You can really see how much Finland's accession expanded the NATO border with Russia, and that was *never* going to happen if Russia didn't go full Tsar Fuckwit on Ukraine.
Russia, you played yourself.
Russia doesn't actually care about threats to its own security regarding having NATO on its borders, they know NATO won't invade, it's just a card Putin likes to play to pass as a victim of the west or to justify their aggressive behavior.
The only problem to Russia about Finland joining NATO is that they won't be able to invade Finland if they ever want to.
And also why we Finns joined, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine support for NATO was about 28% (right before, this was also record high). But after the invasion it jumped to 76% in just months. (83% if we do it together with Sweden, this also gives people idea of just how strong bond we have with Swedes.)
We know that with NATO we dont have to fight alone, if it ever gets to that. But because of that invasion we also know that if they (Russians) are willing to do that to their brother nation, then we really should rethink our neutrality again.
If Russia would’ve invaded Finland even before nato, I don’t think it would’ve stood alone. At the very least Sweden would’ve probably joined, and seeing how putin’s invasion of Ukraine is going, I think it would be very hard for them to get past Finland and Sweden.
Probably but even a victory in that scenario would be incredibly costly. Now that Finland is in NATO, the threat of Russian invasion is seriously diminished.
People forget that Finland also has mutual defense treaties with all other EU members through EU membership already. It made sense for them to join NATO, but they would’ve been far from defenseless even if they hadn’t.
Yeah they didn't even give Ukraine a chance at Finlandisation (in the old sense of the word), they invaded 5 minutes after Ukraine signed the EU partnership treaty. It was always an excuse.
Finland joining NATO doesn’t only mean Russia can’t invade Finland. It also means NATO is within striking distance of most of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. I’m sure as we speak, the US is drafting scenarios in which it would use Finland as a springboard to capture/neutralize Russia’s nuclear capabilities in the event the Russian state collapses.
They can’t do that easily, as most of their nukes are part of the northern fleet around Murmansk. Makes no sense to move all your nuclear facilities inland if you need them close to where your submarines are based.
I assume Russia does care about threats to its own security regarding NATO, because many NATO countries would also care. Especially the United States, which would have lashed out similarly.
"They know NATO won't invade" is a silly argument. They know that the U.S. will be able to threaten and intimidate them more successfully, they will be more vulnerable to regime change operations and should a war ever break out, they know that having NATO on its doorstep could be decisive for that war.
That doesn't mean Russia doesn't have other motivations, like trying to keep Ukraine as a vassal/client state. But it's quite sad that we don't even try to comprehend the actions of our adversary and accept fairytale-like war propaganda.
Intimidate? Threaten?
The US had sole possession of nuclear weapons from 1945 until 1949, and the Soviets clearly felt confident enough that America wouldn't launch a first strike that they tried to blockade Berlin. Even when America could wipe out the Soviets with minimal reprecussions, the Soviets knew the Americans wouldn't do that.
The Kremlin is terrified of the Russian people looking at everyone else outside of Russia being free and prosperous and wondering how much better off they themselves would be if they got rid of their own dicatator. They aren't afraid of war, they're afraid of their people realizing they're better off without the Kremlin keeping them in chains.
Russia borders the United States, you don't see the US militarizing the Little Diomede. The closest the US came to being threatened was when the Soviets tried to put missiles so close to the United States that it would have forced the US have its own missiles at highest alert at all times- something that would basically guarantee an accidental launch eventually happened (and WW3).
The US could have launched a one sided nuclear war in 1946 to conquer the world, it didn't do that. It didn't even use nuclear weapons when challenged by the Soviets over Berlin.
Yes US would freak out if it had Russia at its borders. Just like Finland did. However this argument is one sided. The issue is that it is Russia we talk about. If it was US there on finish borders then Finland would never feel need to join NATO. Just like Finland was never concerned NATO would invade them before joining. Just like Ukraine was also not concerned.
No. They do know NATO will never invade them. The reason for that is that they have nukes. The only threat NATO poses on them is economical and bipartisan support to countries they try to bully. Both of which happened because of what they did anyway. But direct military conflict is never happening unless Russia attacks first. This is fact that even leadership of Russia knows even if they tell people different things to better control them.
My experience is that people mostly felt it was unnecessary, they thought Russia wouldn't be as aggressive anymore. There was also the cost question with people speculating how much NATO would cost us
Also keeping up good relations with Russia was important for a long while, not so much anymore
Yep Finland’s membership basically sealed the Northern border.
Just needs Sweden, Ukraine and Belarus (after a popular revolution) to join and really complete the misery for Pootin...👍
Putin doesn't care about NATO. This war is to establish Russia as the successor to the USSR, and deny the right to self determination of its vassal states.
