Finland joins Nato in a major blow to Putin which doubles the length of the alliance’s border with Russia.
In 1948, the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance was signed between the Soviet Union and Finland, providing a key basis for relations between the two states that was to last throughout the cold war.
With memories of the 1939 “winter war” between the two still acute, the agreement embodied the Paasikivi–Kekkonen doctrine, named for two of Finland’s post-war presidents who developed the idea between 1946 and 1982 of a neutral Finland close to the USSR.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
It also set the context for the term “Finlandisation” used by international relations scholars to describe external interference by a powerful country in the foreign policy of a smaller neighbouring state. A year later, on April 4 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed by the 12 founding members of Nato.
Throughout the cold war, Finland remained a neutral state – although more due to circumstance than by choice. And despite its 1,340km (832 mile) border with Russia, it chose not to join Nato in the late 1990s, even as many of its eastern European neighbours did. It officially abandon its policy of neutrality in 1994, joining Nato’s Partnership for Peace and then the European Union in 1995. But aspirations to become a full Nato member state had not quite matured. That all ended with Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Finland (and Sweden) submitted their formal applications to join the alliance on May 18 2022 and this was endorsed by Nato members at the most recent summit in Madrid in June.
Although accession to Nato membership was relatively quick, there were objections from some members, most notably Turkey and, to a lesser extent, Hungary. Turkey held up membership for Finland – and is still doing so for Sweden – due to its concerns over what it called support for terrorist groups, namely the Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK). Hungary also raised objections due to what it regarded as criticism by the Nordic states with regard to the strength of Hungarian democracy. But Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg said recently he is confident that Sweden could become a member by summer.
View from Moscow
If Putin was hoping to achieve the Finlandisation of Nato as one of his strategic aims of the war, what he has actually achieved was the “Natoisation” of Finland since it has now become the alliance’s 31st member state. With this comes Article 5 guarantees – the an attack on one member is an attack on the alliance as a whole and must be responded to as such. This fundamentally changes the defence and security posture of Finland, and European security architecture as a whole. Implications include the size and geographical focus of the alliance (even more so if Sweden joins in the not-too-distant future) as well as inter-organisational relations between Nato and the EU, the other key pillar of the European security architecture.
And Finland is not playing catch up in order to meet its Nato commitments. In fact, Finland will be a net contributor to the alliance’s overall collective defence. Over recent years, it has been modernising its armed forces, purchasing robust military capabilities and, unlike the majority of member states, it meets the Nato target of 2% of GDP spent on its own defence.
Putin has, of course, issued warnings to Finland (and Sweden) about joining the alliance. In 2016, Putin stated that “When we look across the border now, we see a Finn on the other side. If Finland joins Nato, we will see an enemy.”
Although there have been mixed signals with regard to Russia’s views on the sovereign right of Finland to join a collective defence organisation if it so chooses (although Russia does not extend this position to Ukraine itelf), it is gravely concerned that Nato will position military capabilities in Finland, on its border – and close to Russia’s own strategically important bases and geography.
Although Russia is very much focused on correcting its strategic blunders in Ukraine, it will at some stage begin to recover and, therefore, reconstitute its armed forces and military posture. Of particular concern could be Russia’s increased dependency on its tactical nuclear posture to offset its (temporarily) decreased capacity with regard to conventional capabilities.
Although we do not know what the future holds, given both the duration and eventual outcome of the war, Russia will continue to have security concerns. And now it has a border with Nato that will run from the High North down to the Black Sea and beyond. This is guaranteed to lock in continued tensions between the alliance and Russia for years to come.
Nato fundamentally thinks of itself as a collective defence organisation, with (nuclear) deterrence as its core strength. Russia will continue to see the alliance as a key stalwart undermining its threat perceptions and ability to affect its own near abroad. So as the Finnish flag is raised at Nato HQ in Brussels, It would be naive to think that Russia will not respond – even if its power to do so is currently somewhat diminished.
