How long before Sweden and Finland join NATO?

[Moose]

How long do you think it will take for Sweden and Finland to join NATO?
Would the political leadership overrule the populous who apparently are against joining?

Any Swedes or Finns that would care to comment?

[Jµµso]

I'm no expert but it looks that Finland, is going to NATO before year 2015. At least media is making it's best effort to give postitive image about joining to NATO.

[1911-a1]

If i remember correctly, Sweden was asked to join, but since we are "neutral", we decided not to. I might be wrong though.

[Haell]

Oh snap! I thought Finland was a member. -Shows how much I know! Hehe...
Sweden also have a Nato-friendly goverment. But we also have (Sweden) a very large community of far-left and middle-left social-democrats who oppose it...

[Moose]

Remember Sweden isn’t neutral only none aligned there is quite a difference.

Finland might easily be coursed in to NATO. Sweden is constantly taking steps to make its armed forces more and more reliant upon NATOs umbrella.

What are some of the pros and cons of joining the alliance?

Can there be any other final outcome?

[Cpl.K]

I think Finland will eventually join as the FDF is downsized more and more and made dependant on NATO. Not sure if it will even happen in the next decade, though. I'm a bit split on whether or not it's a good thing, I'm most worried about if Finland could retain its universal conscription system in NATO or not, it's the only way to defend this country with or without NATO membership. The realist side of me says that conscription would first go Swedens' way of becoming a joke and eventually abandoned.

[Basillicus]

I'd say that without "war on terror" we would be already very close joining NATO. Now NATO however is associated to failed US foreign politics and because of this there's such a strong opposition among people that not many politics want to touch this topic. It's hard to say how this plays out, I guess it depends what happens in the USA after Bush is out and on the other hand how things develop in Russia (doesn't look good IMO).

[Haell]

[...] The realist side of me says that conscription would first go Swedens' way of becoming a joke and eventually abandoned.

Ouch that hurt:-( Haha, but you are correct. Most males 18-20 yo dont appreciate nor do they take it seriously... But Finland recquire all males to do service, even the ones that dont want to?

[kosse]

I believe the drawbacks of NATO membership far outweigh the benefits. According to recent polls 60-70% of the Finnish population seem to share my view.

I trust independent and credible defence much more than becoming just another leech nation with lilliput army that counts on US to come to aid when the sh!t hits the fan.

[kosse]

I can't think of any reason why Russia would want to invade us. The Soviet Union did not try it after WW2 - what makes you Russia would threaten us? They have more than enough land to try to cling to.. In addition, we have a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia and I seriously doubt either side wants to break it. It is of course important to follow closely the developments in Russia but as of yet it's no reason to rush to NATO.

[kosse]

But Finland recquire all males to do service, even the ones that dont want to?

Either military, civil service or jail.

[IronFinn]

I think Finland will eventually join as the FDF is downsized more and more and made dependant on NATO.

And this is the biggest threat to FDF (and Finland) since there seems to be some general idea among the media that because of NATO we do not need to spend so much money to Army. There have been even such statements that because of NATO we would not need to have our own air force (high cost of planes) since NATO would provide us with air cover. Jeez!
First and foremost finns have to understand that we are the ones who will defend this country and with sufficient number of equipment and men. If we are not able to do it then no one is. Being a member of NATO doesn´t change that.

[Moose]

The Swedish prime minister has repeatedly announced that Sweden (he) would consider joining NATO if Finland would be interested in doing the same. If one considers the changes being made by both countries regarding defence structure one can clearly see that there is a will to further integrate their respective defences with the EU.

Now considering the fact that the biggest countries in the EU are members of NATO one could easily draw the conclusion that further integration with acommon European defence would thus mean a further integration with NATO and all that it brings?

[kosse]

And this is the biggest threat to FDF (and Finland) since there seems to be some general idea among the media that because of NATO we do not need to spend so much money to Army. There have been even such statements that because of NATO we would not need to have our own air force (high cost of planes) since NATO would provide us with air cover. Jeez!
First and foremost finns have to understand that we are the ones who will defend this country and with sufficient number of equipment and men. If we are not able to do it then no one is. Being a member of NATO doesn´t change that.
2x. This is my greatest fear too. It's totally retarded to think that someone else will fight our war for us. Plus it would be a disgrace to become a leech sucking on the side of the US.

[kosse]

The Swedish prime minister has repeatedly announced that Sweden (he) would consider joining NATO if Finland would be interested in doing the same. If one considers the changes being made by both countries regarding defence structure one can clearly see that there is a will to further integrate their respective defences with the EU.

Now considering the fact that the biggest countries in the EU are members of NATO one could easily draw the conclusion that further integration with acommon European defence would thus mean a further integration with NATO and all that it brings?

If Sweden really wanted to contribute to the safety of Northern Europe it would seek deeper defence cooperation with Finland..possibly even common defence. But no, they rather let us pay the bill and let us take care of their defence for them as can be seen from Sweden's focus on peacekeeping.

If we'd join our capabilities there'd never be need for an organisation such as NATO. We'd be safe against just about anything but a nuclear attack.

[Cpl.K]

Now considering the fact that the biggest countries in the EU are members of NATO one could easily draw the conclusion that further integration with acommon European defence would thus mean a further integration with NATO and all that it brings?

As far as I know, there are no real plans for a common EU defence. EU BGs don't count.

A NATO membership meaning closer international cooperation and stronger defence would be positive, not one meaning reforming into a small "professional" military for fighting Anglo-Saxon oil wars.

[ozumn]

Never ever will we join that crap.

[Wall]

NATO we do not need to spend so much money to Army.
Weird. Some leftist 'criticize' NATO, because it might rise our defense budjet...
What should i believe?

