Comprehension

Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24 apparently to stop NATO’s further expansion into its neighbourhood. But in less than three months, the same invasion has pushed two countries in that neighbourhood to consider NATO membership. Last week, the Prime Minister and President of Finland, which has stayed neutral since the end of the Second World War, said they hoped their country would apply for NATO membership ”without delay”. Sweden, which has stayed out of military alliances for 200 years, stated that NATO membership would strengthen its national security and stability in the Baltic and Nordic regions. If these two countries now formally apply for membership, it would be the biggest strategic setback for Russian President Vladimir Putin whose most important foreign policy focus has been on weakening NATO. Particularly alarming for Russia is the case of Finland, with which it has a hostile past. Stalin invaded Finland in 1939 demanding more territories. Though the Red Army struggled in the initial phase of the war, it forced Finland to sign the Moscow Peace Treaty, ceding some 9% of its territory. But a year later, the Finns, in an alliance with the German Nazis, attacked the Soviet troops. Peace was established along the 1,340-km Finnish-Russian border after the Nazis were defeated in the Second World War. Now, Ukraine appears to have deepened the security concerns of Finland and Sweden. It is still not clear whether these countries would be inducted into NATO any time soon. Within the alliance, decisions are taken unanimously. Turkey has already expressed its opposition to taking the Nordic countries in. While the U.S. and the U.K. are pushing for NATO’s expansion, Germany and France have taken a more cautious line.  Hungary, which has deep ties with Russia and has already held up the EU’s plan to ban Russian oil imports, has not made its views clear. But the mere declaration of intent by Finland and Sweden to join NATO has sent tensions in Europe soaring, with Russia threatening ’military and technical’ retaliation. Normatively speaking, Finland and Sweden are sovereign countries and free to take decisions on joining any alliance. It is up to NATO to decide whether they should be taken in or not. But a bigger question these countries as well as Europe as a whole face is whether another round of expansion of NATO would help bring in peace and stability in Europe, particularly at a time when the continent is facing a pre-First World War-type security competition. It would escalate the current crisis between nuclear-armed Russia and NATO to dangerous levels. Already the several rounds of NATO expansion and Russia’s territorial aggression have brought the world to its most dangerous moment since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Russia should immediately halt the war and all the stakeholders should focus on finding a long-term solution to the crisis.

Question: 1

Sweden decided to apply for NATO membership in order to...

Show Hint

When a question asks for a reason or motivation of a specific entity (like a country), scan the passage for that entity's name and look for associated verbs like "stated," "said," or "claimed." The answer is usually found in the sentence that follows.
Updated On: Oct 13, 2025
  • Weaken Russia
  • Strengthen its national security
  • Strengthen NATO as a military alliance
  • Strengthen bilateral relationship with Finland
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Question
The question asks for the specific reason why Sweden decided to seek NATO membership, according to the information provided in the passage.

Step 2: Locating Sweden's Justification in the Passage
The passage provides a direct quote or statement regarding Sweden's motivation. It reads: "Sweden, which has stayed out of military alliances for 200 years, stated that NATO membership would strengthen its national security and stability in the Baltic and Nordic regions."

Step 3: Evaluating the Options


(A) Weaken Russia: While this might be a consequence of NATO expansion, it is not stated as Sweden's primary motivation.

(B) Strengthen its national security: This option directly matches the reason given in the passage. Sweden's stated goal is to enhance its own security and stability.

(C) Strengthen NATO as a military alliance: This might be an outcome, but the passage presents Sweden's motivation as being focused on its own national interest, not the alliance's overall strength.

(D) Strengthen bilateral relationship with Finland: While Finland is also applying and they are neighbors, Sweden's stated reason for joining NATO is its own national security, not its relationship with Finland.


Step 4: Final Answer
The passage explicitly states that Sweden's reason for applying for NATO membership is to strengthen its national security. Therefore, option (B) is the correct answer.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

Which one of the following statement is INCORRECT.

Show Hint

For "INCORRECT" questions, you must act as a fact-checker. Go through each option one by one and try to find a sentence in the passage that either confirms or denies it. The one that is contradicted by the text is your answer. Pay attention to qualifiers like "all," "only," or "always."
Updated On: Oct 13, 2025
  • Historically, Russia has very troubling relationship with Finland.
  • US, UK, Germany and France are very actively pursuing to expand NATO in Europe.
  • Turkey opposes the NATO membership to Sweden and Finland.
  • NATO expansion was one of the cause for 1962 Cuban Missile crisis.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Question
The question asks to identify the statement that is factually incorrect based on the information given in the passage. This requires checking each option against the text.

Step 2: Verifying Each Statement


(A) Historically, Russia has very troubling relationship with Finland: The passage supports this. It mentions, "Particularly alarming for Russia is the case of Finland, with which it has a hostile past. Stalin invaded Finland in 1939...". This statement is correct.

(B) US, UK, Germany and France are very actively pursuing to expand NATO in Europe: The passage presents a more nuanced picture. It says, "While the U.S. and the U.K. are pushing for NATO's expansion, Germany and France have taken a more cautious line." This means they are not all "very actively pursuing" expansion; Germany and France are cautious. Thus, this statement is incorrect.

(C) Turkey opposes the NATO membership to Sweden and Finland: The passage confirms this. It states, "Turkey has already expressed its opposition to taking the Nordic countries in." This statement is correct.

(D) NATO expansion was one of the cause for 1962 Cuban Missile crisis.: The passage makes a different claim. It states, "Already the several rounds of NATO expansion and Russia's territorial aggression have brought the world to its most dangerous moment since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis." This implies the current situation is comparable in danger to the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it does NOT say NATO expansion caused the 1962 crisis. This statement is therefore incorrect as presented in the option based on a misreading of the passage. However, comparing it with option B, option B presents a clearer contradiction with the text. The question asks for one incorrect statement. Let's re-evaluate. The passage clearly says Germany and France have taken a more cautious line. So, statement B is definitely incorrect. Statement D is an incorrect interpretation of the passage's comparison, but the passage does not provide enough information to definitively call the historical claim itself correct or incorrect, it only states the current danger level is similar. Given the clear contradiction in statement B, it is the most definitively incorrect statement according to the passage.


Step 3: Final Decision
Statement (B) is directly contradicted by the text, which explicitly separates the stances of the US/UK from Germany/France. The statement incorrectly lumps all four countries together as "very actively pursuing" expansion. This is the most clearly incorrect statement based on the provided passage.

Step 4: Final Answer
The passage clearly distinguishes between the US and UK, who are pushing for expansion, and Germany and France, who are more cautious. Therefore, the statement that all four are "very actively pursuing" expansion is incorrect. Option (B) is the correct answer.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0