It’s a pity that there are no séance tables and that we cannot learn what marshal Gustaf Mannerheim thinks about Sweden and Finland’s plans concerning NATO. Does he approve of them? We won’t probably be mistaken, if we say he would welcome them with recognition. After all, both countries wouldn’t strive after NATO membership if it wasn’t for the sense of threat from Russia – a country, against which Mannerheim fought several times for the liberty of Finland.

But there is something that adds taste to these deliberations. Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim (he didn’t use the first name, he hated the third) is a national hero of Finland; in its history and in Finns’ feeling he enjoys the same place as marshal Józef Piłsudski in Poland. He wasn’t, however, a native or, as it is said nowadays, an ethnic Finn. He originated from a Swedish minority, from an aristocratic family which settled in Finland in the 18th Century when it remained under the rule of Sweden; he held the title of Baron. The fact that Sweden and Finland co-operate in the field of security would surely be taken by the marshal with satisfaction. Just as surveys which show that the Swedish community in Finland is the group that endorses accession to NATO the strongest.

Once again it became as clear as day how effective a fear can be – also in the international arena. If it hadn’t been for the Russian aggression against Ukraine, the Swedes would be stuck in their over two-hundred-year-old neutrality, and the Finds would remained convinced that business ties and good relations with Russia, which, despite all changes – acceding to the EU above all – Finland was left with, are as effective as before. The Ukrainian war worked like a bucket of cold water: sobered everybody up and did so instantaneously.

An immediate decision

This can be perfectly illustrated with the pace at which the change of attitude within political circles and both societies. The Finds and Swedes saw joining NATO in a new light already on the day when Russia attacked Ukraine. It’s not a result of atrocities committed in Bucha or Mariupol but of a feeling that a threat from Russia is real and it is crucial to protect oneself against it – successfully and as quickly as possible.

First suggestions as for making efforts to receive membership were spoken almost immediately. – In Finland the decision was made at the moment when Russian troops invaded Ukraine – as it was told by ex-prime minister Alexander Stubb.

No wonder that Finns are uneasy. The wars against the Soviet Union – the Winter War (1939-40) and the Continuation War (1941-44) – despite the flow of time are deeply stuck in the nation’s collective memory. The Finns have reasons to be proud because their small country of only 5 million people resisted fiercely for nearly half a year during the Winter War, caused great losses to the Soviets and won genuine admiration of the world (and for those who, like Poles, experienced occupation was a source of uplift and hope). Finland lost the war and as a consequence it was stripped of 10% of its territory – of Karelia to the South and Pechenga (Finnish: Petsamo) to the North and thereby the access to the Barents Sea. It managed though to preserve a good deal of independence, at the cost however of a close cooperation with the USSR.

Maybe an even great cause for concern is a very long Finnish-Russian frontier of 1340 kilometers. When Finland becomes a member of the Pact, the frontier between NATO and Russia will lengthen more than twice. Currently it is only 1233 kilometers which comprises the borders between Russia and Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Norway. Voices have arisen in Finland to build a wall on the Russian border but since it’s practically unachievable with such a length, the idea was limited to the most sensitive sections.

Sweden and Finland jointly submitted their membership applications in mid-May to NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg. We are talking here about an event, as it were, of Scandinavian dimension for Jens Stoltenberg is Norwegian. The accession of Finland and Sweden will make all Nordic countries belong to NATO (Norway, Denmark and Island have been participating in the Pact since the beginning.

The question of admitting Sweden and Finland will be discussed at the next NATO summit which will be held by the end of June in Madrid, and, in view of common acceptance, should be decided without any obstacles if it wasn’t for a surprising Turkish veto. Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to the astonishment of all, expressed his objections, accusing both countries of supporting Kurdish separatists. Stoltenberg, as well US secretary of state Anthony Blinken are convinced that Turkey can be persuaded.

Geopolitical siblings

Either way, Sweden and Finland’s NATO plans were greeted as an unexpected, even surprising turn in their policies. The neutrality of both, though born in different circumstances and dictated by other considerations seemed unquestionable. The fact that in 1995 the two countries joined the EU already seemed a sufficient break with tradition.

Yet, the fact remains that neither Sweden nor Finland have been advancing blindly in this field, on an unknown or unprepared territory. On the contrary. In both countries the question of joining the Alliance showed up regularly in the public debate. Surveys, carried out from time to time showed a more or less constant, moderate level of support for membership – ca. 30% in Sweden and 20-25% in Finland.

