The Russian invasion of Ukraine has triggered a seismic shift in Western Europe’s geopolitical thinking. Among the most notable changes that have been birthed is the historic decision by Finland and Sweden, two nations with a tradition of neutrality, to seek membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
You can also read: Deciphering Bangladesh’s FTA Puzzle with Japan, China, and India
The move represents a significant setback for Russia’s strategic objectives, as the expansion of NATO’s presence in the Baltic region undermines Moscow’s efforts to assert its influence and maintain a sphere of control along its borders.
The End of an Era of Neutrality
Sweden and Finland have long held a unique position in the European geopolitical scene, characterized by their steadfast commitment to neutrality. For nearly two centuries, Sweden has adhered to a policy of armed neutrality, skillfully navigating the complex web of European alliances and conflicts while maintaining its independence. This approach has deep roots in Swedish history, dating back to the early 19th century when the country emerged from the Napoleonic Wars as a neutral power.
Similarly, Finland, despite being part of the Russian Empire until gaining independence in 1917, embraced neutrality during the Cold War era. The Finnish experience was shaped by the delicate balance it had to strike between maintaining relations with the Soviet Union and engaging with the Western world.
This policy of neutrality, often referred to as ‘Finlandization’, allowed the country to preserve its sovereignty and avoid being drawn into the ideological and military tensions that defined the Cold War.
However, the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally altered the security equation for both Sweden and Finland. The actions taken by Moscow in Ukraine have, essentially, ‘pulled the rug’ from under the two nation’s stance on neutrality. It has forced these nations to confront the harsh reality that their long-standing policies of neutrality may no longer be sufficient to guarantee their safety and territorial integrity.
As a result, public opinion in both countries underwent a dramatic shift, with support for joining the NATO alliance. Consequently, Finland became NATO’s 31st member in April 2023. Turkey and Hungary delayed their domestic ratification for Sweden over concerns about its support for Kurdish groups. However, in early 2024 Turkey, and then Hungary, ratified Sweden’s accession protocol.
This marks a significant departure from the traditional stance of non-alignment and reflects a growing recognition that the changing geopolitical scenario requires a reevaluation of their security arrangements.
Betrayal as Perceived by Russia
Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine was driven, in part, by a desire to prevent further NATO expansion along its borders (the ‘de-Nazification’ claim being less plausible in terms of justification). Moscow has long viewed the alliance’s eastward growth as a direct threat to its security interests and has sought to maintain a buffer zone of friendly or neutral states between itself and NATO.
“You promised us in the 1990s that (NATO) would not move an inch to the East,”-
– Vladimir Putin
To be fair to Russia, NATO has repeatedly rescinded its ‘supposed’ previous promises of not expanding eastwards. Thus, severely degrading NATO’s ‘trustworthiness’ in Russia’s eyes. The argument of this ‘betrayal’ stems from ‘Two Plus Four Treaty’ pertaining to German reunification, post-soviet collapse. During the treaty dialogue, there were apparent assurances by Western leaders that NATO would not expand eastwards. However, there are contradictory statements made for and against this claim.
According to Roland Dumas, the French foreign minister in 1990, assurances were given that NATO forces would not move closer to the borders of the former Soviet Union. However, James Baker, who served as the U.S. secretary of state during that period, has refuted claims that such a commitment was ever made. This denial has been challenged by some of Baker’s own diplomats, including Jack Matlock, the U.S. ambassador to Moscow at the time. Matlock has stated that the Soviet Union received ‘categorical assurances’ that NATO would not expand in an eastward direction.
Regardless of the validity of such assurances, nothing has been a more bitter topic in Russian strategic circles than what was once promised and then betrayed by the ‘Western Powers’.
Russia’s Invasion: A Strategic Backfire?
By launching a military offensive against Ukraine, a country that has expressed interest in joining the NATO alliance, Russia hoped to send a clear message that it would not tolerate NATO’s presence in what it considers its sphere of influence.
The invasion has had the opposite effect, pushing historically neutral countries like Finland and Sweden closer to NATO than ever before. Russia’s actions, coupled with the potential threat of further aggression, have forced these nations to confront the limitations of their non-aligned status in the face of a revisionist power.
The irony of Russia’s actions is that, in seeking to prevent NATO expansion, it has actually accelerated the process. The invasion of Ukraine has galvanized support for the alliance among its member states and has prompted a reevaluation of security priorities among non-members.
As a result, NATO is poised to grow stronger and more united, with the addition of Finland and Sweden further cementing its presence in the Baltic region. In essence, Russia’s strategic gamble has backfired spectacularly.
NATO’s Temporary Weakness
The war in Ukraine has, without a doubt, weakened NATO somewhat. The primary cause of this is the vast amount of aid that NATO countries has poured into the defense of Ukraine. This has emptied ammunition depots and lightened the pockets of NATO countries by almost $106 billion dollars, with a further $54 billion from the EU and $61 billion from the US pledged.
While this vast sum may seem overwhelming at first, NATO, in the long run, is poised to grow stronger. With Germany and Poland declaring a massive rearmament. This coupled with the addition of Finland and Sweden to NATO means that the alliance not only has rearmed and powerful nations as members, but two strong economies (one famed for its banking sector) to reply on. In the long run, Russia’s invasion has made NATO more united and stronger.
A New Era for European Geopolitics
The landmark joining of Finland and Sweden in NATO represents a tectonic shift in the European geopolitical landscape, marking the end of an era defined by the neutrality that has characterized these nations for generations.
The implications of this shift will be far-reaching and complex, reshaping the dynamics of European security and diplomacy for years to come. NATO will need to adapt its strategies and resources to incorporate these new members and their unique capabilities.
This will involve a delicate balancing act between bolstering deterrence measures to counter potential threats and maintaining open channels of dialogue to prevent escalation and promote stability.
