>

Finland and Sweden have both signed mutual defence pacts with the UK, a nuclear power. And all key NATO members have publicly stated they would defend Finland and Sweden in case of any Russian attack (e.g. France, also a nuclear power). Both are well protected. 
By contrast, Ukraine never had any such guarantees or promises. In the often cited Budapest memorandum, the signatories agreed not to attack or threaten Ukraine themselves, but not to come to its aid should someone else attack. And well before the Russian invasion, all were very clear that they would not intervene with their own troops to help Ukraine. In the case of Finland and Sweden, the opposite it true.
Sweden would probably benefit from Finland joining in any case. >

Russian irredentists consider Finland to be rightful Russian clay along with Chechnya, the Baltics, and all of Ukraine. The Russian Empire annexed Finland before it annexed Chechnya. Putin and other Russian irredentists still hate Lenin for loosening Russian control over Ukraine and letting completely go of Finland.
The threat against Finland is real. >

Ukraine and Russia used to be a Swedish colony, so the threat against Russia from the Swedish empire is also real, according to Russian logic. >

Norse, Viking even, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it Swedish, no? Although I know little about the etymology of Swede and when it first arose, so I could be very wrong. >

Sweden's traditionally made up of Götaland ("Goth's land"), Svealand ("Swede's land"), and Norrland ("North land"), with Roslagen being a region in Svealand. Rurik was "Swedish" in the sense that he was from Svealand which later went on to give its name to Sweden, but at the time "Swedish" would not have been understood as it is today but rather as a tribe. IIRC Tacitus mentions the Suiones in one of his works, so he name is attested well before Rurik's time. >

The internet is awesome. This was interesting. >

Added bonus info dump:
Götaland and Svealand were the two "original" parts of Sweden, with Götaland split into Västra and Östra Götaland (West and East respectively) and the three united lands being represented by the Three Crowns, a heraldic symbol of Sweden used to this day (e.g. the national hockey team of Sweden are "Tre Kronor", literally "Three Crowns"). Norrland got added quite a bit later when Sweden decided that the inland parts of the country was ours too. This was a few centuries after (the coastal parts of) Finland were conquered, so relatively more recent (sort of starting in the second half of the 1500s IIRC). Whether this was colonialism or not is not a subject I particularly care to opine on, as far more knowledgeable people than I have debated the question; I feel that it's fair to mention that the answer to the question might depend on who you ask though. It's a mess.
Bonus bonus: Gothenburg is, of course, situated in Götaland, while Stockholm and Uppsala (which was a religious center of power in Svealand back during the Norse era) are in Svealand. While the area had been inhabited for a loooooong time Stockholm as a city wasn't founded until Sweden was united, in 1252. >

I want to subscribe to more Nordic history lessons. >

You should visit. >

My grandmother came to USA from Malmo…I’ve been to Stockholm, it’s beautiful!!! Love the people & want to return & see the whole country…❤️🇸🇪❤️ >

Pekka Haavisto clarifies Sweden Nato comments, joining together still the main priority

Apparently reacting to Haavisto's comments, Finland's Defence Minister Mikko Savola (Cen) said on Twitter that it was to Nato's, Finland's and Sweden's advantage if the two countries become members at the same time. >

The title on this article is just garbage. What Haavisto said was that it may be necessary to consider going alone if there's a blockade on Sweden for a very long time, but that it's too early to talk about it. Going together is still the top priority. >

Erdogan probably won't agree to Finland joining either, though. >

God he’s such a fucking tool. >

Bought and paid for.
As a person who enjoys Russian history, it's very weird to see Turkey fighting the west with Russia.  Usually it's the other way round. >

Mean while Orban is just whistling and twiddels hus thumbs… >

Of course they should. They are in a much more vulnerable situation than Sweden. We'll join later, if we can. >

Yeah. I get the symbolism/optics may not be as good as both joining at the same time, but the war has shown that maximizing the time you spend preparing for conflict is key. The earlier either country can join NATO, the earlier its forces can be integrated into existing defense systems and true adjustments can be made to those systems. We can always catch up later with Sweden if need be. They won’t be blocked forever. 
Likewise, Turkey has had a bad run with an idiot leader, but hopefully they’ll be able to get rid of him and return to the fold. Beyond Turkey’s obvious strategic importance, we shouldn’t be looking to throw countries out just for electing obstructionist shitheads (glass houses). >

I disagree, turkey isn't having a "leader bad" moment.
The sooner people realize this the sooner the problem will be resolved. Many people in the comments have no clue about how Turkey has always been bullying greece and threatening their borders daily even when both countries are in NATO. Greece even was one of the first countries to push Turkey into EU. Turkey in the last few years has become even worse under erdogan, but don't let that fool you, since the opposition of the government hold the same views when it comes to bullying greece. In 2020 just before covid they allowed thousands of refugees to try attack the Greek land border. Till today, they are constantly trespassing air borders and then the jets have to go intercept them.
You won't know this I assume since you are not from around here, but Erdogan literally on multiple occasions, at least few times a month past few months, comes out on the news channels or his parliament and says they will come one night and attack greece, or when they said their new missile will easily reach and possibly destroy athens. And those statements don't come only from erdogan, but from multiple other government people. The populace is also repeating these statements to Greeks in like every comment section on reddit or insta. 
So please, unless you have actual knowledge of how Turkey works and it's actions in the past decades, don't come here bulls'*ing that it's just erdogan, because it's simply not. His actions against Greece are mostly liked by the general populace. But alas, NATO has and will do nada over this. So just because Turkey isn't threatening your existence and home on the daily, it doesn't mean it's not doing it to anyone else. >

