Naton Aika

In another column for Great Power, Estonian MP Eerik-Niiles Kross noted: "We know what the Russians want, but we are confused about what the Americans want." The Biden administration's promise of "no more forever wars" has tied its hands and given the Russians a free hand, Kross argues. The administration says it “will see” where the talks with Russia “take us.” However, Russia does not really want to negotiate; Russia's real goal is to regain control of Ukraine and Belarus, but this time with Western approval, Kross explains. Moscow's goal is strategic, whereas Washington's goal is tactical, he points out. "Putin holds negotiations with a pistol on the table, and if the other negotiating party puts a box of chocolates on the table instead of a bigger pistol, things are clear for Putin," Kross states.

Russia is pushing Finland and Sweden towards NATO membership, retired US Navy admiral and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, James Stavridis, writes in his latest column for Bloomberg Opinion. Russia's insistence that Finland and Sweden not join NATO may have increased the desire of both nations to seriously consider membership, he says. This represents an "opportunity for NATO, given the character, geography, and military capability of the two countries," Stavridis argues. He noted that Russia's invasions of Sakartvelo (Georgia) and Ukraine had shifted opinion on NATO in Finland and Sweden. NATO should welcome both nations "with open arms," continue to hold significant joint military exercises, and welcome Finnish and Swedish deployments to NATO military operations, Stavridis said. "Bringing both these highly capable nations into NATO would be a huge plus for the US,” he asserted. "If you ever want to join NATO, let us know on a Wednesday, and we'll have you in by Friday," Stavridis had told his Finnish and Swedish interlocutors when he led NATO forces.

Recent statements of Finnish ministers on Finland's possible membership of NATO have baffled local experts, Uusi Suomi and Verkkouutiset report. Security policy expert Jukka Tarkka noted that Defence Minister Antti Kaikkonen first stressed the importance of NATO's open-door policy, but then stated that he saw no need to join the defence alliance. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto saw no reason to change the government's security assessment made in early autumn 2020. Tarkka suggested that both ministers may constitute “risks to Finland's national security.” Historian Riku Keski-Rauska noted that if NATO membership was only needed when our own forces were insufficient, Finland had, in effect, outsourced the decision on membership to Russia. He pointed out that the so-called "NATO option" was like a fire insurance policy, which required a decision before the actual need arose. Finnish security policy was mere "hand-washing" and rested on arguments that were not sustainable, Keski-Rauska concluded. IT expert Topias Uotila noted that the adequacy of Finnish defence and possible military assistance depended on Russian actions. Finland should therefore exercise its "NATO option" immediately, he argued. Henri Vanhanen, foreign policy adviser to the opposition National Coalition Party, highlighted the question of timing: "Is it more important to act preventively in time or act quickly in a critical moment?"

If Finland or Sweden decided to apply for membership of NATO, the process could proceed rapidly in technical terms, but the decision was ultimately political, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated. Speaking in a joint interview with the Finnish News Agency STT and Sweden’s TT news agency and Radio Sweden, Stoltenberg said meeting the membership criteria would be easy for Finland and Sweden, which had stable democratic institutions and highly developed defence structures. He reiterated that the decision to apply for membership was up to each country alone, and that outsiders should not influence the process. Finland and Sweden should not let Russia scare them, Stoltenberg said. At the same time, he pointed out that NATO could not offer partial security guarantees during the accession process. NATO's security guarantees are for members only, he stressed. NATO unites Europe and North America, and there is no European security without the transatlantic link, Stoltenberg insisted. “NATO's 28 European members represent 600 million Europeans, so when NATO sits at the table, it means, in essence, that Europe sits at the table,” he pointed out.

Russia's demand that NATO stop accepting new members has met with a strong reaction in Finland and Sweden, euro|topics reports. Estonian daily Eesti Päevaleht praised Finnish President Sauli Niinistö's New Year's address in which he reiterated Finland's right to apply for NATO membership. Some analysts interpreted the statement as an indication that Finland would apply to join NATO if Russia invaded further into Ukraine. Finnish regional daily Lapin Kansa called for an open debate on NATO membership, saying the political leadership should take the initiative. Slovakian daily Pravda noted that Russia's "aggressive approach" was strengthening NATO, and pushing Finland and Sweden into rethinking their defence policies. However, Poland's Gazeta Wyborcza did not believe Finland and Sweden would join NATO any time soon. That said, support for NATO membership was on the rise in both countries, the daily added.