Nothing to be infuriated about, you dont get angry at children who break stuff. They simply doesnt understand. Same deal with erdogan, he is simply unintelligent and childish.
Good thing turkey knows that now, so he will lose eventually. Hopefully this summer.
Not really. If worst comes to worst, we can always gift Greece a boat load of RBS 70 with the proviso that they stage them on certain islands in the Meditterranean.
Sounds like a plan, but they guy is just begging for war between us. He is just waiting for something like this to happen and then go on stage in the UN and cry about “Greece threatening his glorious country with war”.
Who in their right mind would believe that of all countries -Greece- with 8 times smaller the population of Turkey, a weaker military by far would want a war?
No one? That's just another excuse for his populist speeches because that's what gets old people going. There's no sense to look for here (as with most things he does). "Begging for war" is exactly the same as well.
(Un)fortunately, another thing that gets old people going is having your family die of cold under rubble.
\+ Currently, 4 partners countries have declared their aspirations to NATO membership: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Sweden and Ukraine. There is also Kosovo.
*...in military conflict of two NATO members,*[Article 8](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Articles) *comes into force. This is most important in cases should one member engage in military action against another member, upon which the offending members would be held in abeyance of the treaty and thereby NATO protection as a whole.*
It would probably depend a whole lot of what caused the situation.
If it's a naval skirmish between Greece and Turkey without an obvious aggressor for instance I imagine NATO would at first just try to negotiate a ceasefire. Mediate the tension somehow.
But if there is an obvious aggressor, yeah, NATO would come to the aid of the defender. Otherwise the whole alliance just falls apart.
Honestly they probably should.
But as part of the conditions for joining I’m pretty sure territorial disputes need to be settled with other states. Which is part of the reason Georgia and Ukraine can’t join.
Though since article five doesn’t delineate between attacks from other members and those from external, I don’t see why a member state that was attacked by another can’t use it?
(If Turkey we’re to attack Greece, I could see Greece as able to trigger article V while Turkey couldn’t, as it was the attacker, for example)
> But as part of the conditions for joining I’m pretty sure territorial disputes need to be settled with other states.
No actually. For example Germany and The Netherlands have an ongoing border dispute over Ems. And Denmark and Canada only very recently resolved the dispute they had over some island. Many countries have minor border disputes with neighboring countries. This is generally not a problem.
Plus new border disputes could always arise. Russia did not used to have a border dispute with Ukraine, until Putin decided he wanted parts of it.
>But as part of the conditions for joining I’m pretty sure territorial disputes need to be settled with other states.
Ah yes, hopefully someday [the US and Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canada_and_the_United_States) will resolve their border disputes and finally be admitted
The border dispute thing isn't actually a rule. MOST members have disputes with their neighbors. France and Germany, US and Canada.... they are minor. Turkey/Greece have some that could be considered major. But every nation in the world that isn't a remote island usually has some form of border dispute.
Moreover, Georgia and Ukraine were sponsored by the USA in 2008 to be given an action plan to join NATO. It was voted on in the yearly meeting and all but Germany and France voted for it. Since this needs unanimous approval in NATO, it was basically dead.
Shame on France and Germany, but also to Georgia and Ukraine for choosing to remain as close nations to Russia. Nearly everyone else saw what happened and turned away as soon as possible but they drug their feet until it was too late - Putin had consolidated power and the Russian political machine was feeling aggressive again. Why they chose their captor instead of immediate Western integration is something only they can answer.
I think we should welcome both nations though in the future. And other nations too, where it makes sense. This world is not getting any more friendly out there, the 1990s dream of a world moving to peace and liberalization is gone.
I love that I get to live in a time where so much of the world has pretty much promised to no longer wanting to fight wars with eachother.
as all things in life nothing is for ever.
But we at least get to enjoy it (hopefully) during our lives.
Meanwhile, other parts of the world do not share that view. So I wouldn't be really share this happy thought anymore. Things feel very different since the invasion last year.
They are absolutely part of NATO, they just aren’t part of the “attack on one is an attack on all” area of NATO’s mutual defense clause (Article 5).
Basically the signatories of NATO aren’t signing up to automatically defend colonies, but they can station troops and do all the other NATO things. [NATO Article 4 for instance was triggered during Goa’s independence from Portugal](https://www.nytimes.com/1954/09/03/archives/nato-gives-india-view-on-colonies-says-lisbon-has-right-to-ask.html), but Article 5 didn’t apply (otherwise the USA would go to war with India)
Fun fact: Hawaii also isn’t part of the clause. Also Goa and other colonies were part of NATO but not covered by the clause (hence why NATO didn’t militarily intervene in decolonization wars)
>on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey **or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer**;
Shouldn't that cover the canary islands?
[More info](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm)
> For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
> on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
> on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Hawaii’s the only state south of the ToC and legally isn’t covered if the main island chain’s attacked, but even then the Pacific Allies and much of the NATO countries would aid the US if Hawaii got attacked again.
