The Russian military expert Pukhov: Finland’s and Sweden’s accession to NATO resulted in a deterioration of Russia’s strategic position
Negotiations between Finland and countries and the NATO alliance ended in Brussels on 4 July. On 5 July, the Swedish and Finnish foreign ministers signed an accession protocol at NATO headquarters. At a press conference on June 29, 2022, when the final outcome of the negotiations was already clear, Vladimir Putin was asked whether his war in Ukraine to prevent NATO expansion into Russia’s borders now that Finland and Sweden joined the alliance Putin did easily over Swedish and Finnish NATO membership: “On the other hand, when it comes to Sweden and Finland, we do not have such problems with Sweden and Finland as we unfortunately have with Ukraine. We have no territorial issues or disputes with them… nothing that can inspire our concern about Finland’s and Sweden’s accession to NATO. If they want it, they can do it. “[1]
In an interview with Olga Bozheva by Moskovskiy Komsomolets, Ruslan Pukhov, a military analyst and director of the Moscow-based Center for Strategy and Technology Analysis (CAST), welcomed Putin’s good judgment and called the development a deterioration in Russia’s strategic position. Unlike many of the new NATO members, Sweden and Finland were rich countries, with modern armies and defense production capacity. Russia’s second city, St. Petersburg, was now under naval threat from NATO.
Pukhov also scored another point that could not be satisfactory for a Russian leadership that is proud to avoid an arms race that had bankrupted the Soviet Union. Pukhov noted “ We will have to spend more on defense than we did before February this year. Consequently, it will mean that less money will be allocated to infrastructure projects, health care and education. There is no reason to have any illusions here. “
The entire interview follows below:[2]
Turkey Sweden and Finland sign agreements paving the way for Finnish and Swedish NATO membership (Source: Nato.int)
Right now, there are quite contradictory statements that Sweden and Finland are joining NATO. A number of political analysts argue that this does not pose a serious threat to us [Russia], some believe that we need to strengthen our borders, to the extent that we can place tactical nuclear weapons there. What, in your opinion, does their entry into the alliance mean to us?
This undoubtedly means a deterioration of our strategic position. And not because these states suddenly and suddenly became anti-Russian; even before the special operation, they loved us like a dog loves a stick. However, they were not integrated into NATO institutions (at least de jure), so they behaved cautiously and correctly towards us.
Now, their accession to the Alliance may result in their leadership (especially when governments change from more sensible to less sensible) potentially beginning to provoke us, increasing the risk of war. Be that as it may, this move from Stockholm and Helsinki will not lead to anything good. And I think anyone who says that their accession to NATO means virtually nothing to us is lying.
The situation is quite serious. For example, the Finns decided to buy the American F-35 fighter jets. With modern weapons on board, it is a formidable military force, which poses a danger even to our 5th generation aircraft, which we [the Russian army] has now in very limited quantities.
I think the Finns probably largely have perfect protocols for suppressing our air defense systems. Therefore, it is not surprising that the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons in this region is becoming increasingly relevant to us.
It is known that the Finnish army is not large, it has only 21,500 soldiers. How do you assess its capacity in general?
The Finnish army is a very powerful fighting body. Not because it has fought a lot, but because it has been well prepared throughout its existence to fight us. And in the event of something, their army will be very motivated. The Finns possess good tank units; they have wonderful infantry. This is generally a very serious enemy.
And what can you say about the Swedish army?
The Swedes have a smaller army than the Finns. Their army could relatively be called less combat-ready. Unlike Finland, after all, we have no land border with the Swedes. Let me remind you that the border with Finland is over a thousand kilometers long.
The Swedes, however, have a deep Russophobic tradition, dating back centuries. And this fact also makes them a very unpleasant opponent. If they have to fight against us, they will do so in a very motivated way.
Incidentally, both countries have a fairly strong military industry.
It is true that they have their own military-industrial complex. Swedes, for example, manufacture aircraft, including long-range radar detection aircraft, ie air traffic control posts. They have a very well-developed military-industrial complex. The Swedes have historically emphasized significant self-sufficiency in this regard.
The “Gripen” plan is also made in Sweden, isn’t it?
Admittedly, but in addition to aircraft, they also have their locally produced beautiful corvettes, submarines, missiles … In general, both Sweden and Finland are rich countries. Whatever their armies lack, they can buy either in other European countries or in the United States, as Finns do by buying the “F-35” jet plane there.
Now, in the light of our special operation, the military budgets of these two states will be increased. What’s more in the field of defense, they will begin to integrate more closely with the rest of the European NATO member states.
Before joining, they mainly developed these ties with their neighbors, ie Norway and Denmark. Now the military cooperation will be much broader and extend to Europe and the United States, which is of course bad for us.
