Already at the beginning of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, it was suggested from a social democratic point of view that if Finland turns around NATO, S needs to follow suit.

But then the assessment was that the Finnish process would probably land in a no.  

Now it sounds different, it is difficult to find someone within S who thinks that the Finnish process ends with something other than a yes to NATO.

Nevertheless, the view that Sweden and Finland should be followed seems to remain intact. 

S-voters want to join NATO

A Finnish yes would probably also fulfill two other premises that are considered required for a Social Democratic turnaround: A substantial parliamentary majority and broad popular support.

According to the latest survey from Novus, a clear majority, even among S voters, thinks that Sweden should join NATO if Finland does so.

And when SD now wants Sweden to join provided that Finland does the same, a yes from the Social Democrats would also mean 304 seats for a membership.  

But then why is the Finnish choice of route so crucial?

Not only for the Social Democrats and the Social Democrats, but also the bourgeois parties that have long advocated NATO membership prefer to see it happen together with Finland. 

"Sweden would lose credibility"

In part, it is about the common history.

As the only two non-aligned countries in our part of Europe, Sweden and Finland have built their security on cooperation and agreements, both bilateral but also trilateral between Sweden, Finland and the United States.

If Finland joins but not Sweden, these collaborations would become irrelevant, NATO advocates claim.

Other arguments put forward are that Sweden would lose credibility as a security policy actor if we were left alone outside NATO.

And that Russia's strategic interest in Gotland would increase dramatically with a Finnish NATO membership.

Finally, some emphasize that it would be more difficult for NATO to fulfill its security guarantee against Finland if Sweden remained non-aligned.  

Difficult to influence NATO opponents

But the arguments bite little on NATO opponents.

Those who continue to see military freedom of alliance as the best tool for keeping Sweden out of war.

Those who point to the nuclear umbrella and that Sweden needs to defend its independent role in order to mediate in conflicts, criticize violations of international law and work for disarmament.

Many also point out how crucial it is that Sweden retains the right to decide where we send Swedish soldiers.  

Given arguments for Social Democrats firmly rooted in the party's security policy line.

The one that according to party secretary Tobias Baudin (S) does not apply after 24 February. 

Another aspect of the Finnish path choice is electoral tactics.

For life and pain, the Social Democrats do not want the NATO issue in the election campaign.

One way to avoid this if Finland wants to apply already this summer is to do the same.

If the party does not do so, Ulf Kristersson (M) will do everything he can to make NATO membership a matter of choice.  

"The decision ultimately lies with Magdalena Andersson"

But there is a critical factor that even those who lean towards a yes highlight and it is the increased risk an application entails.

How it is to be resolved is crucial for both the Finnish and Swedish positions.   

The decision ultimately lies with Magdalena Andersson (S).

What she recommends to the party board will be the line the party stands behind.

Or to quote Denmark's former prime minister, the Social Democrat Jens Otto Krag "You have a position until you take a new one".