Finland and Sweden join NATO: why? What's the impact?

Written by | Xiaoxin

On May 18, Finland and Sweden formally submitted their membership applications to NATO at the same time. Previously, the Finnish parliament passed the motion with 188 votes in favor and 8 against. Sweden's ruling Social Democratic Party, which has long held a pacifist and anti-NATO stance, also made a decision to support the country's membership in NATO at a special meeting on May 15.

Finnishization and permanent neutrality

Finland and Sweden have long pursued a military non-aligned foreign policy.

In 1947, with the signing of the Traité de Paris, the Soviet-Finnish War and the Continued War officially ended. The Soviet Union, which launched the war, lost a total of more than 300,000 people in the two wars and paid a huge price. But Finland also faced intense pressure from the Soviet Union. Therefore, in 1948, the two countries signed the Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance of 1948.

Under the influence of the treaty, Finland actually continued to maintain a pro-Soviet foreign policy despite not joining NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Urho Kaleva Kekkonen, who had close ties with the Soviet Union, was in power for a long time, and the Soviet Union continued to exert a significant influence on Finnish politics. This phenomenon is called "Finnishization" (Suomettiminen).

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, Finland got rid of the pressure from the Soviet Union and quickly fell to the West. Finland became a NATO "Partnership for Peace" in 1994 and joined the European Union in 1995. But Finland still maintains friendly relations with Russia.

Sweden has always been a regional military power. But because of the Napoleonic Wars, Sweden was forced to cede Finland to the Russian Empire in 1809. In the same year, a coup d'etat broke out in Sweden, making Sweden a constitutional monarchy. Sweden subsequently established a permanent neutral foreign policy. Sweden maintained at least ostensible neutrality in both world wars.

After the Cold War, Sweden abandoned the principle of military neutrality. Sweden joined the European Union in 1995 and has become more active in NATO's military activities.

soaring support

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has made people in both countries wary of Russia. Two-thirds of respondents to a May 18 poll by Finland's Defense Information Planning Council said they supported Finland's membership in NATO, compared with just 28 percent of Finns who supported it just before Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Olavi Haavisto explained to Foreign Policy magazine that Russia's invasion of Ukraine demonstrated its ability to mobilize, its will to war and Russia's "loose rhetoric about the use of unconventional weapons, including nuclear weapons." ' changed the Finns' perception of Russia. As Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Mirella Marin said, "Russia is not our imaginary neighbor".

The public opinion in Sweden is more complicated. Sweden has maintained a tradition of neutrality for nearly 200 years, so that the people who support joining NATO only rose to about 60% after the war. Many people pointed out that Sweden has deep cooperation with NATO, and joining NATO can only make it completely abandon its neutrality principle and bring little benefits. But, like Finland, Russia's invasion of Ukraine changed the Swedish government's assessment of Russia's willingness to "use violence" and "take enormous risks," leading them to believe that Russia has The ability also has the will to wage war.

More importantly, when Finland joins NATO, among the Scandinavian countries with close military cooperation, Sweden will be the only one that is not in NATO's collective defense system. Sweden will face great instability and danger in defense. Therefore, when Finland officially announced its application to join NATO, Sweden's ruling Social Democratic Party changed its long-standing position in a special meeting and decided to apply for NATO membership. Of the seven parties in the Swedish parliament, only the Left and the Greens remain opposed to joining NATO. It is worth noting that the Swedish Left Party, although opposed to joining NATO, supports raising Sweden's armament level.

NATO has no formal membership process. According to Article X of the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO may unanimously invite any other European country capable of advancing the principles of this Treaty and contributing to the security of the North Atlantic region. By convention, when a country formally applies for membership, NATO will evaluate the application at a meeting of the member-member North Atlantic Council.

According to the 1995 NATO Enlargement Study, the evaluation criteria included an effective democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minorities; commitment to peaceful conflict resolution; ability and willingness to make military contributions to NATO; and civilian control of the military . Observers widely expect the assessment to be completed soon, given that the two countries already have strong ties with NATO and are both members of the European Union.

