Yes but note also from the Report ( pag 20/21 )

"...Irrespective of this, the Atlantic Alliance makes it clear that the organisation’s security guarantees apply to members only. Full access to collective defense planning, decision-making and military structures can only be reached via full membership.

This leads to the main paradox of the NATO partnership, namely that in the worst case it can be seen in the eyes of external actors to strengthen an ever-closer association with NATO without, however, supplying the deterrence provided by Article 5..."

The EU membership includes it's own defense pact.

EU membership but NATO non-membership gives security to Finland, without hosting US military weapons aimed at Russia. In this way, it gives defensive security without making it a strategic threat to Russia.

It does, and Finnish President has asked many times a clarification what it actually means, see [1]. It's his favorite hobby horse, he keeps asking about it, but not getting any clarification from other member states.

Problem is apparently with it is wording, it makes requirement to help any ways available. But apparently it can be interpreted like "give humanitarian aid" or even "send troops to help", depending on reader. It's not clear it's defensive enough.

[1]: https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/niinisto-vaati-suoraa-ke...

It must be maddening, shouting "There are things that need to be clarified", and just receiving blank disinterested stares like a dark comedy..

> the organisation’s security guarantees

Q1: Do existing NATO members consult their citizens (referendum or political party making pledge before national election or similar) before a new member state is admitted?

Q2: If not, why not?

bonus Q: Imagine Taiwan were to apply to join NATO...

Re: Taiwan, via Wikipedia:

"Article 6 states that the treaty covers only member states' territories in Europe and North America, Turkey and islands in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer, plus French Algeria. It was the opinion in August 1965 of the US State Department, the US Defense Department and the legal division of NATO that an attack on the U.S. state of Hawaii would not trigger the treaty, but an attack on the other 49 would.[47] The Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla on the North African shore are thus not under NATO protection in spite of Moroccan claims to them. Legal experts have interpreted that other articles could cover the Spanish North African cities but this take has not been tested in practice."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty

Another difficulty for Sweden and Finland is that all need to agree.

"NATO Enlargement & Open Door"

"...NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10 of the Alliance’s founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty (1949). The Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any “European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”. It states that any decision on enlargement must be made “by unanimous agreement”. .."

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_...

>bonus Q: Imagine Taiwan were to apply to join NATO...

I imagine you would see a very similar response from China, probably a more swift and harsh than that of Russia.

Most countries don't recognize Taiwan's independence. I'm always amazed people don't know that.

Despite CCP's yelling that they want to invade the world has agreed to an awkward but stable status quo.

Perhaps we could invite them to be a 51st US state instead. Unfortunately, I imagine this would upset the awkward but stable status quo, not unlike the upset from Ukraine joining NATO.

Because all(?) of the NATO members are representative democracies of some form or other. While obviously certain actions can be a domestic political issue (so in that sense citizens are "consulted"), there's no direct citizen vote on things like alliances, treaties, etc. (or many other actions a national government takes).

> there's no direct citizen vote on things like alliances, treaties, etc

One could imagine that if your country's citizens will be called upon to go to war to fight to defend a distant "country X", just because your country and "country X" happen to be in an alliance, that citizens informed consent would be desirable and required before signing such a treaty.

Despite what your politicians might say, joining an military alliance has a cost, it's not a freebie.

The original article says the same thing multiple times

People don't read the article, especially when it's a PDF.

This isn't the only relevant question. The most relevant question is: how defensible is potential NATO entrant X?

Georgia was completely indefensible. Ukraine might have been, but preparations were not made for it. Finland can defend itself, so in a sense it is defensible, and in so far as Norway is a NATO member and a neighbor, there might be lines of transportation that might make Finland defensible by the alliance.

I don't actually know. Finland must be more defensible than the Baltic states (which are not at all defensible, but are in NATO). But evidence suggests that Putin doesn't care as much about Finland as about Ukraine, nor as much about the Baltic states as about the Ukraine. So this question may not matter as much as I suppose. Still, in a context where Putin sees NATO expansion as so provocative, it might not be a good idea to rush to expand NATO just yet -- it might be a good idea to first take stock and really see if we actually can defend the new entrants.

> The most relevant question is: how defensible is potential NATO entrant X?

That's... not the point at all. NATO isn't an attempt to maximize the utility of a "fortress" in western Europe, it's an attempt to deter aggression by expressly recognizing an attack on one member as an attack on all.

