UK has also made written guarantees to protect Finland (and Sweden) during the application process.

In practical reality, if Russia were to attack Finland or Sweden now, the answer from NATO would be pretty much the same as if they were already members.

> In practical reality, if Russia were to attack Finland or Sweden now, the answer from NATO would be pretty much the same as if they were already members.

Really? Why is this true of Finland but not Ukraine?

Because NATO has the initiative here. The guarantees, unofficial or not, now function as a deterrent for possible Russian aggression. A promise/threat to join a hypothetical future conflict is very different from joining an existing conflict. One is a deterrent, the other is escalation.

Besides, Finland has been a close NATO ally for a long time, shares NATO values, our military is already 100% NATO compatible, and we are strategically and geopolitically a pretty important piece of the puzzle.

Ukraine hadn't applied, until recently arguably didn't meet the military requirements, and - even before this year - had a border dispute in Donbas.

The latter is important, NATO is not a hired gun. Finland does have a stable border.

> had a border dispute in Donbas

Not to mention Crimea, whose annexation by Russia is accepted by nobody.

Because Ukraine was not in the explicit membership pipeline.

Ukraine was not about to join NATO.

This is turnkey, UKR isn’t

Because that would have been agressive from the NATO standpoint. Russia was not having a "war" with Ukraine, from Putins standpoint they were going into their own country to protect their citisens. That would just have played out Putins way to support his narrative that Russia is under attack from the rest of the world.

Because Ukraine was/is in a state of Civil War.

That's not a "civil war"; Ukraine has been invaded by a foreign army.

Not in 2014 it wasn’t.

Russia most certainly invaded.

"In response to the deteriorating situation in the Donbas, Russia abandoned its hybrid approach, and began a conventional invasion of the region. The first sign of this invasion was 25 August 2014 capture of a group of Russian paratroopers on active service in Ukrainian territory by the Ukrainian security service (SBU)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=In....

What? That's exactly what happened in 2014!

If Sweden got attacked, most Norwegians would want to help them somehow, ending up dragging NATO into the ordeal anyways, is my thought.

Most Poles want to help Ukraine somehow and we didn't drag NATO into the conflict.

Sweden would probably get stronger support for other reasons, like being perceived as an established democratic western country.

That's because NATO can't join the conflict.

Norway would only be able to drag NATO into a war if Norway were attacked on its own soil.

Kinda my thought here. Finland and Sweden in NATO formalizes some stuff but I am highly confident if they were attacked and not in NATO we would probably still show up. They are close allies.