War in Ukraine - How Russia is pushing Finland and Sweden closer to NATO

Opinion analysis by Pau Luoning, Contributor

April 12th, 2022

After Vladimir Putin had considered the fall of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century”, Russia has been proactively trying to expand its sphere of influence across its borders, especially in former Soviet territories. The Kremlin has projected its military power abroad during many years and successfully integrated the economies of former soviet republics by making them dependent of Russia, in what seems to be the desire to re-establish a new union of some sorts. In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia, the first war in Europe in the 21st century, and later shocked once more the international community after the annexation of Crimea in 2014.

It is indisputable to say Russia’s foreign policy in the past years has been strongly marked by an increased military adventurism with little to no regard for national sovereignty and territorial integrity of other nations, nor rule of the international law. The Federation has further been directly involved in cyber attacks, interference with elections and misinformation campaigns in a calculated effort to undermine and destabilize Western democracies. The consequences have always ranged from political turmoil in different countries to putting in danger the peace and security in Europe.

Seemingly not enough for Putin’s imperialistic plans, he did not stop in Crimea. Russia had continued to station in its bordering territories with Ukraine, as well as in Belarus, over 100,000 troops, a military force labelled last February by US intelligence to be strong enough to “take Kyiv in Days”. The situation was critical as never before in the region and such a risk of escalation in Europe had not been seen in years. Those old enough to remember know that similar winds of tense uncertainty blew many times during the Cold War.

On February 24th, Vladimir Putin announced in national television the launch of a “special military operation” in Donetsk and Luhansk, in the eastern Donbas region, with the aim to “de-Nazify and demilitarise” Ukraine. After recognizing the independence these two Russian-speaking separatists regions three days before, the Russian leader used the unfounded claims of torture and genocide to protect its people from the Ukrainian regime as a pretext to launch a full-scale invasion of the country. Ever since, Ukraine has been attacked from the north, east and south with the real goal of removing the current government, assassinating president Vlodymyr Zelensky and establishing a new regime in the country that is friendlier to Moscow.

These actions should be understood in terms of geopolitics and security, since they are a clear strategic response to NATO’s expansion eastwards. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was born after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 to protect its member countries from Russian aggression in the context of the end of the Cold War. In an US-American effort to bring East European countries under the influence and protection of the West, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were welcomed by NATO in the 1990’s and later in 2004 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia followed. These countries joined the alliance in the pursue of their national security guarantees under the principle of collective defence. As famous Article 5 states, an aggression to one of its members is an attack to all of them, thus, binding all members to defence solidarity. Today, 30 countries under the leadership of the US compose NATO.

From the Russian perspective, this is highly alarming. In their eyes NATO has done nothing but rapidly expanding towards Moscow’s doorstep. Moreover, the alliance already has many military bases in the Baltic States, three nations sharing a border with Russia. What for the West is of primordial defensive nature, has always presented for Russia a nail-biter security threat. The situation particularly aggravated after the talks over many years about Ukraine joining the alliance. For the Russians, Ukraine is not only the biggest neighbouring former soviet republic in Europe, but it has a very symbolic importance. Ukraine is the birthplace of the modern Russian State, both countries are part of the “Russian world, share deep-rooted cultural and historical ties. Moscow sees Ukraine as “an extension of Russia” and their “little brothers”, as Vladimir Putin wrote in his essay “Russians and Ukrainians are one people, a single whole”. It should not have come as surprise, then, when president Putin listed the official ban to the country by the NATO, in an ambitious list of demands to the US to not to expand eastwards in exchange to de-escalate the situation before the invasion.

Seven weeks into the invasion, the world has seen how Ukraine offered a fierce fight against the invaders and repelled many Russian attacks. The Ukrainian army has proven to be a very capable one with its resistance to a substantially larger, more experienced and better-equipped one. It is especially in the battle for the capital, Kyiv, that this was made clear. After weeks of bombings and fighting, about two-thirds of Russian forces deployed to take the city now retreat back to Belarus to regroup and be relocated elsewhere, most probably in the Donbas US officials explained to Pentagon reporters.

