Post

Finland and Sweden in NATO: Causes, Implications (Cameron Sawyer, USA, 05/17/22 8:34 am)

Consoly León Arias wrote, with respect to the likely accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, that "the shot has backfired on the Kremlin."

That is certainly true. In fact, this is something of an understatement.  The aggressive war in Ukraine is a disaster for Russia of almost unimaginable proportions--destroying Russia's security situation together with the overall security architecture of Europe, profoundly isolating Russia, threatening internally instability, and the risk of a broader war. If anything, this aggressive war of Putin's is an even bigger disaster for Russia than our own aggressive wars in the Middle East were for us.

However, Consoly is wrong to think that these moves are a welcome desire to get rid of "neutrality forced by Russia"--that Finland, or even less Sweden, have been burning with desire to join the US-led camp. On the contrary, neutrality has worked out extremely well for both countries, has been very popular over the decades, and is being given up now only very reluctantly.

Neither Nordic country has supported NATO or US-led aggressive wars, and there was a big article in Finland's leading newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, noting that the protests in Finland against the US war on Iraq were vastly larger and more passionate, than Finnish protests against the Russian aggression against Ukraine. See: "The invasion of Iraq was opposed by 15,000 Finns during the demonstration; around 50 opponents of the War in Ukraine were found on Tehtaankatu:  What is the difference?"

https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000008617698.html

Contrary to what Consoly writes, the Russians, for their part, have been treating the Nordic countries very cautiously in the midst of this storm. Consoly writes about threats addressed to Finland; that is old news. The Russians have now adopted a conciliatory posture towards Sweden and, especially, Finland. Russia values the relationship especially with Finland, which has worked out as well for them as it has for the Finns. Russia has taken the symbolic steps of cutting off Finland from Russian electrical power, which represents less than 10% of the Finnish electrical market and is thus no big deal (especially since Finland will bring a massive new nuclear power plant on line soon), and expelled a couple of Finnish diplomats. At the same time, however, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said that NATO membership of Finland and Sweden doesn't make much difference to Russia, since both countries have long been partially integrated into NATO structures anyway. Even Putin took the trouble to speak up publicly on the matter--saying that Russia has no conflicts or problems with either Finland or Sweden, so the expansion of NATO into these countries "is not a direct threat to Russia." Putin drew the line only at "expansion of military infrastructure to these countries"--that is, bases or nuclear weapons. He went on to say "Problems are created for no reason whatsoever. We reacted appropriately."

See:

https://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000008798473.html

Clearly, Putin does not want bad relations with Finland and Sweden and is willing to go far to offer an olive branch.

See also:

https://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000008821262.html

Consoly writes about the other implications of "incorporating Finland and Sweden into the joint defense." This is the right question. Finland and Sweden have been moved to join NATO because the old security architecture of Europe has been trashed. The old security architecture of Europe depended on the bipolar balance of power during the Cold War, followed by reasonably good relations with Russia after the end of the Cold War, making military threats inside Europe unlikely. That is now out the window. The "new security architecture of Europe" requires a high level of militarism aimed at reducing the significant risk of a big war with an implacable enemy. Sweden's and Finland enviable place of neutrality and good relations everywhere, including the ability to keep the US at arm's length, has been abolished.  They are now forced to take sides in a much worse and much more dangerous world than what we had before 24 February. This is to be regretted. The only winner here is US Global Hegemony.  Europe is a big loser, but the world altogether, including the US, even if much of our foreign policy establishment doesn't understand it, is also a big loser, as everyone's security is now worse and peace is so much more fragile.

Consoly asks us to think about whether incorporating Finland and Sweden into NATO will increase European security. It's a good question, an important question, at a moment when most of our geopolitical decisions are being made on the basis of being "carried away by enthusiasm." My own opinion is that it doesn't make much difference. We are already virtually at war with Russia--Biden has said that "it's our war" and has announced publicly that our goal is "weakening Russia," not helping Ukraine. I think it's pretty much inconceivable that Russia will attack either Sweden or Finland, with or without NATO (as Putin said--they have no problems with either country, and expansionism is not part of Russian foreign policy, contrary to what Consoly assumes). Europe is anyway on the verge of war. The Neocon project of dividing the world into US-aligned clients, on the one side, and enemies, on the other side, has achieved a great victory in Europe. The elimination of neutral parties in Europe is just a small, inevitable result of this fact.

JE comments:  Cameron, I've carefully read every word you've ever sent WAISward, and I don't think you've ever predicted a (wider) European war.  You're no alarmist, so your prediction today is particularly alarming.  Do you believe Putin will try anything, including a nuke or two, before giving up in Ukraine?  

I'm still hopeful the war will not expand.  Two weeks in front-line Poland and Romania, where the people do not seem overly worried, helped to boost my optimism.

Visits: 134