The implications of Sweden and Finland NATO membership on NATO members

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
12 February 2017
Messages
7,876
Reaction score
9,035
In all probability, Sweden and Finland will join NATO and become the last (and long expected) European members joining the organization.

But those two are strong members with a military culture like we haven't seen since 20 years. Their citizens are still drafted (Fins and Swedes) and hence are more about to voice their opinion on military matters than most other countries in the alliance.

How this could affect others NATO members that have for long reclined to the easier way of doing things, with professionals armies, should be a matter of curiosity for all, civilians and members of the military?

Let's discuss it gently.

------------------------------------

IMOHO it is necessary to reinvent conscription, on a more bearable way for youth: irrelevant to gender for example, matters free (you enlist to drive a tank, a supply truck, help handling retiree or grow bee hives...) without blocking their time for a couple of years and in all respect of their belief or identity etc...
 
Last edited:
I don't see any significant implications along the lines you have suggested.
 
Different countries have different situations, and different solutions. Finland and Sweden have conscription because if they did end up at war, it would most likely have been Russia, and also likely was limited direct help from NATO due to the Nuke issue, so they would need a lot of manpower to reach some equivalence of forces.

So you could suggest that assuming NATO forces are stationed in these countries, as they are now in other 'frontline' countries, that they could move from their current model, to a professional model.

also recent 'demonstrations' by another conscript army, have not exactly shown this model to be the dynamic crusher of nations, which NATO once envisaged it to be......

Not that I'm suggesting Finland or Sweden would suffer such poor performance.
 
Fluff said:
...
also recent 'demonstrations' by another conscript army, have not exactly shown this model to be the dynamic crusher of nations, which NATO once envisaged it to be......
...
Click to expand...
We've also seen yet another conscript army do pretty adequately against a conscript army that thought that it is a crusher of nations.

I don't see NATO needing to send lots of artillery units to Finland, just in case.
 
TomS said:
Sherman Tank said:
Mainly it means lingonberry preserves and reindeer sausage on the steam tables at NATO conference lunches.
Click to expand...

Waiting for the Ikea meatball MRE to be come standard issue.


No one can figure out the reheating instructions.
Click to expand...

Or wait until they sent aircraft, artillery and tanks in kits, Ikea style...
 
Finland has a fighting spirit and a highly trained and motivated citizen army. Sweden has first-rate military industry end technology. Any military alliance would be foolish not to welcome them and the experience and assets they bring with open arms.

[edit] I always thought Norway should have chosen the Gripen (in greater numbers) over the F-35, and with Sweden in NATO that makes all the more sense. Designed and optimised for swedish conditions which are highly similar to norwegian, with a short supply line for spares & replacements, and a tradition of close cooperation across borders. The only issue was that any support would be shut off in the event of war, which with Sweden in NATO would no longer apply.
 
Last edited:
My main concerns (and that's not a negative thing) were with the gap in awareness b/w those two nation's population and that of European states. Having daughters and sons at the brink of a battle makes any taxpayer more picky about military hardware choice and grand strategy.
Europeans are not used anymore discussing or contesting the whereabouts of any key decision in that domain (it went away surprisingly fast!). Things are about to change. Don't count on Swedes or Fins to let go their level of initiative on that because they would have joined NATO.

So, now, picture yourself as an European Politician (not E.U, Europe). What steps would you take to ensure local initiative and competitiveness in the public debate?
 
TomcatViP said:
So, now, picture yourself as an European Politician (not E.U, Europe). What steps would you take to ensure local initiative and competitiveness in the public debate?
Click to expand...
Try to improve the intellectual level of voters?

I've always thought that in a democracy, the smartness of decisions is almost necessarily governed by the smartness of voters. Which is sad and not new by any means (Frenchies might remember Céline's "démocrassouille", horribly true criticism). There are a few exceptions like Winston Churchill and CDG, but too few.
Unfortunately improving the intelligence of the population is a very long term undertaking (~30 years investment in education, etc), which seldom makes it a priority until the next election.
 
Finland has been invaded and attacked before and fought bravely. I see nothing
changing about that NATO or not.
 
dan_inbox said:
TomcatViP said:
So, now, picture yourself as an European Politician (not E.U, Europe). What steps would you take to ensure local initiative and competitiveness in the public debate?
Click to expand...
Try to improve the intellectual level of voters?

I've always thought that in a democracy, the smartness of decisions is almost necessarily governed by the smartness of voters. Which is sad and not new by any means (Frenchies might remember Céline's "démocrassouille", horribly true criticism). There are a few exceptions like Winston Churchill and CDG, but too few.
Unfortunately improving the intelligence of the population is a very long term undertaking (~30 years investment in education, etc), which seldom makes it a priority until the next election.
Click to expand...

Frequently, improving the "intelligence" (more correctly, critical thinking skills) of the populace is antithetical to many politicians, hence the ideological dictates about curriculum being seen in many, even US, polities. Next time you wander into a local board of education meeting note how many people are there advocating book bannings, forbidding discussion of science topics, or permitting only positive views of history, all with the intent of reducing education to propaganda.
 
would there be any major issues, equipment wise of integrating Sweden and Finland into NATO?