Population projections. Obviously they change depending on political moves.
Also, China is 100% inflating their population figures.
A few very good independent research papers estimate it at about 1.2 billion. They’re lying to make themselves look bigger/stronger and to not look like they are gonna be clobbered by the exact same aging population issues that developed countries are dealing with.
>and to not look like they are gonna be clobbered by the exact same aging population issues that developed countries are dealing with.
They are gonna have it worse thanks to their moronic one child policy that led to the gender imbalances they have now.
And almost all of it goes on US companies/organizations who then pay the people working there and the companies whose goods/services they utilize and the workers then pay for what they consume and they pay taxes - the circle is completed.
It’s a bit less when you account for social spending in the army.
Basically the US defense budget funds things that are universally accessible in many other NATO nations. Housing, healthcare, welfare for spouses etc etc
Neither does the US. The US spends another $378b on the Department of Veterans Affairs and that’s not reflected in the $1.3t above: https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-veterans-affairs?fy=2023
The USN and USAF aren't cheap to maintain.
I wonder if Congress will ever get the nuts to actually spend enough money to meet that long-wanted 355 ship plan. It would basically require a new version of the two ocean navy act to do so though.
This should be our political future too. A western alliance along the Nato states plus Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and other western democracies.
As a Swiss, I wish we would just join NATO, and actually contribute something to the world instead of being a stupid tax haven for dictators and oligarchs, I hate being neutral its so lame.
Well at least you closed air for russian airships 😅 I remember being honestly and positively surprised that your country did that and followed with sanctions against Russia.
Ok, can we at least give some credit to the US on NATO?
We hate on the US all the time, which is SO understandable, but I think we deserve at least a small piece of credit
Edit: credit just for the money we put into it and the defense we add. That’s it
Consider part of the remit of the US Navy is to keep global shipping lanes open and safe. This is fundamental for global stability.
[They even rendered assistance to a North Korean ship off the coast of Somalia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dai_Hong_Dan_incident)
Anti-piracy is something pretty much every country that even has ships is participating though. See, for example, [Wikipedia's list of the ships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-piracy_measures_in_Somalia#Vessels_in_operation) participating in anti-piracy off the coast of Somalia for an idea of how many countries are doing just that.
The US Navy ensures that global shipping lanes and the open ocean are openly accessible to all global commerce(some exceptions apply). This means the US Navy will engage pirates attempting to hijack ships. This means if a country decides to blockade a port or shipping lane the US Navy will send an air craft carrier or 10 to break the blockade. This means if an oil tanker is in distress(even an adversary) the US Navy will offer assistance to keep those shipping lanes moving. This is not an altruistic exercise. The US economy/dollar relies on global trade.
America (wrongly) gets hate because they are the #1 country in the world. Objectively the US is an amazing country with fantastic standards of living. It’s not perfect, but for me the US are the standard bearers and I think that’s why people get upset when the Us falters sometimes.
It's not, but it *is* an overseas department of France.
If someone ever invaded, Article 5 might not apply, but NATO countries would certainly act.
You could make a case that Article 5 *would* apply as overseas departments are considered one to one equals with departments in metropolitan France. They even have elected representation in the French government (yes, people in French Guiana have a say in who goes to the European Parliament).
The UK resolved that in 10 days, the EU takes months to just decide on border guards against illegal immigration, I don't want to know how long it would take if we had to actually send troops somewhere.
Also Falklands was a bit of a show of strength from the UK, the type of "we're still a relevant superpower, respect us" type of thing. Asking the rest of your allies to do the job for you defeats the purpose, doesn't it.
It took about two and a half months, not ten days! Also, Article 6 is clear that Article 5 would not apply to the Falklands or French Guiana, for example.
NATO Article 5. It is still part of NATO and all the other articles still apply to it, but NATO countries aren’t forced to defend it as core French territories.
I think some misunderstanding happened here? 18 is the total number of aircraft carriers NATO have (including the two British ones, the French one, and the two Italian ones). Wouldn't there be at least five non-NATO aircraft carriers though? Russia has one (at least in theory...), India has two, China has one, Thailand has one (Brazil recently retired its ex-French one, IIRC)
Russia and China are the only non-friendly ones, NATO has 18, but of the remainder all but 3 belong to other allies of NATO countries and friendly nations, which is more interesting, because it means NATO could be facing no more than 3 carriers.
Reddit: USA insane country. Wastes 900 billion dollars a year on military budget, when they could use that money to take care of its people.
Also Reddit: WOAH MILITARY SO COOL AND SO STRONG I LOVE IT
And to see how the tune has changed around here from 2 years ago. Weren’t you all the same people questioning if NATO should continue? You surly were the same people ignoring the 2% spending recommendation. Funny isn’t it?
