On February 24th, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to make his mark on
Russian history by restoring Ukraine to a puppet state and pushing NATO back and away
from its borders.
Instead, President Putin will go down in history as the man who made NATO great again and even
added additional countries to its roster.
But why is Russia so scared of Finland and Sweden joining NATO?
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was provoked in large part by the nation's refusal to submit
to Kremlin authority.
After a presidential coup in 2014, Ukraine looked like it was on a path to join the West
and leave Russia behind.
Enshrined in its constitution was an amendment that Ukraine would pursue NATO membership
as a matter of highest priority, and work began on meeting the requirements for entry
into the alliance.
For Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, this was beyond unacceptable.
Historically, Russia has suffered greatly from European invaders, ranging from the French
during the Napoleonic Wars to the Germans in both World Wars.
After the Second World War though, eastern Europe was severely weakened and an opportunity
opened up for the Soviet Union to expand its sphere of influence all the way to Germany
itself.
This wasn't just a power grab though, it was a matter of vital national security for the
Russians.
By creating a slew of client states across eastern Europe, the Soviet Union had in essence
created a buffer between itself and western europe.
Now, any invasion could be met outside of native territory, saving the lives of millions
of Russian citizens and preserving the economy of the nation.
A buffer between itself and a potential invader is specially important because Russia's strategic
position in Europe is extremely weak.
The nation sits at the eastern end of the great European plain, a vast stretch of flat
territory that is impossible to defend.
Historically Russian forces have struggled to hold off invaders coming form its west
as the landscape offers few natural defensive features, and with the advent of modern, high-speed
warfare the strategic picture only grew grimmer for Russians.
During World War II the only thing slowing German advances was sheer grit and determination
from the Russian defenders, who tried to choke the mighty German war machine by throwing
hordes of men at it.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, freed former client states like Lithuania, Latvia,
and Estonia were all quick to pursue NATO membership.
For them it was a matter of national survival- the Soviet Union may have collapsed but nobody
was foolish enough to think that the new Russian Federation had simply given up on its desire
to control eastern europe.
For existing NATO members though the consideration was a difficult one- technically the three
Baltic states offer very little to the alliance and are more a liability than an asset, except
in one very important regard: their location on Russia's flank.
Adopting the three Baltic countries into NATO now opened up a wide front on the Russian
northwestern flank, which threw Russia's force disposition wildly off balance.
For decades NATO had contended with the very real possibility that in case of war, they
would be unable to stop a concentrated attack across the infamous Fulda gap in Germany.
With Norway offering no opportunity for NATO to seriously threaten the Soviet Union from
its tiny border with the union, the Soviets were able to concentrate the bulk of their
firepower in East Germany for a decisive and brutal attack straight into the heart of NATO.
After the adoption of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into NATO however, now the alliance
could threaten Russia right on its own doorstep across a very wide front- and this forced
the new Russian Federation to more widely disperse its forces.
To add to Russia's problems, the terrain across the Baltic front is very poorly suited for
defensive operations, requiring even more troops to secure its border in the region.
Now Russia's strategic position was greatly weakened, as it was forced to disperse its
forces across numerous probable engagement areas.
It also put the military enclave of Kaliningrad in serious jeopardy, as NATO could threaten
it from the south through Poland and from the north through Lithuania.
Finally, it severely weakened Russia's position in the Baltic sea, as NATO ships had friendly
ports across the eastern side of the Baltic sea and could easily bottleneck the Russian
fleet much like the British did the Germans in both world wars.
The balance of power in Europe had been irrevocably thrown askew, and now favored the NATO alliance
in case of war.
The addition of Ukraine would have been an unmitigated disaster, as now Russia would
be flanked by NATO both to the northwest and the south, with Moscow just a few hundred
miles in either direction for hostile forces.
Even more importantly, Ukraine's ascension to NATO would have given the alliance complete
and unmitigated control over the Black Sea, shutting Russian Black Sea ports off from
the world and giving the alliance incredible control over the sea routes that Russia relies
on for both imports and exports.
