If you talk to anyone in Western diplomatic circles — especially in the security, intelligence and defence sectors — what is about to unfold over the next few weeks in Scandinavia counts among Russia’s worst nightmares.
The inclusion of Finland and possibly Sweden in NATO, politically and militarily the source of all that is evil to Moscow, will stretch the alliance firmly from the Arctic Ocean all the way to the Black Sea, pressed right up against the border.
It is the kind of scenario that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to avoid.
Back before he unleashed the horror of a full invasion of his most immediate neighbour, Putin sought to push back against NATO expansion, demanding Ukraine never be allowed to join the Western military alliance. Last December, he went further and insisted the North Atlantic allies retreat from eastern Europe back to their pre-expansion 1997 lines.
To make his point, Putin rattled the nuclear sabre.
It is safe to say, in doing so and with everything that happened, he freaked out his other non-aligned neighbours; northern nations that have for decades prided themselves on, and built some of their political identities around, their studied neutrality.
“The accession of Finland would strengthen the security and stability of the Baltic Sea region and north of Europe,” said Pekka Haavisto, Finland’s foreign minister, on Thursday. “Finland is a regional security provider and it would further strengthen NATO as a future ally.”
The country is expected to apply for membership next week, setting off a security race against time. A joint statement from Finland’s president and prime minister said “Finland must apply for NATO membership without delay.”
‘Moral hazard’ for NATO
Although Finland has kept its options open for years over the possibility of joining NATO, the invasion of Ukraine set off a tectonic shift in public opinion. That was the game changer.
“The 24th of February — that was the changing moment. That was the game changer,” said Terhi Suominen, the secretary general at the Atlantic Council of Finland.
Support for joining the alliance traditionally sat around 20 per cent of the population, the events of last winter acted like a lightning bolt.
“And then dramatically, the support of NATO membership grew, and actually it is tripled right now. So, we have 76 per cent in favour of NATO membership,” she said.
Suominen said joining the alliance is an issue where both the left and right on the political spectrum agree.
A NATO senior official, speaking on background, said the membership process will be expedited to a degree and that the alliance is trying to clear as many hurdles as possible out of the way. In the end, it could take up to the end of the year because each of NATO’s 30 members must ratify the inclusion of countries in their parliaments.
It is that interim period before Finland is fully covered by NATO’s one-for-all, all-for-one security guarantee that worries many experts.
Michael J. Williams, a professor of international relations at Syracuse University, calls the interim period “the moral hazard” for the alliance.
Countries have support from NATO members
Would the alliance go to war to protect a country — or two countries — that want to join but have not yet been accepted as full-fledged members?
“The challenge is that if they say they’re joining the alliance, there’s going to be a gap,” Williams told The Canadian News recently. “The ability for the Russians to attack between when they apply and when they join is worrisome.”
That concern was partly addressed Wednesday when the United Kingdom signed defensive pacts with both Finland and Sweden that pledged Britain to come to their aid in the event of an attack, and vice versa.
There is concern in both Scandinavian nations about the possibility one or more existing NATO members would hold up approval. However, an alliance official, speaking on background, said the diplomats from both Finland and Sweden have been working with the various delegations in Brussels and have received a lot of support.
It is not as if either country is unknown to NATO. Each one contributed troops to Afghanistan in a support role.
Williams said the fact that Finland publicly declared its intention means Sweden is not that far behind, even though Stockholm has publicly shown more reluctance.
Steve Saideman, who holds the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, says both countries have advanced militaries, civilian control of their militaries and stable democracies.
“Both of these countries not only meet those [NATO] standards, but surpass them,” he said. “The challenging part is that Finland adds something that no other NATO country has, besides Turkey, which is a very long land border with Russia, and that handling that political dynamic, and handling the window between applying for membership and becoming members is sensitive.”
If Sweden chooses to join, Williams said he believes it could have more political soul-searching to do than Finland. Stockholm has declared itself neutral since the early 19th century and maintained that position even through the existential conflicts of the last century.
“They were neutral in the Second World War,” said Williams. “So we’re talking about a very long, deeply embedded culture of non-alignment.”
Both Williams and Saideman say the two Scandinavian countries bring considerable conventional combat power to the alliance.
Suominen said her country takes defence very seriously given it was invaded by the former Soviet Union in the early 1940s.
What both countries gain from joining NATO, aside from the security of the alliance’s Article 5 self-defence clause, is access to advanced cyber and hybrid warfare defence, Saideman said.
The question of how Russia will respond is being hotly debated, now that Finland has signalled a clear direction.
Russia slammed Finland on Thursday, claiming it would “be forced” to retaliate if the long-neutral country joined the alliance.
Saideman said Russia can ill-afford to pick a fight with another neighbouring country.
“They have all that they can handle having a war with Ukraine,” Saideman said. “It’s not like they can engage in really large-scale aggression against Finland or Sweden because they just don’t have the capability right now. They can’t even attack the country next door successfully.”
Reference-www.cbc.ca