs wrote

And using the same argument, Sweden could remain neutral, even if they join NATO and Russia invades Finland. Then why bother at all with any of this?


oldspiceland t1_j6kdquh wrote

Because it’s ultimately beneficial to have both of them in NATO from the perspectives of them and other NATO member states. They’re hoping that by creating a buffer of states large enough they will be able to ensure that Russia’s aggressive tendencies are outweighed by the knowledge that anyone they attack will have NATO riding to defend them instead of might.

Might allows for a lot of room for stupid decisions.


REOreddit t1_j6kfz8s wrote

Nobody is arguing that it isn't better to have both in NATO. But the truth is that Sweden and Finland have a lot more to gain from joining NATO than Turkey. So basically, Turkey can prolong this situation forever, the same way their candidacy to the EU is frozen. If Sweden doesn't want to make key concessions to Turkey, then they will not join NATO, not today and not in 20 years from now. If Finland wants to share the same future, so be it, but everybody would be safer, including Sweden, if at least Finland they joins NATO. And Finland saying they will not join without Sweden doesn't have any effect on Turkey's position.