If war is inevitable then we'll all be fighting on Finland's side anyway and NATO membership doesn't matter. The reason to join is to make it as clear as possible that attacking Finland is off limits, and thus prevent the war.

> it's an attempt to deter aggression by expressly recognizing an attack on one member as an attack on all.

...and it appears the two mutual alliances pre-World War 1 basically ended up hastening the start of World War 1.

Why do we think that it would be different this time?

Because your example is 108 years old and no NATO nation has been attacked militarily[1] in the 73 years since the treaty was signed?

[1] With no doubt a handful of exceptions that people will point out. The Faulklands war comes to mind, where the UK deliberately did not invoke the treaty and chose to defend its territory itself, etc...

> no NATO nation has been attacked militarily in the 73 years since the treaty was signed [..]

Without a definition of "attacked militarily" I'm not sure that claim is useful. Perhaps mostly due to the concept of countries "declaring war" on each other having rather gone out of fashion?

Back in 1943, Roosevelt asked (!) the Congress declare a state of war. These days it seems it's more like "shoot first and ask [strike]questions[/strike] Congress later"

It's Falklands. And anyways, NATO as it stands today will not be attacked. But potential NATO entrants very much might be, prior to and maybe even after entering. No one believes that NATO will actually fight beyond Poland. Hell, I don't believe the Germans would fight for Poland -- Poland would fight for Poland, but that's probably it. Defensibility matters. I think Poland is defensible mainly because this time Poland is prepared and willing to defend itself long enough to embarrass the rest of NATO into helping.

That means Poland is now safe from attack.

All the new entrants being discussed are less defensible than Poland. With Ukraine being left to flap in the wind and lose, the value of discussing NATO entrance is now negative.

Wasn't there a war between two NATO countries? Turkey and Greece.

"In 1964, due to the Cyprus crisis, Greece withdrew military units from NATO forces in the Southern Mediterranean, over threats of invasion of Cyprus by fellow NATO member Turkey.[8] Later in 1974 due to the invasion of Cyprus by Turkish forces, Greece withdrew from NATO military command. Notwithstanding, the country did not withdraw entirely from the organisation, but became significantly less active.[9]

In 1980, the Greek foreign minister Konstantinos Mitsotakis made remarks about the situation where he could see Greece fully withdrawing from the organisation. However, later diplomatic pressure from the United States led to Greece fully re-integrating with the alliance.[10]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_NATO#Greece

Deterrence relies on the to-be-deterred believing the deterrence threat. If entrant X is not defensible, it won't be defended, therefore the deterrence value of accepting entrant X is low.

No one -but no one- believes that NATO will fight a war with Russia over Finland, or over Ukraine, or Belarus, or Georgia, or at all. Certainly Putin does not. I assert certainty w/o being a mind reader and not truly knowing what's in going on in his mind, but it's pretty clear to any and all that Germans, French, British, Americans, etc, none of them want a shooting war with Russia even if it could be an easy win because a) it might not be an easy win, b) it might be ruinously costly in blood and treasure even if it were an easy win, c) it might lead to nuclear war where no one wins and everyone loses.

If, however, Finland is easily defended, and can defend itself by itself with little extra help from NATO, then that's a deterrence to invasion of Finland regardless of Finland's membership in NATO. I think the experience with the Winter and Continuation Wars makes it pretty clear that Finland can defend itself, at least for some time, so that alone is deterrence against Russia invading Finland. Inviting Finland into NATO would then seem mostly an empty gesture (since we all know NATO won't actually fight Russia), but also a provocative action (see Ukraine). It's lose-lose.

It's time for sane thinking to prevail at NATO. The status quo ante-Georgia was fine. The current state of play is not. We got here in large part because of overly-optimistic belief in NATO. Instead of deterring Putin, the inverse happened. The reason is simple: NO ONE believes that NATO would actually fight. Even back in the 80s under Reagan, no one believed any countries other than the U.S. and UK would really fight, but at least Western Europe was defensible and worth fighting for, and the U.S. being willing to fight was deterrence enough. Eastern Europe is now defensible and worth fighting for, and I do believe Poland would fight for itself, and so would other Eastern European countries, but I don't think any would fight for Ukraine, not even if Ukraine had been admitted a few months ago.

Even during the Cold War they cooperated with NATO counties and their planning involved assuming they would get support from NATO nations.

Russia wasn’t in the dark about it.