>

Honestly I don’t understand how you think it doesn’t make sense. You explained it pretty well.
The point is that Finland is trying to leverage the possibility of this as a reason to not join as a lever to move Turkey to allow Sweden to join.
Like, the context here in the post is already pretty clear so?
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan can just fuck right off. >

Hopefully he will have a big defeat in May. >

I hope so too. >

Oh look, a surprise coup! How did the intelligence services not predict this? Guess Erdogan will have to stay in power for the good of the nation. >

I would honestly be surprised if there is no "terror attack" of some kind juuuust a bit before the election >

Finnish goverment seems to have had enough of jerking around. 
I don't see Finland saying no (nor "we'll just join with Sweden later") to joining if ratified, but the constantly growing amount of hoop jumping demanded for possible ratification has become too mutch even for finnish politicans. >

I love the brotherhood of these two nations, but Sweden would be much safer if Finland went ahead and joined. >

It doesnt matter since both have security guarantees from uk and usa... We can easily wait.
And russia is in no power to attack another country anyway lol >

With an open front in Ukraine, they could never afford an other one with finland, even alone. The terrain is on Finland side, and the whole logistic to bring an army to Finland doorstep could be disrupted very easily. >

Dont forget, Finland has also been preparing for Russian invasions since the end of WWII
The amount of artillery and weapons pointed at that border is insane >

Regardless, these countries are already moving largely lockstep with NATO, moreso than certain members. Membership is ideal and should happen quickly. But if Putin decided to hit Finland, I don't see NATO shrugging, saying, "well, they aren't a member soooo..." and ignoring it. >

Honestly NATO only really needs Finland. Having the ability to move troops and equipment to such a large and important border is the most vital aspect of them joining. >

Sweden allows the entirety of the Baltic sea with the exception of Kaliningrad and near St. Petersburg to be surrounded by NATO countries. That's vitally important >

Yes but NATO dominates the entrance in and out of the Baltic sea with Denmark and Norway. Sweden is a nice to have, not a need to have. Finland opens a border that is too long  to defend, and can cut off supplies between most of ruzzia and the militarily important Kola Peninsula, thanks to Finland being 100km from the railroad in some places.
I want both, but Finland is far more strategically important than Sweden if war breaks out >

Nah, Sweden is essential to have from the Finnish point of view, not just a nice to have. Sweden makes logistics way easier, has a large manpower reserve of fit to serve who could be trained fairly easily in the event of war, is able to manufacture arms and resupply units, has a locally very powerful navy and air force (their army isn't bad either, just lacks a little manpower since they did away with conscription) with capabilities that are quite lacking with their neighbors, etc.
The Finnish and Swedish defense/armed forces have a very good working relationship. Perhaps Sweden isn't essential for NATO, but Sweden is essential for Finland regardless of if we are in NATO or not. Finland without Sweden also loses quite a bit of effectiveness and resilience in terms of providing security in the Baltic Sea area and around the Kola Peninsula. >

Sweden can help defend Finland anytime they want, they don't need to be a NATO member to do that. >

Right. Can. But hypothetically would you rather be between a bully and someone who will help you, or a bully and someone who can help you.
I don’t blame Finland. >

Explain to me how Finland and Sweden outside of NATO is safer for Finland than Sweden out and Finland in? >

I explained it pretty clearly. Finland sees joining NATO without a commitment from Sweden as putting themselves in a poor strategic situation.
Sweden is vital to Finland’s strategic security in the event of a war with Russia and if Sweden were to remain neutral in such a scenario it would be catastrophic for Finland as they would effectively be cut off.
This isn’t rocket science. Finland is trying to guarantee that they will have supply routes in case of a war, otherwise they aren’t willing to participate in that war. Theoretically joining NATO means that participation is not optional in this scenario. If Finland joins NATO without Sweden then Russia could potentially cut Finland off from NATO if Sweden were to remain neutral.
Whether it’s likely or not doesn’t counter the catastrophe if it happens. >

So, let me understand this...
Sweden wants to join NATO. Being a member of NATO means that if another member is attacked, then all the rest must defend them. That attacked country could be any of them, including Turkey. So, basically Sweden is willing to defend Turkey, if they join NATO.
But, if they don't join NATO, and Finland does, Sweden might want to remain neutral, if Russia attacks Finland? Is that what you are saying? Because that makes exactly zero sense.