The military invasion of Ukraine has, for now at least, put a stop to Ukraine's joining
of either the EU or NATO, but in response Sweden and Finland, two nations that have
remained staunchly neutral, are now in very serious discussions about joining the alliance.
In fact, by the time you watch this video they may have already expressed publicly their
desire to do so.
Finland has a troubled history with Russia.
During World War II, the Soviet Union invaded Finland under the auspices of increasing security
for the important sea port of St. Petersburg.
At first, Stalin gave the Fins an ultimatum- grant us several dozen miles of border territory
so we can ensure the security of St. Petersburg- then named Leningrad.
In exchange, the Soviets would grant Finland several miles of completely useless territory
along the northern border.
Finland naturally refused, and Stalin used this as an excuse for war.
Historians debate whether Stalin ever meant to fully capture Finland or not, though the
evidence is strong that he did given that he enacted a puppet Finnish Communist government
in occupied territories.
Plus, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany meant the Soviets didn't need to fear German
intervention nor a possible German threat in the south, freeing them up for a full invasion
of Finland.
The capture of Finland would have granted them access to Finland's natural resources,
and allowed them to establish greater control over the Baltic Sea.
However, Stalin's ambition would never come to pass as Finland proved to be a lot tougher
than the Soviets had thought.
Finnish resistance fought a staunch defensive war, in terrain that heavily favored it.
However, it was largely the Soviet Union's own military that led to a ceasefire three
months later with meager territorial gains.
Stalin had, in his paranoia, carried out large purges of the Red Army, eliminating many senior
leaders whom he viewed as a threat to his rule.
While this may have secured his political office, it left the Soviet army without experienced,
professional officers, replaced instead with politically indoctrinated and loyal stooges
who cared more about ensuring political loyalty than actual discipline and training.
The price to the Soviet Union was great in manpower and resources, though it did win
approximately 9% of Finland's territory- more than originally asked for.
However, its international standing was severely hurt, which in turn affected just how much
aid it would later receive in its war against Germany.
Perhaps most tragic of all for the Soviets though is the fact that the war proved to
Hitler that the Soviet Union was a weak, ineffective power.
A clumsy giant with a large military but not very good at wielding it.
This convinced Hitler that invading the Soviet Union was possible after all even while at
war with the western allies, and would cost the Soviets millions of lives.
Given its history with the Soviets, Finland remained neutral throughout the Cold War and
sought instead to appease Moscow by establishing bilateral relations.
While it cooperated with NATO forces in international missions, it did not wish to join the alliance
for fear of provoking its next door neighbor.
Sweden, likewise, has maintained a policy of cooperation but neutrality with the West,
believing it to be safer to remain neutral than potentially provoke a Russian retaliation.
For 75 years public opinion polls in both nations showed that the majority of citizens
wished to remain neutral, and it isn't hard to see why- in case of war, their countries
were right next door to Russia, while most of NATO is still far from the Russian border.
The heaviest fighting of any war would be taking place on their soil.
However, after February 24th, the security situation in Europe has been completely rewritten,
and public opinion polls mirror that- with, for the first time in their history- a majority
of Finnish and Swedish citizens wishing to join NATO.
The invasion of Ukraine has proven to the two long-time neutral countries that if Russia
doesn't like what's going on inside your borders, it's very likely to invite itself in and change
matters how it sees fit.
Now Finland and Sweden have reason to fear that their neutrality is no longer a security
guarantee, and any prior agreement with Russia is essentially worthless.
After all, Ukraine had an agreement with Russia to preserve its independence in exchange for
Cold War era Soviet nuclear weapons left behind on its territory after the fall of the union.
For Russia, Sweden and Finland's accession to NATO would mean that it is essentially
blocked from the Baltic Sea in case of hostilities.
Now NATO members would threaten Russian ships on all sides, and allow NATO navies to operate
right off Russia's own shores by providing nearby replenishment and resupply.
American aircraft carriers could for instance operate safely inside the Baltic Sea for the
first time in history after a thorough sweep of the Russian baltic fleet by NATO ships.