Finland would only consider membership of NATO if it believed that its own defence resources were insufficient, Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto stated. Speaking in an interview with YLE, Haavisto said NATO membership could be possible if the security situation in Europe changed, and if Finland felt that it was not getting enough help. He said the regional security situation could also improve in coming years, as it had done in the 1990s, when the NATO-Russia Council was established for dialogue. Haavisto regarded Finland's security policy, with defence cooperation with Sweden and NATO, as a workable solution. The minister saw no need for NATO membership at this moment, despite the current discussion among and within Finnish political parties, including his own Green League.

Finland has not defined the conditions for when it could apply for membership of NATO, Pete Piirainen, Visiting Senior Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, told Helsingin Sanomat. Meanwhile, Robert Dalsjö, Research Director at the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), said Sweden would apply for NATO membership if Finland did so, or if there was a "concrete and clear threat" against Sweden or its immediate neighbourhood. Both experts said Finland could apply for NATO membership alone. For Sweden to do the same would probably mean that Finland had an obstacle that prevented it from applying, Dalsjö said. However, such a unilateral move by either Finland or Sweden would create a new fault line in the Baltic Sea region, Piirainen noted. Dalsjö expected Sweden to be a member of NATO within 5-10 years, given Russia’s actions. Moscow would "huff and puff," but this would pass. For Russia, Swedish NATO membership would be a loss of prestige rather than a military threat, Dalsjö stated.

The Russian gas pipeline, Nord Stream 2, which would transport Russian gas to Germany, should not be mixed up with political and human rights disputes with Moscow, Kevin Kühnert, secretary-general of Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party (SPD), argued. He insisted that the project should not be linked to Russia's "territorial controversies" with Ukraine and human rights issues. "At some stage, there must be political and legal peace in such a discussion," Kühnert added. "We have to leave the (dispute) behind us at some point," he maintained. “Conflicts were being conjured up just to bury a controversial project," Kühnert asserted. Nord Stream 2 still lacks permits to start operations. Many both in Germany and abroad have urged that the pipeline be blocked due to Russia's aggression.

Russia's claims to justify its military escalation on Ukraine's borders look like a bluff, or even trolling, veteran Russia expert Lilia Shevtsova says. In an opinion essay for the New York Times, Shevtsova points out that NATO is not ready to offer Ukraine membership, contrary to Russian claims. Moscow's immediate aim is to return Ukraine to its orbit, but the bigger plan is to dismantle the post-Cold War security settlement in Europe, Shevtsova asserts. She warns that the "awkward, anguished response" from the West may give Russian leader Vladimir Putin what he wants. If the West accepts Russia's desired geopolitical position, it may underwrite the Kremlin’s domestic agenda as well. The US would thus become Russia's "security provider" both home and abroad. The renewed escalation strives to establish peace on Russia's terms, Shevtsova explains. "The aim is a Hobbesian world order, built on disruption," she concludes. What Moscow is suggesting is the "irrelevance of rules" in favour of a "creative interpretation of the possible": Ukraine today, Belarus or Kazakhstan tomorrow. "Other neighbouring countries could become hostages of Russia's system of survival," Shevtsova warns. At the same time, the nature of globalisation precludes a serious containment policy, which has led to the current deadlock, she notes.

Sweden's defence strategy would be "entirely undermined" if NATO agreed to refrain from accepting new members and curb some of its activity in Europe as Russia has demanded, Sweden's defence chief, General Micael Bydén, told Dagens Nyheter. "The [Russian] proposals for a new security order would destroy the foundations of our security policy structure," Bydén warned. He said Sweden aimed to strengthen its defence in all categories and develop an overall defence posture, which depended on international cooperation. He told Aftonbladet that ignoring Russia's list of demands would be unwise, however, given the action that Russia has taken over time. "It is high time that people understand that you should not paint the outside world in too beautiful, warm colours," Bydén warned. The conflict may very well become a military one, and we need to understand the seriousness of the situation, he said.

