Artículo Foreign Policy, 13.04.2022 Michael Hirsh, corresponsal
Helsinki joining NATO is his worst nightmare—apart from losing Ukraine
As Russian President Vladimir Putin prepares for a new offensive in the stalled war against Ukraine, strategists continue to talk about some sort of “Finnishization” of Ukraine – a kind of impasse neutrality – as a possible negotiating solution. But Finland itself could tilt the balance dramatically in the other direction – and perhaps give Putin his biggest loss to date.
On Wednesday, the Prime Minister of Finland Sanna Marin in a joint press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, she said that the decision on whether to abandon Finland’s post-Cold War non-alignment policy and join NATO would be made “in weeks and not months”. On the same day, a new Minister of Defense Antti Kaikkonen was sent to the Finnish Parliament at a press conference stating that Finland already has “full interoperability with NATO”. Sweden, which is cooperating with Finland, also took a much bolder stance this week when it also announced that it would start an active debate on joining NATO.
Finland’s and Sweden’s formal accession to NATO can take up to a year, as the move requires the approval of all 30 member states. But the decision of both countries, which have traditionally coordinated defense movements to apply, could abruptly change the overall strategic situation. Nearly two months after Putin’s full-scale attack on Ukraine, Western strategists are increasingly skeptical about whether Putin can be stopped. Following Russia’s withdrawal from the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, Putin began announcing that he was launching a new – and probably very aggressive – attack on the territory of eastern Ukraine in the Donbass this week. Putin also declared peace talks “impasse. ” Meanwhile, senior officials from Washington to Berlin are stuck in discussions over whether they can afford tougher sanctions and more aggressive arms transfers to Ukraine at political risk.
As Russian President Vladimir Putin prepares for a new offensive in the stalled war against Ukraine, strategists continue to talk about some sort of “Finnishization” of Ukraine – a kind of impasse neutrality – as a possible negotiating solution. But Finland itself could tilt the balance dramatically in the other direction – and perhaps give Putin his biggest loss to date.
On Wednesday, the Prime Minister of Finland Sanna Marin In a joint press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, she said that the decision on whether to abandon Finland’s post-Cold War non-alignment policy and join NATO would be made “in weeks and not months”. On the same day, a new Minister of Defense Antti Kaikkonen was sent to the Finnish Parliament at a press conference stating that Finland already has “full interoperability with NATO”. Sweden, which is cooperating with Finland, also took a much bolder stance this week when it also announced that it would start an active debate on joining NATO.
Finland’s and Sweden’s formal accession to NATO can take up to a year, as the move requires the approval of all 30 member states. But the decision of both countries, which have traditionally coordinated defense movements to apply, could abruptly change the overall strategic situation. Nearly two months after Putin’s full-scale attack on Ukraine, Western strategists are increasingly skeptical about whether Putin can be stopped. Following Russia’s withdrawal from the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, Putin began announcing that he was launching a new – and probably very aggressive – attack on the territory of eastern Ukraine in the Donbass this week. Putin also declared peace talks “impasse. ” Meanwhile, senior officials from Washington to Berlin are stuck in discussions over whether they can afford tougher sanctions and more aggressive arms transfers to Ukraine at political risk.
Now, the Western alliance of democracies that Putin has turned into a rhetorical enemy is likely to expand both its territory and its muscles. If Turkey supported NATO’s south and the Baltic states settled in the middle of the alliance’s eastern lines, the presence of Finland and Sweden in the north would mean exactly the kind of alliance that Putin and other nationalists have feared. “Their membership would certainly fundamentally change the security landscape in Northern Europe,” said Sean of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Experts said that for Russia – which for most of the past century has put pressure on Finland to take an intimidating attitude – no result could be more devastating, except perhaps the defeat in Ukraine, which Putin is now trying to avoid. Helsinki is less than 200 miles from Putin’s hometown of St. Petersburg, and Finland’s NATO membership would give him a “poetic right” if the whole conflict is “supposed to prevent Ukraine from closing NATO and NATO’s open door policy,” Monaghan said.
“It pushes him deeper into the corner,” said James Dobbins, a former U.S. diplomat who now works for Rand Corporation. – If he wins in Ukraine but loses Finland, he will survive without winning much. If he loses both, which is more likely, he has exacerbated his problem and a kind of nightmare scenario of a superior NATO right on the Russian border. Finland’s 830-mile border with Russia would double NATO’s border with Moscow, which would be the longest possible front between the European Union and Russia. “It’s a new problem not just in the military but in the cultural and economic sense,” Dobbins said.
Provoking his country’s “self-district” is a catastrophic strategic mistake, wrote Aaron Friedberg, a former senior U.S. official and Princeton University researcher, in an email. Finland’s and Sweden’s accession to NATO “would be at least as important as Germany’s changes, and perhaps more so,” Friedberg wrote, referring to Berlin’s new willingness to arm itself against Russia.