[tafkaf]

Sweden’s relationship to NATO has always been a bit ambiguous. We have been officially no aligned in peacetime in order to be neutral in wartime even since before WW1.
However, already in the early 1950s we had an extensive, and secret, co-operation with NATO. One small example is that converted DC3s routinely flew intelligence gathering sorties with top secret US equipment onboard. This equipment for radio and radar tracking was so state-of-the-art that it was operated by US personnel who always had to be on the flights. These DC3s were flying up and down the Baltic Sea parallel to the Baltic coast, eavesdropping on Soviet military activity. Often they would fly over Soviet territorial waters and at least one of these planes was shot down by the Soviet air force and the whole crew, including the US specialist, was lost.

Since then and up until the present there has been many different kinds of co-operation between Sweden and NATO, the latest being the small Swedish unit in Afghanistan. There is talk of expanding the Swedish presence but I don’t know were this is standing at the moment.

But, for Sweden to join NATO is a very different question. There is a solid majority against joining NATO in the Swedish parliament and public opinion is largely negative. I think that something radical has to happen before Sweden would join NATO.

It may seem strange to outsiders that Sweden has this longstanding relationship with NATO and still don’t want to join but this is how Swedish politics always works. We are experts on this “kind of” joining things but still not committing fully. It’s like this business of joining the EU but not the EURO currency. This is one of these things that make it difficult to be Swedish. ;)

[signatory]

NATO is just a paper tiger so it doesn't really matter if you join or not. Sweden is allied in the EU and a partner to NATO I don't see any reason to take the final step because it would only allow politicans to start depend on NATO too much.


If Sweden really wanted to contribute to the safety of Northern Europe it would seek deeper defence cooperation with Finland..possibly even common defence. But no, they rather let us pay the bill and let us take care of their defence for them as can be seen from Sweden's focus on peacekeeping.

If we'd join our capabilities there'd never be need for an organisation such as NATO. We'd be safe against just about anything but a nuclear attack.

Eh you're really overestimating the strength of the Finnish defense forces. It's really a cannon fodder army for the most part and a small surface navy and a air force with a need to be upgraded. It's true that we train fewer men each year but we're also giving the home guard better weapons and more responsibility. And you lack the heavy ticket sensor systems, R&D activities and equipment that exists in Sweden. It's a bit more costly than simply instruct a soldier how to shoot a rifle then store him in a reserve force. Start taking the heavy costs in buying ultra modern equipment, airborn and artillery radars, SIGINT/ELINT/EW systems, submarines and precision weapons and we can talk...

[Buckeye67]

I don't have anything material to add to the political scope of the discussion. I'd just like to say that, as an american, I'd love to see Finland and Sweden in NATO because you guys are cool as hell. :)

[Leaper]

NATO is just a paper tiger so it doesn't really matter if you join or not. Sweden is allied in the EU and a partner to NATO I don't see any reason to take the final step because it would only allow politicans to start depend on NATO too much.



Eh you're really overestimating the strength of the Finnish defense forces. It's really a cannon fodder army for the most part and a small surface navy and a air force with a need to be upgraded. It's true that we train fewer men each year but we're also giving the home guard better weapons and more responsibility. And you lack the heavy ticket sensor systems, R&D activities and equipment that exists in Sweden. It's a bit more costly than simply instruct a soldier how to shoot a rifle then store him in a reserve force. Start taking the heavy costs in buying ultra modern equipment, airborn and artillery radars, SIGINT/ELINT/EW systems, submarines and precision weapons and we can talk...


Maybe combine swedish material with finish manpower?

[kosse]

Eh you're really overestimating the strength of the Finnish defense forces. It's really a cannon fodder army for the most part and a small surface navy and a air force with a need to be upgraded.

Very well. The old infantry brigades are cannon fodder but the point was that maybe we could disband those units and use the resources for jaeger brigades if the Swedes would contribute to the defence by providing brigades of their own, planes and ships. This is of course very hypothetical thinking.


It's true that we train fewer men each year but we're also giving the home guard better weapons and more responsibility.I don't believe the home guard has even as heavy equipment as our infantry brigades..I might be wrong though.


And you lack the heavy ticket sensor systems, R&D activities and equipment that exists in Sweden.Well, we have an army and you have equipment. Now what would make sense? p-)


It's a bit more costly than simply instruct a soldier how to shoot a rifle then store him in a reserve force.I don't know where you get your info but FDF training is a bit more advanced than just instructing how to shoot a rifle. Everyone are trained to use specific equipment as their wartime task. It's true though that the reserves aren't trained nearly enough.


Start taking the heavy costs in buying ultra modern equipment, airborn and artillery radars, SIGINT/ELINT/EW systems, submarines and precision weapons and we can talk...More money could be spent..I agree. Maybe it would be possible if we wouldn't have to try to arm so ridiculously large army (350 000). If you could contribute.. say 150 000, and we the other half maybe we could afford to buy proper equipment for them.

[IronFinn]

Weird. Some leftist 'criticize' NATO, because it might rise our defense budjet...
What should i believe?

It depends, what do you want to believe in. The main point is, weather or not we would join NATO, the Army needs more money. Simple as that.


kosse: More money could be spent..I agree. Maybe it would be possible if we wouldn't have to try to arm so ridiculously large army (350 000). If you could contribute.. say 150 000, and we the other half maybe we could afford to buy proper equipment for them

350 000 men is the minimum to defend our land mass. We have something like 1300km border with Russia and to think that it could be defended with less that 350 000 men is plain ridiculous. It is just not possible.
As for the 150 000 men from Sweden... well, the last time we needed their help we got the cold treatment.. but that is another story ;).