I imagine there would be very few
Finland mainly uses American and European armor and aircraft, but I think they still keep some Soviet era armor.
Sweden has some homegrown equipment, but I believe they are mostly NATO standard.
 
Current NATO countries don't all use the same equipment either. Just compatible equipment. Also, I believe Soviet era equipment is still in use in NATO countries in Eastern Europe.

For small arms, Finland is mainly using non-NATO calibers.

No issues participating in NATO exercises elsewhere, or receiving NATO units for exercises at home.
 
Sticking with or going with a standard should reduce costs in the long run you'd think. Once you've changed over to the new standard of course.

Also means you can potentially do away with inefficient and expensive local manufacture of arms and ammo too.
 
jeffb said:
Sticking with or going with a standard should reduce costs in the long run you'd think. Once you've changed over to the new standard of course.

Also means you can potentially do away with inefficient and expensive local manufacture of arms and ammo too.
Click to expand...
See if you can get UK, France and Germany to pick the same rifle, APC, IFV, MBT and fighter aircraft..
 
perttime said:
jeffb said:
Sticking with or going with a standard should reduce costs in the long run you'd think. Once you've changed over to the new standard of course.

Also means you can potentially do away with inefficient and expensive local manufacture of arms and ammo too.
Click to expand...
See if you can get UK, France and Germany to pick the same rifle, APC, IFV, MBT and fighter aircraft..
Click to expand...
True, but they're overwhelmingly 5.56x45/7.62x51/155mm artillery, 120mm mortar, 120x570mm tank round etc.

France has gone with HK416F, Germany with the B&T-15 which are both AR-15 variants, so yeah different but still very samey. UK sticking with SA80...although their SF are using AR-15 variants now too.

armyrecognition.com

French armed forces have already taken delivery of 53,000 HK416 F assault rifles | Defense News July 2021 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2021 | Archive News year

DGA (French Army procurement agency) has just received 2,000 new HK416 F assault rifles for the Army, Navy and Air Forces, bringing the number of assault rifles delivered to date to 53,000 units
armyrecognition.com armyrecognition.com

Finns still use the 7.62x39.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen
Two bonuses:
More arctic training environments which lessens the load on Norway to always host these things.
Gripens and Hornets (and eventually more F-35s) to take some of the load off providing air defence for 80% of Eastern Europe.

I don't think logistics and where the recruits are coming from is going to matter very much. Maybe having multiple calibres and stocks is a good thing, Ukraine would be in a worse fix if no Soviet-era kit or ammo still existed within NATO for example.
 
7.62x39 has its advantages and disadvantages. The RK 62 and RK 95 are aging, though, and it has been a "while" since new ones were made. They are not going to disappear anytime soon, whatever else happens.

Finland is already buying DMR rifles that are AR-10 based. Some specil forces are using 5.56x45. New assault rifles are under investigation. It could be 5.56x45, or it could be something else. I belive there are threads on USA looking at 6.8mm.
 
Finland's accession to NATO will lead to a 100% clash between Russia and the alliance countries. Obviously there are no serious politicians left in Finland who are able to predict the consequences of their decisions
 
perttime said:
I belive there are threads on USA looking at 6.8mm.
Click to expand...

US seems to be headed toward 6.8x51 for infantry and related troops. Harder-shooting than 7.62 NATO.
 
The point is that without the Russia's aggression to Ukraine and subsequent invasion war, maybe both Finland and Sweden would not trying to join NATO right now.
Both Finland and Sweden politicians are obviously concerned by Russian politicians....
 
Last edited:
paralay said:
Finland's accession to NATO will lead to a 100% clash between Russia and the alliance countries. Obviously there are no serious politicians left in Finland who are able to predict the consequences of their decisions
Click to expand...
Any particular reason why Finland and Sweden should make their decisions about their foreign policy and defence matters based on the whims and insecurities of others?
 
One thing the expert keep saying here (Finland, im finnish), is that we are more NATO comparable than most NATO countries. The progress of our "soft-joining" NATO had begun basicly since the end of Moscows oppressive YYA-treaty at the begining of 90's, and now the public demand for joining had grown so strong that the politicians who formerly just considered Moscows "security concerns" over our own have had to adapt or face falling into obvilion and shame by the voters.

This switch in the public opinion has been very rapid and very subtantial. I am myself one of those who for long thought that Finland is best safe when it doesent join into military alliances, as i falsely thought that Russia would only engage future war with NATO, when in fact it was the opposite, Russia will engage wars and indimitation based controll over everyone else, except NATO nations. When Putin made the first claims last year that Moscow would get be the one who decideds whos in NATO and who is not, I got alarmed and started to reconsider my stances, and they became cristal clear when Both Putin and Lavrov publically lied to all of us about Russia not going to invade Ukraine, and then doing exactly so. I just regret that I had for so long been foolish, and thought our Neighbours were decent and law-abiding people:( (My apologises to the staff, if this addresses too much of the banned subject, I just thought I own to explain my stand as atleast to some circles have been quite profilic artists over Russian and Soviet military stuff, I just wanted to made my positions clear)

In NATO, Finns will have to learn what it means to be in military alliance, and its not just us expecting help from others, but us beeing ready to help others as well. Both Finland and Sweden in NATO will make the defence of our Baltic neighbours lot easier, as well as that of Norway. While most of the finnish politicans and elite are keen to embhasis the future nordic aspect of NATO, I would personally prefer Finland to side more with Baltic nations and Poland, as now, whith American and British backing, the Intermarium policy that failed in 30's could actually work.

