SWEDEN AND FINLAND SEEK NATO MEMBERSHIP
A Disastrous Reversal of Precedent
In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the geopolitical plates of Europe began to shift in many ways. One development has been the curious case of Finland and Sweden changing their stance on NATO. This past week, the two famously non-aligned countries officially applied for membership, reversing decades (and in Sweden’s case a century) of policy.
“Finland’s prime minister, Sanna Marin, said she hoped parliament would confirm the decision “in the coming days”, adding that as a member of NATO, Finland would help reinforce not just the 30-member, US-led defensive alliance but also “strengthen the EU, whose voice in NATO can become stronger.”
Her Swedish counterpart, Magdalena Anderson, was similarly optimistic in her assessments. She stated that non-aligned status had served Sweden well, but now “will not do so in the future”. Sweden would be “vulnerable” as the only country in the Baltic region outside Nato, she said, adding that Stockholm hoped to submit a joint application with Helsinki.”
How non-aligned status would NOT DO in the future the Swedish Prime Minister failed to explain. The Guardian then goes on to list the usual media narrative: Russia was bogged down in Ukraine amid stiff resistance, Sweden and Finland felt vulnerable to Russian aggression, and Putin’s invasion had advanced the very thing Russia went to war to prevent: the expansion of NATO membership.
FINLAND & SWEDEN DECLARE INTENT TO JOIN NATO
This decision, should it go through, will be disastrous for Finland and Sweden as well as for the security of the continent. It shows the lack of historical knowledge and diplomatic common sense in the two Nordic countries. It confirms a trend of ideological, emotional virtue signaling and diplomatic group think dominant in many countries, particularly in Europe and North America. It also shows a leadership trait common in many countries these days: great skill at PR imaging at the expense of strategic maneuvering.
NATO membership for Sweden and Finland would certainly be a PR triumph for NATO and a catastrophe for Russia. It certainly makes for great headlines and social media hype of the “stick it to Russia” variety. Nevertheless, it makes no strategic sense, not even from a security perspective.
For one thing, there was never any real danger that Putin would so much as economically threaten, much less invade, Finland or Sweden. Russia has been dependent on Sweden and Finland for trade for decades now. For their part, the Nordic countries depend on their big Eastern neighbor for foodstuffs, commodities, and energy. There was never any indication that Russia was about to jettison that relationship.
As regarding a military invasion of neutral Sweden and Finland, not even the great fantasists could admit that was in the cards. Finland and Sweden have some of the most forbidding landscapes in Europe. Finland itself has few roads leading from Russian Karelia into the Finnish heartland. Russia well knows this, as it learned in 1939-1940 during its ill-fated adventure in the Finnish mountains. Sweden’s patchworks of lakes and mountains make it a formidable target for any invasion.
The media narrative that Russia was militarily about to threaten Sweden and Finland was about as real as fairy dust. Russia has not had any military designs against Sweden since the time of Alexander I. It also has no territorial designs on Finland. Stalin took the Karelian isthmus in 1945 and did not go further into Finland. For decades, the USSR refused to impose a communist government in Finland and was content with its stated policy of neutrality. Putin and co. have made no statements implying this policy was about to change. Russia’s “threat” probably meant financial and energy sanctions should Sweden and Finland deem it necessary to aid the Ukrainians militarily. The suggestion that Putin was on the verge of reincorporating Finland into Russia or bite off Swedish territory amounts to journalistic malfeasance.
Finland and Sweden have benefited greatly from their neutral status. It has allowed them to expend money on social expenses that have improved the lives of their people. It’s allowed their economics to grow, allowing living standards to rise. Its given them a great diplomatic position. They have played host to several geopolitical conferences. Finland famously played host to all of Europe in 1975 for the signing of the Helsinki accords, a series of agreements that certified post World War II borders and established mechanisms of diplomacy in the Cold War. It also helped foster trade and security talks within the continent. Sweden has helped send peacekeeping troops to different hotspots around the world. Its neutral status has helped it mediate between warring parties not only in Europe, but in the Middle East as well.
The best strategic move for Finland and Sweden would be to offer their countries up as sites for peace negotiations. They should be using their diplomatic cache to push for an end to the conflict and demand a ceasefire. Their neutral status would allow them to mediate between Russia and Europe to try to lessen the fallout from a sanctions war between the two blocs. Non aligned status would CONTINUE to benefit both countries and the continent.
NATO membership jettisons all of this. If their application goes through, they now become cogs in the bureaucratic machine, simply reciting whatever points Washington and Brussels wish them to make. They lose the diplomatic clout to act as neutral arbiters. They cannot lessen the impact of sanctions on the continent and worse will have to go along with the sanctions, inflicting enormous pain on their economies.
The Guardian article states that Sweden and Finland both wish not to have NATO bases on their soil, wishing simply to fall under NATO’s security blanket. In other words, they wish to have their security cake and eat it too. This will not be possible in the long run. As NATO members, they fall under the military diktats of the alliance, which means Washington will use its bully pulpit. If the USA wishes to put military bases in Finland and Sweden to pressure Russia or even place offensive weapons systems on its soil, it will use its economic strongarm to pressure the Nordic countries. NATO membership also means an increase in military budgets, which will eventually cut into the Nordic countries ability to sustain their Nordic social democratic model.
The biggest loss will of course be the devolvement of Europe into an armed camp. Russia will no doubt increase its military expenditures and will probably increase troop presence in the Baltic region as a response to any placement of NATO troops in Sweden and Finland, further inflaming tension in the region. A focus on armed standoff will lessen the wiggle room for negotiations. With more European countries in NATO’S orbit, the freedom to act based on a country’s own unique strategic interest will decrease. NATO has already skewed military priorities across the continent. Countries as distinct as the Netherlands, Italy, and Spain now have to risk their economic health in order to continue to perpetuate a conflict that bears little relevance to their security needs. Sweden and Finland will have to do the same.
At the time of this writing, Turkey expressed concerns about Sweden and Finland joining. It may veto their application, which will be great in the long run for the Baltic region. Then again, Turkey could also use the threat of a veto to gain concessions from Sweden and Finland on their fight against the Kurds, their occupation of parts of Syria, and maybe even Cyprus. Turkey may ask for more favorable economic relations. It would be ironic if to weaken Russia’s dictatorship, the two countries end up strengthening Turkey’s dictatorship.
All of this matters little and less to Washington’s security apparatus, who will be strengthened and enriched by the two countries application. They will tighten their military grip on the continent and security bureaucrats will continue to feast on bloated military budgets that will increasingly bare little relevance to military or security realities. No matter. It will be a PR victory and it will make the leader’s ideological heroes of the moment. In the global liberationist great rest parlance, NATO is a defensive alliance that advances peace. More countries joining means greater, long-lasting peace. Thus, the project continues, regardless of any fallout to the people or cultures of the region.