Simon J Smith, Associate Professor of Security and International Relations, Staffordshire University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Place a nice SIGINT site in thr far north right opposite Severomorsk, Murmansk, and so on.
The Int community must be rubbing their hands together.
Murmansk is as close to the northern most part of Norway as Finland but I’m sure there is plenty of other interesting stuff along the Finnish border that NATO will gladly get it’s eyes and ears on!
That, is a good point. I’d overlooked that.
Should we send him a thank you card, he has done so much for nato recently. Made lots of countries increase there defence spending and now has increased the size of NATO.
It’s the only positive to come from what is otherwise a complete mess.
I know, some of the leaked US documents have come out and said that everyone is basically to scared to tell him the true cost of the war. Tbh even if he knew the true human cost on russias side I doubt he would care.
That comment could equally apply to Biden too.
I doubt Biden even knows what day it is now. lol
The good thing about most presidents is they surround themselves with clever, knowledgeable people and uses there input when making decisions.
Unless they come from the Biden crime family. In which case jobs go to the highest bidder. Meaning those who can increase the Biden family fortune the most.
Come on George, you know better than that.
Know better than what?
I know that the biden crime family have used Joe’s elected position to generate wealth for other family members, who are thereby bound to give a kickback to the “big guy.” Young crackhead Hunter being a prime documented example. Be it being employed by a lucrative and very corrupt oligarch owned energy company in Ukraine. Despite having zero expertise in the subject other than a direct link to the then Vice President. Or as is now being revealed, linked with state owned PLA concerns represented by CCP spy masters. Then receiving huge financial payments. With the obligatory cut going to sleepy Joe the Godfather.
https://nypost.com/2022/01/27/chinese-elite-have-paid-some-31m-to-hunter-and-the-bidens/
I think that remark with clear evidence, is more applicable to the Trump Mafia Family. Note indictments and found guilty with imprisonment of family CFO, now current indictments in NYC and off course who can forget the US$2 billion pay off to Jared the son in law from that nice MBS chap running Saudi Arabia.
Clear evidence! ho ho ho
Why would Biden change his posture on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because of casualties? Hopefully whoever is in the White House the support of Ukraine will stay the same.
Only Russia can stop the casualties and war. Ukraine cant as it’s been Invaded. Russia can pack up and go home anytime it wants. Ukraine has nowhere to go so has to fight and take casualties.
The senile old goat is probably best kept in the dark for fear of him causing WWIII. After all, it was Obuma who started the trouble in Ukraine by sending Biden there in the first place! The man has a reputation for screwing up everything he touches while increasing his bank balance in the process.
For example, using one billion dollars of aid to leverage lucrative deals for his junkie son. Thereby sending the entirely wrong message to both Ukraine and Russia. The cherry on top, was very likely authorising the destruction of the Nord II Pipeline and lying about it. I wonder what the Burisma Holdings kickback was for eliminating a major future competitor.
I don’t buy into conspiracy theory’s that much. Normally there’s evidence of crimes and action is taken. As was the case with Nixon, Clinton, trump.
Bidens been in politics for ages and if he had done something illegal during that time he would be extremely lucky to get away with it.
If he’s benefited within the law then it’s the laws that are at fault.
Classic. Ho ho ho 😅😂😜
https://bidenlaptopreport.marcopolousa.org/report_viewer/index.html#p=107
Yawn. Absolute crap.
“”With memories of the 1939 “winter war”””
Here’s a little fact:
The term “Molotov cocktail” was invented by the Finns during the Winter War of 1939 as a pejorative reference to Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who was one half of the architects of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact .
The name’s origin came from his declaration on Soviet state radio that incendiary bombing missions over Finland were actually “airborne humanitarian food deliveries” for their “starving” neighbours. As a result, the Finns sarcastically dubbed the Soviet incendiary cluster bombs “Molotov bread baskets” When the hand-held bottle firebomb was developed to attack and destroy Soviet tanks, the Finns called it the “Molotov cocktail”, as “a drink to go with his food parcels”
Interesting that Russian propaganda today is just as ridiculous and transparent as it was in the 30’s: fit only for consumption by a nation of feeble minded serfs that the Russians continue to be.
