Why the accession of Finland and Sweden is a Game Changer for NATO
Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression has made it possible for the Western alliance to reap unimaginable rewards.
We should find out whether Finland and Sweden have been formally accepted as the latest members to join NATO during the Madrid Summit (28-30 June), which is driving the total population of the alliance countries closer to one billion people. Although Turkish objections over their formal applications are unnecessarily protracted and we lack the good-looking optics of a summit communiqué announcing their membership, it still feels inevitable that both will join, and relatively soon.
Russia will already be preparing because the military hardware, professionalism and natural geographical advantages that both countries offer are hugely beneficial to NATO and equally problematic for Russian strategists. There is no doubt that the accession of Finland and Sweden would mark one of the greatest strategic changes in the history of the alliance.
Let’s start with geography; Finland’s 830 km long border with Russia provides a real strategic route to all potential Russian aggressions. Prior to Finland’s accession, Russia was able to concentrate its forces along its current 754 km long border with NATO. But in the face of Finland and Sweden armed with Article 5 security guarantees, Russia would need to deploy significantly more manpower and resources to protect its Nordic-Baltic territory – probably up to 100,000 regular troops to meet Sweden’s and Finland’s combined force of 47,000 active military. And it does not take into account the forecasts of both countries wartime strength of 1,000,000 plus military personnel.
Binding down a large number of Russia’s military across a significant land border would offer a huge tactical advantage to NATO. But it is not only Finland that offers useful geography. Sweden has built up its own military infrastructure on the small but strategically important island Gotland located in the middle of the Baltic Sea, just 200 km from the headquarters of Russia’s Baltic Fleet in Kaliningrad. According to US Army General Christopher Cavoli, Gotland has been transformed into an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” with three heavy land brigades and a medium-range ground-to-air missile system. rebuilt on the island in the last 12 months.
Quite apart from their geographical usefulness, these two rich nations bordering the Baltic Sea also have the latest military equipment; Sweden has the Patriots’ long-range air defense system in its arsenal, while Finland recently invested $ 10 billion in the purchase of the 64 F-35, and boasts one of the strongest artillery forces in Europe. Both militaries are highly professional, well-equipped, well-trained and train regularly with NATO allies, which befits their status as Enhanced Opportunity Partners.
With the combined forces of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia of around 40,000 active personnel and less than USD 3 billion in the pool defense spendingThe Baltics have long been considered an acute vulnerability of NATO and the likely target of Russian aggression. These figures would more than double and quadruple overnight with the accession of Finland and Sweden. In addition, Russia would be effectively surrounded in the Baltics and extend over a much larger and more inhospitable land and sea environment.
Since the NATO Summit in Wales in 2014 – when Finland and Sweden first became Enhanced Opportunity Partners – total defense spending for NATO allies has increased by almost a quarter (24.9%) and reached an estimated $ 1.2 trillion 2021. Putin’s invasion has generated a blizzard of new European defense commitments, with another $ 130 billion already committed in 2022. According to the latest figures, European defense spending is now about 1.5 times the size of China and about six times the size of Russia. Although Europe still needs to focus much of this on reducing its collective dependence on the United States, Europe is moving towards the necessary military resources to successfully unilaterally limit Russian aggression. The accession of Finland and Sweden would in a decisive way tip the conventional military balance in Europe in favor of NATO.
The accession of Finland and Sweden would also mark a huge political moment for Europe. At one point, Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade a sovereign country on the European mainland destroyed diplomatic relations with neutral countries that still had non-aligned policies toward Russia and NATO, for over 200 years in Sweden’s case.
When Western sanctions begin to bite this autumn, and Russia’s depleted ammunition and severely overstretched military-industrial capacity almost calls on Putin to freeze the conflict in Ukraine, he will overlook a Western world that is largely united diplomatically, economically and militarily in its determination to isolate Russia. This is Putin’s true legacy; a war that has cost him and his country dearly and turned them into international pariahs who have nowhere to turn as long as he remains in power.
It is quite remarkable to what extent Putin has simultaneously weakened Russia and strengthened NATO in just four short months. One of the most visual demonstrations of this strategic shift will hopefully come in a summit release next week (or shortly thereafter) announcing NATO’s latest and most significant enlargement of a generation.
It is yet another vivid reminder of such a need, of the utter futility of this devastating war in 21st Europe of the Century.
Joel Hickman is Deputy Chief of Transatlantic Defense and Security program at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA.) He was previously a British diplomat posted to Pakistan where he led the British Government’s strategy, policies and programs for serious organized crime throughout South Asia. Previously, Joel has worked as a senior policy adviser in the UK Home Office, the Department of Defense and the Office of Foreign Affairs, Commonwealth and Development.