All the more shocking are, on the one hand, the great leap forward that took place after February 24, on the other – an unexpected role reversal. As of today the accession to NATO is supported by over 60% of Swedes and no fewer than 76% of Finns. Which indicates that as much as the Swedes had demonstrated a great favor towards NATO for years, today it is the Finns who took the leadership, becoming motor force behind joining the Pact.

The Finnish president, Sauli Niinistö, recently very active, recalled in one interview his encounter with Vladimir Putin when in 2016 he was on an official visit to Finland. During the talks held in Kesarantä, a summer residence of Finnish presidents, a question was asked what Russia would do, if Finland resolved to join NATO. Putin, as Niinistö recollects, replied briefly that for the time being Russia regarded Finland as a friend but if it joined NATO, Russia will perceive this country as enemy…

According to the president – but also to Alexander Stubb and many experts on security affaires – if one can speak of the Russian threat, it is rather to be considered under the form of cyber-attacks against state institutions (which already happened, no doubt intentionally on the day when Volodymyr Zelenskyy gave a speech at a session of the Finnish parliament), disinformation and possible infringement of the Finnish aerial space by Russian aircraft. As one can see, it doesn’t provoke particular fears as such risk was in advance taken into account. It’s very much alike in the Swedish case which by the way at some point had problems with Soviet submarines known to have been penetrating waters along the Swedish coastline dotted with isles and skerries but which had never been tracked down.

The actions of the two countries have long been closely coordinated. Let’s examine, for instance, their accession to the European Union – on January 1, 1995, along with Austria. Talks with Brussels and the process of preparing societies – everything was going on simultaneously. But although Sweden was the initiator, the referenda on accession to the Union were set so that the first would be held in Finland. The Finns, being more pro-European were to push the Sweeds in the desired direction – which actually happened. Moreover, the countries perfectly served one another as safety catches – so to speak. Suggestions popping out over the past years to yet strive for NATO membership, were ignored by the Swedish authorities who would say that was impossible to do since Finland was opposing the whole thing.

SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE
Elisabeth Braw from the American Enterprise Institute, an expert on security affaires calls Sweden and Finland “geopolitical siblings”. It would be difficult to find a better and more succinct expression for their cooperation, although obviously there are numerous exceptions to that – such as the currency: Finland adopted the euro while Sweden stayed with the krona.

Peacekeeping

In this regard Sweden and Finland are a specific example even among Scandinavian countries – or, more precisely, Nordic – which have constituted a strong and stable block for a long time. It’s the aftermath of a history which bound them with numerous ties, just to recall the Kalmar Union (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the year 1937), Norway ruled first by Denmark, then by Sweden, Finland under the Swedish rule or Iceland reaming in a personal union with Denmark until 1945. Not to mention Viking raids, family ties of Scandinavian dynasties, a sense of cultural community and strong bonds of language, as only Finns speak a language completely incomprehensible for the others. At the same time it was a school for conflict resolution of which there had been many over the centuries.

The last conflict in which Sweden got engaged was the suppression of independence aspirations of the Norwegians in 1814. Later on, it scrupulously adhered to the accepted principle of neutrality, non-involvement in conflicts and peaceful resolution of disputes. After the Napoleonic wars it exemplarily ceded Finland to Russia and after a century, in 1905 it consented to the secession of Norway and its independence. It didn’t participate in any of the world wars, in exchange it didn’t refrain from trading (not without benefit, which, however the Swedes got away with). All in all, this has resulted in consolidating the image of Sweden as not only an oasis of peace at home, but also a country that spares no effort to maintain peace in every corner of the world.

Dag Hammarskjöld who, being on a mission to Katanga in 1961, died in a plane crash in Congo became a symbol of mediation efforts although he didn’t act as a representative of Sweden but as the UN secretary general. Hammarskjöld’s endeavors were appreciated by the Nobel Committee which honored him with a Peace Prize, by the way the only one granted post mortem. Among its recipients there is a considerable number of Swedes, e.g. Fridtjof Nansen, not as a polar explorer but as an originator of passports for stateless persons, and Alva Myrdal, a disarmament activist.

It is hard to find such a dispute or conflict, in which the Swedes wouldn’t offer mediation and wouldn’t try to find peaceful ways out – from South Africa, through the Middle East to the war in former Yugoslavia. It wouldn’t be irrelevant to repeat that Stockholm is the seat of SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), the most renowned institution of this kind. But one of the most famous organizations with conflict relief as its goal – Crisi Management Initiative – was founded in Finland. It was established by a former president, Martti Ahtisaari who mediated, among others, between Serbia and Kosovo, and supervised the disarmament process of the IRA in Northern Ireland. And a Noble Prize Winner too.