As Ukrainians celebrate and streets in Kyiv are returning to normal life, Russians left previously occupied territories in their fast retreat. It was in there, and particularly in the cities of Bucha, Irpin and Hostomel, where shocking discoveries of atrocities and butchery were made. More than 300 civilians were found dead, many buried in mass graves while others were tied, shot in their heads and simply left to rot in the streets, in what seems to be a clear execution of civilians. The reports of many witnesses state that the Russian army systematically tortured, raped and executed hundreds of Ukrainian residents, including women, children and elderly. Although Russian officials said everything was “fake and staged”, satellite images and many fact-checking sites have confirmed its veracity. While only time will uncover what exactly happened in these cities and the responsible perpetrators should be held accountable in front of international courts, all indicates the brutal and horrific genocide and war crimes. Decades later, history seems to have repeated itself in Europe and it has shown us the darkest and horrific sides of humankind once more. Findings in Bucha are most likely to be a turning point in the war and in relationships between Putin’s Russia and the World.

It is this context of bloodshed, genocide and escalating conflict, that two nations arrive on the scene. Otherwise most known for ABBA, meatballs and a worldwide celebrated budget-friendly furniture mega-chain on the one hand; and for being the home of Santa Claus on the other hand, Sweden and Finland are indirectly being put once more in the spotlight. Considering the trends of Russia’s aggressive behaviour towards its neighbours, one could have thought that these nations geographically close to the biggest country on Earth may always have felt compelled to join the alliance with some sense of urgency. In other words, that Russia is pushing Sweden and Finland to join NATO. Although this might be true for many, it is not the case of these two Scandinavian countries. Unlike Norway, both Sweden and Finland are members of the European Union (political union) and they have not entered NATO (a military alliance) up to this point and chose a path of pragmatic neutrality instead. It would be true, however, to say they are closer as never before to join.

The crisis in Ukraine before the invasion reignited the public debate in the two Nordic countries about the possible membership to deter any eastern aggression, as polls show public opinion were starting to change early 2022. Nevertheless, both executives seem to have had rejected this possibility, despite officials having publicly expressed in response to Mr Putin’s demands, this decision would be for their own governments and the NATO allies alone to make in a call for national sovereignty. The two countries share similar security concerns and have increasingly seen how Russian aircrafts and warships countlessly intruded their territories, but they historically preferred to remain neutral, a pragmatic decision since they rely on trade with both Russia and the US. Although similar, the two countries find themselves in two distinct positions.

Helsinki has a unique relationship to Moscow resulting of being part of Russia prior to its independence and their clash during the two World Wars. Nonetheless, it has adopted a neutral position of non-alignment since the Cold War whilst maintaining a strategic friendly relationship. The “Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance” enabled this doctrine from 1948 until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1992. The security threat Russia presents is more obvious in the Finnish case since a 1,340 km land border is being shared, yet the full NATO membership had been, again, rejected in the political debate before the Russian invasion. Those against it highlight the loss of the national neutral identity, the financial burden of membership, the deterioration of Finnish-Russian relations built after many decades, combined with the energetic and trading dependence of Russia. It is important to mention about 70,000 people speak Russian as their mother tongue, making for the third largest ethnical minority in the Scandinavian country. This is an important aspect to keep in mind, since Russia has used Russian-speaking minorities in other countries to legitimize military action in the past and started the current invasion of Ukraine with his pretext.

In regards to Finnish public opinion, polls earlier this year before the war indicate a clear shift of trends. The opposition to a NATO membership in 2022 dropped to a two-decade low, 42 per cent, while 28 per cent are in favour and 30 per cent are uncertain. To put things into context, these numbers highly contrast with the trend of opposition, as the same share peaked at 68 per cent and never dropped below 53 per cent. However, latest polls after the break of the war clearly show a different picture: a historic high of 62 per cent would support a Finnish NATO membership, while only 16 cent oppose and 21 per cent were not sure. There is the widespread feeling that it is not possible to have working, rational relation with its neighbour anymore, than Putin has become too powerful, aggressive and unpredictable. Finnish public went from opposing to supporting it almost overnight. Pete Piirainen from the Finnish Institute of Foreign Affairs stated, “it has been a major change” and “we feel Russia broke the rules, the international system and the security architecture”.

There are some security concerns among Finnish policymakers about the nation’s potential vulnerability during timeframe between the formal NATO application and the de facto full membership. As former Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Hubb puts it, Finns “do not want to be alone again”, in a clear reference to the 1939-40 winter against the Soviet Union. The government in Helsinki is currently working on white paper on its national security, NATO membership being a very important aspect, which will be released this month. It will be further debated in Parliament, but MPs are pushing for a decision before the end of June.

