Sweden and Finland came as a pack so lets talk about both of them.
Benefits:
It completely neutralizes the Russian Baltic Fleet.
The only railway line supporting Murmansk is less than 200km beyond the finnish border, which means the Nordic Fleet is also compromised.
Potential disadvantages of additional members are added political instability as can be seen with Hungary and Turkey. There is little chance of this with both countries.
Basically you dont defend members, you defend borders and adding Finland and Sweden to the pact makes for a far easier and better developed front. The Finns have been building bunkers and training their population for the next Russian invasion since WW2.
Having Finland as a member strengthens the position of the Baltics, who are threatened by the Suwalki corridor.
Basically it strengthens and stabilizes the northern border to Russia/Belarus.
EDIT: since other commenters don't know, yes it was signed into law, Sec 1250A of the 2024 NDAA:
>The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
If the commander in chief says that Russia can do 'whatever the hell they want' with NATO countries, it doesn't really matter if the US is still officially in NATO.
They made it illegal for him to do so, but Trump has made it clear that he does not view himself as accountable to the law, especially for any acts while President, so...
Maybe. Countries can leave the treaty. Congress and the Senate are trying to make it impossible for the president to unilaterally do this, but I don't know if that bill has passed yet. It's a bipartisan effort believe it or not, because even the most politic Republicans are not stupid. I expect it should pass before January 2025.
But who knows, maybe he can sabotage the alliance in other ways, or find some other way out.
There is no all else equal here. If your new member is the Democratic Republic of Congo the number would go up considerably. With Sweden/Finland it might very well go down since the border is far more defensible. But the US has a global footprint and those troops in Europe are nearer to potential conflicts in the middle east and northern Afrika, so it might make logistical sense to park them there anyway.
IMO it's still not certain NATO will hold together if Putin decides to attack the Baltic states or Poland. Many NATO countries will have sizeable factions of their electorate saying to not get involved.
The fact that Ukraine hasn't been easy for him makes it less likely that Putin will attempt that, but it's clearly been on his mind.
> IMO it's still not certain NATO will hold together if Putin decides to attack the Baltic states or Poland.
There is a reason forces of core NATO states farther from the Eastern flank are deployed to Poland and the Baltic states; it is practically impossible for Russia to attack them without attacking the forces of core NATO states, not just in a "legally, under Article 5, we must treat this as an attack" way, but in a "Russian troops are killing troops of those states" way.
Yep, Putin will absolutely try to grab new land whenever he thinks he can get away with it, no matter how many young Russian men die in the process. To him it's just a game to fulfill his fantasies of being a great conquering czar, and for that reason credibility of NATO's article 5 is vital.
Even the good relations between EU and Russia pre-2014 were just theater on Russia's part. Here in Finland during those years shady Russian businessmen kept buying properties that made no financial sense, but were located close to critical infrastructure or military locations. They have never acted in good faith.
> shady Russian businessmen kept buying properties that made no financial sense, but were located close to critical infrastructure or military locations.
AFAICT this topic has been mostly avoided by the Finnish media. I guess everyone just kinda trusts that the government is on top of the situation.
I think Putin would not invade Poland, it's just as strong or even stronger than Ukraine, with less corruption, better economy and defense treaties.
Baltics have always been the biggest risk. They are very small population-wise and can be "easily" cut off (Suwalki gap). But the addition of Sweden and Finland to the alliance will significantly improve the defense posture (airfields, maritime logistics).
I think if he is successful in Ukraine, Transnistra/Moldowa are the logical next step. Then he most likely would use his stooges like Orban and radicalized Russian minorities to create problems and wait for an opportunity.
But also, a bigger alliance creates a larger amount of territory to defend.
For example if the US were to leave NATO, they miss out on all the benefits that European NATO members provide, but also would not need to defend Europe, which is where any war involving NATO members is likely to happen.
It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.
NATO is the greatest power projection project the in the history of the world, and is in no small part why the US has achieved hegemonic status. The ability for the US to wage wars on the opposite side of the globe without major logistical issues is greatly aided by NATO bases that are simultaneously in very friendly territory, and much closer to the action.
NATO membership also means NATO equipment, which the US's military-industrial complex disproportionate benefits from, but also serves as lock-in: those extremely expensive aircraft are basically scrap without the appropriate service contracts and part availability, meaning any military that aligns itself with the US's tech is far less likely to be able to wage wars we don't approve of.
NATO also brings stability: nuclear red-line borders are unlikely to be invaded, reducing the chances of conflicts that are bad for business. A peaceful world is a profitable world, and those profits disproportionately go to the US.
NATO also provides soft power projection: NATO membership is a huge boon to its members, which grants the US leverage politically to encourage member states to adopt pro-US policies.
