Should NATO allow Sweden and Finland?
In physics, Newton’s third law states that there is an opposite and equal reaction to every action. In diplomacy, reactions are sometimes disproportionate or even irrational.
The art of diplomacy is to try to read your opponent’s thoughts and predict what may be his or her answer. But in times of war, exaggeration often replaces rationality and demands for justice outweigh a full appreciation for the enemy’s threat.
Advocates of a never-retreating Hegelian march toward freedom everywhere often admit that they do not care what our enemies say or promise to do. But refusing to understand or at least acknowledge an opponent’s demands is and will always be a recipe for eternal war.
Although there is no justification for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, it cannot be argued that he did not telegraph that it would happen.
When Western intelligence services worked with Ukrainian Maidan protesters to overthrow the Russian-backed leader in Ukraine in 2014, Putin responded by taking Crimea. When the Biden administration signed an agreement with Ukraine that reiterated an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO in the autumn, Putin responded with a massive invasion of Ukraine. Of course, nothing justifies the invasion, but it is a mistake to claim that it was not predictable.
In the end, history is likely to judge Putin’s decision to invade as a complete failure. It has united Europe, increased the continent’s determination to become independent of Russian oil and gas, and ultimately encouraged Sweden and Finland to reject neutrality and join NATO.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine totally changed public opinion in Sweden and Finland about joining NATO. Sweden’s more than 100 – year policy of neutrality was quickly rejected.
Will Sweden’s and Finland’s accession to NATO benefit America? Will their accession cause more or less war?
Well, for every action there is a reaction. What does our opponent say?
Putin immediate response to developments was that Russia “has no problem” with Sweden or Finland applying for membership in NATO, but that “the expansion of military infrastructure to this territory will of course give rise to our reaction in response.”
So there you have it. Russia is likely to tolerate Sweden and Finland in NATO but is unlikely to tolerate certain weapons systems in Finland. (Does anyone remember American missiles in Turkey and Russia’s response to placing Russian missiles on Cuba?)
If having Sweden and Finland in NATO does not lead to conflict, it will support the argument that NATO is a war deterrent. But if having Sweden and Finland in NATO leads to conflict, as does the agitation for Ukraine in NATO, will NATO expansionists acknowledge the provocation?
It is not just conventional warfare that is at risk with such provocations. What happens if such actions lead to overreactions, such as nuclear war?
Advocates of NATO expansion say we cannot be held hostage to Russia’s threat. Perhaps. But if a country announces that they will do X if you do Y, shouldn’t someone, at least, consider the potential scenarios?
The Russians have already announced that it is a red line to place certain weapon systems in Finland. Whether the red line is justified is not the question. The question is, if you know your opponent’s position, is it worth the risk of pushing missiles into Finland?
The world has changed since Putin invaded Ukraine. The arguments that an adoption of Sweden and Finland in NATO could provoke Russia are less potent now, as Putin’s war shows that he can be provoked by actions that are not enough for Ukraine’s actual accession to NATO.
However, diplomats should try to imagine how the war in Ukraine could end. A possible end would be, as Zelensky has said, a neutral Ukraine that is not militarily in line with either the West or the East. A possible negotiating card for peace may be that Sweden and Finland also remain neutral and outside NATO. I doubt it will happen. I think the train has left the station.
But it’s worth thinking about. Neutrality does not have to be a weakness. Neutral nations can act as intermediaries in conflict resolution. Our discussions with Iran often use neutral Sweden as a channel. When all nations are coordinated, who will be the mediators?
The US Senate will probably vote this summer to adopt Sweden and Finland in NATO. Before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, I have been an automatic “no” to expanding NATO to Russia’s borders. I have seen such an expansion as unnecessary provocation.
But Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has changed the world and a realistic view of foreign policy is changing as the world does. In this new world, I am less adamant about preventing NATO from expanding with Sweden and Finland.
In the coming days, I will propose conditions for the Treaty that state that Article 5 does not replace the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before engaging in hostility, and that the United States will not bear any costs caused by Sweden and Finland acceding NATO.
I still sympathize with Doug Bandow’s view, who wrote here at The American ConservativesRussia’s poor military performance shows that Moscow, contrary to its pre – conflict reputation, could not conquer its many neighbors, let alone the entire continent, even if it wanted to. The two countries’ desire to join seems to be an attempt to gain an insurance policy at the expense of the United States, which further expands Washington’s long list of defense dependencies. ”
But Putin’s war against Ukraine has colored the situation and the arguments against Sweden and Finland abandoning neutrality are less certain. Putin’s aggression has changed the playing field. Once-shy European countries are now rejecting Russia’s oil. Countries across Europe have changed their minds.
Subscribe today
Receive emails every week in your inbox
It is undoubtedly more difficult to claim that NATO expansion is provocative when Putin is apparently already provoked. But the Russian invasion of Ukraine should wake us all up to the stark reality of war between peers. In that light, we should proceed with extreme caution and clearly understand what is at stake and the potential costs.
Make no mistake, war between the West and Russia, even if it does not lead to nuclear weapons Armageddon, would be devastating and not limited to European theater. We can no longer passively throw around words for emotional and political gain. When discussing NATO expansion, we must be clear that the remaining former states of the former Soviet Union will not be admitted to the Alliance.
With regard to Sweden and Finland, we still need a serious, rational and objective debate on the costs and benefits of admitting two historically neutral nations that have such a strategic geographical position in relation to Russia. Before the Russian invasion, I would have said no. But given Russian actions, I have gone from being opposed to their entry into NATO to being neutral on the issue, and as a consequence will be voting ‘present’.