On the other hand, Sweden’s case may not seem as threatening as it is because it no longer shares a land border with Russia. Yet, the Island of Gotland, vital to project military power in the Baltic Sea and to deliver naval and air defence of the major urban centres, including the capital: Stockholm. The island its about 300 km away of the coast of the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, one of the most heavily weaponized regions in the continent. Similarly to the Finns, the Swedes voluntarily chose to adopt a policy of neutrality after an historical huge defat in 1809. This policy was the reason the country did not take part in neither World Wars nor the Cold War.

Today, Sweden has enjoyed over 200 years of peace after long not actively taking part in any armed conflict. Neutrality has since become a symbol of Swedish foreign policy. After joining the European Union, the Swedes adopted policy of non-alignment and solidarity rather than neutrality per se. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ann Linde, stated “Sweden will not remain passive if another EU member or Nordic country suffered an attack” as well as it is expected to receive the same treatment. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 supposed a turning point for the security policy of the country as it emphasised the need to enhance its defence. In 2017 conscription was reintroduced, the defence budget has been increased and regiments previously shut down were re-established as a response. As for today, Sweden is manufactures and exports some of the finest military weapons, the country being one of the world’s major arms exporters.

Similarly to the Finns, the defenders of NATO membership has been growing between the Swedish public, although the support was not predominant and individuals were divided before the conflict. A survey showed last January how 37 per cent of respondents approved, 35 per cent disapproved and 28 per cent were unsure. Meanwhile, a clear majority of 59 per cent “were afraid of Russia as a superpower”. Although the Swedish public historically has been more open regarding NATO membership, it is now in Finnish society where it takes place. The Finnish white paper would have a great influence on Sweden’s decision, as almost all analysts agree the two countries are a “package deal”. Erik Brattberg, of the Albright Stonebridge Group explained “ Sweden is adjusting more slowly to the new geopolitical reality but is moving in the same direction.” In Stockholm, the ruling centre-left Swedish Social Democratic Party is shifting it foreign policy to a renewed closer position to push for NATO membership.

From a NATO point of view, the Swedish and Finnish membership would be of the upmost importance. Not only would the alliance have control over almost the totality of the Baltic Sea and would be able to better protect the Baltic states, but Russia also would be surrounded by NATO allies in a potential “new front” where now neutral countries serve as a buffer. eThis would, in turn, create a desirable balance of power for the alliance. With Finland as a member, NATO’s border would press up against Russia’s, forcing Putin’s regime to increase military spending to unsustainable levels as a response. In this regard, the Russian Foreign Ministry explained they respect the two nations sovereignty in choosing their defence policies but assured there would be “serious political and military consequences which would require an adequate response”.

In terms of national politics, Sweden and Finland would need a parliamentary majority to change policies in foreign affairs. To achieve that, the necessary public opinion necessary for a change on the NATO question has already dramatically shifted. Keeping in mind Putin often uses aggressive foreign policy to boost national approval rates and can not afford a loss, all this might turn depending on how the events in Ukraine unfold. The longer the War in Ukraine lasts, the more aggressive Russia behaves and more alleged war crimes are uncovered, the more support for NATO the Nordic public will gain. Especially interesting is the case of Sweden, where elections will be held next 2023 and NATO membership could be an important topic brought up to the political debate.

Putin’s aggressive behaviour may have been setting the stones for a new road to come. Finns and Swedes see in Putin’s Russia an unpredictable danger, and in Ukraine the potential shared fate of a country being bullied by it’s bigger neighbour. Both countries have seen, what non-NATO members close to Russia can suffer and, as Alexander Stubb said on Deutsche Welle, “if Putin can slaughter their brothers, sisters and cousins, why would he do the same thing with Finnland?”. For the former Finnish Prime minister it is now not a question of if but rather of when, as the feeling that Putin’s imperialistic plans do not stop in Ukraine persists.

Although a full membership would have hardly been the answer before the invasion (but rather the increased cooperation and integration with the Alliance), the brutal war in Ukraine can be seen as an encouragement for Sweden and Finland to abandon any ideas of neutrality and non-alignment and to push towards the welcoming arms of NATO. If that were the case, it is most likely that the two countries joined together, as they jointly entered the EU in 1995, as a result of the long lasting historical, cultural and economic ties between the two countries. As former Finnish President Tarja Halonen described, the two countries are not two “sisters but not twins”