[Kilkenny]

I'm a little confused here. Finland and Sweden both had forces in Kosovo in 99 as part of a NATO run mission there, Ireland too had a contingent. So even though your not a part of NATO you can still be a part of their missions. To this day I still don't understand why Russia was there? anyway that's another story.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Force

[Wall]

I dont know a lot of politics, but which partys are most pro-NATO partys in Finland?
National coalition (Kok) swedish people's party (RKP) and ?

And most opposite-nato are VAS., SKP and ?

What i have heard even in SDP there is little bit of pro-nato people.
What is opionon of keskusta?

[Thor]

I personally don't see NATO as a guarantee. For me a realistic scenario in a conflict with Russia (who else?) is real military support from NATO corresponding to the level of allied support that Norway received in 1940.

Plus supplies, ammunition etc. But that would we receive anyway.

[signatory]

Very well. The old infantry brigades are cannon fodder but the point was that maybe we could disband those units and use the resources for jaeger brigades if the Swedes would contribute to the defence by providing brigades of their own, planes and ships. This is of course very hypothetical thinking.

Well I like that thinking and I would like to see more army exercises with Finland, including the home guard with appropriate Finnish forces.

The HG is in a transformation too, they have dramatically reduced the average age and introduced rapid reaction companies. They get used quite a bit these days. I remember earlier this year they on short notice got to protect a US military transport and another event was the NATO exercise with ships docked in Gothenburg.

Equipment wise they got per standard AK4B with reddot sights, Carl Gustav grenade launchers, machine guns and the basic stuff, then they got small numbers of Combat Boat 90, Night Vision gear, AT-4, AK5 and PSG-90 sniper rifles. And urban warfare training. But other people here know much more about HG than I do.


More money could be spent..I agree. Maybe it would be possible if we wouldn't have to try to arm so ridiculously large army (350 000). If you could contribute.. say 150 000, and we the other half maybe we could afford to buy proper equipment for them.

I think your organisation will be 350K but the army ~235,000 ? I guess I read it here on mp.net a while back. It's my understanding the bulk of the 235,000 is men with just 6 month training. Specialists and officers a full year.

Compare that to the Russian bear who normally train conscripts 24 months, they blend in professionals and got the big ticket hardware. Then we see Finland equipment wise going from quantity to quality and that's good but the numbers procured per product is painfully small.

Personally I would much rather see twice the equipment (Tanks, Sensors, SPH, IFV's etc) and half the reserve force in Finland than the current structure. I don't know how much the reserve system costs.. last I read the FDF didn't train as many as they would like because of increased costs elsewhere such as on fuel.

Sweden does produce fewer anually trained but individually they get trained longer (minimum 11 months) with more of the modern equipment including force multipliers. In peace time if I had to make a choice I prefer having updated equipment in storage rather than large amount of troops. Takes longer and is more expensive to get hardware than to train someone on how to use it.

Anyway we'll see what will happen.. I think the Finnish army will continue to shrink and Sweden will go all-voluntary during peace time. NATO beyond 2020 if ever... And don't get me wrong I am not totally happy with the Swedish military but I wouldn't trade it for Finland's just yet.. we got too much cool equipment p-)

[IronFinn]

And don't get me wrong I am not totally happy with the Swedish military but I wouldn't trade it for Finland's just yet.. we got too much cool equipment p-)

We still could conquer you in no time since we got what really counts, balls. ;) :-P.

[Thor]

We still could conquer you in no time since we got what really counts, balls. ;) :-P.
Hence why we ruled you for 800 years?

[IronFinn]

You just suprised us pants down since we had just fought couple of devastating fights agains Novgorod. Besides, we all know Sweden was a great power because they had finns to fight their wars. When Finland was removed from the kingdom the result was like castration. The manly part of the country was taken away, no more wars for Sweden p-).

ps. and it was like more 600 years ;).

[Leaper]

Cmon guys. Keep it on topic and send PMs with your stupid opinions.


I think Sweden should join ASAP. But i dont know about Finland. There budget is like half of Swedens and Swedens is little enough.
What i mean is that Finland whould have, atleast i think, problems getting NATO standard equipment. But thats just me, my opinion.

[Basillicus]

I think the biggest benefit of NATO would be air power. It would seem that especially in the future small country like Finland just can't maintain any kind of sufficient air forces. And AF is something that's easy to fly in during a conflict if some preparations are done. Joining NATO we could perhaps concentrate more money for the Army?

If we had more mobility in the form of APCs, IFVs and SPA we wouldn't necessarely need to modernize such a large portion of our forces since they would have the flexibility to move where they are needed. These forces could be well armed, and the rest would be 2nd line troops with light equipment and training that would mostly defend fixed strategically important targets. After all the Russians would probably attack only some specific points along our border and the reason we have the need for such huge land forces now is the lack of mobility and probably air defence for most parts. So few more mechanized Jaeger brigades, some NATO air cover and most of the infantry brigades could be phased out.

[Cpl.K]

NATO is just a paper tiger so it doesn't really matter if you join or not.I hardly know how to respond to this. NATO as an organisation is pretty damn huge and a bit more than a bunch of signatures on paper.



Equipment wise they got per standard AK4B with reddot sights, Carl Gustav grenade launchers, machine guns and the basic stuff, then they got small numbers of Combat Boat 90, Night Vision gear, AT-4, AK5 and PSG-90 sniper rifles. And urban warfare training. But other people here know much more about HG than I do.

Why did you line up all those fancy names when you could have just said "modern small arms and not organically motorized"? You even threw in "urban warfare training" and "red dot sights"? Are you somehow impressed by that yourself? This is not a quip, I am serious.


I think your organisation will be 350K but the army ~235,000 ? I guess I read it here on mp.net a while back. It's my understanding the bulk of the 235,000 is men with just 6 month training. Specialists and officers a full year.

