Originally published in Latvian on www.delfi.lv
Mārcis Balodis, researcher at the Centre for East European Policy Studies
Looking back on the most significant events of the past year, the war in Ukraine is undoubtedly at the top of the list. However, this is soon followed by the application of Finland and Sweden to join NATO. The two countries’ refusal to join armed alliances is based on decades, if not centuries, of foreign policy traditions that only Russia’s aggressive imperialism was able to revise and eventually overturn. Consequently, the upcoming changes in the security situation in our region have prompted a healthy dose of Russian brainstorming.
There is no Finland without Russia
Aleksey Zhuravlev, the Russian State Duma’s First Deputy Chairman of the Defence Committee, clearly stated that Finland and Sweden joining NATO would only mean becoming Russia’s target. In the case of Finland, he was even more categorical, stating that the country’s existence would be threatened. He believes that since the overarching objective of NATO is to end Russia’s existence, Finland’s accession to NATO grants Russia the legal right to respond in the same way. And even more, Finland should be grateful to Russia for allowing it to exist at all. At the same time, the politician reminds us of Russia’s superpower thinking model, in which only a few countries control what happens and all others are forced to follow suit. He does not rule out a possible armed conflict between Russia and Finland, but believes it will be achieved through US pressure rather than Finland’s own efforts. Therefore, the subtext is straightforward: if Finland joins NATO, it will lose its independence, similar to Poland and Romania, which the US encourages to start a war.[1] It is worth noting that he also admitted that the Baltic states are like bugs, that they are currently on the same path as Ukraine, and that it is unclear where this will lead.[2]
Concerning Finland’s accession, pro-Kremlin websites have attempted to develop the idea that such geopolitical changes are driven by external pressure, specifically the interests of the United States. In the case of Finland, it has been clearly stated that the Western world, and particularly the United States, are dragging Finland into NATO, effectively cancelling Finland’s sovereignty.[3] It is explained that the Finnish society does not agree or is even opposed to this, demonstrating the Helsinki political circles’ short-sightedness. Furthermore, the Finnish authorities are accused of bringing up war and civil defence issues, such as informing about bomb shelters and the need to stockpile food and drinking water, which allegedly leads to war psychosis in society. Finally, both Finland and Sweden are accused of incompetence; that is, both countries have not been the focus of Russia’s attention, but as a result of joining NATO, the steps taken by both countries will turn out to be rather destructive.[4]
Maria Zakharova, representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, proposed similar ideas regarding Sweden’s upcoming NATO membership. This is proven both by the opposition of two political parties and by the general disregard of public opinion. According to her, the public is not involved because it is not in favour of participation, and the real culprit behind joining is the United States, which sets its own rules.[5] She also stated at the end of November that the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO would increase tensions and even pose security risks in the Arctic region. With both countries joining NATO, seven of the eight countries in the Arctic region would be NATO members, with Russia as the eighth. As a result, M. Zakharova believes that the Arctic is under threat of militarisation,[6] which is meant to deter countries from joining NATO.
How to disguise failure
The primary goal of these messages is to divert attention away from Russia’s complete failure in foreign policy. Until 24 February of last year, the Western world was generally ready to seek ways to coexist with Russia, and neither Sweden nor Finland seriously considered the possibility of changing decades-long foreign and security policy traditions. Regardless of how hard the Kremlin tries to deny it, only sudden upheavals can result in such rapid policy changes, for which the Kremlin can only blame itself. In such circumstances, it is ironic that Russia has served as the best advertisement for NATO membership. The two Nordic countries’ non-participation in NATO did not imply neutrality, as both countries were integrated into NATO structures and cooperated with them, but there was a clear distinction between cooperation with the alliance and participation in it, which was reflected, among other things, in public opinion. This arrangement was understandably advantageous for Russia in order to maintain pragmatic relations with both countries. It is worth noting that, throughout history and geopolitical tensions, both Finland and Sweden have had to take difficult steps to ensure their survival while not posing a threat to Russia and its historical predecessors. However, the year 2022 showed that it is no longer possible to live according to the usual principles.