An on-goal of historic proportions!
Oh yes. Putins wet dream of taking over Ukraine a week and putting a leader of his choosing failed miserably.
Nato expansion was about number 27 on the list for reasons to invade below: I don’t like the Ukraine leader, it’s my legacy, every leader will respect me for it and load of other warped justifications.
I wonder how Erdogan was persuaded to drop his objection to Finland joining NATO and why he has not yet dropped opposition to Sweden joining.
I wonder if Turkey will now get their F-16 block 70.
What a master strategist Putin is! The 4 Nordic countries looking to combine and integrate their air defence (with 3 of them operating F35’s) will provide yet another headache to stretch the Russian forces.
Stupid thing is Russia shouldn’t view it like that as no Nordic country or European country wants to invade Russia.
No country wants to invade Russia, period. Except perhaps China when they’ve overtaken Russia technologically and the only thing they can offer is resources.
NATO is more than happy to sit back and let Russia degrade naturally over time. Its a lot less bloody and expensive
I can’t imagine the Nordic nations invading Russian territory any time soon. Can you. The nords could provide valuable resistance to a Russian move to “annexe” the three Baltic states. As none of them can effectively defend themselves.
In the overall scheme of things, the world has escaped quite lightly from the breakup of the USSR and Warsaw Pact. Things could have been considerably worse. Of course things could also have turned out much better for all concerned, if opportunities had been seized in the 1990’s. There was the real possibility of NATO being dissolved and a new alliance created to replace it. An alliance that included Russia in a mutually defensive pact. Along with most or all the old Warsaw Pact and the NATO members. Just take a minute to contemplate what the world geopolitical map would look like today, if that lofty goal had been attained. It has to be the ultimate aim for the future, no matter how distant.
Interesting of course. I’m just back from a six-week work trip in Lapland. Been up there many times over the last 20 years and probably the one country I’d retire to if I had the choice – I love the place. There always have been, and still are, many Russian (or former Russian) people in the country too, and all of whom I’ve met have been decent folks (as most people you meet generally are). For decades relations with Russia were generally good – plenty of cross-border trade, etc., but when your neighbour decides to invade another country, it is not really a surprise if situations change. The NATO decision had been coming ever since Russia invaded Ukraine.
There is no actual hard border so far north, apart from a reindeer fence for hundreds of miles – but conditons to get across that border aren’t exactly easy – for a person, or an army. The Finns actually fought three separate wars in WWII. Winter war, Continuation war, and Lapland war. Tons of history. Not a lot of people realise that the UK declared war on Finland in 1941. The country was in an impossible strategic position at the time – and was on the front-line back then and they fought with the odds stacked against them – benefitting from poor strategy on the Soviet side. The parts of Finland annexed back then (Petsamo and Karalja) were given up simply to maintain the independence of Finland as a nation.
On this trip I bumped into a few UK Army folks in the swimming pool who were on a liason to help with closer NATO ties – that was a few weeks ago, before the NATO decision was finalised.
The Finnish election happened while I was there too. Moderate ruling coalition party lost its majority and there was a large increase in support for far right party sadly.
The two volume “Finland at War” books by Vesa Nenya on the history around WWII are fascinating and I’d strongly recommend them. I’ve visited some of the battle sites too, including the Raate Road. Also “The White Sniper” that a Finnish friend bought for me. A proud country and one that I’m glad I’ve got to know in a small way.
Mick
Spot on Mick, been there a few times, love the place, the people, the history (far north amazing) going back with Mrs Airborne in the new year on a very extensive Aurora hunt lol!!!!!
Saw some great aurorae pretty often on this trip, in amongst everything else. Was pretty far north but anywhere near the Arctic Circle is ideal. Next year is even closer to solar max so chances are even better for you guys – best of luck for clear skies.
Thanks mate, Mrs A will be pleased to hear that! 👍
Fuck me are you Santa!
