Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has just announced in the pages of "The American Conservative" that he doesn't intend to opposes the accession of Sweden and Finland into NATO:

"As for Sweden and Finland, we still need serious, rational, objective debate on the costs and benefits of admitting two historically neutral nations who have such strategic geographic position in relation to Russia. Before the Russian invasion, I would have said no. But given Russian actions, I have shifted from being against their admittance to NATO to neutral on the question, and will as a consequence vote “present."

Paul's argument is incomprehensible. Yes, Sweden and Finland's membership of NATO will be seen by Russia as provocative and could cause it to take military action against Sweden and Finland, thereby triggering all-out war between NATO and Russia, but.....But what? Apparently Russia's "invasion" of Ukraine has vitiated that argument.

"If having Sweden and Finland in NATO does not lead to conflict, it will support the argument that NATO is a deterrent to war, Paul argues. "But, if having Sweden and Finland in NATO leads to conflict, as did the agitation for Ukraine in NATO, will NATO expansionists admit the provocation?" The question is rhetorical of course, because Paul knows the answer as well as we do. No, NATO expansionists will not admit the provocation. They will declare, as they always do, that the right to join NATO is the inalienable, God-given right of every nation. NATO expansionists are ignoring Russia's warnings in much the same way that they ignored Russia's warnings about the possible accession to NATO of Ukraine.

Paul goes on:

"The Russians have already announced that placing certain weapon systems in Finland is a red line. Whether the red line is justified is not the issue. The issue is, knowing your adversary’s position, is it worth the risk of pushing missiles into Finland?"

That sounds good. This would surely lead to the logical inference that NATO should not deploy any missiles in Finland and, more significantly, it should not turn Finland into a NATO staging post, strategically important for spying on Russian military installations and for threatening St. Petersburg.

But no, Paul doesn't want to go there. Instead, he draws the bizarre conclusion:

"The world has changed since Putin invaded Ukraine. Arguments that admitting Sweden and Finland to NATO could provoke Russia are less potent now, since Putin’s war shows he can be provoked by actions short of Ukraine’s actual admission to NATO."

This argument is incomprehensible. Russia attacked Ukraine even though Ukraine and NATO's actions fell "short of Ukraine's actual admission to NATO." And this for some reason is to be taken to be an argument in favor to Sweden and Finland's joining NATO?

Paul could--though interestingly he does not--argue that Russia only attacked Ukraine because Ukraine hadn't joined NATO. Had Ukraine already been a member of NATO, Putin would not have dared to attack because of NATO's vaunted "All for One, and One for All" Article 5. The moment Russia so much as crosses one inch of NATO territory, all 30 member-states of NATO go to war against Russia, including with nuclear weapons, and will not rest until Russia is defeated and the NATO flag is flying over the Kremlin.

This of course is nonsense. There is nothing more in Article 5 than a commitment on the part of NATO member-states to see what they can do to help out the member that has been attacked:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. In other words, NATO commits itself to doing nothing more than it is already doing on behalf of Ukraine, which is not a NATO member-state.

Given that Russia sees a Ukraine in NATO as an existential threat, it is hard to argue that Putin would not have dared to attack Ukraine if it were a member of NATO. Why wouldn't he? It's possible that this would have led to a full-scale war between Russia and NATO, including possible use of nuclear weapons, but this is a risk Russia would be to ready to run, given the magnitude of the stakes.

The claim that Russia would not have attacked Ukraine were it a member of NATO is obviously wrong. However, it is at least a comprehensible argument. But Paul does not make this argument. It's what makes his position so incomprehensible. If you've already antagonized Russia by threatening to bring Ukraine into NATO, and if Russia has already shown that it is ready to use force in the face of possible direct NATO military intervention, why would you think it's a good idea to threaten Russia even more? In addition, if--as seems almost certain--Russia wins its war in Ukraine, then Russia will be emboldened and will be very disinclined to accept an overstretched NATO's provocations in Finland.

"Prior to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, I have been an automatic 'no' on expanding NATO to Russia’s borders. I have seen such expansion as needless provocation. But Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has changed the world and a realistic view of foreign policy changes as the world does. In this new world, I am less adamant about preventing NATO’s expansion with Sweden and Finland."

As always, continued repetition of a weak argument doesn't make it any stronger. Most amusing of all is Paul's promise that

"In the coming days I will propose conditions to the treaty stating that Article 5 does not supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before engaging in hostilities, and that the U.S. will not bear any costs caused by the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO."

This is classic Rand Paul fatuous irrelevancies, just like his demands that aid to Ukraine be "audited," as if Congress going over some silly, entirely imaginary numbers will do anything to stop the flow of arms into Ukraine. As for the "constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before engaging in hostilities," it's one of those hardy perennials. Congressional gasbags, Cato parasites and various third-rate think-tank denizens regularly bring up the issue of the powers of Congress "to declare war" as a way to get into the papers or on TV.

Nothing much ever comes off it. Congress is much happier not to vote on anything. That way congresspeople can pretend to have been in favor of a military venture if it turns out well, and against it, if it turns out badly. However, what exactly is the point of a congressional "declaration of war? Would the invasion of Iraq been OK if it had followed a congressional declaration of war? Would all-out war--and perhaps nuclear conflagration--with Russia be a more advisable policy if it follows a congressional declaration of war? Complete destruction of the plan is fine if Congress issues a permission slip beforehand.

Rand Paul has failed to step up to the plate many times over. He still harbors presidential ambitions--an absurdity. Libertarians are an absolute shower--as always.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/should-nato-admit-sweden-and-finland/