For non-aligned Finland and Sweden, neutrality may be the biggest risk in Russian aggression
But for two of the 27 participating nations at Cold Response – Finland and Sweden – the exercises are also cooling comfort. As their presence suggests, both nations are deeply integrated in the West. But historically non-aligned, none of them belong to NATO. This makes them uncomfortably outside the alliance’s defense umbrella, which says that an attack on a member is also an attack on everyone.
However, the growing Russian threat is driving a historic debate in both countries about the sudden ironic risks of embracing NATO membership. Swedes and Finns are appalled by the brutal Russian siege of Ukrainian cities, and closely observe NATO’s limited military response to a war taking place in another non-NATO nation. Allied weapons are sent across the border to Ukraine, a country that, unlike Sweden and Finland, at least applied for an alliance membership, even though it never won it. Biting economic sanctions are also being imposed on Russia. But one thing is now quite clear: NATO will not risk a nuclear war with Russian President Vladimir Putin by sending in cavalry to defend a country that is not a member of its club.
It is a food for thought for the long-cautious Swedes and especially the Finns, who are even more familiar with Russian aggression. In the last two weeks, opinion polls in both countries have shown a change in public opinion to join NATO – a position now shared by a narrow majority in both countries for the first time.
– In Sweden, defense was a low priority before the Ukraine war, said Anna Wieslander, the Stockholm-based Northern Europe chief of the Atlantic Council. “Now that’s the number one problem.”
Of the six non-NATO EU countries – a short list that also includes Austria, Cyprus, Ireland and Malta – Finland and Sweden are seen as perhaps the most likely candidates, but also those that would disrupt Russia. Already among the closest non-members to NATO are the two countries Enhanced Opportunity Partners – a category that also includes Ukraine. They further strengthened NATO ties in 2014 and signed an agreement that gave the defense alliance more scope to operate on their territory during conflicts and other emergencies. NATO has already agreed to share intelligence on the Ukraine war with both countries.
Nevertheless, Moscow has already warned of “serious military policy consequences” if any of the nations were to step into full membership and appear to be threatening with more than words. Last week, Finnish planes flying near the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad were hit by mysterious disturbances with their GPS signals. On March 2, Swedish officials condemned four Russian fighter jets’ violation of the Baltic Sea airspace.
Both countries are still moving to respond to a new era of Russian aggression. Like other European nations, Sweden has announced a large increase in defense spending, with Finland considering similar measures. One week ago, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö met President Biden in the White House – a session that the Swedish leader agreed at a distance – to discuss enhanced defense cooperation. In the wake of a major EU summit on the Ukraine crisis in France last week, Finnish and Swedish leaders will meet with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Monday for a two-day summit with other northern European nations, and with a view to strengthening a regional defense pact.
Both countries have also tried to remind other EU members that the bloc is more than just an association based on economics and trade. In a joint letter to the member nations last week, Finland and Sweden addressed Article 42.7 of the founding Lisbon Treaty of the European Union – which obliges other members to “assist and assist by all means in their power” any EU country that is attacked.
But few observers see it as a security solution for both countries. The EU clause lacks the power of Article 5 of NATO – which provides the Alliance’s defense umbrella. Firstly, the EU Treaty does not apply to some of the most important NATO armies – including the United States, Britain and Turkey. And given the European Union’s fundamental position that NATO remains the backbone of the continent’s defense, a test of the Lisbon Treaty’s military promise could lead to a dangerous disappointment for non-aligned countries.
Of the two, Finland, the only non-NATO member state that shares a border with Russia, is moving faster to weigh a real membership offer. The country has long existed as a buffer state – spent 700 years as part of Sweden before being turned away by the Russian Empire in 1809. After independence in 1917, World War II with the Soviet Union saw fierce Finnish resistance. A treaty with Moscow in 1948 replaced a measure of independence with a security pact with the Soviets, an attitude that Helsinki would maintain throughout the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to Finland heading west. It joined the European Union in 1995, despite refraining from the more provocative step of joining NATO.
By proposing how Moscow’s war in Ukraine could spur countries on the fence to take clearer sides, a Finnish initiative to hold a national referendum on NATO membership won the 50,000 signatures needed for a parliamentary debate on it in less than a week , Al Jazeera reported. Senior members of the Finnish government, including Niinistö, say that a review of the issue is now underway, with officials demanding a quick, if not hasty, response.
“Once alternatives and risks have been analyzed, then it’s time for conclusions,” Niinistö told reporters last week. “We also have secure solutions for our future. We need to look at them carefully. Not with delay, but with caution. “
Sweden, a historically non-aligned country that stayed out of both world wars, seems to be on a slower track. During the Cold War, it saw Moscow as a threat and secretly cooperated with NATO, but did not try to join it. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Sweden cut military spending and joined the European Union, even though public opinion and political will remained against NATO membership.
Despite a massive change in public opinion since the Ukraine war, Sweden’s Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, a staunch supporter from the center-left, trampled on speculation about an immediate NATO bid.
A move now, she told reporters last week in Stockholm, would “further destabilize the situation.” That does not mean it can not happen. Last week, the Sweden Democrats – a party of right-wing nationalists – announced that they would reconsider their previous opposition to joining NATO, a move that would give pro-alliance parties a sudden majority in parliament.
Should any of the countries take the step, a major problem would be the dangerous gap between each petition to join NATO and having that request granted. Until official entry, both countries would still live outside NATO’s umbrella, while a public promise to join NATO could increase the threat of a Russian storm.
At least some current NATO members are also likely to resist taking greater risks at such a sensitive time.
“The question is whether you can take out insurance when the house burns down?” Wieslander told me. “This is something that NATO will also have to decide on.”