In the high-stakes game of geopolitics, the influence of great powers often dictates the rule, leaving smaller nations with limited options for manoeuvring amid the turbulence of international relations.
Against this backdrop, Finland’s recent decision to join Nato, a move that defies decades of neutrality, holds immense significance. It highlights the seismic impact of Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, which has upended the established global power equation.
Finland has long been forced to balance its own interests with those of its colossal, powerful neighbour, Russia. From the era of the czars to the Soviet Union and now President Vladimir Putin’s regime, Finland has had to walk a delicate tightrope in order to coexist with Russia. During the Cold War, Finland embraced a strategy of neutrality and accommodation, which came to be known as “Finlandisation”.
This approach was aimed at forging a path of peaceful coexistence with a nearby great power, a challenge that Finland has faced for centuries. One year on from Russia’s intrusion into Ukraine, decision-makers in Helsinki appear to have taken a decisive stance, bringing an end to the era of Finlandisation.
This move has significant implications not only for Russia but also for the West, as the traditional model of neutrality and accommodation that Finland has long upheld is now off the table as a potential resolution to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. With the death knell sounding for Finlandisation, the question now is how Finland will navigate its future in a rapidly changing global landscape, and what impact this decision of joining Nato will have on the wider geopolitical arena.
For many years, Ukraine has grappled with a shifting political identity, oscillating between a pro-Russian stance in the east and a more nationalist, pro-Ukrainian sentiment in the west. During the 1990s and 2000s, there were suggestions that a Finlandisation model, coupled with the federalisation of Ukraine’s provinces, could provide a way to ease political polarisation and address Russian concerns, particularly those of Putin. This approach, had it been pursued, might have provided a pathway to peace and stability in Ukraine, offering a way forward for a nation plagued by conflict and division.
Following the initiative of the US, the West made vague promises of Nato membership for Ukraine, a move that was met with vehement opposition from Russia. In addition, the EU offered Ukraine the prospect of closer economic and political ties, raising concerns in Moscow that this was a precursor to Nato membership. The 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia pushed Ukraine further towards the West, increasing the country’s willingness to embrace the possibility of joining Nato.
As Ukraine’s political stance continued to tilt towards the West, its relationship with Russia grew extremely bitter and that eventually led to the Russian troops’ march into Ukraine in February last year. In the wake of Russia’s intrusion, Finland and Sweden’s decision to abandon their traditional military non-alignment policies was a natural response to a rapidly changing security environment. Both countries now view Nato, with its collective defence clause, as the most effective means of safeguarding their security. While most Nato members have swiftly ratified their applications, there were those who argued that Finland’s decision to join the alliance could inflame tensions with Russia, leading to further conflict and instability in the region.
With a 1 340 km-long border with Russia, Finland’s inclusion in Nato represents a crucial expansion of the alliance’s reach. Indeed, the addition of Finland to Nato more than doubles the size of Nato’s border with Russia, a development that will undoubtedly aggravate tension in the region. Finland’s inclusion means that Nato is knocking at Russia’s western door.
Ironically, a belligerent personality like Putin, who ordered his forces to invade Ukraine with the key objective of effectively stopping the eastwards expansion of Nato and creating a thick buffer zone inside Ukraine, will not calmly accept a new Nato member with a long stretch of shared border.
Putin has always been the strongest opponent and critic of the expansion of Nato, particularly eastwards, on the pretext that, at the time of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, it was promised that Nato would not extend its membership to the states belonging to the former Central and Eastern Europe — a claim which was actually denied by former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev. But Putin still insists on this “assumptive assurance”.
Whenever Nato has opened its umbrella to add new states in Russia’s neighbourhood, Putin has labelled it an existential threat to the Russian Federation. But this disapproval had always been limited to verbal anti-Nato rhetoric and Putin had never gone beyond that line, despite his stringent opposition to Nato expansion in the past.
The invasion of Ukraine was his first deliberate and proactive militarised action to “quash” the eastwards expansion of Nato. “As to enlargement, Russia has no problem with these states — none. And so, in this sense, there is no immediate threat to Russia from an expansion [of Nato] to include these countries. But the expansion of military infrastructure into this territory would certainly provoke our response. What that [response] will be — we will see what threats are created for us,” was how Putin reacted when Finland and Sweden applied for Nato membership last year.
The fact remains that Putin has been startled by the speed with which Finland has been inducted into Nato. It was never part of his plan. So, he is likely to react seriously to this severe political blow.
When Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, his stated objective was to reduce Nato’s presence along Russia’s borders and prevent Ukraine’s membership in the EU. However, his actions have had the opposite effect. The invasion has prompted Nato to increase its military presence in the region and has galvanised support for Ukraine’s European aspirations. Thus, Putin’s strategic gambit has backfired, strengthening the very forces he sought to undermine.
Just before accepting Finland’s joining documents, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said: “I’m tempted to say this is maybe the one thing that we can thank Putin for.” The reaction of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was similar: “President Putin had a declared goal of the invasion of Ukraine to get less Nato along its borders and no more membership in Europe, he’s getting exactly the opposite.”
Despite Finland’s quick entry into Nato, Sweden’s bid for membership remains in limbo due to objections from Türkiye and Hungary. Observers do not anticipate any movement on Sweden’s application until after Türkiye’s 14 May election, at the earliest. Even then, it is uncertain what factors could sway President Tayyip Erdogan’s stance on the matter. Hungary is expected to align itself with Türkiye’s position.
As a result, Sweden’s path to Nato membership remains obstructed by the geopolitical manoeuvres of these two countries. While the Turkish parliament ultimately approved Finland’s accession to Nato last month, the country’s leaders have been less accommodating towards Sweden’s bid for membership.
One major hurdle facing Sweden’s bid for Nato membership is the ongoing dispute with Türkiye over the alleged presence of Kurdish elements linked to groups that Ankara considers to be terrorist organisations. Turkey has accused Sweden of harbouring these individuals and has demanded their extradition as a precondition for ratifying Sweden’s application. Stockholm has denied the accusations and some expulsions have been blocked by the Swedish courts.
The issue underscores the complex and politically charged nature of discussions around national security and counterterrorism, particularly in the context of international alliances like Nato.
Ankara has expressed concern over Stockholm’s commitment to addressing key issues outlined in the Madrid agreement and has thus far refused to ratify Sweden’s application. As a result, Hungary has also stalled on endorsing Sweden’s bid, citing the need for unanimous approval.
The situation highlights the complex web of negotiations and competing interests that must be navigated in Sweden’s pursuit of Nato membership. However, Nato’s new wave of expansion is nothing short of a seismic shift in the previously tranquil northern European region, once considered to be the bastion of stability.
The response from Moscow will undoubtedly involve a range of measures, both military and technological in nature, aimed at retaliation and safeguarding against future threats from its western borders. This represents a fundamental transformation in the landscape of the region and the repercussions will undoubtedly be felt for some time to come.
Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance columnist on international affairs based in Karachi, Pakistan. He qualified as a physician at Dow Medical University in 1991 and has a master’s degree in international relations from Karachi University.