All that may be true, but ultimately Erdogan/Turkey doesn't actually care about Sweden or whether they join NATO or not. He is just using this as posturing ahead of coming elections. >

He's using it for concessions. Erdogan isn't worried about elections, that's already been decided. He does however like playing Russia against NATO, as well as getting the benefits from blocking any new members into NATO, knowing they desperately want to join and he alone can stand in their way. Erodogan has grand plans knowing that he holds the keys to the kingdom. He's already worked in a new pipeline from Russia (and all the royalties coming from that). Who knows what else he has planned. His lust for power and money knows no bounds. >

I do think that if Finland can join without having to compromise democratic values, we (Sweden) should let them join on their own. They have a large border to defend, and I am not comfortable denying Finland security if they can get it. We swedes can wait. I find it hard to see how the enemy could really attack us anyway.
Edit: I saw some notes about my use of "let them join". I certainly do not intend to imply that it is up to Sweden to dictate what Finland does only, as someone suggested, letting go of the commitment to join together. I would also prefer to stick to joining together if that is possible without risking the safety of Finland. >

That is generous of you to say so. Throughout my life, when NATO has been mentioned in a purely hypothetical conversation, the consensus has always been that Finland would only ever consider it only if Sweden did too. Never expecting that such a situation could ever arise, of course.
Now it seems that Finland may join without Sweden. I am personally uncomfortable with that. I think Biden/USA should have a serious conversation with both Erdoğan and Orbán along the lines of preventing a valuable NATO upgrade.
Time as always will tell. >

Erdogan is having elections in May. He will drop the hardliner rhetoric after them with some sweet deal from the west. This is just a play on his end. >

I mean, equally he’ll drop the headliner rhetoric if we threaten to send his economy back to the Stone Age and confiscate everything west of the Bosporus back to Greece. I don’t believe in appeasing would be dictators. >

you cannot confiscate what is not yours and alienate a vital geopolitical ally. Like it or not Turkey is a stable ally that we cannot afford to lose. >

You can confiscate something that is rightfully someone else’s. And Constantinople is rightfully Greek. Turkey is absolutely not a stable or reliable ally, hence why we’re having this discussion in the first place. All they have to do is rubber stamp Swedens membership and they can’t even do that. >


And Constantinople is rightfully Greek.

Sorry, but what? Constantinople was never greek. Please do learn your history. -.- >

Of course it is. Greece is the successor state to Byzantium. >

No it's not. This is like saying Israel is the successor to the Israelite kingdoms. Turkey is however successor to the Ottomans given that empire collapsed to birth modern turkey >

Even if Sweden can't join, it would be pretty much surrounded by NATO countries if Finland joined meaning it would be safe on its borders and the only way Russia could attack would be by sea which would most likely not end well for Russia at all >

They've been losing ships to a country with no navy... Or their own fuckups, depending on which one you choose to believe. Both don't bode well for the idea. >

They should certainly try to join as soon as possible. NATO and the West in general isn’t going to let another European country be invaded by Russia, I think they’d come to Sweden’s defense anyway - all this posturing from Turkey won’t change that. >

There's still a difference between intervening in the way the West has intervened in Ukraine, which would be the likely way we'd help Sweden/Finland as well, and having boots on the ground and pulverizing the invaders ten seconds after they cross the border. >

I don’t know, Sweden has been closer aligned to Western countries, the EU, and NATO than Ukraine was - and aren’t there a number of NATO countries that doubled down on defending Sweden? I agree with you that I don’t think we’d see boots on the ground, but I do think at this point we could see air strikes and drone strikes, definitely a no fly zone I’d bet. Even then, I bet if a country did step out of line and did put boots on the ground - you’d see other countries do the same to not look like the weak link in the alliance.
Also, it’s definitely worth mentioning that Ukraine has done a number on Russian forces and it’s absolutely wild to think Russia thinks their in a position to open up another war front in a country they don’t already have a foot in. >

I don't know enough about the treaties involved to say anything with absolute certainty, but since Sweden is a member of the EU, they fall under article 42.7, the EU mutual defense clause, so EU countries would almost certainly have the right (and arguably duty) to put boots on the ground in its defense. Obviously not the same as having the overblown nuclear cock of the US military budget available, but clearly more than enough to deal with Russia.
Although it should be mentioned that 42.7 is widely considered pretty toothless and this would be its first test, so who knows what would actually happen.
All that being said, I agree about the silliness of Russia opening another front, they can barely keep the one they already have together!