The US benefitted from NATO because if the Soviets has overrun Western Europe, there would have been what was essentially a single country (or a country and its satellites which it dominates militarily) stretching from the North Atlantic to the North Pacific, a country that probably would have become wealthier than the US and consequently eventually stronger militarily (if it had the political will to do so, which it probably would have). It was probably worth the expense for the US to have tried hard to prevent the formation of such a wealthier peer, just as it was worth the expense to prevent Germany from uniting most of Europe under its system during WWII (even ignoring the moral reasons for getting involved): being the wealthiest country in the system with the strongest military makes it less likely the country's civilians will get hurt or killed (by e.g. an invasion or a naval blockade).
In other words, there has been a strong streak of national self-interest (correctly calculated IMHO -- at least until the end of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union) in the US's contributions to NATO.
>it seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.
So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ?
From me a Romanian, feels very shitty that our soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan for America but now if we will need help Trumpists will not help back.
>So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ?
Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.
>Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.
1 That was not an Article 5 thing,
2 how many USA soldiers gave their life in Kosovoa?
3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.
>3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.
The American strategy in WWII was "Germany First" despite it having been the Japanese that attacked us.
And that strategy was somehow altruistic ? Explain? And explain why waiting to defend "Europe"
Anyway we talking about NATO, USA used Art5 and Europeans died for USA, but now Trumpists complain that we are not doing enough and USA will not return the favor
This history on this is well documented. The US was helping the allies before entering the war by providing weapons and resources. Before being attacked the US was isolationist (like “Trumpists”). It took getting punched in the mouth to muster the resolve to join the war. The attack on Pearl Harbor brought the UK to war with Japan and solidified allied resolve.
A deterrence, to make war too difficult to undertake.
Adding additional countries around the edge of NATO does two things for the countries currently in the pact, even if they aren't economic or military powerhouses. First, those countries are less likely to be attacked, and not having your neighbors be embroiled in war is good. Germany is much happier if there is no land war going on next door in Poland, bombs occasionally falling on the wrong side of the border, civilian refugees looking to them for safety.
Second, adding someone else to the pact puts someone else on the front lines to test the defense provided by the pact, if shit hits the fan. Sure, if Russia wanted to, they could try to bypass Poland on the way to Germany, but practically speaking with Poland in NATO, Germany will get to see how NATO responds to an invasion of Poland, rather than finding out how they respond to an invasion of Germany. Poland, likewise, would be much happier seeing how NATO responded to the invasion of Ukraine-the-NATO-member, rather than watching the invasion of Ukraine and wondering how NATO will respond to the invasion of Poland if Ukraine falls.
Sweden is a country that makes their own military related stuff: https://youtu.be/d8x8ITwd4Vg?si=ye6-_fe7EJMuqdIg Archer can deploy fire and retreat so quickly, can also fire multiple rounds and have them land on the same target at the same time.
As opposed to countries that do not design and manufacture such things themselves.
It's easier to defend Denmark, Norway and Finland if Sweden is not in the way. With this, Sweden is more likely to become completely "open" to NATO operations in any conflict that involves defending those three NATO members.
By having to jump through fewer hoops to get the intelligence they already got before, and likely further restricting the field of operation for Russian forces in that area.
I wonder if they're tastier than the average MRE? Sure, you can always make better food with some effort, but next to Costco chicken bakes, Ikea meatballs probably have one of the world's highest convenience-to-deliciousness ratios.
As a kid, I used to loooooove spending the day at Ikea, bouncing around all the beds and hiding in the fake rooms, but mostly just because we'd end up at the food court at the end... mmmm.
Correction: NLAWs are only Swedish designed(SAAB defense) but are production of Thales(a French company) manufactured in Belfast, Northern Ireland(UK), using warheads made by a subsidiary of SAAB in Switzerland.
Ah yes, it's NATO that wants war, it's certainly not NATO countries being reasonably concerned about a certain neighbor that keeps invading neighboring democracies.
I'm sure without being in NATO or the EU, Estonia and Latvia would be left completely alone and unharmed by Russia, just like Ukraine! They certainly wouldn't have been a smaller and easier target.
I guess this is a reference to the joke, "no, what we know is that there is at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."
Unless we disbelieve what the guy said: we do know that they have at least the concept of a tank. He didn't actually say that they had any. That would have been a conversation-ending question for me to ask him.
I don't know what those sheep statisticians would say if they hadn't seen the "black sheep" themselves and had to rely on the testimony of other people. You can't only believe what you've seen for yourself.
As for all the people downvoting that: lighten up. It's a joke. Welcome to NATO.
> and had to rely on the testimony of other people
The sheep joke is not about believing people's reports or not, but about what may or may not be deduced from a report, given that it is accurate and true.
The cold war was the largest project undertaken by any civilization in human history in terms of spending. With Sweden on board with NATO, defence contractors and other NATO adjacent public private partnerships can be assured that they won't interfere with that flow of funds.