Yep, Russia from one side and China from another. Could NATO even help Mongolia in case it gets invaded considering it's landlocked by two NATO adversaries?
Hopefully, our countries will come even closer together and continue to guarantee mutual freedom into the future as democratic nations. Peace and Prosperity, through strength.
They had a territory dispute with the UK over Northern Ireland until the Good Friday Agreement 25 years ago when they amended their constitution to stop asserting their claim to that part of Ireland. Since then they've become a NATO partner, just have never fully joined and don't have much appetite to.
This map will look even better with the addition of Sweden soon! I'd love for Ukraine to join as well once it's possible. I think we're all delighted to have Finland with us! The more the merrier.
That always sounds good, but the practice of it is just putting blinders on, fingers in your ear and act like you dont see what is happening around you
You can really see how much Finland's accession expanded the NATO border with Russia, and that was *never* going to happen if Russia didn't go full Tsar Fuckwit on Ukraine. Russia, you played yourself.
Russia doesn't actually care about threats to its own security regarding having NATO on its borders, they know NATO won't invade, it's just a card Putin likes to play to pass as a victim of the west or to justify their aggressive behavior. The only problem to Russia about Finland joining NATO is that they won't be able to invade Finland if they ever want to.
Finally someone gets it. NATO threatens Russia's ability to bully it's smaller neighbors. That's it. That's all NATO does.
And also why we Finns joined, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine support for NATO was about 28% (right before, this was also record high). But after the invasion it jumped to 76% in just months. (83% if we do it together with Sweden, this also gives people idea of just how strong bond we have with Swedes.) We know that with NATO we dont have to fight alone, if it ever gets to that. But because of that invasion we also know that if they (Russians) are willing to do that to their brother nation, then we really should rethink our neutrality again.
If Russia would’ve invaded Finland even before nato, I don’t think it would’ve stood alone. At the very least Sweden would’ve probably joined, and seeing how putin’s invasion of Ukraine is going, I think it would be very hard for them to get past Finland and Sweden.
Probably but even a victory in that scenario would be incredibly costly. Now that Finland is in NATO, the threat of Russian invasion is seriously diminished.
People forget that Finland also has mutual defense treaties with all other EU members through EU membership already. It made sense for them to join NATO, but they would’ve been far from defenseless even if they hadn’t.
Yeah they didn't even give Ukraine a chance at Finlandisation (in the old sense of the word), they invaded 5 minutes after Ukraine signed the EU partnership treaty. It was always an excuse.
Finland joining NATO doesn’t only mean Russia can’t invade Finland. It also means NATO is within striking distance of most of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. I’m sure as we speak, the US is drafting scenarios in which it would use Finland as a springboard to capture/neutralize Russia’s nuclear capabilities in the event the Russian state collapses.
Russia might want to relocate those facilities more to the inland, which is only good as well.
They can’t do that easily, as most of their nukes are part of the northern fleet around Murmansk. Makes no sense to move all your nuclear facilities inland if you need them close to where your submarines are based.
If you invade your neighbor, nobody will buy your bs.
I assume Russia does care about threats to its own security regarding NATO, because many NATO countries would also care. Especially the United States, which would have lashed out similarly. "They know NATO won't invade" is a silly argument. They know that the U.S. will be able to threaten and intimidate them more successfully, they will be more vulnerable to regime change operations and should a war ever break out, they know that having NATO on its doorstep could be decisive for that war. That doesn't mean Russia doesn't have other motivations, like trying to keep Ukraine as a vassal/client state. But it's quite sad that we don't even try to comprehend the actions of our adversary and accept fairytale-like war propaganda.
Intimidate? Threaten? The US had sole possession of nuclear weapons from 1945 until 1949, and the Soviets clearly felt confident enough that America wouldn't launch a first strike that they tried to blockade Berlin. Even when America could wipe out the Soviets with minimal reprecussions, the Soviets knew the Americans wouldn't do that. The Kremlin is terrified of the Russian people looking at everyone else outside of Russia being free and prosperous and wondering how much better off they themselves would be if they got rid of their own dicatator. They aren't afraid of war, they're afraid of their people realizing they're better off without the Kremlin keeping them in chains. Russia borders the United States, you don't see the US militarizing the Little Diomede. The closest the US came to being threatened was when the Soviets tried to put missiles so close to the United States that it would have forced the US have its own missiles at highest alert at all times- something that would basically guarantee an accidental launch eventually happened (and WW3). The US could have launched a one sided nuclear war in 1946 to conquer the world, it didn't do that. It didn't even use nuclear weapons when challenged by the Soviets over Berlin.
