Why NATO should think about Finland and Sweden’s introduction
OOne of the irony of Russia’s war against Ukraine – which was apparently fought to prevent that nation from joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – has been its impact on two of Europe’s traditionally neutral states, Finland and Sweden. On 18 May, just 84 days after the invasion, Swedish and Finnish ambassadors submitted applications to join NATO at a public ceremony at the Alliance’s headquarters in Brussels.
“This is a historic moment that we must seize,” said Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. “You are our closest partners, and your NATO membership will increase our shared security.” It seems likely that their applications will be approved quickly and NATO will soon grow to 32 member countries.
But in a hurry to give Putin a black eye by embracing Finland and Sweden, US and NATO leaders may fail to consider the potential costs of introducing two more countries into what is, after all, intended to be a collective defense organization.
There are only two clear advantages to taking in the two Nordic nations. The first is symbolic: it provides a clear demonstration of European and democratic solidarity against Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. The second is technical: to allow Finland and Sweden to better align NATO membership with the EU, and to avoid the unlikely but problematic scenario in which an EU member state is exposed to aggression but is not covered by NATO’s Article 5 Mutual Defense Pact. .
In all other respects, however, the issue of Finnish and Swedish membership is more complicated and worrying. Think of the overall European defense capability.
Yes, Finland and Sweden have very advanced economies. They can be net contributors to NATO’s technical capabilities through national masters such as Ericsson AB and Nokia Oyj. They are also more capable militarily than some other European states – especially Finland, which has maintained its military service into the post-Cold War period and has a relatively wide range of military capabilities, including the continent’s largest artillery force.
But from the point of view of existing NATO members – and especially the United States – it is still not necessarily a win. Finland and Sweden have long focused their military on defending their own territories, which has cast doubt on their value in contributing to a common defense, which is at the heart of NATO’s Charter.
And while both nations have promised to increase their military spending and ability to strengthen Europe’s broader defense, it is also possible that they would not. Instead, they can skimp on America’s military strength – and its nuclear umbrella – as so many European states have done for years. According to the International Monetary Fund, none of the countries close to meeting NATO’s targets will spend 2% of GDP on defense.
Also read: Europe dreams of military power, but NATO still has the responsibility. India must engage with caution
History suggests that the most likely outcome is that two more states will increase the US defense burden at a time when Washington should turn to Asia.
Think also of the question of the defensibility of new NATO territory. Admitting Sweden could be strategically advantageous, enabling NATO forces to better control the Baltic Sea and use Gotland, at an important chokepoint outside the Baltic states, as a place for future conflicts.
Finnish territory, on the other hand, is a strategic nightmare. It would dramatically increase the alliance’s exposure to possible future attacks from Moscow: the country shares a 800 km long border with Russia which, as a recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies put it, is “very vulnerable to Russian military threats.”
There are a number of other reasons for caution, including the usual fears of extending the alliance to an increasingly awkward set of member states. No genius is needed to predict that 32 nations will be even harder to deal with than 30. Before its Ukraine moment, NATO fought to maintain peace between Greece and Turkey, few nations met the spending target of 2%, and President Emmanuel Macron of France had made headlines to suggest that the alliance was experiencing “brain death”.
Even in the face of Russia’s aggression, support for adding the two members is not unanimous. Turkey’s violent opposition to Finland and Sweden may be an attempt to turn political concessions from the alliance, but it also owes much to these countries’ support for Kurdish affairs.
Alliance leaders should also consider the risk of Russian overreaction. Moscow has started three wars over potential NATO expansion – invaded Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014 before the ongoing war. Although Moscow obviously cannot stage another major military campaign right now, it cannot be ruled out that President Vladimir Putin is doing something irrational in response to a NATO expansion that takes the alliance within 200 miles of his birthplace. Petersburg.
At the same time, it is not clear that Finland and Sweden run an increased risk if they are not allowed to join NATO. They have long relied on their neutral status and domestic defense capabilities to prevent crises. To refuse to let them into NATO is not to hang them out to dry, but simply to maintain a functioning status quo.
The symbolic value of admitting two new member states as the prize for Russia’s brutality in Ukraine can bear the brunt of Brussels. But before moving on to the accession process – which gives leaders and legislators in each Member State a chance to weigh in – decision-makers should consider the whole strategic picture and whether or not admission strengthens the alliance.
Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty clarifies that existing members may invite new states to join if they “contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.” With that standard, the strategic case for adopting Sweden and Finland into NATO is not a slam dunk.—Bloomberg
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,document,'script',
'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
fbq('init', '1985006141711121');
fbq('track', 'PageView');