A strong northern deterrent: Sweden and Finland want to join NATO – Foreign and security policy
Within a few weeks, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has changed the security situation in northern Europe. Finland and Sweden, the two non-aligned countries in the region, want to become NATO members as soon as possible. On December 17 last year, Vladimir Putin called for a new security arrangement in Europe with a halt to future NATO enlargements and the withdrawal of Allied formations from Eastern Europe. With its brutal war of aggression, the Kremlin has now accomplished the opposite. It has united NATO, strengthened the Alliance’s military presence near the conflict zone and made it tasty for two more countries to join.
The picture has changed in a decisive way as a result of the brutal Russian war in Ukraine, emphasized Finnish President Sauli Niinistö on 12 May, referring to his changed view of Finnish NATO membership. If anyone asks why Russia now has to see Finland join NATO, I say that it is self-inflicted. Check in the mirror. ‘
Niinistö, who knows Putin better than most, already made it clear in his New Year’s speech that his country’s choice of security policy path was solely the business of the Finnish people. At the turn of the year, a clear majority of Finns were still against NATO membership. After 24 February, on the other hand, Finnish members of parliament reported that many voters had sought contact and expressed support for a debate on a NATO alternative. In the most recent polls from May 10, as many as 76 percent were in favor of membership.
United against an aggressive Russia
Finns have a very pragmatic and practical view of NATO: protection against an unstable Russia, with which they share a 1,340-kilometer border. And they have a completely different historical experience of Moscow than their Swedish neighbors. In the turbulence of the Russian Revolution, Finland declared its independence in 1917. Between 1939 and 1945, the country experienced enormous human suffering and lost a lot of territory in the fight against Stalin’s Soviet Union. After the war, Moscow imposed a covenant of friendship, co-operation and aid on Finland, and it was obliged to commit itself to freedom of alliance. It was not until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 that Finland was able to apply for EU membership.
Neither Finland nor Sweden felt sufficiently secure under the security guarantee in Article 42 (7) of the EU Treaty after accession to the EU in 1995, but NATO membership was far away for both countries. For Sweden, it shakes the identity and self-perception that 200 years of freedom of alliance and peace have left. But even here, Russia’s war in Ukraine strongly influenced public opinion and leading politicians. Sweden’s Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said after the Riksdag decision to join NATO that it had been very difficult for Sweden to stand alone as an outsider in an increasingly tense security situation.
The strategic hole that characterizes the north is clogged and replaced by a tactical ‘depth’ that facilitates the defense of the Nordic and Baltic states.
While Denmark has voted in a referendum on 1 June to lift its reservations against the EU’s common security and defense policy. The strategic map of Northern Europe has thus changed completely within a few months. The Finnish and Swedish accession to NATO is a game changer. The strategic hole that characterizes the north is clogged and replaced by a tactical ‘depth’ that facilitates the defense of the Nordic and Baltic states. With all five Nordic countries in NATO, the Baltic Sea will largely be a NATO sea.
Both Sweden and Finland are politically stable democracies, well-established rule of law and militarily strong. A united north of NATO increases the alliance’s military capacity and collective defense readiness. Membership in the two countries will strengthen NATO as a community of values and increase the political weight of the Nordic countries in the Alliance. The two countries’ defense capabilities are expanding NATO’s deterrent capabilities and its defense capabilities in a region of strategic importance to the Alliance. Intelligence cooperation will also be considerably facilitated and a better understanding of the situation will be possible.
A strong northern deterrent
From a military strategic point of view, the Finnish and Swedish formations can easily be integrated into NATO. The armed forces in both countries are already NATO-compatible, having participated in multinational operations and exercises for decades in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Norway, among others.
In the next few years, the Nordic countries will build up a significant fleet of modern fighter jets. In total, Norway, Finland and Denmark will then have about 150 F-35 fighter jets and Sweden a considerable number of JAS 39 Gripen. It’s an impressive Air Force capability. With this comes a significant potential for cost-effective collaboration in bases, logistics and education and training.
With Finland and Sweden in NATO, Norway – as the only Atlantic coastal state with a border with Russia and with responsibility for a huge shipping area seven times larger than its mainland – receives great support.
If you add Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom as part of the North Sea cooperation, northern Europe then has about 250 to 300 F-35s plus the Swedish fighter planes. This creates a comprehensive and robust deterrence regime in northern Europe. And it increases NATO’s ability to protect the transatlantic link across the North Atlantic against Russian disruption strategies. The latter is a crucial point in ensuring that formations and reinforcements from the United States can reach Europe in the event of a crisis or war. It has often been said that Norway is “NATO in the north”. With Finland and Sweden in NATO, Norway – as the only Atlantic coastal state with a border with Russia and with responsibility for a huge shipping area seven times larger than its mainland – receives great support.
Russia’s reaction
Of course, Russia does not like Finland’s and Sweden’s change in defense policy at all. Both countries have stated that they – like Norway – want to attach elements of relaxation to their membership, including refraining from establishing permanent NATO bases in peacetime and stationing nuclear weapons in their countries. In the short term, however, increased tensions with Russia are to be expected. However, Moscow has only limited military capacity to influence NATO’s enlargement process. A large part of Russia’s formations are bound by the war in Ukraine. But the Kremlin could of course use hybrid means, which many warn against. This can be a mixture of cyber attacks and border violations in the airspace or in the Baltic Sea, as well as the spread of misinformation to arouse fear and insecurity.
Only when all 30 NATO countries have ratified the accession of the two countries will Sweden and Finland become members.
Nor can it be ruled out that Moscow will try to influence the ratification process within NATO by putting pressure on individual member states. One can only speculate as to whether such an approach is behind the sudden objections that Turkey has now raised to the rapid adoption process for the two countries that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg foresaw. The Turkish government claims that Sweden and Finland are “homes for Kurdish terrorists”. They have made their consent to the expedited procedure conditional on a number of requirements.
Only when all 30 NATO countries have ratified the accession of the two countries will Sweden and Finland become members and only then will the collective security guarantees in Article 5 enter into force. These are ultimately the main reason why the two countries are applying for membership. Because they are de facto, after many years of close cooperation with NATO, they can already be considered almost “half-members”.