Much like Switzerland, Sweden developed a reputation for neutrality that dated back to the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Sweden was able to maintain its neutrality through the gruesomeness of both World Wars and the Cold War. It looks like its tradition of neutrality is coming to an end. The war between Russia and Ukraine has Sweden rattled enough that Sweden, along with its neighbor Finland, has petitioned to join the military alliance known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). A couple weeks ago on June 28, Turkey lifted its veto to the Nordic nations' bids to NATO, which led to a memorandum being signed between Turkey and the Nordic nations of Sweden and Finland.
Before filing its petition on May 18, Sweden and Finland have been security partners to NATO. In 1994, they joined NATO's Partnership for Peace. They also contributed personnel to the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Balkans. In 2014, Sweden and Finland were designated as Enhanced Opportunity Partners. This is about as close as one can be to NATO without actually being in NATO.
Bringing in Finland would expand NATO's border with Russia by an extra 800 miles. The ascension of these two countries would expand NATO's presence in the Baltic Sea and Arctic Circle. Sweden and Finland have military assets to contribute, as we see below. Given that Sweden and Finland are already part of the European Union, it seems to make sense to have these two nations make their security commitments align with the West, as well. Both countries ascending at the same time could lower risk in comparison to submitting bids separately. As intuitive as it might seem, is it really the right choice?
2. Russia's invasion of Ukraine does not warrant NATO protection. You would think Russia would have been granted a swift victory, especially given its troop size and military might. As of July 3, Russia has only managed to invade the eastern portion of Ukraine (see below). If anything, Russia's lack of progress in the Russo-Ukrainian War signals that the Russian military has been dealing with its own deficiencies, ranging from intelligence, personnel, and training to corruption and low troop morale. Russia does not have the geopolitical clout, the land, or military might that it once had in the Soviet era. Russia's subpar performance combined with the economic sanctions that will most likely weaken Russia in the medium-term and the cost Russia is paying for the Russo-Ukrainian War should put Swedish and Finnish minds at ease.
3. Sweden and Finland joining NATO could create more geopolitical problems in the medium-term. Right now, Moscow does not hold any grudges against Stockholm or Helsinki. However, it is possible that the Russo-Ukrainian War does not go well. Russia could set its sight on Finland prior to Finland's ascension to NATO. Why? Not only to gain domestic support of the Putin regime, but also as a preventative measure to make sure it does not join NATO.
Another factor to consider is that post-Soviet Russia has instigated wars over three instances of potential NATO expansion: Georgia (2008), Crimea (2014), and Ukraine (2022). If Finland joins NATO, it would more than double the land border between Russia and NATO alliance members. Such a move would serve to give fodder to Putin's theory that the Western powers are closing in on him. Russia's ambassador to Finland, Pavel Kuznetsov, already said that Moscow would respond with retaliatory countermeasures in the event that Finland joins NATO. Deputy Chairman of Russia Security Council Dmitry Medvedev similarly said that Finland joining NATO would double the land border of the NATO alliance with Russia, which would mean refortifying Russia's borders.
Why give Putin a pretext for escalation and reinforce Moscow's security fears when the status quo has brought stability in the Baltic region for more than half a century? If Moscow were to act similarly in Latin America, or Mexico more specifically, it would be reasonable to assume that the United States would respond in an escalatory fashion. Sweden and Finland should not be allowed entry to NATO for the same reason that Ukraine was not allowed: for fear of escalation with Russia, nuclear or otherwise.
Bringing Sweden and Finland into the fold of NATO adds two more triggers to Article 5 of NATO, which is the Article that stipulates the collective defense of the alliance. It is true that Sweden and Finland would receive protection under Article 5 if they become members of NATO. It is a double-edged sword because they could also become potential targets, provided that Russia and NATO perceive one another in adversarial terms. Swedish and Finnish military capabilities would become part of the calculus of Russian targeting and strike prioritization in the event of a conflict between Russia and NATO. Conversely, if Russia attacked Poland or another Baltic country, Sweden and Finland would be obligated by Article 5 to help out in a conflict that does not directly affect their national security.
4. There is doubt as to whether Sweden and Finland could contribute to collective defense. This is not to say that Sweden or Finland do not have military capabilities because they do. The Swedish island of Gotland could help NATO secure the Baltic region. Finland's military has 23,000 active military personnel and an extra 238,000 reservists it could muster up within a month. Finland's main weakness in its military is its lack of missile defense. Sweden's major source of national defense is its navy. While these countries have capabilities to defend their own borders, I have to wonder whether these resources would be adequate to "contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area" (per Article 10 of NATO) and help NATO beyond the context of their own borders.
Historically, the modern states of Sweden and Finland have been much more focused on defending their own borders than collective defense. What's more is that the two nations have not spent much of their respective GDPs on military expenditures (see World Bank data below). According to World Bank data, neither Sweden nor Finland meet the NATO criterion of spending at least 2 percent of GDP on military expenditures, although increased spending suggests they could reach that minimum.
