The murderous war that broke out in Ukraine three months ago goes far beyond the territorial boundaries of the second largest country in Europe. The invasion of Putin’s army leaves no doubt. In an interview with Prof. Francis Fukuyama, author of the renowned book “The End of History” and a world-renowned expert on political economy, he said he believes it is a comprehensive war against Western democracy, the status quo and the existing world order.
Thus a huge humanitarian crisis taking place in Ukraine these days, unprecedented international sanctions against Russia and a global upheaval in the international arena, have rekindled the centrality, importance and power of the North Atlantic Alliance. Beyond the addition of military force in view of the expected increase in the number of members in the Alliance, the accession of Sweden and especially Finland to NATO is a substantial strategic move that may lead to a critical turn in the war.
The opening of a new front in front of them in the Baltic Sea region and the Arctic Circle in northern Europe could bring about a significant change in Putin’s conduct, dictating the pace and general direction of the war in Ukraine. With his hand on the bottom, he is more dangerous and may escalate the war using unconventional weapons even to present a victory picture.
The facts speak for themselves. Although Sweden and Finland are not official members of NATO, for years they have been considered senior allies and vital strategic partners in an alliance that has grown since 1949 from 12 to 30 countries.
(PfP Partnership for Peace), they take an active and intensive part in the ongoing security activities and peace missions that take place around the world, in military exercises with leading members of the organization (such as the US, UK, France and Germany) and in many intelligence and security agreements and NATO Scandinavians, led by Norway, Denmark and Iceland, such as the “Nordic defensive co-operation” (NORDEFCO).
Although the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the fall of the Soviet bloc were supposed to put an end to the immediate military threat to the sovereignty and independence of the two, in reality the reality is different. Although the Russian Federation has since been perceived as weaker and less threatening, its potential threat to NATO, including Finland and Sweden, especially since Putin’s rise to power in 1999, has not disappeared. It has only become more complex and vague.
Meanwhile, the outbreak of the Cold War and the ideological struggle between the powers led to the disappearance of the “Warsaw Pact”, but the security challenge remained the same and only changed its character and dimensions. No longer just a physical threat on the surface, but also a digital threat and cyber attacks being used against them in cyberspace. Against this background, the Nordic countries have strictly maintained independence and neutrality while the new strategic space created since the early 1990s, with an emphasis on the last decade, obliges them to constantly make strategic changes and pragmatic adjustments.
The two Nordic countries have gradually increased their military might and upgraded their defense and national security systems, alongside stepping up military cooperation, strengthening defense agreements and strengthening political ties with NATO countries and other international organizations.
Proactively
From a broad geopolitical and security point of view, Sweden and Finland are important strategic partners for NATO, both quantitatively and qualitatively. And presence in the Arctic and bases in the Baltic Sea.
All of this is necessary for NATO, especially in the region of Greenland, Iceland and Britain, given its strategic weakness in the face of Russia’s military superiority, which operates nuclear submarines and other vessels there. The Baltics – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia – are frequently exposed to Russian threats.
Beyond that, Sweden and Finland are established democracies and advanced and strong economies that have been members of the European Union since 1995, sharing a liberal approach and core values of NATO. Space and cyber.
However, there are significant gaps between the two. Beyond the various traditions of war that characterize them and Finland’s higher defense budget (about 2% of its GDP compared to Sweden’s defense budget of 1.3% of GDP), Sweden has maintained a choice of neutrality and non-intervention, as an ideology and as a sign of national identity for 200 years.
Finnish neutrality, on the other hand, lasted only a few decades. This is mainly due to its geographical proximity to Russia, which shares with it a long border that lasts about 1,300 km, and also against the background of the explosive relationship that Finland had with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, along with the political pressures and security threats Putin later exerted.
In doing so, it is important to emphasize the timing of the decision by Sweden and Finland, which is not a reckless whim that has emerged out of nowhere. On the contrary. Although this is a complex process involving the approval of all Allies and it may take a considerable amount of time, from their point of view, they anticipate a cure for Mecca and do not wait for the Russian bear to carry out its threats and attack them, as in the case of Ukraine.
Beyond that, their decision to join the organization is based on broad public support (76% in Finland and 57% in Sweden), which has come after strong opposition over the years. The decision to “cook on a small fire” is based on cost-benefit considerations and a realistic and sober approach to the chaotic reality in Europe. The European arena is not quiet in the face of Putin’s aggressive policies, including the invasion of Georgia (2008), the unilateral annexation of the Crimean peninsula (2014) and the security deterioration in relations with Russia over recent months.
There is no doubt, therefore, that these measures constitute a further front in the struggle against the Kremlin chief, which could spur him to carry out his threats in Ukraine and use chemical, biological, or nuclear tactical weapons to illustrate the seriousness of his intentions.
The strategic decision of Finland and Sweden to move from a neutral to an active state and join NATO as de facto members is a dramatic change that goes beyond their political positioning change. Collective and reliance on alliances and common agreements that provide international security.
In addition, their joining expands the organization’s dimensions and geographical distribution while turning it into a kind of blocking “European bloc”, which is confronted head-on with the Russian bear. The two provide NATO with capabilities and resources it did not have before, and these enable it to respond to threats on several fronts simultaneously, with an emphasis on the immediate lines of friction with Russia in Eastern and Northern Europe.
Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated last week that NATO is not part of Russia’s struggle with Ukraine and that the war will not end quickly, but Ukraine will win and NATO will support it until it wins. Really? Do these statements constitute a real guarantee for Ukraine’s security?
And what about the declaration of Sweden and Finland on joining NATO? Will they deter Putin, or will they be a catalyst to spur him on to intensify the struggle to erase Ukraine and the Ukrainians from the map? There is no way to know. Only days will tell.
The author is an expert on geopolitics, global terrorism and international crises