Comment: Sweden and Finland are right: Today there is no justification for neutrality |
The story is linear, but it is marked by discontinuities. Things that seemed to be fixtures in the firmament of global order sometimes disappear overnight.
On December 26, 1991, the Soviet Union disappeared after 69 years. On September 11, 2001, American security disappeared in an instant. This year – on February 24 – the sacred tradition of political neutrality died when Russia invaded Ukraine.
Through a policy of neutrality and non-alignment, Sweden avoided war for more than 200 years. It escaped mostly unscathed from the world wars of the 20th century while large parts of Europe were reduced. In the 21st century, freedom of alliance had become an integral part of the Swedish national DNA, an identity principle that defines what it means to be Swedish. Swedes were proud of their reputation as a “moral superpower”.
In December, Sweden’s Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said: “Our non-participation in military alliances serves our country well and contributes to stability and security in northern Europe. Sweden will not apply for membership in NATO.” The country abandoned a two-hundred-year-old tradition within three months of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Finland’s path from non-alignment to NATO membership was more a pragmatic calculation than an ideological or moral one. Having fought dozens of wars against Russia in its history, including the brutal Winter and Continuation Wars against the Soviet Union in the 20th century, and sharing a border with Russia of more than 800 miles, Finland has historically been distrustful of Russia. Unlike many who demobilized and disarmed when the Cold War ended, it retained male conscription and developed a society-wide defense architecture called “comprehensive security.” As a result, Finland can today mobilize up to 280,000 armed and trained reservists within two weeks. Still, February 24 convinced Finland’s leaders that they could no longer risk going it alone.
On 18 May, Sweden and Finland submitted official letters of application to join NATO despite a threat from Russia that their applications would be met with “military and political consequences”.
It was hoped that their accession would be almost immediate, although previous applications have taken years in some cases. Despite Turkish demands and Hungarian inertia, Russia’s invasion has boosted the alliance and is likely to result in the fastest-ever NATO membership process.
Putin’s blatant repudiation of generations of prohibitions on territorial conquest marks a tipping point for all nations that wish international relations to be governed by the rule of law rather than brute force.
He pushed the envelope too far; he crossed a red line and made Sweden abandon its moral commitment to non-alignment and Finland its pragmatic non-alignment.
In an ironic twist of fate, Putin’s paranoid obsession with opposing NATO expansion has produced just that—not only an increase in NATO membership but also an improvement in its solidarity and military capabilities and a dramatic strengthening of the northern flank. This is a fittingly asymmetrical retaliation and retribution for his catastrophic miscalculation in invading Ukraine and an unexpected gray-zone victory for NATO: a significant strategic gain well below the threshold of armed conflict.
Now the spotlight is on the remaining non-aligned and neutral nations. Will India remain on the fence?
It has publicly rebuked Putin while subsidizing his war effort through increased fuel purchases.
Can Switzerland and Austria maintain their principled commitments to neutrality? And the other countries that did not vote in the UN to condemn Russia’s invasion?
How will they justify non-alignment in the face of such blatant disregard and disrespect for the venerable concept of self-determination, not to mention the increasingly undeniable commission of atrocious war crimes and even crimes against humanity?
The prohibition of territorial conquest is deeply embedded in the rules-based world order established in the dust and rubble of World War II.
This ban is one of the few safeguards against the resurgence of such a catastrophic conflict. Putin’s reckless decision to lay claim to territory widely recognized as sovereign Ukrainian land signals a rejection of all safeguards against the suicidal tendencies that drove nations to war twice in the 20th century.
This is a time of moral crisis, and as Sweden and Finland have realized, there is today no legitimate justification for neutrality or non-alignment.
Michael Miklaucic is a lecturer at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy and a senior fellow at the National Defense University. This first appeared in the Chicago Tribune.