“Finland and Sweden are not just free riders, but they will materially increase NATO’s combat strength,” he wrote, adding that these decisions are highly unlikely to be reversed.
“They represent a lasting change that the Russians have been trying to prevent for years.”
Yet there are “acute dangers” associated with such an arrangement, “Dobbins said, and” it is not one we should go into with uncompromising joy. ” Finland – if it allows NATO bases, troops and weapons within its borders – could permanently raise the hair-raising environment between the Kremlin and Washington. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov last week warned Finland and Sweden of such measures, saying Russia had “balance the situation“ strengthening their own security at the border.
U.S. President Joe Biden has not spoken directly about the final round of possible NATO enlargement, and U.S. officials have been careful not to get ahead of other NATO allies even though Washington founded the alliance and continues to lead the alliance in nominal terms. “NATO membership is the choice of country it aspires to and a question for the entire alliance,” a U.S. National Security Council spokesman wrote in an email.
Still, at a news conference last week, the U.S. ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith announced that Washington would likely join 29 other NATO members to welcome the two countries. “NATO’s door stays open, dot,” Smith said.
“I think from a U.S. perspective, we would welcome these two members. We find that they are already bringing tremendous value to the alliance.”
Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg said last week that the union warmly welcomes Finland. He added:
“We can pretty quickly make the decision to get them members.”
When joining NATO, Finland could also choose the Norwegian path, which – although it was a founding member of NATO – has sought to appease Moscow by banning foreign military bases and nuclear weapons and restricting NATO exercises. Nevertheless, Norway has become much more involved in NATO’s defense efforts in recent years.
A senior Finnish official said to Foreign Policy that the “Norwegian model” was considered. Finland, whose long history in repelling the attacks in Moscow includes successfully defending against the Soviet invasion during World War II, has for decades taken care of its own defense, including conscription.
“We do not desperately need foreign bases because we have our own bases,” said the Finnish authority, who spoke anonymously. “Our army is one of the strongest in Europe in terms of numbers and weapons.” Although the Finnish army is smaller than large NATO countries such as Britain, France and Germany, its long-standing solitary readiness to attack Russia has made it one of the most powerful in terms of artillery fire, airspace surveillance, and cyber and missile readiness. The Finnish army can “quickly mobilize” 280,000 troops, the official said, “up to 900,000.” Although Finland has a population of 5.6 million and is a German dwarf, Finland has even more tanks than Berlin. It also uses 64 F-18 air forces armed with highly advanced “smart” missiles supplied by the United States, and has ordered 64 more new F-35s, which are scheduled to begin deliveries in 2026, according to official Finnish figures.
The biggest “added value” that NATO membership brings, the official said, was that it would provide a guarantee of Moscow’s common security in accordance with Article 5 of the agreement. North Atlantic Treaty, according to which an attack on any member of the alliance “shall be considered an attack on all of them”. This requires each nation to “take such action as it deems necessary, including the use of force, to restore and maintain security in the North Atlantic.” Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO’s 73-year history: to defend the United States after 9/11.
Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto said at a press conference in Helsinki that the previous careful calibration of his country not to provoke Moscow has dramatically changed Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine. According to him, Finland is concerned about Russia’s willingness to “take greater risks”, concentrate large numbers of troops and promise covert nuclear threats.
Haavisto said he expects the Finnish government to make a decision before the start of the summer solstice at the end of June.
Sweden has also undergone a sudden reassessment of its long-standing non-alignment policy, which emerged as an attempt to reassure Russia. “This is an important time in history,” said Andersson, whose ruling Swedish Social Democratic Party has traditionally opposed NATO membership. “The security landscape has completely changed,” he said as he spoke on the Marin side on Wednesday.
For Finland in particular, NATO’s embrace would mean a virtual revolution in Helsinki’s hitherto cautious approach to Moscow. During the Cold War, Finland endured a humiliating state of consent to Moscow, known as “finlandization”, in which it managed to avoid pressure to join the Soviet Warsaw Pact by keeping its distance from the West and NATO. But since the end of the Cold War, Finland has relinquished its long-standing neutrality and gradually moved west by joining the European Union and deepening defense relations with the United States, including the purchase of F-18 and F-35 fighter jets.
Until Putin’s sovereign attack began on February 24, the Finnish public had opposed NATO membership. But March inquiry The Finnish Business Forum, an incubator called EVA, found that 60 per cent of respondents were in favor of joining NATO, which is 34 percentage points more than in 2021. studies have reported similar results.
For a nation that fought wars with Moscow twice in the last century – and boldly resisted its aggression at the beginning of World War II – Finland’s accession to NATO would give Putin a historic turn.