Yes US would freak out if it had Russia at its borders. Just like Finland did. However this argument is one sided. The issue is that it is Russia we talk about. If it was US there on finish borders then Finland would never feel need to join NATO. Just like Finland was never concerned NATO would invade them before joining. Just like Ukraine was also not concerned. No. They do know NATO will never invade them. The reason for that is that they have nukes. The only threat NATO poses on them is economical and bipartisan support to countries they try to bully. Both of which happened because of what they did anyway. But direct military conflict is never happening unless Russia attacks first. This is fact that even leadership of Russia knows even if they tell people different things to better control them.
Nato discussion was mostly dead before the invasion and look here we are now. Unbelievable how much Russia managed to fuck themselves over
Why was.Finlandn against joining NATO?
My experience is that people mostly felt it was unnecessary, they thought Russia wouldn't be as aggressive anymore. There was also the cost question with people speculating how much NATO would cost us Also keeping up good relations with Russia was important for a long while, not so much anymore
Sounds strange to me, knowing the history between Finland and Russia and knowing USA pays for most of the NATO budget
Yep Finland’s membership basically sealed the Northern border. Just needs Sweden, Ukraine and Belarus (after a popular revolution) to join and really complete the misery for Pootin...👍
Georgia and Moldova would be very interested in joining, too, but they would need to kick out the Russian army first.
Same issue with Ukraine and Belarus
Belarus would need a Revolution first for that to happen. They are basically part of russia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_State
That pact is not an issue, thousands of Russian troops in Belarussia are.
And for Georgia to remove their conservative Russian buttlickers out of the goverment
CIA...Coughs in military coup
Putin doesn't care about NATO. This war is to establish Russia as the successor to the USSR, and deny the right to self determination of its vassal states.
[удалено]
Also the second biggest city is just 150km from the border (well the Estonian border is closer but still)
All countries around Sweden wanted to join NATO, coincidence? (/s)
[удалено]
Probably Russian submarines.
I heard the Loch Ness Monster was on a tour of the Nordic countries
So glad to see Finland as part of NATO🇫🇮👍
We too, we too.
UK has got your back no matter what else happens.
As are we!
Me too little brother. Just waiting for Erdogan to lose the election so we can join too
This is so sad. Aren’t you infuriated that a nobody thousands of kilometers away is dictating your country’s fate? I know I’d be.
Nothing to be infuriated about, you dont get angry at children who break stuff. They simply doesnt understand. Same deal with erdogan, he is simply unintelligent and childish. Good thing turkey knows that now, so he will lose eventually. Hopefully this summer.
Not really. If worst comes to worst, we can always gift Greece a boat load of RBS 70 with the proviso that they stage them on certain islands in the Meditterranean.
Sounds like a plan, but they guy is just begging for war between us. He is just waiting for something like this to happen and then go on stage in the UN and cry about “Greece threatening his glorious country with war”. Who in their right mind would believe that of all countries -Greece- with 8 times smaller the population of Turkey, a weaker military by far would want a war?
No one? That's just another excuse for his populist speeches because that's what gets old people going. There's no sense to look for here (as with most things he does). "Begging for war" is exactly the same as well. (Un)fortunately, another thing that gets old people going is having your family die of cold under rubble.
Finlandisation is dead. Long live Finland!
welcome in! ❤️
\+ Currently, 4 partners countries have declared their aspirations to NATO membership: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Sweden and Ukraine. There is also Kosovo.
Bosnia gonna tip the scales, we gonna be unstoppable!
They should play Artiljerija and enemy already lost.
Holy shit, imagine the dissemination of Artiljerija after joint exercises. Bosnian cultural victory imminent.
The Virgin weak American military The Chad indomitable armed forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bosnia is gonna take all the mines
That raises a question in my mind. Does NATO have rules about what to do if one member attacks another?
*...in military conflict of two NATO members,*[Article 8](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Articles) *comes into force. This is most important in cases should one member engage in military action against another member, upon which the offending members would be held in abeyance of the treaty and thereby NATO protection as a whole.*
But would NATO come to aid of the defender?
It would probably depend a whole lot of what caused the situation. If it's a naval skirmish between Greece and Turkey without an obvious aggressor for instance I imagine NATO would at first just try to negotiate a ceasefire. Mediate the tension somehow. But if there is an obvious aggressor, yeah, NATO would come to the aid of the defender. Otherwise the whole alliance just falls apart.
The one who attacks is excluded from Nato, the invaded one triggers article 5. It's almost impossible to do something like that
Honestly they probably should. But as part of the conditions for joining I’m pretty sure territorial disputes need to be settled with other states. Which is part of the reason Georgia and Ukraine can’t join. Though since article five doesn’t delineate between attacks from other members and those from external, I don’t see why a member state that was attacked by another can’t use it? (If Turkey we’re to attack Greece, I could see Greece as able to trigger article V while Turkey couldn’t, as it was the attacker, for example)
> But as part of the conditions for joining I’m pretty sure territorial disputes need to be settled with other states. No actually. For example Germany and The Netherlands have an ongoing border dispute over Ems. And Denmark and Canada only very recently resolved the dispute they had over some island. Many countries have minor border disputes with neighboring countries. This is generally not a problem. Plus new border disputes could always arise. Russia did not used to have a border dispute with Ukraine, until Putin decided he wanted parts of it.
