2442011b   
   03bfd84e   
   XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi   
      
   In article   
   , David   
   Friedman  wrote:   
      
   > In article   
   > ,   
   >  holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:   
      
      
      
   > > The 1948 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance   
   > > specifically prohibited Finnish membership in NATO, since it was   
   > > specifically directed against West Germany and countries allied with it.   
   >   
   > In 1948, if Finland had instead chosen to join NATO,   
      
   Such a choice was not available to Finland, in 1948. It was not available   
   until the collapse of the USSR in 1991. What has happened is that Finland   
   has standardized its munitions so that they conform to NATO norms, but it   
   has still decided that the benefits of NATO membership would not be worth   
   the ascerbation of relations with Russia, which Finland has become quite   
   adept at managing.   
      
   > do you think NATO   
   > would have agreed, and do you think it would have provoked or deterred a   
   > Russian invasion (or neither)?   
      
   In 1948 the Soviets were too busy reconstructing to be invading anyone.   
   Since Finland had the war reparations to pay off, its sovereignty was   
   severely limited. It did not have the option of considering NATO   
   membership.   
      
   > > Note that Sweden, which had far more latitude than Finland and was not   
   > > constrained by such a treaty, also regarded it as prudent not to join   
   > > NATO.   
   >   
   > Sweden had less need of the protection of an alliance; Switzerland   
   > didn't join either.   
      
   Sweden did not join because it knew that its NATO membership would mean   
   increased Soviet pressure on Finland, thus compromising its own security.   
      
   > > Even now, close to two decades after the collapse of the USSR, Finland and   
   > > Sweden have regarded it better not to link their national security with   
   > > NATO membership.   
   >   
   > But then, they don't have anyone currently threatening their national   
   > security.   
      
   Russia is unpredicatble. Most people in this area would like to see Russia   
   calm down and become a "normal country", but tecent events in Georgia show   
   that it still has a short fuse, in addition to wanting to demonstrate to   
   the world that it reserves for itself the right to behave as nastily as   
   the US does. The current tragedy in Georgia would hardly have taken place   
   if the US had not supported the independence of Kosovo. Russia, Serbia's   
   ally, warned at the time that it would retaliate in kind, and that is what   
   it is doing. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all have territorial and other   
   issues with Russia that could be revved up to a level requiring armed   
   intervention. Luckily, all three countries belong to NATO, although all   
   are watching nervously to see the degree that the US is willing to support   
   its staunch, but non-NATO ally, Georgia, in a conflict with Russia, the   
   relationship between the US and which is far more important from a   
   pragmatic standpoint than the relationship with Georgia.   
      
   Regards,   
   Eugene Holman   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)