NATO membership for Nordic States: An Aspiration from the historical pages

 

 Sweden and Finland are progressively establishing a distinctive position among NATO partners as they confront the escalating challenge of defending the Baltics. This analysis introduces the concept of the 'informal ally,' as opposed to the 'formal ally,' to elucidate the evolving roles of Sweden and Finland in addressing the security concerns in the Baltic region.

The geopolitical significance of the Nordic countries within the context of NATO, the European Security Architecture, and the broader geopolitical influence of the United States is noteworthy. Norway, positioned in the western and northern extremities of the Scandinavian Peninsula, encompasses the arctic island of Jan Mayen and the Svalbard Archipelago. Renowned for its abundant natural resources, including oil, picturesque fjords, and mountainous terrain, Norway boasts a highly developed economy. Sweden, the largest and most populous Nordic country with a population exceeding, is distinguished by its robust steelmaking and manufacturing capabilities. Historically, it has been an ambitious actor in regional military affairs.

Finland has a good population and is characterized by extensive woodland covering nearly two-thirds of its territory. Serving as a symbolic northern border between Western and Eastern Europe, Finland has been independent from Russia since 1917. The country underwent rapid industrialization and achieved a sophisticated economy in the post-independence period. This collective geopolitical landscape of the Nordic countries contributes significantly to NATO's strategic considerations, shapes the European Security Architecture, and enhances the broader geopolitical leverage of the United States.

Sources: Geology.com, accessed date 10 Nov 2023,

URL: https://geology.com/world/norway-satellite-image.shtml

The security policies of the Nordic countries were conventionally perceived as establishing a 'Nordic balance,' characterized by a set of policies aimed at maintaining equilibrium between the two superpowers, namely the United States and the Soviet Union. The conclusion of the Cold War ushered in a transformative and more intricate security landscape, prompting a gradual adaptation of the Nordic countries to this novel context. Although extant multilateral security policy frameworks, such as NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), have undergone adjustments in response to the evolving security dynamics, the European Union (EU) has witnessed particularly noteworthy developments.

This distinction arises from the fact that the EU stands as the sole multilateral framework devoid of a security policy legacy from the Cold War era. This peculiarity may be construed as indicative of a certain hesitancy among member states to relinquish national sovereignty in the realm of traditional security. Despite the delay in response to the post-Cold War security environment, the Nordic countries and other entities, including the EU, eventually engaged in a reassessment and recalibration of their security policies to align with the transformed geopolitical landscape.

Sweden and it's strategic Neutrality

On May 18th, 2022, under the leadership of Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, the Swedish government formally submitted an application for NATO membership to NATO Headquarters in Brussels. This marked a significant departure from historical precedents, particularly a pivotal juncture in 1814 when King Charles XIV John, also known as Bernadotte, responded to a transformed geopolitical reality by orchestrating a forced union with Norway. The aim was to establish a more defensible, smaller Swedish kingdom in the face of potential threats from Russia.

Subsequently, until 1995, Sweden maintained a consistent grand strategy, with the only notable deviation occurring when the country, without full military commitment, joined the European Union—a political alliance. The submission of the NATO membership application formally concluded approximately two centuries of adherence to a distinct grand strategy characterized by names such as "Sweden's Neutrality Policy" or the "Swedish Non-Alignment." This strategy, explicitly isolationist, was designed to shield Sweden from the ravages of war, irrespective of the actions taken by its neighbouring nations, including invasion, violation, or occupation.

During the 1970s and '80s, the Swedish neutrality policy underwent a paradigm shift, acquiring a more pronounced ideological significance. A neutral stance during the intense final decades of the Cold War came to be perceived as morally and ideologically superior, contrasting with an allied stance. The NATO membership application thus signifies a momentous departure from this longstanding Swedish grand strategy, ushering in a new chapter in the nation's approach to international security.

The emergence of a former French Napoleonic marshal marked a pivotal shift in the established "grand strategy" of Sweden. This alteration represented a departure from the historical trajectory that characterized Sweden as an active participant in European great power politics, spanning from at least the early 17th century until the loss of Finland to Russia in 1809—a period spanning approximately two centuries. The Russian annexation of Finland not only had significant military implications but also dealt a profound blow to the Swedish national identity, given Finland's integral status within Sweden for over six centuries.

The perspective of the Swedish public regarding NATO membership has undergone substantial and enduring changes. Following the Cold War's conclusion, for approximately two decades, a considerable majority in Sweden expressed disapproval of NATO membership. This sentiment persisted until 2013, during which time between 50% and 70% of the Swedish population were opposed to such an alliance. The evolving dynamics in both historical and contemporary contexts have played a crucial role in shaping Sweden's stance on its international affiliations, marking notable shifts in its geopolitical orientation.

 

Baltic and Artic region’s geopolitical game

The Arctic region also referred to as the High North, occupies a central position in the foreign policies of the Nordic countries. As members of the Arctic Council, a multinational body comprising eight nations, including Russia, Canada, and the United States, the Nordics have consistently advocated for peaceful cooperation in the Arctic. The escalating impact of rising temperatures and diminishing ice cover has facilitated increased access to Arctic sea routes and valuable natural resources, precipitating both environmental and geostrategic consequences. Parallel to the United States, the Nordic countries exhibit apprehension regarding heightened Russian military and commercial activities in the Arctic. Additionally, they express concerns about China's expanding interests in the region, particularly concerning Greenland.