This is also reflected in the changes in public opinion in the two Nordic countries. At the beginning of last year, approximately 30% of the Finnish population supported the country’s membership in NATO[7], but by mid-March, the indicator had already risen to 62%[8], and by the end of November it was close to 80%.[9] Therefore, there is a clear progression of public opinion, which is also reflected in the country’s foreign policy course change. It also cannot be explained by the war psychosis invoked by the Kremlin’s websites, because in the midst of an active war, it is natural to inform and educate one’s society about the need for protection. A similar trend can be seen in Sweden, where approximately 37% of the population supported NATO membership at the start of last year,[10] but by May it had risen to 58%.[11] Accordingly, the ideas of various talking heads about an undemocratic process are more attempts to conjure up that which is desired as existing than a true reflection of the situation.
It is clearly understood that under the current circumstances, Russia must find a culprit who should take responsibility for Russia’s failures. The alleged existing pressure that would have forced Sweden and Finland to join NATO is only partially true. Such pressure exists, but it is created by Russia itself. Invoking the United States as the great evil reinforces the idea that the entire Western world has conspired against Russia and wishes to humiliate it. This promotes the idea of Russia as a besieged fortress, on which the Kremlin appears to base its continued militarisation and foreign policy aggression. At the same time, it subtly spreads the idea that all countries are not equal, and that a few of the most powerful countries are capable of violating the sovereignty of other countries and dictating their behaviour, i.e., doing what Russia wants to achieve. As a result, in order to raise its prestige, Russia attempts to place itself on the same level as the United States. This reasoning is used to blame Ukraine for allegedly preparing aggressive plans against Russia, as well as when discussing possible peace talks on the issue of the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin likes to point out that the US appears hesitant to sit down at the negotiating table and negotiate an end to the war, even though the decision on any kind of peace settlement is in Ukraine’s hands. Therefore, Russia’s message in this context is largely based on diverting attention away from its own mistakes, as if the US were the true detractors.
This publication has been financed by the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF) that is managed by the “Calouste Gulbekian Foundation”: The sole responsibility for the content lies with the author(s) and the content may not necessarily reflect the positions of EMIF or the foundation.
[1] Екатерина Лазарева, “Алексей Журавлев: Вступление в НАТО грозит Финляндии уничтожением”, URA.RU, skat. 04.01.2023., https://web.archive.org/web/20220917220634/https://m.ura.news/articles/1036284574
[2] Turpat
[3] Евгений Нипот, “Отвертеться не получится: зачем Финляндию и Швецию тащат в НАТО”, Vesti.ru., skat. 04.01.2023., https://web.archive.org/web/20220613220928/https://www.vesti.ru/article/2742807
[4] Turpat
[5] Иван Сысоев, “Захарова: В Швеции нет единства по вступлению в НАТО, за шведов решают США”, Regnum.ru, skat. 05.01.2023., https://web.archive.org/web/20220714100611/https://rg.ru/2022/05/19/zaharova-v-shvecii-net-edinstva-po-vstupleniiu-v-nato-za-shvedov-reshaiut-ssha.html
[6] Sputnik, “Moscow Says Accession of Finland, Sweden to NATO May Increase Tensions in Arctic Region”, Sputnik International, skat. 05.01.2023., https://web.archive.org/web/20221207004547/https:/sputniknews.com/20221130/moscow-says-accession-of-finland-sweden-to-nato-may-increase-tensions-in-arctic-region-1104906794.html
[7] Euronews, “Ukraine war: MPs in Finland mull petition for a referendum on joining NATO”, Euronews, skat. 05.01.2023., https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/01/ukraine-war-mps-in-finland-mull-petition-for-a-referendum-on-joining-nato
[8] Liv Klingert, “Finland: support for NATO membership reaches historic high”, The Brussels Times, skat. 04.01.2023., https://www.brusselstimes.com/210752/finland-support-for-nato-membership-reaches-historic-high
[9] RFE/RL, “Finnish Support For NATO Membership Rises To 78 Percent, Poll Shows”, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, skat. 05.01.2023., https://www.rferl.org/a/finland-nato-survey-membership/32145117.html
[10] Charles Szumski, “Survey shows Swedes divided on NATO membership”, Euractiv, skat. 05.01.2023., https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/survey-shows-swedes-divided-on-nato-membership/
[11] Emily Sullivan, Karin Larson, Isabelle Grassel, “In Major Shift, Swedish Public Supports NATO Membership”, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, skat. 05.01.2023., https://globalaffairs.org/commentary-and-analysis/blogs/major-shift-swedish-public-supports-nato-membership