Also, Sweden had to reinstate its conscription in 2017, which could signal a weakness in its military readiness. Since Finland shares a border with Russia, its military has prepared its reservists have greater readiness. As another point to consider, Sweden and Finland are cozier with China than the U.S. government cares for, which would make it more difficult for Sweden or Finland to contribute anything significant to collective security policy as it pertains to eastern Asia. Overall, these factors suggest that Sweden and Finland would not provide much beyond territorial defense of their respective countries to the NATO alliance.
5. Even if Russia were to attack, it would not mean that Finland or Sweden would be hung out to dry without NATO membership. As we have seen with Ukraine, the Western powers are willing to give arms and resources in the event of war, even without NATO membership. Also, Sweden and Finland are part of the European Union. The European Union provides mutual defense under the Treaty of Lisbon. Sweden and Finland can receive military aid without having to join NATO. Refusing entry to NATO would not be leaving Sweden and Finland in the lurch, but rather maintaining a status quo that has been working for decades.
6. Defending Sweden and Finland would not be so easy. Neither Sweden nor Finland have a direct land route from continental Europe. Everything coming from NATO allies would need to be deployed by airlift. Russia's war with Ukraine has illustrated that Russia has the ability to neutralize air deployments. Sweden and Finland would be in range of Russia's ground missile, anti-ship, and surface-to-air systems. Furthermore, the Russo-Finnish border could be a challenge to defend given the terrain. While Finland could be a great launching site for attacks, the double-edged nature of this geographical relation means that it is vulnerable to Russian attacks. This is not to say that the task of defending the Nordic nations is impossible, but it would require considerable resources and coordination to make it work for NATO. The actual cost might be higher than the projected cost (see Point #8).
7. The larger the alliance, the more territory that NATO would have to defend in the event of a war. If the member countries proportionately contributed, that would be one thing. The issue is that the United States does the heavy lifting. The United States is de facto the primary source for providing security guarantees for 29 nations. Given NATO's history, it is reasonable to assume that the United States will be on the hook for Sweden's and Finland's security commitments, much like it has with other NATO allies. It is dubious that the Nordic nations would share the burdens of the military costs. Sweden has not even been admitted to NATO and it has already asked the Pentagon for naval assistance.
8. Much like with Ukraine, defending Sweden and Finland is not of vital geopolitical importance to the United States. I say this as someone who is almost half-Swedish and has an affinity for the Nordic region. Yes, there are multiple countries within the NATO alliance system. However, in practice, it would be the U.S. military that would disproportionately spend on Finnish and Swedish defense. Europe should bear more responsibility in preserving peace in Europe, but European powers have been content on letting the United States shoulder much of that burden.
As such, it makes sense to ask how adding Sweden and Finland would benefit U.S. interests. What is the exact threat that Finland or Sweden face? We already know that a Russian attack on these two nations is unlikely (Point #1). We know that Sweden and Finland would not be left to fend for themselves in the unlikely event of war (Point #4). What is the measurable benefit of adding Sweden and Finland to NATO? The United States arguably has more vital security interests, especially in Indo-Pacific Asia.
9. Since the United States would be paying for a large portion of the bill for the ascension of Finland and Sweden to NATO, we should ask what the cost of ascension would be. A 2021 analysis from Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) asks what NATO enlargement would look like and what it would cost. According to CSIS, it would cost as much as $11.6 billion upfront and $1.8 billion annually after that (CSIS, p. 93, 104). In 2021, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) spent $741.7 billion. If the United States were responsible for half of that $1.8 billion, it would mean a 0.1 percent increase of the DoD's budget.
Conversely, the United States has a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 100 percent, something the country has not seen since World War II. National debt issues will continue to haunt the United States for years to come, especially since there is no sign of government spending slowing down. The United States should be shrinking its military obligations in light of the long-term insolvency that such an expanded role costs. We should not add the defense of Sweden and Finland to the list of unnecessary military expenditures, especially since it would not improve the geopolitical situation for anyone.
[As a side note, the United States should examine how much they support Europe vis-à-vis NATO. A professor at MIT found that having European nations be more responsible for its regional security could save the United States up to $80 billion annually (Rosen, 2021).]
Conclusion
Yes, there is instability in Eastern Europe that we have not seen in decades. How Russia will act in the upcoming months is a wild card, especially with the Russo-Ukrainian War. I can understand how Finns and Swedes could feel a heightened sense of concern. At the same time, Russia's actions in Ukraine do not justify an expansion of NATO by allowing Sweden and Finland to enter. Forgetting the fiscal costs for a moment, allowing for these ascensions to pass has the real potential to exacerbate geopolitics in central and eastern Europe.
NATO membership for the Swedish and Finnish nations is superfluous at best and injurious at worst. Perhaps ascension to NATO could result in a deterrent effect. I'm not going to hold my breath because history and international political theory (specifically that of balance of power theory) have me think that an escalatory effect is much more likely. In any case, I hope that events do not reach to such a level where we have to read about this in future history books.
No comments:
Post a Comment