I was just tempted to feel a bit happy that Joseph Stiglitz had told the Finnish government in no unclear terms that their economical policy is the wrong way (in Hbl of Lör 19.09., p.12) – which is of course eagerly being denied by Sipilä and others, but is still good ammunition for the Left -, but already in Hbl of Sö 20.09. there was then an article titled “Svenskt Natostöd pressar finska politiker”.
Jaha, there was some opinionsmätning according to which those in Sweden who want to join NATO are 2 per cent more than those who are against the idea (while 20 per cent are undecided). And Hbl is, unsurprisingly, clearly eager to follow up the matter: IF Sweden should join NATO, should Finland also do so? And certainly one should carefully consider what to do. Because: Up to now we have the situation that Russia is relatively happy with its peaceful Finnish border and a not very threatening Östersjö, while it is clear that any attack on Finland would see Sweden in the NATO already the next morning, making all of the western shores of the Östersjö enemy territory. Meaning that the present Swedish (official) neutrality is a protection for Finland and a great help to prevent military tension in the whole area. But if Sweden would by one-sided decison decide to join NATO, Russia might feel sufficiently threatened to demand a decison from Finland whether it would
(a) promise (CONVINCINGLY) not to let Sweden, or NATO, use Finnish territory for any aggression against Russia, or (b) not. And in case
(b) it might occur to Russian minds to make very soon a fast sweep into Finland and occupy it up to, say, the line Inari-Rovaniemi-Kemi (i.e. not invading any Swedish or Norwegian territory), by that shortening its newly hostile north-western border from 1340 km to ca 400 km.
Militarily, the thus-created shorter border would be very much easier to defend against the NATO. That the USA would risk a really big war because of it might actually be rather improbable (what is Finland with its ridiculous 5,5 mio people to US voters if New York city alone has already 8,4 mio ?), and if the Russians would mamage to behave rather civilized otherwise, the Finnish resistance in the occupied territory might die down rather soon. Altogether, there is quite a probability that it is not good for Finland if ANYbody is so very eager to create more hostile borders anywhere in the whole area.
Of course the Swedish (and Finnish) bourgeoisie, in its unlimited admiration for the US system (where the property of the rich is convincingly protected and the “elite” also “listened to”) will tend not to see all this. And IF it would see, to take it rather as a reason just to hurry up becoming another market for the US military complex and subservient to any US government – even if the president should be one Donald Trump. And the Finnish Left should, accordingly, use all its possibilities and contacts to (a) point to the above mechanism by which the Swedish neutrality is also protecting Finland (and anyway the peace in the whole region), point (b) to the ever-present danger that any next US government might be a Republican one (and any progressive US president might soon be shot), point (c) to the seeming reluctance of the Swedish media to spread progressive ideas (when I last time asked in Akademen, there was STILL no Swedish version of Ha-Joon Chang’s “23 Things …” – which makes at least me suspicious that something like censorship/brainwash is going on in Sweden, possibly resulting in a pro-NATO trend …). And if it should be so that this agrees with some tendencies among the Perussuomalaiset, so be it. There would still be no necessity to share the racism of some sections of that party …