Guest Post by Pat Buchanan
Why would we voluntarily agree to give Sweden and Finland these war guarantees? Why would we commit to go to war with Putin’s Russia, a war that could, and likely would, escalate to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, especially if Russia were losing?
The prime ministers of Sweden and Finland, Magdalena Andersson and Sanna Marin, both signaled Wednesday that they will likely be applying for membership in NATO.
The “prospect” is most “welcome,” says The Washington Post: “Finland and Sweden Should Join NATO.”
The editorial was titled “A Way to Punish Putin.”
Before joining the rejoicing in NATO capitals, we might inspect what NATO membership for these two Nordic nations would mean for the United States.
Finland is a nation the size of Germany, but with a population only 4% of that of Russia and a border with Russia that is 830 miles long.
Should Finland join NATO, the United States, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, would be obligated to go to war with the world’s largest nuclear power to retrieve Finnish lands that an enraged Russia might grab.
Moscow has already indicated that, should Sweden and Finland join NATO, Russia will introduce new nuclear weapons into the Baltic region.
Why is it wise for us to formally agree, in perpetuity, as NATO is a permanent alliance, to go to war with Russia, for Finland?
Given the war in Ukraine and concomitant crisis in Eastern Europe, it is understandable why Stockholm and Helsinki would seek greater security beneath the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
But why would we voluntarily agree to give Sweden and Finland these war guarantees? Why would we commit to go to war with Putin’s Russia, a war that could, and likely would, escalate to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, especially if Russia were losing?
Finland was neutral during the Cold War. Sweden has been neutral since the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th century.
How did we suffer from their neutrality?
In Helsinki and Stockholm, the benefit of a U.S.-NATO commitment to go to war for Finland or Sweden is understandable.
But how does it benefit our country, the USA, to be obligated to go to war with a nation that commands the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons — over some quarrel in the Baltic Sea or Gulf of Finland that does not affect us?
Asked for his view on Sweden and Finland’s campaign to join NATO, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov had a note of warning:
“We have repeatedly said that the (NATO) alliance remains a tool geared towards confrontation and its further expansion will not bring stability to the European continent.”
Should Putin’s Russia clash with Finland or Sweden today, the U.S. is free to respond, or not to respond, as it sees fit, depending on our own assessment of risks and rewards.
Why not keep it that way? Why surrender our freedom of action in some future collision involving our main adversary?
History holds lessons for us here.
In March 1939, six months after Munich, when Czechoslovakia disintegrated into its ethnic components, Britain issued an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland, then negotiating with Germany over the port city of Danzig taken from Germany by the victorious Allies after World War I.
When Germany, on Sept. 1, 1939, invaded Poland, Britain was obligated to declare war on Germany over a matter that was not a vital interest of Great Britain or its worldwide empire.
Lest we forget, it was the Bucharest Declaration of 2008, opening the door to membership in NATO for Ukraine and Georgia, that led to the recent crises in Eastern Europe and the current war.
The Russia-Georgia War of August 2008, the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, and Putin’s annexation of Crimea and claiming of Luhansk and Donetsk in eastern Ukraine all proceeded from NATO’s decision in 2008 to open the door to membership for Georgia and Ukraine.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine today is partly due to the U.S. and Ukraine’s refusal to rule out NATO membership for Kyiv.
No NATO nation today has a border with Russia nearly as long as that of Finland. If Finland joins NATO, will we put U.S. boots on the ground along that 830-mile border with Russia? Will U.S. warplanes fly in and out of Finnish airfields and air bases up to the border of Russia?
Collective security is said to be a good idea.
But the core of NATO security is provided by U.S. war guarantees, while most of the collecting is done by our 29 NATO allies, which could become 31 by summer’s end.
Otto von Bismarck predicted that the Great War, when it came, would be ignited by “some damn fool thing in the Balkans.”
And World War I was indeed triggered by the assassination of the Austrian archduke in Sarajevo in June 1914. The Germans came in in part because the kaiser had given Austria a “blank check” for war.
What enabled America to stay out of both world wars for years after they began was our freedom of “entangling alliances” when they began.
But today we not only lead an alliance of 30 nations, but we are adding two more members, one of which has a border of 830 miles with Russia.
How long does our luck last?
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Stop beating around the bush, Pat, and ask the real question:
Should we give Taiwan such war guarantees?
LOL:
“Sourcing a congressional staffer, the outlet concluded that the delay has occurred due to the disruption of supply chains caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
According to a spreadsheet obtained by Defense News, Taiwan has paid $8 billion for 66 F-16 fighter jets but is still awaiting shipment of the aircraft. Other military equipment promised but never delivered include Patriot missile system components, Stinger missiles, heavyweight torpedoes, and high-mobility artillery rocket systems. Taipei has also been left without new reconnaissance pods and field information communications systems.”
https://www.rt.com/news/553934-washington-owes-taiwan-military/
A better question:
“Why does NATO still exist?
Follow the money.
Zionist want the US to fight Russia; any excuse will do.
Why would finland and sweden provoke russia?
Haven’t heard or read of any major squabbles between these countries in my adult life.
If sweden goes down this path then, imo, the swedes should round up all the non-assimilating immigrants that their “leaders” let in and send them off to fight first.
Fuck no.
I will fight the Russians when they are in O’Fallon Missouri.
Did you hear this explosion in March? We are that much or more Southwest of St. Louis and had one explode a couple years ago about a mile away from a gas leak. It sounded like the shot heard round the world out here in podunk.
It was a basement gas leak and the place exploded when the furnace kicked on at 60 degrees. They’d turned the heat way down while away for the weekend.
Suspicious? Yeah. It took two years for the insurance to settle and now there is a bunch of small homes on half-acre lots. A couple of tiny homes, so either they are selling the land piece-meal or we have a commune a couple miles away.
I do not ever expect to have to fight any Russians. One time in Iceland when AWACS was “spying” on the Soviets on the North Sea and AWACS had RTB’d (returned to base) due to a nasty storm, two MiGs landed there an hour later, approved by NATO command and Icelandic government. Some of the “enemy” ate at the chow hall while the rest guarded their fighter planes, then they traded. When the storm passed, they took off for Russia.
No US military folks were allowed near the airplanes.
I do not ever expect to have to fight Russians.
not content with walking toward catastrophe, the offer to begin running toward catastrophe is better.
that was yesterday.
—————————–
it has been reported both Finland and Sweden have withdrawn their offers to join nato. seems at least some places on this planet have retrieved their heads from their asses.
this is today.
link?
The question is whether its these tiny Baltic countries or the USA which is the bigger idiot here…NATO won’t fight a war for Finland, so no benefits there, and Finland won’t fight against Russia, which would flatten it within minutes…Nor will there be any benefits for Sweden, but at least its further from Russia….the whole thing is nuts..
I think the North American Terrorist Organization should make it easier to join up. Why require an entire country to sign up? They should open it up to individual cities … anywhere on the planet.
Eventually, they could expand it to individuals. Say some nignog does his Polar Bear gig on me. How cool would it be if I could call in an Apache helicopter and send a missile up his nignoggy ass?