When Russia invaded Ukraine, one of the reasons cited was the need to ‘demilitarise’ Ukraine and prevent the expansion of NATO. In doing so, it convinced the nations of Finland and Sweden to break with long traditions of non-alignment with military alliances (and strong public support for that stance) and apply to join NATO. In some ways, this must seem like a natural step. Both Finland and Sweden are members of the EU and NATO partners, which hardly made it unclear which side of the metaphorical iron curtain they favoured. There’s also reason to suggest this might not change as much as some networks are suggesting, with both nations expressing their lack of desire for permanent NATO bases in their territory or any sort of nuclear weapons sharing. But in other ways, this move is a tremendous boost to NATO and a disastrous strategic reverse for Russia. In this episode, I look at the history of Swedish and Finnish neutrality (and shift to non-alignment in the post cold war era), examine what these two nations would bring to NATO, and what that means for Europe, Russia, the USA, and global peace and security. I want to stress that while I talk about the relevance of these new NATO members in the context of certain military scenarios that have appeared on Russian TV, I don’t believe any of those are at all likely. They’re used because they help illustrate the point, and because when something appears on Russian TV, you can’t argue that there’s zero chance of that being on the Kremlin’s bucket list.Also, because I’m aware the word is used differently around the world, please note that when I’m using the term ‘liberal’ in reference to the post-war order, I’m referring to the system of institutions, rules, and norms the victorious powers put in place after WW2 rather than any contemporary politics.I’d also ask you to check the pinned comment regarding the question of how large the Swedish army is and what to include or not include in that figure.