Having two or more American supercarriers parked right off its own shore is a nightmare
scenario for Russia, as it would be for any country, and the accession of the two Nordic
countries to NATO would make this possible.
Finland and Sweden joining NATO also turns the entire nordic peninsula into a NATO enclave,
effectively hemming in the Russians on two sides.
NATO air defense installations in Finland could seriously threaten deep parts of the
Russian territory, limiting the use of Russia's air forces in case of war.
It also places dozens of strategically important targets within striking range of NATO aircraft
at the immediate onset of war, forcing Russia to more widely disperse its defensive forces
and weakening them, while hampering its ability to launch offensive operations.
Even more important though, as Vladimir Putin sought to improve Russia's security situation
against NATO, Finland's membership would mean that instead Putin created an additional 800
miles of vulnerability thanks to Finland's shared border with Russia.
This now places NATO forces less than 60 miles from St. Petersburg, and within easy striking
distance of additional Russian targets in the north.
While Russia may have difficulty moving a few dozen miles into enemy territory to seize
a major city, NATO's swift and agile military would have no similar difficulties- and Putin
knows this, which is why he is so terrified of NATO gaining a significant presence so
close to vulnerable Russian territory.
It's unlikely that Sweden and Finland will be deterred from joining NATO thanks to Russia's
invasion of Ukraine.
NATO itself has vowed to fast-track the two country's membership, largely thanks to the
fact that both Sweden and Finland already fulfill most of the requirements for membership.
NATO's five requirements for membership include:
New members must uphold democratic values and enshrine protections for minority populations,
embracing and tolerating diversity.
New members must be making progress towards a market economy- this is a Cold War era leftover
as potential new eastern european members struggled to throw off the Soviet economic
system forced on them.
Military forces of new members must be under the firm control of civilian authorities-
military dictatorships need not apply.
New members must respect the sovereignty of other nations and be good neighbors.
Potential members must be working towards compatibility with NATO forces.
This means that their military command structure, training, and equipment must meet strict standards
to ensure that a new member is not a liability in time of war.
Equipment used by a new member must also show some degree of interoperability with other
NATO members to ease the burden of logistics- if 29 of the NATO members are using a specific
caliber rifle but a 30th is using a different caliber, it makes logistics for the 30th member
much more difficult.
NATO members must be able to share and use equipment in time of war.
Sweden and Finland are both vibrant democracies with strong liberal values, unlike authoritarian
Russia.
Their militaries are both very well equipped and extremely proficient, easily meeting NATO
training and operational standards.
Membership into the alliance can be fast-tracked for both countries seeing as they so easily
fit the NATO mold already.
However, there is fear that Vladimir Putin will retaliate before both countries can formally
join NATO and enjoy the Article 5 protection of the alliance.
He has already stated that there would be severe “military and economic consequences”
if either nation sought out NATO membership.
For this reason, NATO has already approved a temporary commitment to protect both nations
during the application process, which could still take months.
This way Russia cannot bully or intimidate Sweden or Finland as they contemplate this
momentous decision, and the two nations are free to choose for themselves what path to
take to national security.
Given Russia's performance in Ukraine, it's highly unlikely that it will risk war against
Finland and Sweden's completely modern militaries in order to prevent them from joining NATO.
Right now Russia can only afford to lose one war at a time, and even without NATO both
Finland and Sweden, working together, could make a Russian attack against them an extremely
costly one that would see little political or territorial gain.
Given that the terrain itself is far more suitable for defensive operations, it seems
unlikely that Russia will seek to stop both country's ascension via military means- but
it does not eliminate the threat of nuclear attack, a recourse many fear Putin is more
than capable of turning to in face of his military's ineptitude.
Without NATO membership, Sweden and Finland are not covered under the American nuclear
umbrella the way other nations are, and remain vulnerable to this final, and most dramatic
of intimidation tactics.
Now go watch What Is Wrong With Russia's Military- or click this other video instead!