Compare that to the Russian bear who normally train conscripts 24 months, they blend in professionals and got the big ticket hardware.Is this a joke? Yes, I would compare an average Finnish reservist to a Russian "trained" conscript or "professional" any day of the week.


It's a bit more costly than simply instruct a soldier how to shoot a rifle then store him in a reserve force.And who are you claiming does this, exactly?


Sweden does produce fewer anually trained but individually they get trained longer (minimum 11 months)

The amounts trained aren't even comparable last time I checked. Sweden is abandoning conscription anyway. Are you really defending Sweden's capability for invasion defence? Because the Swedish military has officially abandoned that concept, and it is painfully obvious if you look at the wartime organisation.


In peace time if I had to make a choice I prefer having updated equipment in storage rather than large amount of troops. Takes longer and is more expensive to get hardware than to train someone on how to use it.You have no idea what you're talking about.


Hence why we ruled you for 800 years?Ouch. :)

[Wall]

Yes, I would compare an average Finnish reservist to a Russian "trained" conscript or "professional" any day of the week.

And finnish has advantange, you think?

[Cpl.K]

And finnish has advantange, you think?

Sorry, I don't want to bring the Slavic crew down on this thread.

edit: For anyone reading the post below, don't misunderstand, reservists are trained regularly but reservist exercises have been in a slump for the past few years because of lack of funding, the amount is now supposed to be raised once again to several tens of thousands retrained each year. My company was called to a reservist exercise 6 months after our conscript service ended.

[kosse]

I would not be so sure about the edge of an ordinary beer belly reservist over a russian one. Especially when reservists don't get any training..All in all, it's pretty naive to to think that Russians soldiers are worse trained, on the contrary, 24 months pretty much guarantees itself that they'll do at least as well or better than Finnish 6 months reservists.

[Cyclonite]

I'm not sure if you, Signatory, fully realize the massiveness of the run through that would take place in time of invasion. While it is understandable for you to trade the number of real war time units for improved gear and better pr, we certainly can't afford to do the same if we want to maintain a credible defense. That is, a sufficient number of well lead and optimally structured war time units with sufficient communications, technology and man power to wage persistent and wearing asymmetric warfare on a very large scale, which you refer to as "cannon fodder" replacable by a small number of units with slightly fancier gear.

You mock the AF as if your own, some tenths more funded, would essentially stand a chance to carry out interception missions much longer (I think it's naive to think either of us could carry it on forever no matter how advanced and superior you think your AF was), they are there to provide peace time surveillaince, and should the sht hit the fan, buy as much time as possible.

There are various other and far more imminent threats than an all-out Russian invasion these days, but for that one scenario a large number of capable war time units is the definite cornerstone of defense. Forcing the enemy into a continued conflict binding material and men on an easily denied terrain favoring sparsely scattered defender, should make the neighbor ponder twice before throwing his war machine in, whatever the strange reason might be. That's the basis of my thinking anyway, you listing some single (even team level) weapons that your units of marginal quantity use, is not necessarily relevant to this certain discussion.

With this in mind, I would like to see Sweden taking more responsibility here in Scandinavia, even if it meant less play time with the big boys. I would definately rather like to see my tax money going for Norway/Sweden/Finland cooperation rather than NATO. I think the general attitudes are still somewhat different though, due to the other one never having been through any modern wars.

Joining NATO, taking more money away from the national defense budget and reducing the number of our own units, thus, seems absurd. Especially when it's easier to acquire technology (and get as a support, as was the case last time) than prepared war time units on a tighter schedule. None else is gonna fight the war for us, period.

[Basillicus]

I would not be so sure about the edge of an ordinary beer belly reservist over a russian one. Especially when reservists don't get any training..All in all, it's pretty naive to to think that Russians soldiers are worse trained, on the contrary, 24 months pretty much guarantees itself that they'll do at least as well or better than Finnish 6 months reservists.

Well, that 24 months can be used for all kinds of stuff some of which isn't necessarely useful at all. Difficult to say.

I'd say that the advantages of a mediocre Finnish guy is that he's more educated, giving advantage with technical stuff, more self-reliant, and he also probably has overally better health. The Russian guy on the other hand is probably tougher both mentally and physically and may have better training. Finnish guy might also be more motivated since he is defending his home where the Russian guy is probably wondering that why the hell he's risking his life conquering some damn Finland. I'd also say that Finnish leaders may be better since they truly are the most capable and intelligent of their age group, while AFAIK in Russia you can easily skip military service if you have some talents.

[Leaper]

Well, that 24 months can be used for all kinds of stuff some of which isn't necessarely useful at all. Difficult to say.

I'd say that the advantages of a mediocre Finnish guy is that he's more educated, giving advantage with technical stuff, more self-reliant, and he also probably has overally better health. The Russian guy on the other hand is probably tougher both mentally and physically and may have better training. Finnish guy might also be more motivated since he is defending his home where the Russian guy is probably wondering that why the hell he's risking his life conquering some damn Finland. I'd also say that Finnish leaders may be better since they truly are the most capable and intelligent of their age group, while AFAIK in Russia you can easily skip military service if you have some talents.


Or maybe the standard 18 year old kid in Finland dont get time to evolve into a good soldier. Russia has 24 months, Sweden 11-20, and Finland 6-12.

I think that the standard finish conscript is traind to short and that Finland should get a professional army sense they semes to have alot of "aaaah motherland" types in there army. To get more out of the young men and woman serving there defence forces. Maybe Finland should come with the idea to join all Scandinavian countrys, not whine about Sweden to do it.

And if Finland is so scared to get invaded by the russians, why not join NATO f*ucking ricky-tick to ensure that they will resive help in event of war?


