Putin & NATO: Does Russia Really Face a Threat From Finland & Sweden?

Putin has suggested that Russia would react only if the alliance set up military bases in the two countries.

Photo for representation. 

(Photo: Vibhushita Singh/The Quint)

The only analogy that really fits the situation is the one related to soccer about scoring self-goals. That is what Russian President Vladimir Putin has done by pushing Finland and Sweden to seek membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

In one fell swoop, he will have doubled Russia’s border with the alliance he considers hostile, by adding 1,340 km, ie, the length of the Russia-Finland border. Sweden does not have a direct border with Russia.

Recall that Putin has been complaining about the eastward expansion of NATO for the past decade and more.

In February, irked by the organisation's refusal to rule out Ukraine’s membership, he ordered a “special military operation” to bring about regime change in Kyiv. This was nothing but a straightforward military invasion whose stated goal was to change the regime in Kyiv.

But the Ukrainians have fought back, aided by NATO. Though Moscow has caused large-scale destruction across Ukraine and compelled 7 million people to abandon their homeland, it now learning the lesson many ‘great powers’ have learnt in taking on smaller countries.

How Putin's Actions Drove Finland & Sweden Towards NATO

Confronted with a major change in the European security environment, Finland and Sweden, the two Baltic countries that had so far maintained stubborn neutrality, have been forced to react by joining what Russia considers an adversary alliance. On Wednesday, Finland and Sweden submitted their applications to NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, citing their altered security paradigm.

Having lost a bitter war to the Soviet Union in 1945, Finland was more or less forced to adopt neutrality through the Cold War. As for the Swedes, they were once a European ‘great power’ till they lost a major battle to Russia at Poltava in central Ukraine in 1709. Beginning with the Napoleonic wars in the 1800s, they have maintained a neutrality that has helped them avoid the catastrophes of the two major World Wars.

Both Finland and Sweden have maintained a strong defence posture as neutrals; their membership would add two of Europe’s highly capable and modern military forces to NATO. Already, since the Russian annexation of Crimea, they had enhanced their cooperation activities with the US and NATO. Finland, which gave Russia a run for its money in the 1939-40 war, has conscription, which provides them with wartime strength of 2,80,000 soldiers and 9,00,000 reserves, and this on a population of 5.5 million.

As for Sweden, though it drew down its military strength in the 1990s, it has since reinstituted conscription. More important, it has maintained a military-technology base capable of producing top-class fighters, such as the JAS-39 Gripen, as well as the ultramodern Visby-class corvettes, submarines and other war material.

In her announcement that Sweden would seek formal membership of the alliance, Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said that though the country sought formal security guarantees that come with the alliance, it would not want NATO military bases or nuclear weapons in its territory. But Sweden, which controls the strategic island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea, needs to do a lot more to enhance its military capacity.

Will Russia Take 'Retaliatory Steps'?

Finland and Sweden have in recent years maintained wide-ranging defence cooperation, which includes joint operational planning. The Nordefco arrangement also enables Nordic countries – Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark – to move and store military units and material. On June 1, Denmark is slated to have a referendum to enhance the country’s ability to participate in EU security and defence policies.

The addition of two key Baltic countries on the very doorsteps of Russia will enhance NATO’s military posture in the Baltic region and also help provide a protective shield to the small Baltic members of NATO – Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.

There remains a major question mark on the Finnish and Swedish bids to join NATO: Turkey. On Thursday, Turkey blocked an early move to fast-track the two countries' membership requests. Ankara has already made its unhappiness with both quite apparent on account of their support for Kurdish separatists. The US and other countries strongly backing the Swedes and the Finns will likely seek commitments from them about limiting their support to the Kurdish outfits.

As for the Russians, they are not happy. They have variously said that they would take retaliatory steps, without specifying what these could be.

A Russian Foreign Ministry statement said with reference to Finland that “Russia will be forced to take retaliatory steps, both of a military-technical and other nature, in order to neutralise the threats to its national security that arise from this”. Former Russian President Dimitri Medvedev even suggested that the Russians could deploy nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles in response.

It's All Putin & Russia's Doing

But on Monday, Putin signalled an easing of the position, declaring that the decision of the two countries to join NATO was not all that important and did not constitute a danger to Russia. He suggested that the Russians would react only if the alliance set up military bases or stationed weapons in the two countries. The Swedes, as noted above, have already said that they were not keen to have either bases or nuclear weapons in their territory even after they joined NATO.

Prediction on such issues is always difficult. But with the surrender of Ukrainian forces in Mariupol, worked through Turkish mediation, the war could be winding down. However, the larger geopolitical consequences of the invasion are not going to go away that easily, especially the major change in the geopolitics of northern Europe. But Putin and Russia have only themselves to blame for it.

(The writer is a Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. This is an opinion article and the views expressed are the author's own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)