Russia has 100 000 troops at the border with Ukraine which has renewed the NATO debate in Sweden, here's why Sweden absolutely shouldn't join.
With Russia poised to attack Ukraine the debate about national defence has risen to the top of the agenda here in Sweden, and I expect the same is true across the Baltic region and the rest of Central and Eastern Europe. How a state defends itself is an important question with profound implications for its citizens and its foreign policy. Försvarsmakten (roughly the Defence Force, as the Swedish armed forces is called) has already become noticeably more hawkish over the last ten years, going from an all volunteer force to a mixed volunteer and conscripted force in 2017. It has also become ever more entangled with NATO; participating in NATO exercises like the 2019 Northern Wind exercise and the 2021 Arctic Challenge exercise. NATO states the following about NATO-Swedish relations on its website: ‘NATO and Sweden share common values, conduct an open and regular political dialogue and engage in a wide range of practical cooperation [...] In the current security context of heightened concerns about Russian military and non‑military activities, NATO is stepping up cooperation with partner countries Sweden and Finland, with a particular focus on ensuring security in the Baltic Sea region. This includes: regular political dialogue and consultations; exchanges of information on hybrid warfare; coordinating training and exercises; and developing better joint situational awareness to address common threats and develop joint actions, if needed.’ It’s plainly obvious that Försvarsmakten alone can’t stand up to the Russian armed forces, so it makes sense to get closer to NATO. The political right in Sweden is generally more pro-NATO whereas the political left is generally more NATO sceptic; and the debate about NATO membership is important and absolutely should be discussed, but I find that to have a productive discussion about NATO one needs to ask more fundamental questions. Namely: is NATO still relevant?
If you’ve followed the blog you might already know my position on NATO: that it's a structure devised for a different world with radically different geopolitics, and as such NATO isn’t focused enough to be an effective defence alliance. When NATO was formed in 1949 there was a real threat of a major ground war in central Europe between the Soviet Union led eastern Europe and the US led Western Europe. With the potential frontline in Germany there was a real threat to the security of even western European states like France but as the iron curtain fell and NATO expanded eastward some of the same western European original members no longer faced a credible threat from the new Russian Federation. Russia might be aggressive and prone to using force to achieve its interests but the prospect of France, Spain, or Italy being in serious danger of military conflict with Russia is very remote, almost absurd. A military alliance which is built on the foundation of a legal guarantee of protection from fellow member states might seem very strong; after all according to law an attack on one NATO member state is an attack on all member states. But as international relations realists from Morgenthau to Mearsheimer have stressed: alliances are always temporary marriages of convenience. An alliance is only worth something if your ally actually shows up when the enemy is at your gates, and since states can never truly trust each other in an anarchic system there’s no way to know if your ally will come to your aid despite being legally obligated to.
Alliances are built on common interests and fears, and as established Spain and Poland don’t share a common greatest security threat which makes them very awkward allies. Poland and the US share a common interest in making sure Russia doesn’t push west and share an interest in making sure Russia doesn’t dominate the Baltic. As such they are natural allies and the US would likely support Poland in a conflict with Russia irrespective of their official alliance status. Which brings us back around to Sweden. Swedish policy has been to be neutral in great power conflicts, and while that is still the official line Sweden has moved closer to the US lately. The reason why we haven’t pursued an official NATO membership is that it makes strategic sense for the US to support Sweden and Finland against Russia. A formal NATO membership probably isn’t needed and would give Sweden obligations it doesn’t want or need. For example, if Turkey was to get involved in a conflict NATO members could be legally required to come to Turkey’s aid if Turkey was to invoke NATO’s article five, despite many of the member states ranging from Portugal and Canada to the UK and Latvia having absolutely no stake nor strategic interest in the conflict. I don’t use Turkey as an example arbitrarily, Turkey supported Azerbaijan in the 2020 Armenian-Azerbaijani war over Nagorno-Karabakh, controls territory in western Syria, and has deployed troops in Libya; it’s one of the most militarily active NATO members, and as such is one of the least unlikely members to invoke article five. The increased obligations a NATO membership would entail is the primary reason I’m not in favour of NATO membership. Instead I would advocate for a bilateral alliance with the US or France, or ideally a trilateral alliance with Finland and the US. The chances of such an alliance actually coming to pass are in my view exceedingly slim, US president Joe Biden is stuck in the 20th century and would probably prefer Sweden and Finland be part of NATO instead.
NATO is built on the idea that the US would support western and since enlargement eastern Europe were the Russians to come knocking but I just don’t see the US taking real action to stop the Russians from attacking states like Ukraine and Georgia. NATO stating: “NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto such a process.” is good posturing, but when president Biden says things like: "It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do. But if they actually do what they're capable of doing with the forces amassed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia if they further invade Ukraine" it’s hard to take NATO too seriously. After all, NATO is just a bureaucracy if the member states aren’t interested in actually following up on their posturing. Biden also said that: "[Putin has] never seen sanctions like the ones I promised will be imposed if he moves, number one" which makes it clear that the US isn’t willing to back Ukraine militarily in case of an escalation of the conflict in eastern Ukraine. What’s the use of starting the process of joining a military alliance which doesn’t want to offer military aid when the enemy is at your border?
NATO exists on paper, but in practice its only use is in coordinating military exercises. Obviously, one would ever make an official statement declaring a military alliance officially defunct but that doesn't change the facts. Not only is it a terrible strategic move to let your enemies know that your alliance is officially over, but it also means letting a lot of NATO staff go. NATO states on its website that about 4000 people work full time at NATO headquarters which gives 4000 people, including diplomatic heavyweights like former Norwegian prime minister and current NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, strong incentives to make sure the organisation lives on as long as possible. I don’t support Swedish NATO membership for the same reason I don’t support Swedish League of Nations membership; the institution has outlived its usefulness. In a rapidly changing world it makes sense to cling to old institutions which have served us well in the past, but as times change we have to change with them. I’m very much in favour of alliances and more defence cooperation but we need to make sure we get allies we share interests with. It’s more difficult, and it’s more work, but when the stakes are as high as national defence we must make good decisions, not just easy decisions.
If you liked this post you can read my last post about 2022 predictions here, or the rest of my writings here. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Sources:
Cover Photo by Kris Møklebust from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson
Comments