Just thoughts but maybe some of you should contact the Finish goverment and give the suggestion.

Cheers

[Wall]

Well, that 24 months can be used for all kinds of stuff some of which isn't necessarely useful at all. Difficult to say.

And everything what you do in Finland (6,9 or 12 months) is useful...


Finland should get a professional army sense they semes to have alot of "aaaah motherland" types in there army
What you mean by this? Nothing wrong if you like your motherland.

[Moose]

I respect everybody’s thoughts and ideas brought up under this”discussion” it’s been some interesting reading and I hope the thread continues.
Hopefully it will get back on topic and not slip of its course.
Keep it clean.
I wonder if there are any individuals on this forum from a NATO country that could explain the perceived pros and cons of the membership on their military.

[Leaper]

And everything what you do in Finland (6,9 or 12 months) is useful...


What you mean by this? Nothing wrong if you like your motherland.


Get me right. Im swedish, loving my country and whould do anything for it.
And if Finland whould get invaded I swear in Jesus christ name that I whould get over there as fast as I can and do everything I could for them to win. So love your motherland, and do everything for it. Maybe Finish boys and galls want to serve more that 6 months?

[IronFinn]

I think the biggest benefit of NATO would be air power. It would seem that especially in the future small country like Finland just can't maintain any kind of sufficient air forces. And AF is something that's easy to fly in during a conflict if some preparations are done. Joining NATO we could perhaps concentrate more money for the Army?

This is excatly what I was protesting against in my previous post. If we cannot defend our own air space then don´t think others will do that for us.


If we had more mobility in the form of APCs, IFVs and SPA we wouldn't necessarely need to modernize such a large portion of our forces since they would have the flexibility to move where they are needed. These forces could be well armed, and the rest would be 2nd line troops with light equipment and training that would mostly defend fixed strategically important targets. After all the Russians would probably attack only some specific points along our border and the reason we have the need for such huge land forces now is the lack of mobility and probably air defence for most parts. So few more mechanized Jaeger brigades, some NATO air cover and most of the infantry brigades could be phased out.

I think Cyclonite´s reply to signatory answered to this quite well and I truly agree with him on that. Newer ever think that wars are not fought "conventional" anymore.

[Cpl.K]

Or maybe the standard 18 year old kid in Finland dont get time to evolve into a good soldier. Russia has 24 months, Sweden 11-20, and Finland 6-12.

I can say from personal experience that time spent in military service (mostly living in barracks?) does not in any way correlate to being a good soldier. If you really want to play that game, IIRC the average time of conscript service in the FDF is over 9 months, and as I understand it the Swedish military's is close to 11. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Maybe Finish boys and galls want to serve more that 6 months? If they want to serve 1 year, they can, unless they're blithering idiots (of course there are always some unlucky exceptions). The military will generally send any volunteer to NCO school (1 year service), some people are forced there if they are deemed fitting by their superiors.


I think that the standard finish conscript is traind to short and that Finland should get a professional army sense they semes to have alot of "aaaah motherland" types in there army. To get more out of the young men and woman serving there defence forces.All the "aaaah motherland" types (in Finland it's called fatherland) will definitely do their conscript service. In a recent study, 72% of Finnish men aged 15-30 said that they would do their military service even if it they weren't forced to. If a Finnish reservist wants to continue with a military career he can either as officer, NCO or for example peacekeeper or in the special forces. There is already a shortage of applicants to many of these jobs.

It seems perverse to me to speak of the Finnish asevelvollinen or varusmies as "conscript" in English because the word has such a negative sound to it, it brings to mind the image of some undernourished kid digging foxholes with a rusty shovel. Most (?) Finnish conscripts will complain as hell about all the crap they have to do in the military, but still call civilian servicemen faggots. Military service is largely considered a national duty and the mark of a man. Whether that's healthy/right or not is another matter.


Maybe Finland should come with the idea to join all Scandinavian countrys, not whine about Sweden to do it.What? Didn't understand this part. Finland is whining about Sweden joining the Scandinavian countries?


And if Finland is so scared to get invaded by the russians, why not join NATO f*ucking ricky-tick to ensure that they will resive help in event of war?NATO membership does not technically ensure any help, but I know what you mean. It is more complicated by that. Finns are (maybe rightfully) afraid of a NATO membership pulling the country into oil wars or conflicts between major powers. NATO is a cooperative alliance and expects something from Finland in return.


And if Finland whould get invaded I swear in Jesus christ name that I whould get over there as fast as I can and do everything I could for them to win.OK, get back to me when you have sworn the Finnish soldier's oath (or any oath, for that matter). Swearing on Internet forums is easy and fun, though.


And everything what you do in Finland (6,9 or 12 months) is useful...Nobody said that.

[Wall]

Nobody said that.
Well, what is the point of saying "Something in russian military service might be not useful", when we there in Finland have same thing?
If we cannot compare how much there is things, that arent useful, i dont get the point..

[p2pPower]

Well my view in this matter is that Finland should never join in NATO, but more try to drive on idea of european defence community and closer co-operation. And what I have understood is that most of finnish ppl is not interested joining in NATO. And if we join in NATO wouldnt that be that goverment acts against ppl?:) Theres more questions too:D how about Finland would put moneys what would go in NATO to its own defence budget wouldnt it douple from what we have now? So would we then have any need for NATO membership really?

[IronFinn]

Well my view in this matter is that Finland should never join in NATO, but more try to drive on idea of european defence community and closer co-operation. And what I have understood is that most of finnish ppl is not interested joining in NATO. And if we join in NATO wouldnt that be that goverment acts against ppl?:) Theres more questions too:D how about Finland would put moneys what would go in NATO to its own defence budget wouldnt it douple from what we have now? So would we then have any need for NATO membership really?