Events in Kazakhstan in the past week have undermined Russian leader Vladimir Putin's argument that Russia has a right to a "sphere of influence" in the former Soviet space, Alex Kokcharov, Principal Country Risk Research Analyst at IHS Markit, tweets. Putin's notion of Russia's "area of privileged interest" is based on a narrative that Moscow acts as a "stabilising force" in the region, Kokcharov notes. If Russia is allowed to keep countries in its sphere of influence, they will be stable, with low levels of violence, Moscow argues. Yet, events in Kazakhstan have demonstrated that being in the Russian sphere of influence does not mean that internal stability is guaranteed. This negates Moscow's long-professed narrative of prioritising stability, Kokcharov points out. Putin's claim for a Russian sphere of influence looks very weak now, because it is evident that the promised "stability" can only be achieved by wholesale mass repression, as demonstrated in Belarus in 2021, Kokcharov concludes.

The US and its allies are developing new possible sanctions ahead of talks to defuse the current crisis with Russia, the New York Times reported. The financial, technology, and military sanctions would go into effect within hours of a renewed Russian invasion of Ukraine, US officials said. The sanctions could include cutting off Russia's largest financial institutions from the global market, imposing an embargo on technology for defence-related and consumer industries, and arming Ukrainian resistance. Such moves are rarely telegraphed in advance, the New York Times noted. The warning is an unspoken acknowledgment that the Obama administration's response when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 was too tentative and mild. A senior aide to President Joe Biden conceded that existing sanctions had failed to deter Russia. However, the new sanctions would be a "high-impact, quick-action response," another administration official explained. At the same time, a senior European official cautioned that there was still an ongoing debate about whether the Russian people would blame Russian leader Vladimir Putin or the US and its allies for the impact of the sanctions.

Many members of Finland's main opposition party, the National Coalition Party, keep repeating that "today is a good day to join NATO," Alberto Claramunt, Content Director at AlfaTV, says. The timing for this light-hearted NATO propaganda is a good one, yet the road to full membership remains long, he notes. Those strongly in favour of membership thought that President Sauli Niinistö took Finland closer to NATO in his New Year speech. This prompted the President to clarify his statements. The NATO question divides National Coalition members, Claramunt notes. In an interview with Maaseudun Tulevaisuus, the party's veteran MP, Ilkka Kanerva, who is chairman of the Finnish parliament’s defence committee, insisted that there was no need to change Finland's security policy, given that its basic tenets still hold. Also, the party’s chairman, Petteri Orpo, is unlikely to make NATO membership a condition for participation in the next government, unless he knows that President Niinistö and other parties support membership as well, Claramunt predicts. The opinion of the President, former chairman of the National Coalition Party, continues to carry weight within the party, he points out.

Estonia has always been highly interested in Finland's possible membership of NATO, Kristi Raik, Director of the Estonian Foreign Policy Institute, told Helsingin Sanomat. However, Estonians fail to understand how important the so-called "NATO option" is for Finland to ensure its "room for manoeuvre" in relation to Russia, Raik says. The Finnish "option" has amused Estonians: Finns only begin discussing possible membership when the security situation deteriorates, yet never actually submit a membership application. At the same time, Finland meets NATO's membership criteria better than some existing members, she noted. "When the situation remains calm, it is easier to justify why membership is not needed; now that the situation is alarming and the threat of war hangs over Europe, it is more difficult to justify not joining NATO," Raik argued. Also, Finland is rather alone in calling for a stronger EU role in defence policy, she pointed out.

Tuomas Forsberg, Professor of International Politics at Tampere University, said the security policy debate in Finland regarded the "NATO option" as more important than membership. The policy is not credible if we never exercise the "option," he noted. The biggest change factor in Finnish NATO policy is Sweden, and the decision whether to apply for membership depends largely on Social Democrats in both Finland and Sweden, Forsberg said. He characterised Finland's policy of "military non-alignment" as a "conceptual gimmick," which simply means that we are not members of NATO nor of a Russian-led pact. Salonius-Pasternak insisted that Finland was militarily aligned with other EU member states. Nevertheless, there will be no joint EU defence as long as NATO exists, he asserted.

Sweden will deepen its partnership with NATO, Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson announced on Twitter. Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist told Dagens Nyheter that the plan included coordinating defence planning, continued joint exercises, and information exchange. The minister said the plan was approved by the Swedish parliament. Earlier, Prime Minister Andersson discussed Russia's military build-up in and around Ukraine and European security with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. The NATO chief underscored that Sweden was a valued partner, and that NATO supported every nation's right to choose their own security arrangements freely. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused both Sweden and Finland of hosting NATO exercises for “nuclear attacks” against Russia. Hultqvist denied the Russian claim categorically, saying Zakharova's assertion was "disinformation."