[ad_1]
Fifteen years ago isha at a meeting in Stockholm with a group of MPs from NATO member states and their Swedish counterparts. We were there to discuss ABOUT a range of issues, including Sweden’s participation in NATO operations.
Our Swedish hosts took us by boat to a beautiful island ABOUT of dinneruar. In the evening, a member of the NATO delegation asked an MPe Swedishe why did not join the alliance, given the level very close partnership.
She said it was not the right time, given the security environment. Më then turned to me to ask: “How is she expression in English?”, pointing to the boat he brought us toisland. “Do not shake the boat! ”- I answered. It is clear se Sweden and Finland have decided today that it is time that “tor shakein the boat”.
The fact that 2 non-aligned states near Russia, duan t‘i join NATO has CONSEQUENCES strategic. But contrary to what most argue, expanding the alliance with these 2 countries will change it much more alliance thathow previous extensions.
The latter happened more as part of the integration of Central and Eastern European countries into Western institutions, especially in the European Union, rather than as a one act defendedes on Russia. WHEREASSweden and Finland are joining today NATO for for the sake of iNvOLvEmENTt of the US for securityne of member countries in the face of Russian aggression.
To this membership likely t‘i exacerbate tensions in the alliance, among those members that are focused on building European strategic autonomy, notably France, and those most concerned about maintaining a strong transatlantic security relationship,highly dependent on American military power.
Whether Sweden and Finland would have confidence in the European Union’s ability to achieve meaningful strategic autonomy, backed by military power, there would be no need THAT to join NATO.
As wellSweden and Finland bring in alliance more financial and military assets than states in previous rounds of enlargement, and will t‘i use ato for tor shaped NATO as much as possible according to interestswidower of tire. This is likely to lead to a presence on e large air and sea e NATO in the Baltic as well to a focus on of NATO’s largest in the Arctic.
We both aspectsSweden and Finland will stay closer to the British position. Sweden and Finland yes of join now NATO because of their increased sense of vulnerability after the Russian occupation of Ukraine. But today we forget the fact that fear of Russian military action, was not the main factor that of urged many Central and Eastern European countries to apply for NATO membership in previous rounds of enlargement.
NATO has been expanding since the end of the Cold War at the request of aspiring states. In 1999, entered into alliance Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In 2004, u approved entryor of countries that Were formerly part of the Soviet Union (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), but also e SLOVENIAtheSlovakiatheBulgariathe and Romaniathe.
Albania and Croatia joined in 2009, and Montenegro and Northern Macedonia inyears 2017 and 2020. In all these cases, membership was preceded by a process of tallwhere each state graduate completed standardt e certain. And here they were not included not only military compatibility and capability, but also the strength of democratic institutions.
Each aspiring member passed through a long process of the Membership Action Plan, in which progress was continuously assessed in areas such as building an independent judiciary, establishing transparent electoral processes, and building a sound economy. to marketui free.
Many of the requirements of the accession process were in line with the reforms undertaken by each of these countries in their bid for EU membership.. Therefore aNATO membership was seen as an important step forward on the road to EU membership, and twoHere were often discussed as part of a package leading to “Iintegrationn Atlantic”.
Security from Russian actions and territorial integrity, exto clearAsia priorifield for the Baltic states. But most countries that have joined NATO in the last 20 years, do not share a border with Russia, and were more concerned about their integration into the European Union than ABOUT each KIND threatof THAT could come from Moscow.
It is worth remembering when the enlargement took place large i NATO in 2004, NATO and Russia ofhad improved relationsas formedn NATO-Russia Council. Russia had a full diplomatic mission at NATO headquarters and president Vladimir Putin was still seen widely as a LEADER reformator.
In shortmost of the countries that joined NATO in between YEARS 1999–2020 did not have the financial and military resources to be significant contributors to military capabilities of the alliance. they were more interested for integration into the West, than ABOUT securityIN their from Russian military action.
Meanwhile, Finland and Sweden have little in common with countries that have been members of NATO since the end of the Cold War. They do of join now alliance, just to get a security guarantee backed by US military power. They are not new democracies that require incorporation into European structures.
Prather they are highly developed market economies, and membere oldor of the European Union. Their army and bases their in the industry defenses are superior in comparison with those of many NATO members. As non-aligned states, atEO maintained their military capabilities after the end of the Cold War, to a degree such that it was not seen atmost other european states.
These factors will affect their direct and indirect contribution to NATO,and will t‘give them far more influence than states that ofjoined Alliance in previous extensions. Fr.o bring significant financial and military resources, and there are eventse use it as leverage in NATO policy discussions.
NATO is funded by direct financial contributions from members, and most importantly, from indirect contributions in terms of military personnel and equipment from national authorities to NATO operations. In terms of joint NATO budgets (distinct from national defense budgets), Finland and Sweden are likely to pay approximately 1.2 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively. of GDP.
it figure may not be much compared to the US part (16 for hundred), but anyway e puts Sweden and Finland in the same category as Denmark. For nthe real dictatorship of Finland and Sweden, will come from their indirect contributions.
Finland and Sweden are many distinct in several ways (for example finland has an army based recruitmentwe mandatory), but THAT both are better prepared than most NATO members to defend their territory, as well as to deploy forces as part of overseas missions rajonit.
Actually, THAT bothbehold these places have been contributore importante in NATO missions before applying for membership, especially in the Balkans. For these reasonsis unlikely THAT to remain in the background at North Atlantic Council meetings. For si can change NATO their membership?
First, there is likely to be one INCENTIVE for more NATO focus on the Baltic region. This is not something new, after NATO has paid special attention to the region through the deployment and training of ground troops in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
But alliance activities in this region, are likely to focus much more to naval and air operationsafter Sweden and Finland have A strengthe airline of great and sophisticated. Both of them are likely to attract more attention in the Arctic region, like A area of competition with Russia.
But this may exacerbate some tensions in the alliance. Pfor example, France, is generally supportive of a focus on Mesdhetar of alliances. NATO is definitely capable t‘i do THAT both, but with Sweden and Finland the balance WILL of shift to the north. So you will need one diplomaci agile to balance priorities, and to maintain the solidarity of the alliance./bota.al
top channel
[ad_2]
Source link