Since most of the finns are againsts joining NATO then any politician thinking doing that would endanger his career and I doubt they are willing to do that. In the other hand, I have understood that most finns are favourable towards common EU defence (correct me if I´m wrong). This would then be a logical course to take.

[Cpl.K]

Since most of the finns are againsts joining NATO then any politician thinking doing that would endanger his career and I doubt they are willing to do that. In the other hand, I have understood that most finns are favourable towards common EU defence (correct me if I´m wrong). This would then be a logical course to take.

The EU has no capability for common defence and no real plans to develop it outside of peacekeeping, almost no EU countries have FDF-style large conscript militaries anymore anyway, but relatively small professional armies aimed toward force projection. This is reflected in the EU battle group concept. EU countries have already been part of a unified defence for decades, good luck trying to interest them in what would basically be NATO minus the USA.

[CPL Trevoga]

Sweet Jesus!!! I you missed the latest developements, but guys in Russia care more about looking metro****** than defending Motherlad from Finnish and Swedish agression. It's a sad situation. You see, Russia is becoming dangerously short of swamps and fir trees, and we know about certain country up north that has plenty of that stuff, but the new generation cares more about going clubbing, partying and chillin'.

[Leaper]

Cpl.k
Quote:
Maybe Finland should come with the idea to join all Scandinavian countrys, not whine about Sweden to do it.
What? Didn't understand this part. Finland is whining about Sweden joining the Scandinavian countries?


This is what i mean. Why not finland?



With this in mind, I would like to see Sweden taking more responsibility here in Scandinavia, even if it meant less play time with the big boys. I would definately rather like to see my tax money going for Norway/Sweden/Finland cooperation rather than NATO. I think the general attitudes are still somewhat different though, due to the other one never having been through any modern wars.

[Ubar]

You see, Russia is becoming dangerously short of swamps and fir trees, and we know about certain country up north that has plenty of that stuff,

haha, excellent :D

[Dean1962]

I'm a little confused here. Finland and Sweden both had forces in Kosovo in 99 as part of a NATO run mission there, Ireland too had a contingent. So even though your not a part of NATO you can still be a part of their missions. To this day I still don't understand why Russia was there? anyway that's another story.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Force

IIRC, Kosovo started out as a NATO mission, but quickly became a UN one. In addition, the EU was heavily involved. The Russians were there at the request of the Serbs, with whom they have close historic ties.

[Dean1962]

I personally don't see NATO as a guarantee. For me a realistic scenario in a conflict with Russia (who else?) is real military support from NATO corresponding to the level of allied support that Norway received in 1940.

Plus supplies, ammunition etc. But that would we receive anyway.

Not a valid argument. In 1940, the only Allied country that could come to Norway's aid was Britain, and they did as much as they could. The British Army had been hammered in France, France had already surrendered after having been blitzkrieged, and the US was still clinging to the fantasy of remaining neutral. Britian sent what it could, but in the end, naval sorties and air raids could not replace boots on the ground, and Norway fell.
NATO's current Reforger strategy is far better organized and easier to implement. From the time a crisis is declared to the time that other fully equipped Allied troops show up is less than a week. During WW II, nobody could have done a thing in less than two months. By then, it was already over.

Dean.

[fingon]

My personal opinion is that Finland should join the alliance. Reasons for this are well discussed and I don't have the will to explain them right now.

It's true that we shouldn't really be afraid of somebody invading our little country at the moment. But bear in mind that every time of peace seems to last forever. 60 years is relatively short time and we have to prepared if things start to change.

[Jii]

IIRC, Kosovo started out as a NATO mission, but quickly became a UN one. In addition, the EU was heavily involved. The Russians were there at the request of the Serbs, with whom they have close historic ties.

It still is a NATO mission, but it has a UN mandate, like most missions out there.

NATO or no NATO, we need a bigger defence budget.

[pacifist]

Maybe we should just get nukes?

Then any country would think twice about invading us.

[pacifist]

...but the new generation cares more about going clubbing, partying and chillin'.

That's great.

I hope that's true.

[IronFinn]

Maybe we should just get nukes?

Then any country would think twice about invading us.


x 2, I agree totally. with nukes we don´t need no alliances.

[Basillicus]

x 2, I agree totally. with nukes we don´t need no alliances.

Let's join the Axis of Evil, we already have good experience of this axis stuff. Though we never are really allied with them but we are only "cobelligerents". We could start manufacturing nukes with our new power plant and sell them to the highest bidder. Screw Nokia and mobile phones, the atomic era is here. woot

[asch]

p-)
question: "how long before Sweden and Finland join NATO?"
answer: "we must get some nukes!"
hehe.

[joka]

When ratified, The Lisbon Treaty will offer more binding safety guarantees than the 5th article of NATO. If memory serves me right it goes something along the lines of "all available assistance" in the Lisbon treaty and "help deemed necessary" in the 5th article of NATO. But of course as 21 of 27 EU member states are NATO members, all help will still go through NATO structures.

At this point it is pointless to talk about non alliance or neutrality, Finland and Sweden are allied. As it is pointless to remain outside the defense structures of the organization that is entrusted with the territorial defense of Europe.

I think it's fitting to state that the majority of officers, and the council of conscripts in Finland favor NATO membership ie. The people who would actually have to fight any potential war. People with the comfort of not having to put their lives at stake have been lulled in to an illusion of "credible defense" with fancy numbers like "5th largest army in Europe", when the substance behind that claim is a poorly equipped force preparing for a trench war. These people have no quarrels of playing with people's lives as long as they get the luxury of being too cool for USA's gang.

