Filenews 27 April 2022
The Editorial Board of Bloomberg Opinion
After decades of neutrality, Finland is likely to decide within the next month to apply for NATO membership. Its neighbour Sweden is also likely to follow soon. Unsurprisingly, Russia has threatened "serious military and political" consequences in response.
A larger and more powerful North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) on Russia's doorstep could well increase President Vladimir Putin's insecurity and paranoia. But that's all he has to blame for. The question here is whether this perspective is a good idea for the alliance itself.
Turn
Finland remained neutral between East and West during the Cold War. Even after joining the European Union in the mid-1990s, Finns were overwhelmingly opposed to joining NATO.
As recently as 2017, less than 20% of the Finnish population supported the idea. Since the day of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, public opinion has turned dramatically. Support for NATO membership stands at 68%. If, as expected, the government applies for membership of the North Atlantic Alliance, the Finnish parliament seems likely to approve it before the NATO Summit in June.
For Finland, the benefits are clear. Full membership would bring the country under NATO's umbrella of collective defence, ensuring that the alliance would use force in the event of a Russian attack - a once remote possibility which, in the wake of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, now seems more plausible.
Finland will be fully integrated into Western regulatory planning in the field of intelligence, but into collective defence planning, enhancing its ability to monitor the deployment of Russian military forces along its borders.
Benefits
As far as NATO is concerned, Finland's candidacy would certainly make sense militarily. Although it has a small standing army, Finland's reserve military force is the largest in Europe. Around 900,000 Finns have military training. The country's aviation and intelligence services are among the most advanced in Europe.
If Sweden joins, its military capability in the field of air defence and submarines will enhance NATO's ability to counter hostile Russian activity in the Baltic Sea and the Arctic.
There would also be political benefits. It is true that previous rounds of NATO enlargement, particularly in less developed democracies in south-eastern Europe, have put strain on the Alliance's resources and forced it to do business with governments that do not exactly fit into the political context of liberal democracy. However, the addition of Finland and Sweden, both prosperous democracies, would only enhance NATO's credibility as a defender of liberal values.
It would also help to better share the long-term costs of maintaining European security, allowing the US to devote more attention to the Pacific. Despite Putin's repeated threats, history shows that a larger alliance provides more deterrent power against Russian aggression in Europe, not less.
Approval
That said, the associated risks need to be addressed openly. The alliance's expansion requires approval from the governments of all 30 member states - including Hungary, whose newly re-elected prime minister, Viktor Orban, has little hidden his admiration for Putin.
In the U.S., two-thirds of the Senate (upper house of federal Congress) will have to approve enlargement. A protracted debate in Western capitals could create a dangerous interval in which the two northern European countries have relinquished their neutrality, but have not yet received guarantees of collective defence.
NATO leaders can prepare for this eventuality. Once Finland and Sweden have made their intentions clear, US President Joe Biden will have to argue publicly as to why joining NATO would benefit America's national security and press wavering senators to quickly ratify the deal.
European governments should strengthen their defences against Russian disinformation campaigns and other forms of Moscow's intervention within their own countries. As the ratification process progresses, the US and the UK will have to broaden the defence cooperation agreements with Finland and Sweden and coordinate with both countries so that they can take action against possible Russian provocations.
Danger
A final danger is that Russia will respond in 'war' terms to NATO's expansion - perhaps by deploying additional nuclear weapons in the Baltic region.
Such a move would undoubtedly raise the tension and risk miscalculations on either side. As a precautionary measure, the US and Europe should reiterate that the purpose of the alliance is purely defensive - but also that their commitment to collective security is unwavering.
The prospective new members will also have to adopt a membership model similar to that of Norway, according to which they will respect the Alliance's obligations under its founding treaty, but will not host permanent US bases or nuclear weapons on their territory.
NATO's expansion is thus not devoid of potential risks. The cost, however, of a retreat in the face of Russia's threats and aggression is likely to prove to be much greater.
A broader NATO is a stronger NATO.
Source: BloombergOpinion