This will force us to invest more economically in an “arms race”. We have already been drawn into it. And now it does not matter at all if we did it ourselves, or if we were drawn into it. The account scoreboard is visible. We will have to spend more on defense than we did before February this year. Consequently, it will mean that less money will be allocated to infrastructure projects, health care and education. There is no reason to harbor any illusions here.
Following NATO’s expansion into Finland and Sweden, the Baltic Sea will become virtually an inland sea of the alliance. What is the military threat of this for us?
Yes, correct detection. Since the 1990s, the Baltic Sea has largely been demilitarized. Most countries, including Russia, kept symbolic contingents of their naval forces there. An arms race for navy and missile is now starting in the Baltic Sea.
Worst of all, St. Petersburg turns into a city on the front lines when Sweden and Finland join NATO. This exposes the city to a risk of an attack, as the alliance’s modern ships give them the ability to give the city a devastating blow. To prevent this, we must seriously strengthen the air and missile defense system there.
Can the accelerated accession of these states to the alliance possibly be attributed to the fact that NATO member states have already run out of weapons due to the arms supply to Ukraine? This has weakened the block. Finland and Sweden, in turn, are rich countries with their own defense industry. Provided they join the alliance in difficult times, they themselves can become a decent asset for the alliance.
I agree with. However, there are two main components of NATO’s structure: the first is a military organization, the second is a political component. Through the latter for the Americans’ European policy, it is a kind of docking band to Washington.
With regard to this second component, on the whole, nothing changes with the accession of these two countries. As Washington dictated its will through NATO, they will continue to do so. Simply two more countries that refuse to pursue a policy independent of the United States will be added to the European list [of such states].
However, the military part of NATO will feel a marked strengthening due to Sweden and Finland. The accession of many newcomers to the bloc provided no benefits to the alliance, as these countries were not “security providers”. Instead, they became consumers of security and could not contribute anything to NATO’s military organization.
In the past, it was even a joke that in order to collapse this organization, everyone should either leave it or everyone should join at once. As a military organization, as a result of accepting such members, NATO simply swelled and became somewhat formless and unmanageable.
In your opinion, Sweden and Finland can not only be considered “security consumers” ,?
After Poland joined NATO in 1997, all other countries that joined in retrospect were mostly deadweight. In some cases a fairly obvious burden, such as Montenegro, Croatia or Albania; in some cases, the new Member States were only a partial “burden”, such as Slovakia or the Czech Republic.
It is clear that in the 25 years since the first wave of NATO enlargement, this institution is expanding for the first time thanks to an asset rather than a debt. In this respect, it is undoubtedly a valuable acquisition for the Alliance.
I do not really agree with your argument about Russophobia. Neither Finland nor Sweden seems to have excelled in this capacity.
How should I put it … The Swedes say they have not forgotten how 300 years ago Peter I’s troops ruled over their countries [Sweden fought against a coalition of European states including Russia]. They remind us of a burned church.
But we also have a good memory, and we remember how the Swedes in 1706 in Poland treated the captured Russian soldiers, who fought in the ranks of the Saxon army. After the battle, the Swedes methodically separated the Russians from the Saxons, and then all our soldiers were stabbed with bayonets directly on the spot and thus committed a war crime.
During World War II, Sweden was de facto (though not de jure) an ally of Hitler. Although formally a neutral state, it took a hostile stance towards us and helped the Nazis.
It happened a long time ago, it’s a distant story. We also fought the Finns. But in recent decades, relations have improved and joint business has been actively developed.
Given the domestic side of the issue, Finns are, of course, civilized, wealthy people. All xenophobia is most often born out of poverty, when everyone hates everyone. But we’re talking about politics. There it is completely different.
Although Finland formally had no territorial claims on Russia and recognized the outcome of World War II, the Finnish political establishment and many Finnish citizens have not forgotten that the city of Viborg was once Finland’s second largest city after Helsinki, called Viborg. The Finns first lost it in 1940 and then withdrew in 1944. And at the very least, of course, they will try to get it back.
Do you think they have such plans?
I’m sure that if the slightest opportunity arises to regain control of their former territories, they will certainly benefit from it. I have no doubt that they will try to “snatch” Viborg and half of Karelia from us.
We will not allow them to do that, will we?
It all depends on the situation. And it will get worse with Finland’s and Sweden’s accession to NATO. It was true that there were no illusions about these countries before. So now we just have to wisely maneuver the available capacity and curb the unmotivated or provocative impulses on the part of these countries.
Both the Swedes and the Finns had already experienced the power of Russian weapons. They have unpleasant memories [of it]. They still remember quite well how they were kicked in the teeth by us. And if they forget, we can remind them. So they can put their teeth into us, only if we seem openly weak. This means that we cannot be weak.
Ruslan Pukhov (Source: Vpk.name)
[1] Kremlin.ru, 29 June 2022.