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.
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...
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...
"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."
"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_...
I imagine you would see a very similar response from China, probably a more swift and harsh than that of Russia.
Despite CCP's yelling that they want to invade the world has agreed to an awkward but stable status quo.
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.
"...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..."