[kosse]

I think it's fitting to state that the majority of officers, and the council of conscripts in Finland favor NATO membership ie. The people who would actually have to fight any potential war.

O'rly? Most of the people fighting in any potential war are NOT officers. And by officers you propably mean active duty professionals that are very few in numbers. I don't see how some paper council is going fight any war either, actually I've never heard of this so-called council. Must be a powerful organisation :roll:


People with the comfort of not having to put their lives at stake have been lulled in to an illusion of "credible defense" with fancy numbers like "5th largest army in Europe", when the substance behind that claim is a poorly equipped force preparing for a trench war. These people have no quarrels of playing with people's lives as long as they get the luxury of being too cool for USA's gang.Oh noes, it's the evil commies again trying to destroy WHITE Finland. Please remind me what parties are in the government now..wait, why aren't they making decisions to buy masses of new equipment for the FDF but symbolic amounts of high-tech gadgets for a few brigades. How does this serve defending the whole country?

NATO is not going to fix our WW1 style army. Money will and NATO obligations won't make it any cheaper for us. Rightwing parties have a change to fix the problems now that they are in the government..why don't I see anything happening?

[Cpl.K]

Sweet Jesus!!! I you missed the latest developements, but guys in Russia care more about looking metro****** than defending Motherlad from Finnish and Swedish agression. It's a sad situation. You see, Russia is becoming dangerously short of swamps and fir trees, and we know about certain country up north that has plenty of that stuff, but the new generation cares more about going clubbing, partying and chillin'.

It's such a mystery what Russia wants from here but they have taken or tried to take it a whole ****load of times under a variety of names under a thousand years, so forgive us if we like to be prepared. Regular people rarely want to go to war, so I don't know what that has to do with anything.

[pacifist]

I don't know where i stand on this issue. It would be good to be in a strong military alliance, but NATO was suppose to be defensive, but now it's sticking it's nose to where it shouldn't.

NATO was involved in bombing Serbia even though it didn't attack any NATO country and now they're in Iraq too.

[Cpl.K]

NATO was involved in bombing Serbia even though it didn't attack any NATO country and now they're in Iraq too.

Wrong. Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I) or the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with NATO, except for a separate training mission for Iraqi police (NTM-I). I think you're confusing it with ISAF, which is NATO-led.

[Thor]

Here's an interesting article from FOI (Defence Research Institute) in Swedish regarding the US defence aid guarantee to Sweden in 1960 which was first revealed in 1994.
http://www.foi.se/FOI/templates/Page____3941.aspx

I can't really come to terms with the many pros and cons of a NATO membership. It would probably change some things that I value here for the worse but it would also speed up and push the current development further along. My wish is really that we would start investing in our defence again, not as massive numbers as before but maybe a division size professional force and a few regularly trained reserve divisions. Combined with a real financial injection into our defence industries.

However, with the current development in mind and the traitorish knobheads in power a NATO membership would as I see it be a guarantee of a certain level of military commitment from our own polticians. The defence guarantees according to article 5 I don't really know how to value since it hasn't been tested. Would other nations bleed for us and not just send equipment and moral support? I don't know.


You just suprised us pants down since we had just fought couple of devastating fights agains Novgorod.
Actually, we were fighting them during several hundred years since they interfered with our trade routes and competed for power in general. In reality what happened in the longer perspective was that Swedes and finnish-speaking peoples realized they had a common interest and as time went by more and more finnish-speaking tribes/regions were incorporated into the kingdom i.e. old settlements.


Besides, we all know Sweden was a great power because they had finns to fight their wars.
This seems to be a popular myth over there. Truth is it was a län (province) among others on equal terms.


When Finland was removed from the kingdom the result was like castration. The manly part of the country was taken away.
Yes, thankfully enough you have brought ToF to the world and a glimpse of the self-proclaimed finnish manliness. p-)


no more wars for Sweden p-)
More because we suffered from war fatigue, were bankrupt, suffered from a decimated population/manpower, food shortages etc. But Sweden proper survived and came out on top. And yes we did fight wars after that but perhaps on a different basis.


ps. and it was like more 600 years ;).
More like ~700 years, however there is no exact date to start from. The oldest Swedish settlements in present-day Finland goes back to the 9th century.

[eurostat]

IMO this is a great question. The Swedish Ambassador to the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, Ms Veronika Wand-Danielsson spoke recently about this for the NATO Channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/kpJes4gCe28

[Grey Stoat]

I think Finland should join NATO sometime this decade, maybe because we'd like to avoid a scenario in case of war where we have no allies, alone and vulnerable.:-(

[Derbedeu]

I think Finland should join NATO sometime this decade, maybe because we'd like to avoid a scenario in case of war where we have no allies, alone and vulnerable.:-(

Finland is all good (same goes for Sweden).

As your foreign minister Alexander Stubb put it, "Finland is not a neutral country. The policy of neutrality has been dropped over ten years ago. Finland is fully engaged in a European defense and security policy. We are 100% engaged in our common foreign security policy, and if any EU member state, which was in any which way threatened, militarily or otherwise, we would be fully engaged just like all EU member states. As far as NATO is concerned, we are as close to as you can be without full membership."

Obviously the reverse is true as well, in that Finland is protected by the common EU defense and security policy, and would have 26 members backing it in case it was ever threatened militarily or otherwise.

The Lisbon Treaty has already solidified this, and I do believe that we will see a greater evolution towards EU military integration in the next decade.

[jokuvaan]

Way I see it, Finland is not joining anytime soon as new EU treaty gives better guaranty. Security situation has changed a lot since days of Kekkonen when his sauna was main defence line against Soviet Union.

But if Russia is somehow able to reverse downhill of their armed forces and gets politically more hostile towards some EU members then Finland could be NATO member in a snap. This is current Finnish strategy, close to NATO as can be without being NATO member, ready to join if needed.