If this was too political, I dont take offence of it getting moderated
 
dan_inbox said:
paralay said:
Finland's accession to NATO will lead to a 100% clash between Russia and the alliance countries.
Click to expand...
You really think that Putin will look for another defeat to add to his current string of achievements?
Click to expand...
I'd suggest thats actually a small part in getting into NATO now, is that with what is likely to be a major failure in Ukraine, Russia could look for an 'easier' victim. I wouldnt agree that Finland would be easy, but this is about what the man in the kremlin thinks, not what I think....
 
Neither Finland nor Sweden at present have nuclear weapons.
During the Cold War neither Denmark nor Norway would permit nuclear weapons or forces from other NATO members to be stationed permanently on their soil.
This made reinforcing them in time of crisis difficult to say the least.
It is likely that public opinion in Finland and Sweden will want similar restrictions.
The trouble is that NATO is a defensive alliance based around the idea of deterrence. This requires NATO forces to be able to use nuclear weapons.
France as far as I know still will only use its weapons to defend France but I may be out of date there.
Knowing that NATO might drop B61 bombs on Russian forces on Swedish or Finnish soil is a part of deterrence which may be hard for those countries to swallow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen
There is effectively zero chance of a nuke being dropped on Swedish/Finnish territory by NATO in response to a Russian invasion.
 
paralay said:
Finland's accession to NATO will lead to a 100% clash between Russia and the alliance countries. Obviously there are no serious politicians left in Finland who are able to predict the consequences of their decisions
Click to expand...
With what army?
 
paralay said:
Finland's accession to NATO will lead to a 100% clash between Russia and the alliance countries.
Click to expand...
There seems little evidence upon which to base a "100%" certainty claim. However, recent events have shown that there *is* evidence to base a "high certainty" claim about Russian adventurism and aggression for those nations *not* in the NATO alliance.

Perhaps Sweden and Finland can be convinced of the lack of need of NATO membership. That assurance would have to come in the form of Russia ceasing Certain Current Events, paying full restitution (probably something in the area of one trillion dollars), turning over a *lot* of war criminals to the Hague, complete dismantlement of the Russian nuclear arsenal and conversion of the uranium & plutonium into reactor fuel and a complete overhaul of the government. Perhaps Douglas Macarthur can be raised from the dead to run the Kremlin for a few years.
 
sublight is back said:
paralay said:
Finland's accession to NATO will lead to a 100% clash between Russia and the alliance countries. Obviously there are no serious politicians left in Finland who are able to predict the consequences of their decisions
Click to expand...

China's final warning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Such things are widespread, and invariably lead to either laughter or misery:

Obama's 'red line' failure assured crisis in Syria​


Don't make a threat you will not back up. Had Britain and/or France curbstomped Hitler after one of his several early treaty violations, a whole lot of trouble may have been avoided.
 
perttime said:
7.62x39 has its advantages and disadvantages. The RK 62 and RK 95 are aging, though, and it has been a "while" since new ones were made. They are not going to disappear anytime soon, whatever else happens...
Click to expand...

Any idea if all of the Maavoimat's RK 62 rifles went through the RK 62M modernization program?
 
Apophenia said:
perttime said:
7.62x39 has its advantages and disadvantages. The RK 62 and RK 95 are aging, though, and it has been a "while" since new ones were made. They are not going to disappear anytime soon, whatever else happens...
Click to expand...

Any idea if all of the Maavoimat's RK 62 rifles went through the RK 62M modernization program?
Click to expand...
No they didnt. I don't have numbers handy but lots remain in original configuration, at least for the reserves.
 
uk 75 said:
Neither Finland nor Sweden at present have nuclear weapons.
During the Cold War neither Denmark nor Norway would permit nuclear weapons or forces from other NATO members to be stationed permanently on their soil.
This made reinforcing them in time of crisis difficult to say the least.
It is likely that public opinion in Finland and Sweden will want similar restrictions.
The trouble is that NATO is a defensive alliance based around the idea of deterrence. This requires NATO forces to be able to use nuclear weapons.
France as far as I know still will only use its weapons to defend France but I may be out of date there.
Knowing that NATO might drop B61 bombs on Russian forces on Swedish or Finnish soil is a part of deterrence which may be hard for those countries to swallow.
Click to expand...
I'd think NATO would be dropping them on the Russian side of the border, i.e. logistics tail. Reinforced by what we see of the glorious Russian Army today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom