Finland and Sweden cherished their neutrality for decades. But since Russia’s attack on neighboring Ukraine, public opinion in the two Scandinavian countries has turned. In 2021 only 21 percent of Finns voted for NATO membership, by the beginning of March that had risen to over 60 percent†
Finland’s prime minister Sanna Marin expects to decide by the end of June whether Finland will make an official application for NATO membership. A week later, the Finnish Defense Ministry released a report explaining why Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents a “fundamental change” for regional security, after which the ministry detailed a roadmap for NATO membership. In Sweden, the enthusiasm for NATO is somewhat less, but there too the minds seem ripe for joining the alliance – it is not for nothing that the Swedish prime minister met with Marin last week and announced their consideration at a joint press conference.
Do NATO countries welcome the possibility of two new Scandinavian members? After all, the border between Finland and Russia spans more than 1,300 kilometers and threatening language is already heard from the Kremlin.
Politico
Elisabeth Braw, senior researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, writes in a controversial opinion article on Politico that joining NATO has never been easier – to add directly that ‘Stockholm must seize this opportunity’. According to Braw, it should in turn be a matter of course for NATO member states to extend an ‘unequivocal welcome’ to the two Scandinavian countries.
After all, according to the commentary, both countries fit in with NATO in terms of the organization of the political system and the rule of law, and would also ‘add military clout to the alliance’. Braw: “The geopolitical siblings have always been better positioned than, say, the Baltic states, which had to overcome serious military readiness doubts and challenges before they could be admitted into the alliance.”
Spain: ABC
It editorial commentary of the Spanish newspaper ABC adopts a more critical tone. The newspaper emphasizes that the Kremlin has long made explicit threats to prevent Finland and Sweden from joining NATO. “Their membership will certainly pose a political dilemma,” the commentary concludes. Moreover, the newspaper notes another dilemma: ‘The alliance has a different point of view (no short-term membership, no speeding up of any application, red.) welcomed the desperate cries of help from Ukraine – the country that is actually under attack and has no prospects of joining the alliance any time soon.”
Romania: Adevarul
The prospects for European security are worrisome, acknowledges the liberal left Romanian newspaper Adevarulstressing that Kremlin officials warn in very clear terms that membership of Sweden and Finland “will not bring stability to the European continent” and would have “serious political and military consequences.” adevarul believes that “there is a very serious possibility that Moscow will make a large-scale offensive move if NATO leaders agree to apply for membership this summer.”
Nevertheless, adevarul that Finland in particular would be an asset to NATO. First of all, because Finland has great military strength of its own and ‘wouldn’t constantly ask for everyone’s help’; the newspaper delicately points out that last year Finland ordered 64 F-35s and has a well-organized and relatively large army at its disposal. Second, Finland’s accession to NATO would be a ‘historic recovery’, closing a chapter that began on November 30, 1939, when the Soviet Union invaded Finland a few months after its creation, and in the decades that followed Finland in a ‘neutral buffer zone’.
America: The New York Times
In America, the tone is more optimistic. The accession of Sweden and Finland would, according to The New York Times first of all, be yet another proof that Putin’s war is producing counterproductive results. “Instead of destroying Ukrainian nationalism, he has strengthened it. Rather than weaken the transatlantic alliance, he has strengthened it. Instead of dividing NATO and blocking its growth, he has united it.”
Although it is no surprise, according to the paper, that the two Scandinavian countries are now flirting with NATO membership, their principles are not identical. Finland survived the Cold War as an independent and unoccupied democracy by striving diligently for neutrality, but openly sided with the West since the collapse of the Soviet Union, though, like Sweden, it followed a policy of military non-alignment. ‘ Finland is now paving the way for NATO membership while Sweden is more reluctant. NYT states: “As complicated as NATO membership is politically for Sweden, it would be dangerous to stay out of the alliance if Finland joins, as the two countries are each other’s closest defense partners and prepare for war together.”
America: The Washington Post
The American newspaper The Washington Post notes in a lead editorial first coolly that NATO is in fact purely defense-oriented, but “in the geopolitical imagination of President Vladimir Putin increasingly looms as a deadly threat to Russia.” That doesn’t stop the paper from writing categorically that America and NATO should welcome the prospect of membership for the two Scandinavian countries. “Both Sweden and Finland are already working closely with NATO,” the newspaper writes. “As full members, they would easily integrate into the chain of command and be able to share the collective defense burden without any problem. They would add substantial resources – financial, diplomatic and military – to the alliance. The result would be a stronger NATO deterrent, making war in Europe less likely.’