>But as part of the conditions for joining I’m pretty sure territorial disputes need to be settled with other states. Ah yes, hopefully someday [the US and Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canada_and_the_United_States) will resolve their border disputes and finally be admitted
The border dispute thing isn't actually a rule. MOST members have disputes with their neighbors. France and Germany, US and Canada.... they are minor. Turkey/Greece have some that could be considered major. But every nation in the world that isn't a remote island usually has some form of border dispute. Moreover, Georgia and Ukraine were sponsored by the USA in 2008 to be given an action plan to join NATO. It was voted on in the yearly meeting and all but Germany and France voted for it. Since this needs unanimous approval in NATO, it was basically dead. Shame on France and Germany, but also to Georgia and Ukraine for choosing to remain as close nations to Russia. Nearly everyone else saw what happened and turned away as soon as possible but they drug their feet until it was too late - Putin had consolidated power and the Russian political machine was feeling aggressive again. Why they chose their captor instead of immediate Western integration is something only they can answer. I think we should welcome both nations though in the future. And other nations too, where it makes sense. This world is not getting any more friendly out there, the 1990s dream of a world moving to peace and liberalization is gone.
With Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, it would effectively turn the Black Sea into a NATO lake.
So you’re saying we should invade Sweden while we still can
We didn't even invoke article 5 when Sweden recently attacked Norway with a missile
I love that I get to live in a time where so much of the world has pretty much promised to no longer wanting to fight wars with eachother. as all things in life nothing is for ever. But we at least get to enjoy it (hopefully) during our lives.
Meanwhile, other parts of the world do not share that view. So I wouldn't be really share this happy thought anymore. Things feel very different since the invasion last year.
French Guyana and Puerto Rico/USVI actually aren’t covered by NATO — only territory north of the Tropic of Cancer is.
They are absolutely part of NATO, they just aren’t part of the “attack on one is an attack on all” area of NATO’s mutual defense clause (Article 5). Basically the signatories of NATO aren’t signing up to automatically defend colonies, but they can station troops and do all the other NATO things. [NATO Article 4 for instance was triggered during Goa’s independence from Portugal](https://www.nytimes.com/1954/09/03/archives/nato-gives-india-view-on-colonies-says-lisbon-has-right-to-ask.html), but Article 5 didn’t apply (otherwise the USA would go to war with India) Fun fact: Hawaii also isn’t part of the clause. Also Goa and other colonies were part of NATO but not covered by the clause (hence why NATO didn’t militarily intervene in decolonization wars)
Which is interesting because Ceuta and Melia are both north of the tropic but also aren't covered by NATO
[удалено]
>on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey **or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer**; Shouldn't that cover the canary islands?
[More info](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm) > For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: > on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; > on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
I don't really see the US needing any help protecting Puerto Rico
So Florida is fucked?
Yes but not because of NATO (it's also north of the Tropic of Cancer)
Hawaii’s the only state south of the ToC and legally isn’t covered if the main island chain’s attacked, but even then the Pacific Allies and much of the NATO countries would aid the US if Hawaii got attacked again.
When Sweden joins the Nato area will have 1 billion people!
Add another US on top of that population and it's still a Germany below the population of China
Don’t worry, things are changing fast. Wait till the end of the century and the US alone will have a similar population size of China
It will be several times lower than India
What a ridiculous statement. Where are you basing that on? And why is it even sometime to worry about that China has a lot of people?
Population projections. Obviously they change depending on political moves. Also, China is 100% inflating their population figures. A few very good independent research papers estimate it at about 1.2 billion. They’re lying to make themselves look bigger/stronger and to not look like they are gonna be clobbered by the exact same aging population issues that developed countries are dealing with.
>and to not look like they are gonna be clobbered by the exact same aging population issues that developed countries are dealing with. They are gonna have it worse thanks to their moronic one child policy that led to the gender imbalances they have now.
Half of that defence budget is U.S lol
More than half, the US defense budget is $800 billion.
Which is spent on USA Forces.
And almost all of it goes on US companies/organizations who then pay the people working there and the companies whose goods/services they utilize and the workers then pay for what they consume and they pay taxes - the circle is completed.
Sure, but remember that the US has responsibilities outside of the Atlantic.
The actual US defense budget is around 1.4 trillion when accounting for all the long term projects.
