NATO has this week welcomed its newest member state, with Finland becoming the thirty-first nation to sign the North Atlantic Treaty. Finland, a nation which has maintained strategic neutrality since World War Two, wouldn’t have seriously considered joining NATO until recently.
However, the nation with which it shares its longest border has recently invaded Ukraine, forcing the Finns to re-think their position. A Europe in which neighbours can still drive tanks across each other’s borders is not a Europe one can be neutral in.
Alongside Sweden, Finland applied to join the alliance shortly after the invasion. Finland has achieved membership faster than its Nordic counterpart due to the intervention of other members, namely Turkey.
President Erdogan sees himself as a mediator in the Russo-Ukraine war; Turkey’s good relations with both parties and neutral stance in the conflict has allowed it to broker talks. While peace talks are still unreasonable while Russian troops remain in Ukraine, Erdogan did manage to broker the export agreement that allowed Ukrainian grain to leave the port of Odessa.
Erdogan agreed to Finland’s accession last month, but is still blocking Sweden, citing concerns around Sweden’s housing of Kurdish militant asylum seekers, who he labels “terrorists.”
Putin has failed in one of the key aims of his war; the disunity and weakening on NATO. Perhaps he relied on flawed intelligence prior to launching his invasion, perhaps he egotistically assumed that NATO would shrink away cowardly once he rolled his tanks across the border, or perhaps he just didn’t care.
Whatever the case may be, Putin underestimated NATO’s resilience. Even if his invasion went to plan and he captured Kyiv in a matter of days, the international community would have reacted the same way; by strengthening their defences against the new aggressors on the world stage, and those that may be emboldened by them.
Putin will not take Finland’s accession well. He has threatened to respond in kind to any further eastwards expansion of NATO, including repeated instances of nuclear sabre-rattling.
As is always the case with autocrats of questionable sanity, threats of this nature must be treated with caution. I have previously spoken of my wariness of Putin’s mental health; an incendiary leader with reportedly failing mental and physical health with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. A leader that has previously said that a world without Russia is not worth living in.
Whilst we can celebrate Finland’s accession to NATO and anticipate and encourage Sweden to do the same, I wonder how many threats Putin will fail to deliver on until he finally breaks.
Finland and Sweden are both nations that have long traditions of military and geopolitical non-alignment. Their decision to apply for NATO membership was not a decision either nation took lightly. Even through the Cold War, both nations refrained from joining either the eastern or western blocs, remaining staunchly neutral.
As if we needed further proof that the world is entering a new stage of history. Putin has done what decades of Soviet rulers before him have failed to; make Finland and Sweden choose a side. Whilst the prospect of a new “Iron Curtain” seems likely on the face of this issue, I doubt Putin has the stamina for such a prolonged period of hostility as the first Cold War.
Russia will lose what little allies it has left if this war goes on much longer, and instead of blocs competing for supremacy, a strengthened NATO will empower an emboldened Ukraine until Russia, increasingly isolated and fatigued, sues for peace. Whether Putin will elect to pursue that peace or is removed from office before that happens remains to be seen, but I expect the latter option is more likely.
stay safe
/e