Ideology vs. existence

– Sweden's neutrality is a matter of identity and ideology. It is completely different with Finland. In this case, the question of its very existence is at stake – this is how the differences between the geopolitical siblings were expressed in a recent interview with the BBC by Henrik Meinander, a Finnish historian, like Mannerheim originating from the Swedish minority.

These existential aspects are felt at different times – both now that Finland is thinking about joining NATO and thirty years ago, when it resolved to join the European Union. The decision of the Finns was dictated not only by the aforementioned economic considerations – which were predominant in the case of Sweden – but also by political considerations, especially in terms of security. In fact, acceding to the Union was an act of independence in itself, unthinkable at a time when Moscow’s instructions were decisive. It was like a declaration: We made this decision ourselves because we could.

Neutral Sweden is a country that has completely broken with its all too war and militant past – the one that was hurtfully felt by many countries of central, northern and eastern Europe, from German principalities through Poland to Russia – and successfully cast itself as a peacekeeper. This is a very different path to that of Finland, whose neutrality is not only much more recent, but was also imposed by one country: the Soviet Union. Under the friendship treaty concluded in 1948, Finland undertook to respect the security requirements of the USSR and not to enter into military alliances, in return for which it was given considerable freedom in internal politics.

This is how the concept of “finlandization” – i.e. limited sovereignty was coined. Finland, like Sweden, was also involved in peace projects, but only those which, like the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, had Moscow's approval. And even on their own territory, the Finns could not let themselves everything. Criticizing the actions of Moscow and the Soviet leadership, for example, was out of the question. To put in a nutshell, extreme caution was necessary. In return, however, Finland was not too bad at trading with the Soviet Union, which, moreover, meant that after its collapse, the Finns experienced hard times. Joining the EU was partially treated as a remedy.

No wonder that finlandization has a negative connotation in the West. It was quite different in the socialist camp, where Finland – what can I say – was simply envied. On balance, such a solution, for geopolitical reasons not applicable in Central Europe, has paid off for the Finns.

Soldiers again in Gotland

In the consensus of experts, Sweden and Finland are perfectly prepared for NATO membership. Equipment, training, expenses, procedures – in all respects they are compatible with the countries of the alliance. Finland even meets the condition of allocating 2% of its GDP to military purposes. Sweden is at 1.4%, but promises to improve quickly. Both countries also sit on the Atlantic Council and participate in joint allied exercises.

In the purely military sphere, however, the siblings didn’t always act in the same spirit. In view of the proclaimed end of history Sweden, like many other countries, decided to economize on national defense. Thus it abolished conscription and de-militarized Gotland recognizing that there was no need to maintain a garrison there. But the annexation of Crimea sobered up those who believed that the world was bound to reach eternal peace. The Swedish troops returned to Gotland, which is too strategic to be left out of the way. The island is just over 400 km away from Kaliningrad. And, as the Swedish commanders say, from Gotland one can rule the entire Baltic region.

Finland though has never succumbed to such illusions. It would buy the most up-to-date equipment and invest in training. As of today the Finnish army has 280 thousand soldiers and together with the reserve – as many as 900 thousand – in such a small country the number is impressive. The lessons of the Winter War will be remembered forever. Not only by the Finns. Also by potential enemies, who may be haunted by the vision of fast and efficient soldiers on skis, in white camo suits, who appear suddenly, destroy enemy forces and fade away like a spectre.

In practice, the only problem in Swedish and Finnish endeavors – if an obvious aspect could be called a problem at all – is time. The accession to the Alliance must be accepted by every member state – and they are as many as 30. The whole procedure should therefore take about one year. Before the accession has been finalized, both candidates – as it appears from the declarations made by Jens Stoltenberg as well as US and UK leaders – would be to receive security guarantees.

May they be needed? The analyses prepared for the use of decisions that were to be made by the Swedish and Finnish parliaments reveal that experts don’t expect an attack from Russia even if it warned both countries against consequences. Sometimes outrightly. When the decision in the subject of accession was made, the president of Finland, Sauli Niinistö called Vladimir Putin to inform him about it in person, because – as he says, it rests within the Finnish customs to act openly, never secretly and behind the scenes. He heard a warning – but he doesn’t take this threat seriously.

– Teresa Stylińska
– Translated by Dominik Szczęsny-Kostanecki

TVP WEEKLY. Editorial team and jornalists