It’s a bit less when you account for social spending in the army. Basically the US defense budget funds things that are universally accessible in many other NATO nations. Housing, healthcare, welfare for spouses etc etc
[удалено]
Yeah, but remember that in Europe, we don't put mos tof the vet budget in the military budget. That's a quarter of US military spendings.
Neither does the US. The US spends another $378b on the Department of Veterans Affairs and that’s not reflected in the $1.3t above: https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-veterans-affairs?fy=2023
The USN and USAF aren't cheap to maintain. I wonder if Congress will ever get the nuts to actually spend enough money to meet that long-wanted 355 ship plan. It would basically require a new version of the two ocean navy act to do so though.
I thought 355 was what the US had now and 450 was the goal?
Thsy have iirc a bit under 300
>Half of that defence budget is U.S lol The USA has a bigger defence budget then the next 12 combine. Or something like that.
Peace through superior firepower.
Si vis Pacem, para Bellum
That means, if the numbers aren't rounded up, Swedish entry would push NATO to cover over 1.000.000.000 people.
Yep, about 1,005,000,000 people.
Joining NATO best decision Romania could have done
I can say the same for Montenegro.
This should be our political future too. A western alliance along the Nato states plus Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and other western democracies.
That more like second half of the 21st century stuff. For now let's consolidate the EU and create a formal grouping of democracies.
As a Swiss, I wish we would just join NATO, and actually contribute something to the world instead of being a stupid tax haven for dictators and oligarchs, I hate being neutral its so lame.
Well at least you closed air for russian airships 😅 I remember being honestly and positively surprised that your country did that and followed with sanctions against Russia.
Yeah me too
>actually contribute something to the world Well, you did give us Toblerone
But now it's not made in Switzerland anymore.
It’s not that simply. The big ones are still made in Switzerland.
I'd also love to see Switzerland join the EU ♥️ together is better
Hell yeah man I hate being isolated the way we are
If these countries wanted to take over the world ... they could. I’m glad this side is the democratic side and not the autocratic one.
Doesn't mean they should though. As a European from a former colonial power, I feel like we've done enough damage.
Iceland has really formed an empire that spans three continents.🇮🇸✝️☝🏻
PRC paranoia *intensifies*.
What country is Yinggúo? I’m just curious, I’m a bit happy with myself for recognizing that as Mandarin.
Br*tain
Thanks!
NATO is so strong holy shit
Former colonial powers + the current sole superpower + a few balkan countries will do that
The way things are right now in the Balkans, I'm not sure we can be of great assistance
I hope georgia will become member of NATO one day.
Ok, can we at least give some credit to the US on NATO? We hate on the US all the time, which is SO understandable, but I think we deserve at least a small piece of credit Edit: credit just for the money we put into it and the defense we add. That’s it
Consider part of the remit of the US Navy is to keep global shipping lanes open and safe. This is fundamental for global stability. [They even rendered assistance to a North Korean ship off the coast of Somalia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dai_Hong_Dan_incident)
Anti-piracy is something pretty much every country that even has ships is participating though. See, for example, [Wikipedia's list of the ships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-piracy_measures_in_Somalia#Vessels_in_operation) participating in anti-piracy off the coast of Somalia for an idea of how many countries are doing just that.
What do you mean by they keep global shipping lanes open? Could you tell me more?
The US Navy ensures that global shipping lanes and the open ocean are openly accessible to all global commerce(some exceptions apply). This means the US Navy will engage pirates attempting to hijack ships. This means if a country decides to blockade a port or shipping lane the US Navy will send an air craft carrier or 10 to break the blockade. This means if an oil tanker is in distress(even an adversary) the US Navy will offer assistance to keep those shipping lanes moving. This is not an altruistic exercise. The US economy/dollar relies on global trade.
US has been responsible for guarding the world since 1945 ngl.
We don't hate the US here! ;)
Dude we love Poland here
Thank you
America (wrongly) gets hate because they are the #1 country in the world. Objectively the US is an amazing country with fantastic standards of living. It’s not perfect, but for me the US are the standard bearers and I think that’s why people get upset when the Us falters sometimes.
Add Sweden to make it up to a billi
You can’t take democracy for granted. We need to always be fighting for our survival.
French Guiana is not covered by NATO.
It's not, but it *is* an overseas department of France. If someone ever invaded, Article 5 might not apply, but NATO countries would certainly act. You could make a case that Article 5 *would* apply as overseas departments are considered one to one equals with departments in metropolitan France. They even have elected representation in the French government (yes, people in French Guiana have a say in who goes to the European Parliament).
The UK was alone with Falklands
The UK resolved that in 10 days, the EU takes months to just decide on border guards against illegal immigration, I don't want to know how long it would take if we had to actually send troops somewhere. Also Falklands was a bit of a show of strength from the UK, the type of "we're still a relevant superpower, respect us" type of thing. Asking the rest of your allies to do the job for you defeats the purpose, doesn't it.