When the assessment is complete, NATO will negotiate accession with the joining countries. After the negotiation, if the candidate country formally sends a letter expressing its willingness to accept the obligations required to join the alliance, NATO will sign a protocol with it. Member states will ratify the protocol, which will then be deposited in Washington, marking the official entry of the candidate country into NATO. The process could take a year or even years, given that some of the procedures are subject to approval by national parliaments.

The Turkish president claimed that Turkey opposed the two countries' applications, but because of the US's influence in NATO, observers generally said that Turkey's opposition was more of a desire to gain more bargaining chips in the accession talks.

What will joining the two countries bring to NATO?

Joining NATO would imply compliance with the most well-known collective defense obligations and the obligation to fund NATO, in addition to some legal or security obligations based on NATO defense plans. At the same time, joining NATO means placing forces under joint NATO command.

Geopolitically speaking, joining NATO would strengthen Nordic strategic control over the Baltic Sea, Russia's maritime route to St. Petersburg and its enclave Kaliningrad. Finland shares a 1,300-kilometer border with Russia. Finland, Sweden and Iceland, like Iceland, are at the center of the triangle formed by the North Atlantic and Arctic seas, to which Russia projects military power from the Kola Peninsula in the north. The joining of the two countries will allow NATO to effectively contain Russia's attack on any NATO member.

Finland still maintains 12,000 standing soldiers, and the country has 20,000 people serving in the military each year, so Finland can mobilize 280,000 people to fight within 30 days of the outbreak of war. At the same time, the country has the largest reserve army in Europe. Sweden has a standing army of 50,000, and Sweden itself is a big country in weapons manufacturing and production. After the two countries joined NATO, in addition to defending themselves, they also have the ability to help defend other member states, effectively reducing the armament burden of the United States, Britain, France and other countries. In addition, military analysts have pointed out that Finland's accession will significantly enhance NATO's intelligence analysis capabilities.

the world has changed

Russia opposes the two countries' plans to join NATO. Putin said in a phone call with the Finnish president that Finland had no security threat and that joining NATO was a "mistake". Putin has already announced a "military, technical" response if they join. NATO is concerned that Russia could deploy nuclear weapons or more hypersonic missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave.

Since candidate countries will not be protected by the mutual defense clause until the accession process is complete, the United States has declared "confidence in finding a way to address any concerns that any country may have regarding the time period between its application to join NATO and its official membership. "The UK provided written security assurances to both countries on May 11.

Although public opinion in the two countries is generally inclined to join NATO, there are still internal differences on the specific details. The Guardian interviewed three ordinary people from Sweden and Finland, who disagreed.

Mikael Viljanen, a teacher from Helsinki, said: "I feel like I'm saying on behalf of many Finns that we're taking the lesser of two evils. I've never been a fan of NATO, but Putin has left us with nothing else. Choice. He undermines that trust and makes clear that not only is Russia ruthless, but its regime's frenzied nationalist adventures are also very unpredictable. … But should we be as concerned as possible with America’s interests? Or closer ties with Estonia and the Baltics? Or try to play a similar role of peace broker as before?”

Leif Väisänen from Oulu said, “Since Finland became independent, Russia has been complaining and making threats. Sometimes we think Russia should shut up, take a sauna, have a beer and relax. But I don’t think our country should have a NATO base. Finland has to state that it will remain a defensive country within NATO because we don’t want to be involved in a war like the UK, the US and others.”

Maria, from Gothenburg, said, "If one of the other NATO countries does something stupid, I don't want to be responsible. It would be scary to have such a close military relationship with a country like Turkey."

The two countries joining NATO are more focused on obtaining security guarantees. Finland has stated its reservations about the deployment of nuclear weapons and permanent military bases on its territory. But the membership of Finland and Sweden remains politically symbolic for NATO, while profoundly changing the geopolitical landscape of Europe. Putin talked about redrawing the global security architecture before his invasion of Ukraine, which may have happened, but not necessarily according to his plan.

In any case, the world has changed.

(Editor in charge: New Bremen)