🙂 Spent roughly a year of my life working up there in total. And although I am not Santa, I did drive past his village last week!
Ahh I see. You can’t say. Must be a high position elf or reindeer trainer. 😂😂😂😂
Top post mate. Really interesting.
Cheers mate. It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next few years. With NATO in general and with Finland in particular.
Too bad NATO doesn’t kick Turkey and Hungry out of NATO for doing everything they can to prevent the Swedes from joining NATO.
IMHO entry should be based on a majority vote, not all or nothing. ATM Ottoman Erdogan has the ability to play political games with NATO and Russia. He cannot be trusted.
It can’t possibly be a majority vote. By agreeing a new entrant to NATO every member is in essence agreeing to go to war on that new member’s behalf. How would we (the U.K.) feel if the other members voted for a country we weren’t comfortable with joining?
Would Turkey go to war on Greece’s behalf or vice versa? Yet both are NATO members.
However Article 5 does not force a member country to go warfighting on another’s behalf.
Wording is “It commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in the areas defined by Article 6, to be an armed attack against them all. Upon such attack, each member state is to assist by taking “such action as [the member state] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
I think that is a different argument, If Turkey was outside of NATO today it would certainly not be given membership. Secondly, you could make the majority vote approval a high number, say 90% of members must agree.
I fully agree. Total unanimity is always exceptionally hard or impossible. Majority vote required. Would be fantastic for Sweden to join this year.
Finland joinging NATO is a spectacular self inflicted fail on Putins behalf.
Top result, for the west and NATO that is! Putin? Oh dear, how sad, never mind! As cluster fucks go, his illegal and totally inept Ukrainian invasion is as effective and productive as Adolf Hitlers barber telling Adolf “it’s a great tash, goes with the hair, soon catch on”!
Very funny mate. So many warmongering dictators had a tash – Stalin, Hitler, the Kaiser, Saddam Hussein.
The only way this awful war will end will be when Putin leaves office via the door, the window or through a poisoned cup of tea.
With over 25,000 miles of borders with other countries NATO is hardly “surrounding Russia”
That’s just Putin playing to Russian insecurities and paranoia.
Putin should be congratulated for providing the geopolitical circumstances needed to bring Finland and Sweden into the NATO family.
Putin is the deciding detractor for Finland joining nato ,he started a war that no one wanted therefore he must pay a price ,I wish the russian people would wake up and see for what putin is and a puppet to china,
For quite a lot of Russians there is no way to bring change. A lot are switched off to politics as people power has never been a thing.
750,000 at least left Russia this past year. That speaks volumes.
Cheers for the info,I know a of russian people left,volumes do indeed speak, thank you
I am curious about this: where do they go? I suspect the average Russian does not have a lot of savings so how do they support themselves in a foreign country they cannot work-in?
The Russian people need true information, not that peddled by their State TV. Can the people not access western media via the internet or in some other way?
So 15 months ago, Russia was a world power and now after Putin’s genius attack on Ukraine, Russia is now seen as a regional power. I thought Liz Truss set a new standard of stupidity and incompetence but I think that crown now goes to Putin!
Spot on! Putin is the most inept world leader in recent times.
“This is Vladimirs worst week in international relations, since last week.”
Shall we start by reading what is written?
“In 1948, the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance was signed between the Soviet Union and Finland, providing a key basis for relations between the two states that was to last throughout the cold war.
With memories of the 1939 “winter war” between the two still acute, the agreement embodied the Paasikivi–Kekkonen doctrine, named for two of Finland’s post-war presidents who developed the idea between 1946 and 1982 of a neutral Finland close to the USSR.”
How does that make any sense as an exposition?
How can a 1948 treaty give reference to post war activities up to ‘82.
I know it isn’t factual but writing something that clumsy takes away from the whole piece: which is actually interesting.
Putin with his invasion of Ukraine is a prime example of the unintended consequences that he portrayed as a necessary action to prevent that which has now occurred.