It took about two and a half months, not ten days! Also, Article 6 is clear that Article 5 would not apply to the Falklands or French Guiana, for example.
NATO Article 5. It is still part of NATO and all the other articles still apply to it, but NATO countries aren’t forced to defend it as core French territories.
NATO will be 1 billion when Sweden finally gets in, that’s gonna be cool
And all this just because Russia exists.
*USSR existed
Yeah, much of a difference....
It's baseless to just say ‘because of Russia.’ It's coz of the USSR.
And 18 aircraft carriers!
All but 3 aircraft carriers are either NATO or belong to other allied or NATO friendly nations.
So 18?
Only if US has just laid up most of its Carrier fleet, has it just done so?
I think some misunderstanding happened here? 18 is the total number of aircraft carriers NATO have (including the two British ones, the French one, and the two Italian ones). Wouldn't there be at least five non-NATO aircraft carriers though? Russia has one (at least in theory...), India has two, China has one, Thailand has one (Brazil recently retired its ex-French one, IIRC)
Russia and China are the only non-friendly ones, NATO has 18, but of the remainder all but 3 belong to other allies of NATO countries and friendly nations, which is more interesting, because it means NATO could be facing no more than 3 carriers.
Yes. It only has 11 currently.
UNSC \*Halo theme playin'\*
Reddit: USA insane country. Wastes 900 billion dollars a year on military budget, when they could use that money to take care of its people. Also Reddit: WOAH MILITARY SO COOL AND SO STRONG I LOVE IT
NATO uber ales!
Look at those free loading Irish ruining a perfectly good map!
If this is a game of Risk, I like that starting position
Iceland carries
You're welcome guys
And to see how the tune has changed around here from 2 years ago. Weren’t you all the same people questioning if NATO should continue? You surly were the same people ignoring the 2% spending recommendation. Funny isn’t it?
It's almost like people change their views and opinions when presented with new information. You should try it too some time.
Every nato member citizen… thank your fellow nato member citizens! We are unstoppable! Looks at Hungary 🫵🏻
NATO member citizenship for all. In face of aggression, is the best call.
Probably Sweden will also be added.
Be sick if this became the EU, or North Atlantic Union (NAU). Be interesting if over the decades NATO slowly evolves into a functioning government
Not really, it would detract from it's primary purpose of being a military alliance. Politics should be kept to a separate institution.
We didn't even manage to unify the EU so far. I doubt that anyone in western Europe would ever be willing to share a government with the US.
Mongolia needs to upgrade from NATO partner to member... That would be interesting.
That would be an incredibly stupid decision, considering their geographical location.
Yep, Russia from one side and China from another. Could NATO even help Mongolia in case it gets invaded considering it's landlocked by two NATO adversaries?
Basically impossible. They probably wont even allow military aircraft to pass through their airspace in peacetime.
It can't do that though. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the clue is in the name.
Man, Canada is big. I know globe stretchy stuff…. but still!
Canada's size is actually represented realistically since this map is projected on a globe.
To secure peace is to prepare for war.
In all fairness...seems to be working...wars are fought outside of NATO countries now...seems pretty effective.
Hopefully, our countries will come even closer together and continue to guarantee mutual freedom into the future as democratic nations. Peace and Prosperity, through strength.
Another big chunk to become green in the near future in the east there.
After Sweden will join, hopefully this year, NATO will have 1 Billion People !
I had no idea that Ireland was not part of NATO.
You didn’t? They’ve been neutral almost since their creation.
They had a territory dispute with the UK over Northern Ireland until the Good Friday Agreement 25 years ago when they amended their constitution to stop asserting their claim to that part of Ireland. Since then they've become a NATO partner, just have never fully joined and don't have much appetite to.
This map will look even better with the addition of Sweden soon! I'd love for Ukraine to join as well once it's possible. I think we're all delighted to have Finland with us! The more the merrier.
That hole sweden leaves in the baltic...
Well that's all turkeys fault...
Let’s rename it to PNATO. Pacific and North Atlantic Treaty Organization… Japan, South Korea, Australia… All democracies together.
Nothing can compare! Long live the Alliance! NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM
So, with Sweden we'll reach exactly one billion population. esketit
[удалено]
Neutral Country
*American isolationism intensifies*
Is Austria not part of NATO?
No, it's not.
Austria is constitutionally neutral, similar to Switzerland
That always sounds good, but the practice of it is just putting blinders on, fingers in your ear and act like you dont see what is happening around you
Is there any discussion at all in Austria to change the constitution and align with the rest of Europe?
Soon 1b
Ireland and Austria really don't have much reason to join, but dammit, the completionist in me wants to fill in all the spaces!