[IconOfEvi]

Anyone cosidered that NATO might collapse? Hell, the Iraq War, Third Gulf War, or whatever you wanna call it, it nearly split the alliance, what with not Germany, France, and Belgium's shenanigans.

[IronFinn]

p-)
question: "how long before Sweden and Finland join NATO?"
answer: "we must get some nukes!"
hehe.

As funny as it sounds that would remove our national security problem for good. :)

[Hrodgar]

Many of my friends whom I've debated this issue with are on both sides of the scale. Some of them want to scrap the whole army and others want more soldiers in training.

But both "camps" generally hade one problem with NATO, that it more or less is ruled by "the almight crook" USA. This was during the W Bush-years, so.. :roll:

My idea was simple. All EU countries create a pure EU "army" / coalition force. USA is already so big as an armed force that it don't need NATO. NATO needs USA. Why not pool the EU resources instead and create a EUFOR then?

But then of course the ranting of possible war of EUFOR vs USA. Yes, of course. There will automaticly be a war just because USA then wants a show of force. :cantbeli:I have quite conspiratorial friends.

I wouldn't mind Sweden joining NATO, but I would prefer a pure European Army Coalition. It would have great access of the best economy, best personel and best equipment! And it would still be a peacekeeping force and not an aggressive force.

To sum it up.
As a Swede; NATO? All for it. But will we do it? Don't really think so. We have, as already mentioned, since the 17th century taken on a far to timid role. "War you say? Nah, don't think so, but if you promise not to hurt us, we will let you do stuff here?"

We in Sweden need to ramp our military branch up again, if not at least for all the jobs created with just having that sector up and running again!

[CPL Trevoga]

[QUOTE=Thor;2956482
More because we suffered from war fatigue, were bankrupt, suffered from a decimated population/manpower, food shortages etc. But Sweden proper survived and came out on top. And yes we did fight wars after that but perhaps on a different basis.


More like ~700 years, however there is no exact date to start from. The oldest Swedish settlements in present-day Finland goes back to the 9th century.[/QUOTE]

Ha ha Thor, you got banned. You commie bastard.

[asch]

As funny as it sounds that would remove our national security problem for good. :)
hahah, kind of true. :)

on a side note, people should stop answering three years old posts. p-)

[vedenant]

But both "camps" generally hade one problem with NATO, that it more or less is ruled by "the almight crook" USA. This was during the W Bush-years, so.. :roll:

And that is the true problem of the popular discussion about NATO both here in Fi as well as in Swe; people have been for so long been threatened with that old "If we join NATO, we will become handpuppets of the EVIL U.S. of A!" that they no longer understand the true nature of NATO or its decision making process. Let's look at the war in Iraq (which can or cannot be blamed on the good ole GWB): How many NATO countries have troops participating or had troops participating, did US make do with out these forces because they wanted to, and hence forced these countries to stay out of the conflict, or would US have liked to have some more support for the invasion. If USA rules all things NATO, then why didn't all NATO countries participate? If war in Iraq isn't NATO op. then why not? Since USA rules the NATO, GWB could have easily forced NATO take responsibility over the invasion. How about Afghanistan? That surely is a NATO op, right? Then US should have no problem forcing all NATO countries to contribute more forces, right?

So much about that.

About Sweden and Finland; IMHO we don't need NATO if we would form an alliance under the rule of the Queen Victoria, we could once again wreck havoc across Europe, all of the lower europe would tremble with fear..... wait there's some one at the door..................................................................... ...............................................

[Mango Madness]

Ha ha Thor, you got banned. You commie bastard.

Didn't he make another account as Breerman?

[p2pPower]

About Sweden and Finland; IMHO we don't need NATO if we would form an alliance under the rule of the Queen Victoria, we could once again wreck havoc across Europe, all of the lower europe would tremble with fear..... wait there's some one at the door..................................................................... ...............................................

LOL Like U ever would see that day again when Finland is part of Sweden where your Kings and Queens would rule. I rather would sell my soul to devil and my land to chinese.

[oldsoak]

My advice to them both is stay out for their own good - and I like them. There's a loose cannon in the Black sea and until thats sorted out, I'd stay out.

[JRT]

The majority of Finnish officers are in favour of Finland joining NATO. 55,5% of officers favour the joining according to a recent poll made by the Officer Union of Finland.

Desire to join NATO is highest among the highest ranks: 74,3% of Generals and Colonels are in favour. Those who daily plan and uphold the defence of the nation see it necessary to join the alliance. Overall officers are more positive towards membership than ordinary citizens.

The poll was done via e-mail and 2472 officers from the rank of Cadet to a General gave their answers. The poll was sent to 3845 officers, so 64,3% answered. Margin of error is +- 1,5%.

The poll was conducted because the Officer Union wishes it's members would have their freedom of speach to give their statement as experts on the matter. On the other hand it was desired that the people can hear what the officers think on the matter.

The Officer Union of Finland has not taken a stand on the matter as an organization.

Navy and Army officers were more enthusiast of joining the alliance than Air Force officers. In my opinion this is due to the fact that the Air Force has the least international co-operation of the 3 services. Even below the Air Force was the Border Guard, again IMHO for the same reason.

Retired officers were more enthusiast of joining than those in service. The least enthusiast were Officer Cadets.

By rank Captains and Cadets were most against of joining, although 48,9% of Captains and 48,3% of Cadets were in favour.

Source (in Finnish)
https://www.upseeriliitto.fi/uutiset/julkiset_tiedotteet/upseerit_nato-jasenyyden_kannalla.html

[Kolya]

It's not going to happen for Sweden in the next 20 years.