Sweden and Finland's ascensions to NATO: the impact a year and a half on
- Sarah Schonbach
- Dec 10, 2024
- 4 min read
Russia's invasion of Ukraine proved to tip the scale of Finland and Sweden's neutrality. On the 4th of April 2023 and 7th of March 2024 respectively, the two nations signed the Instrument of Accession, becoming full members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Despite both countries being a part of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme since 1994, this still symbolised a break from their decades as neutral countries and international mediators. This leads to the question: what actually is the impact of this supposed momentous event.
Military and geographic advantage strength
The Nordic nations' geographically advantageous position only increased NATO's defensive position. Europe's eastern flank is now re-enforced as Russia’s 1,340 km border with Finland is now a border with a NATO member. Finland also has experience in defending this border and navigating the treacherous arctic weather. Sweden and Finland's vast access to the Baltic Sea also benefits the alliance, simultaneously limiting Russia's reach and re-enforcing the potentially vulnerable Baltic states with volatile land borders. Since it’s ascension, Sweden has been working on re-enforcing the area by rebuilding its military presence on the island of Gotland, strategically placed in the middle of the Baltic Waters.
Both Nordic nations are mighty military forces in their own right and contribute not only soldiers but a vast array of military expertise and defence industry. Finland's conscription system permits it to mobilise an estimated 280,000 soldiers in times of war. Sweden's military capacity is a smaller 57,000 soldiers, but it is expanding after the recent re-instating of conscription. The nations’ have experience in handing aggressive Russian behaviour, which they contribute as well as military experience and intelligence, and an expansive defence industry, such as the Finnish Company Patria.
Symbolic message
The symbolism of Finland and Sweden breaking decades of neutrality and switching their focus from peacekeeping missions back to territorial defence after the invasion of Crimea cannot be ignored. Signing with NATO sends a clear message to Putin and his government that the aggressive behaviour towards Ukraine is unacceptable in the international community. Some may say that, as Sweden and Finland have been a part of the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme since 1994, them becoming full members is not a drastic turnover of policy. Despite this it remains a clear signal to Russia, and the economic and material aid they now provide to NATO speak louder than words.
Sweden and Finland's ascension to NATO only serves to strengthen the alliance, as they contribute resources, soldiers and weapons, with experience with opposing and managing proximity to Russia. NATO's reach has been expanded further into the Baltic Sea and Nordic Region.
Criticism
The new ascensions to NATO were not without criticism however, both within and outside of the organisation. Sweden’s ascension was delayed due to Türkiye’s veto, and Hungary also showed some initial opposition. This proves that not all NATO member-nations agree on Russia being the main international threat, breaking the illusion of a unified alliance, which is only weakened by the forthcoming Presidency of Trump, who is an outspoken critic of the alliance.
Opponents to Sweden and Finland joining NATO mention how this undermines Sweden’s past of being an international mediator and leader of the nuclear disarmament efforts. Further criticism brings up how ‘picking a side’ only elevates tensions further with Russia. Evidence of this is seen in Russia moving nuclear weapons to Belarus, in order to be within reach of key Scandinavian cities. The Swedish government issued pamphlets on what to do “if crisis or war comes” (BBC). Whilst the first edition was published in 2018, it is a clear sign of the growing tension and increasing chance of conflict.
On the whole however, the populations of Sweden and Finland are in support of the switch away from neutrality, especially on the condition that their neighbour did too.
Potential future risks
The risk of a nuclear attack is low, as of yet Mutually Assured Destruction, where countries are discouraged from using nuclear weapons because of the catastrophic consequences of retaliation, has prevented any use of them. Article 5 of NATO, where an attack on one member is seen as an attack on all, deters any present military aggression against Sweden and Finland. This however does not prevent other forms of aggression. The previous Finnish PM, Alexander Stubb warns of cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and “occasional airspace violations” (BBC). Russia violated Swedish airspace by flying over the island of Gotland in June 2024.
The risk of a nuclear attack is low, as of yet Mutually Assured Destruction, where countries are discouraged from using nuclear weapons because of the catastrophic consequences of retaliation, has prevented any use of them. Article 5 of NATO, where an attack on one member is seen as an attack on all, deters any present military aggression against Sweden and Finland. This however does not prevent other forms of aggression. The previous Finnish PM, Alexander Stubb warns of cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and “occasional airspace violations” (BBC). Russia violated Swedish airspace by flying over the island of Gotland in June 2024.
Conclusion
So how impactful is the ascension of these two nations to NATO? The alliance is undoubtedly strengthened, Sweden and Finland bring with them physical resources and military expertise, paired with past experience in handling Russia’s aggressive behaviour. Unsurprisingly Russia did not take well to the move, and tensions are undoubtedly higher between the two sides, but outright military aggression is currently unlikely. The risk of nuclear escalation poses too great of a threat.
Sources