Until February 24, 2022, the Euro-Atlantic organization insistently sought a reason to continue to exist. In fact, at the meeting scheduled for Madrid next June, the approval of a new strategic concept for the organization and the main points of the same dealt with the field of human security, climate change or women and security among others. But, in addition, they wanted to guarantee the unity and internal cohesion of all its members. In short, it was about making sense of an anachronistic organization whose mission had been to defend itself from the Warsaw Pact and which has moved aimlessly over the last twenty years. Well, one of Putin’s first achievements has been precisely give meaning to the existence of NATO.
And not only that, part of the knock-on effect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been that Sweden and Finland, two traditionally non-aligned countries, are stepping forward to join NATO. In this way, they would break their status of neutrality and complete the expansion of the organization towards the East, also doubling the number of square kilometers of direct border between Russian territory and NATO.
The effect of the Russian invasion on public opinion in these two countries was not long in coming. Between March 4 and 15, a survey carried out in Finland by the company EVA, of the Business and Policy Forum of Finlandshowed a radical change in the positions of Finnish citizens in relation to NATO membership, supporting this adherence by 60%, 34 points more than in the last wave carried out during the autumn of 2021. Likewise, another survey carried out in January of this year showed 40% of Finns opposed to joining NATO by Finland. In the Swedish case, positions in favor of joining the Atlantic organization have also skyrocketed. According to some surveys six out of ten Swedes would like to join NATO, as long as the Finnish neighbor did too. But if the neighboring country did not take the step, the Swedes would reduce their support to 41%.
The reasons for this paradigm shift in the security policies of these two countries, based on neutrality and military independence, and for its speed are undoubtedly due to the fear generated by the increasing assertiveness and violence who behold (we behold) in disbelief of the neighbor in Russian. If in January the Finnish Prime Minister, Sanna Marin, declared that Finland’s request to join NATO during the legislative period did not seem an option, Russia’s change of direction in Ukraine has turned this situation upside down. The 1,300 kilometers that it shares with the Slavic neighbor are, without a doubt, a reason for justified fear, to which should be added the observation, not least, of the limits on defense and military intervention when a country is not a member of NATO.
Related news
The decisions that these two countries will have to adopt will still have to go through different processes of parliamentary debates that affect the very nature of both states, although at different levels. In the case of Finland, its approach to neutrality is pragmatic and was imposed by the Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance Agreement signed with the Soviet Union in 1948, that is, it is a imposed or forced neutrality. On the other hand, the final decision in Sweden will still take a little longer, since the country faces elections in the middle of this year and, therefore, the government acts with greater caution than its Finnish neighbor. In this case, an attempt will be made to avoid an impulsive change in its security policy, since the concept of neutrality is directly linked to the very construction of its national identity, so the debate is much more profound since it affects the very country nature.
In any case, it seems that the course of both countries is moving in these hours towards their incorporation into NATO, something that will mark one before and one after not only in these countries, but also regarding the future itself, not only of NATO, but also of the EU.