Finland’s NATO entry: “Definitely relieved” | tagesschau.de

Finland gives up its neutrality and joins NATO. In an interview, security expert Minna Alander describes the mood in the country and explains what Finland brings to NATO – apart from troop strength.

ARD: Why is Finland’s NATO entry a historic day?

Minna Alander: This day marks the end of a very long era of non-alignment for Finland – at least that’s what official government reports say. However, since joining the EU in 1995, one can no longer speak of neutrality. Nevertheless, Finland’s military alliance neutrality ends today.

In the meantime “a bit frustrated”

ARD: How would you describe the mood in the country? Is there relief?

Alander: You are definitely relieved today. There was some frustration after the process stalled in December due to problems with Turkey. Hungary has also repeatedly postponed ratification. You can definitely feel the relief now.

“Early” and “thoroughly” prepared

ARD: The ratification process seems incredibly fast. 28 out of 30 countries quickly said yes. Then came Hungary and Turkey. But despite this, Finnish diplomacy managed to convince both countries. What did Finland perhaps do a little better in this process than neighboring Sweden, which also wants to join NATO?

Alander: On the Finnish side, the preparation process, i.e. before the application was even made in May 2022, was much more thorough than in Sweden. That was because in Finland it was clear much earlier that they actually wanted to aspire to join NATO.

In Sweden, the internal process of the Social Democrats, who ruled last spring and have traditionally been strong opponents of NATO, took much longer. Therefore, the Swedish diplomats could not carry out this process as thoroughly as on the Finnish side.

New Consensus

ARD: In Finland, there is consensus across all party lines on the NATO issue, despite a conservative president, a social-democratic prime minister and a green foreign minister. Is that Finnish pragmatism? Or has it always been the case that there is such agreement on foreign and security policy issues?

Alander: In Finland there is actually this very strong culture of consensus in foreign and security policy. In the case of NATO, however, it was exactly the opposite until the Ukraine war. It was agreed that Finland should not join NATO.

The interesting thing is that now even the Left Party in Finland was not fundamentally opposed to joining. Individual MPs do, but not the entire party. In the end, the consensus also stood the test of time on the NATO question. It has been realized that Finnish NATO membership is the only sensible thing for the country’s security policy.

Rapid mobilization ability

ARD: What exactly does Finland bring to NATO?

Alander: With Finland, NATO gains troop strength. Finland can quickly mobilize up to 280,000 soldiers, the total reserve is 870,000. That’s an exceptionally high number by European standards, especially for a country with a population of just 5.5 million.

In addition, Finland has one of the largest artillery units in Europe and, overall, very modernly equipped troops. The Finnish Air Force, for example, is very well equipped and is expected to receive an additional 46 F35 fighter jets over the next few years. This is the same model that Germany will soon receive, but only about 30 pieces. Especially in the current situation, in which NATO’s goal is to increase the number of rapidly deployable troops, Finland is an important member country.

Turkish negotiation tactics

ARD: For strategic reasons, an attempt was actually made to join NATO hand in hand with Sweden. Were there moments when Finland behaved a little more diplomatically than Sweden? What did Finland do better in practice, including in talks with Ankara, Budapest, but also with all other NATO countries?

Alander: Sweden’s hands were tied in the end. Turkey’s objections mainly related to Sweden’s membership, and it was difficult to accommodate Turkey on this point. Turkey is particularly concerned with the extradition of so-called terrorists. However, extraditions cannot be decided by politicians in Sweden, but must go through the normal constitutional process.

Most likely Turkey’s behavior has nothing to do with Sweden. They used this conflict as a negotiation strategy for themselves. Ankara has often acted in this way in the past. So it was a difficult balancing act for Sweden. Also because Turkey has repeatedly signaled that they actually have nothing against Finland. For a Finnish accession, only the two accession processes would have to be separated from each other. This in turn was a difficult decision for Finland, because it wanted to join NATO together with Sweden.

“Close defense cooperation” with Sweden

ARD: The Finnish side often emphasizes that they need Sweden because the defense strategies of the two countries are mutually dependent. Do you really need that much?

Alander: Finnish-Swedish defense cooperation is very close. Joint naval units are in place and the air forces are already practicing together almost every week. For example, Swedish territory can be used to defend Finland. Sweden is so centrally located in the entire North Baltic region that it would complicate defense if Sweden did not become a NATO member in the long term.

“Finland keeps all doors open”

ARD: A look into the future: So far, the Finnish government has been understood to mean that it does not want to station any nuclear weapons or NATO bases in Finland. It’s a very Scandinavian attitude. Being a member of the alliance, but describing a few things as a no-go, like in Germany, will that last?

Alander: Finland is keeping all doors open right now. No demands are made of NATO membership. Nothing was ruled out in advance. So you can talk about anything. The fact that there are no conditions or exclusions for full membership is something that has been understood in Finland and is also gaining increasing understanding in Sweden.

“Sweden’s accession is top priority”

ARD: What can Finland do now to ensure that neighboring Sweden is also included in NATO in the near future?

Alander: Sweden’s accession as soon as possible is of course the top priority for Finland now that Finland itself is a member of NATO. However, Finland’s room for maneuver is limited. Pressure on Turkey has already come from the 28 member countries that have ratified Finland and Sweden’s NATO membership. So I don’t think more pressure will do anything.

Rather, Finland could aim for a more constructive approach. The trilateral agreement signed between Finland, Sweden and Turkey last summer could be a way of more constructively highlighting what points Sweden has already met. That could be a way for Sweden to become a NATO member as soon as possible.

“Accession stabilizes the region”

ARD: Do you anticipate tensions in the Baltic Sea region from Finland’s membership because for some reason Russia might feel encircled?

Alander: I believe that the previous tensions are more likely to subside because the situation is much clearer now. Finland and a future Swedish membership in NATO stabilizes the region in that Russia then has much less room for maneuver to put pressure on the smaller neighboring countries in the Baltic and also the Nordic neighbors with airspace violations and the like, for example.

Russia needs to think much more carefully about whether it can still afford this kind of provocation. Of course, Kaliningrad also loses some of its strategic value for Russia, because the Baltic States can be defended much better from Sweden and Finland and there are alternative supply routes. From now on, the defense of the Baltics is possible via land, sea and air, and Kaliningrad is then no longer so relevant.

The interview was conducted by Christian Blenker, ARD Studio Stockholm. Assistance: Linnea Pirntke