The strategic interests of Russia in the eastern Baltic littoral are rooted in its proximity to the Polish-Belorussian-Russian military theater and the Kaliningrad area. The geographical location of the eastern Baltic littoral relative to the St Petersburg area, coupled with the significance of air force missions in integrated military operations within the region, underscores Russia's vested interests. The Russian Air Force's strategic analysis outlines five core scenarios that have shaped air force planning into the early 21st century. Notably, the scenario addressing the north-western and western directions suggests a potential NATO application of force, either to address Russian internal conflicts, deny Russia its legitimate interests, or even seize portions of its territory. This could be done to undermine strategic positions or as a basis for post-conflict negotiations.

The initiation of any offensive by NATO would involve a comprehensive campaign, commencing with intense air and naval bombardment strategically directed at securing the Kaliningrad region. Subsequently, NATO forces would advance towards Russia's western frontier, traversing Belarus and Ukraine. This advancement would encompass a combination of air attacks and deep-ground force penetrations targeting the Leningrad and Moscow Military Districts. The air-strategic significance of the eastern Baltic littoral holds paramount importance for Russia not only during active conflict scenarios but also in periods of heightened international tension or imminent threats of war.

In times of peace, the region assumes significance from a surveillance and intelligence perspective. However, in the event of hostilities, Russia's combined arms operations in the Kaliningrad-Belarus area may implicate the airspace of the Baltic States. Furthermore, the air and missile defense considerations for the St Petersburg area would generate an interest in utilizing the airspace of these Baltic States. Comparative to sea- and land-strategic concerns, the air-strategic importance of the region for Russia has experienced substantial growth in the post-World War II era.

 

NATO’s Grand Strategy

In response to the evolving security dynamics in the Euro-Atlantic area, NATO member states have heightened their commitment to the Alliance's eastern flank. This augmentation encompasses an increased deployment of ships, aircraft, and troops from the northern Baltic Sea to the southern Black Sea. A pivotal element of this bolstered commitment is the establishment of multinational battlegroups in strategic locations, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. This initiative aims to reinforce NATO's forward presence and contributes to the Alliance's overarching deterrence and defense posture.

The transformative events in the European security landscape in 2022 have precipitated a fundamental shift, prompting NATO to adapt its posture to meet the exigencies of the new security reality. In light of these changes, NATO has undertaken substantial efforts to enhance its readiness, emphasizing its unequivocal commitment to safeguarding and defending all member states. The strategic deployment of military assets to the eastern part of the Alliance underscores NATO's proactive response to emerging challenges, further solidifying its role as a collective security alliance.

The prospect of Sweden's NATO membership remains uncertain, primarily owing to Turkey's reservations regarding Swedish, and to a lesser extent Finnish, associations with various Kurdish entities and individuals. Consequently, a comprehensive assessment of the consequences is premature at this stage. However, assuming Turkey eventually acquiesces, the potential geopolitical and military transformations in the Baltic Sea and Arctic regions would be substantial, marking the Baltic Sea as a NATO-controlled domain.

Since the post-1991 era, NATO member states have systematically re-evaluated their defense policies to align with evolving geopolitical circumstances. Notably, differing perspectives have emerged on the question of enlargement, encompassing considerations of which nations to incorporate or exclude, and the pursuit of objectives beyond collective defense. Advocates of enlargement contend that integrating pro-Western countries into the Euro-Atlantic collective defense framework would contribute to stabilizing their democratic institutions. However, historical instances, such as the democratization of Germany and the management of the Greek-Turkish dispute, underscore the complexity of achieving stability when contextual conditions are less conducive.

 

NATO membership:  the Nordic Strategic corners

The Russian Federation persistently poses a distinct and pronounced security challenge to its European neighbours along its Western periphery. In the Nordic-Baltic region to the north, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its Nordic partner nations remain acutely cognizant of the potential security implications arising from Russia's forceful and occasionally aggressive conduct. The complexity of this challenge is compounded by internal factors, including a decade of diminishing defense budgets and a notable absence of local capacity to effectively address possible military threats.

In response, the United States and NATO are diligently formulating a credible deterrence policy for the Nordic-Baltic region. This policy is designed to serve the dual purpose of safeguarding local allies and promoting U.S. strategic interests. Notably, NATO's Nordic partner nations, Finland and Sweden, are well-positioned to contribute meaningfully to these efforts. The aspiration for deeper defense cooperation within the Nordic countries, particularly by Finland, which shares strategic proximity to vital Russian military areas, underscores the quest for reliable and capable partners. The military capabilities of Finland are predominantly land-focused, a reflection of its geographical positioning. Meanwhile, Norway concentrates on fulfilling its collective responsibilities within NATO, directing investments toward maritime military capabilities. Sweden is presently realigning its focus to emphasize territorial defense while enhancing additional capabilities.