Russia's invasion of Ukraine has led to a fundamental rethinking of European security.
Perhaps the most dramatic symbol of this has been the landmark decision by Finland and Sweden to
abandon decades of non-alignment and apply to join NATO - the main Western security alliance.
But while the decision has been warmly welcomed by many members of the organization,
their hopes of joining now resting the balance as one country - Turkey - stands against them.
So, why exactly have they applied to join?
And will they really become members?
Hello and welcome. If you're new to the channel, my name is James Ker-Lindsay and
here I take an informed look at international relations, conflict, security and statehood.
How and why do countries choose to join military alliances?
In some cases, it's about direct security interests.
Facing a threat on their borders, a group of states may decide to pool their defences.
At other times, it can be about protecting a particular political or ideological position.
While not directly challenged, there's an understanding that
other like-minded countries should be defended.
Conversely, countries sometimes choose to remain outside of any formal security partnerships.
This may be due to wider public opinion, or the results of a formal constitutional provision.
Sometimes, it may even be enforced neutrality deriving from international treaties.
This question has come to the forefront of
international attention with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
On Wednesday, 18 May 2022, Finland and Sweden formally
submitted their applications to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO.
By any measure, this was a truly landmark development given that the two countries
have had a long history of neutrality and non-alignment
and, at least until just a few months ago, had seemingly been content to remain outside the body.
So, how did things change? And what happens next?
The origins of NATO lie in the Second World War.
In 1941, Britain and the United States issued the Atlantic Charter
confirming the central place of democracy and free trade in the post-conflict world.
However, as the war ended, the ideological differences with their main ally,
the Soviet Union came to the fore.
In 1945, the three countries agreed that while the terms of the Charter
should stand, the USSR would have a sphere of influence in central and eastern Europe.
In the years that followed, relations between the former allies deteriorated as the Cold War set in.
On 4 April 1949, the United States, Canada
and 10 countries of Western Europe signed the North Atlantic Treaty.
Designed to ensure their mutual security, the new alliance rested on the promise,
codified in Article 5, that an attack on one would constitute an attack on all.
Additionally, The treaty also specified that new members could be admitted by unanimous agreement.
As a result, just three years later the organisation
welcomed its first new members: Greece and Turkey.
Then, in May 1955, West Germany was admitted.
And it was in response to this that the Soviet Union
and seven states of central and eastern Europe signed their own defence agreement:
the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance - better known as the Warsaw Pact.
Although NATO expanded once more during the Cold War, admitting Spain in 1982,
by the late 1980s the world was changing.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the communist
regimes across central and eastern Europe, in early 1991 the Warsaw Pact was dissolved.
This was followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union later that year.
This naturally raised the question about the future of NATO.
However, with a myriad of new security challenges emerging,
including the wars in Yugoslavia, the prevailing view was that,
rather than disband the organisation, it should instead be strengthened and expanded.
As NATO celebrated its 50th anniversary, in 1999,
it welcomed its first post-cold war members: Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
This was followed in 2004 by the three Baltic states - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - as well
as Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia; the first member from former Yugoslavia.
In 2009, Albania and Croatia joined, followed by Montenegro in 2017.
The most recent new addition was North Macedonia,
in 2020 - taking the membership of the alliance up to its present 30..
Meanwhile, NATO has also opened the way for further members.
In 2008, it welcomed Ukraine and Georgia's membership aspirations;
although it seems highly unlikely that either will join in the foreseeable future.
And in 2010 Bosnia-Herzegovina started on its road to membership.
All this means that NATO now includes
most European states; including 21 of the 27 members of the European Union.
However, a few countries remain outside the alliance.
As well as Switzerland, Austria and Ireland from Western Europe, this includes Serbia and Kosovo
from the Western Balkans; Moldova from the former Soviet Union; the two small Mediterranean island
states of Malta and Cyprus; and, until now, the two Nordic countries Sweden and Finland.
At 450,000 square kilometres, or 175,000 square miles,
Sweden is the 55th largest member of the UN.
Its population currently stands at 10.4 million.
Sweden's armed forces consists of around 14,000 active personnel and 10,000 reservists.
In 2020, it spent approximately 1.2 percent of its GDP on defence.
To its immediate east is Finland.
At 340,000 square kilometres, or 130,000 square miles, this makes it the 65th
largest member of the UN and its population currently stands at around 5.5 million.
Militarily, Finland's active armed forces stand at around 19,000, with around 240,000 reservists.
And it spent 1.5 percent of its GDP on defence.
In both cases, this spending falls below the two percent NATO members are expected
to commit to defence spending; although many members have long failed to meet this target.
While there's perhaps a tendency to think that their long-standing detachment from
NATO was the result of some sort of shared Nordic belief in neutrality,
their positions were in fact shaped by very different circumstances.
For Sweden, the origins of its neutrality stretch back over 200 years to the Napoleonic Wars,
when it lost considerable territory to Russia - including, ironically, Finland.
Since then, it's actively avoided involvement in European conflicts;
even maintaining its neutrality throughout the Second World War.
In contrast, Finland's position is shaped by the practicalities of its complex relationship with
neighbouring Russia, with which it shares a 1300 kilometre, or 830 mile, border.
Having declared independence from Russia in 1917, it fought a brutal conflict against the Soviet
Union during the Second World War - a conflict that would cost it large swathes of territory.
As the Cold War got underway, it was effectively forced to accept non-alignment
as the price of maintaining a parliamentary democracy.
In this sense, and has been pointed out by the country's former prime minister,
its position was dictated by real politic, rather than ideological neutrality.
However, in the post-Cold War era,
their formal positions have become increasingly meaningless in real terms.
In 1996, they joined the European Union, which committed them to mutual defence.
In addition, both countries have established close relations with NATO.
As one Swedish foreign minister noted,
all this meant that his country had replaced neutrality with security cooperation.
In this sense, while the decision to join NATO was symbolically significant,
especially in Sweden's case, it isn't quite as dramatic as it might seem.
That said, until recently neither country showed much interest in
formally ditching their respective positions and joining the alliance.
Aside from long-standing political opposition in both countries,
there was little public desire for change.
Although polling in Sweden has shown rising support for NATO membership in recent years,
it was still usually under 40 percent.
In Finland, a 2017 poll showed that just 21 percent wanted NATO membership.
However, Russia's invasion of Ukraine changed all this.
As the Finnish president said in an interview with CNN,
Moscow's decision to cite NATO enlargement as a reason for attacking Ukraine - an independent
state - indicated that Russia not only believed that it had a veto over NATO membership,
but that it also felt it had the right to use force to stop enlargement.
This was, in Finland's view, unacceptable.
This in turn has also led to a dramatic shift in public attitudes.
Polling conducted in May 2022 showed that 72 percent of Finns wanted to join NATO.
And while the shift in Sweden was perhaps less marked, a survey conducted in April 2022
nevertheless showed that 57 percent supported joining the alliance.
So, what happens now?
Under usual circumstances, the membership process is divided into several distinct parts.
The first step consists of talks to ensure that the new entrant is ready and willing
to meet the political, legal, military, and security obligations of membership.
If needed, this includes drawing up a timetable for reforms.
Once this has been completed, the process of ratification begins;
first with the current members and then with the applicant.
In most recent cases, this has tended to be a relatively long process - often taking a
decade or more and involving what's known as a Membership Action Plan;
an individually tailored blueprint for joining.
However, in the case of Finland and Sweden, the general view is that the process can be
completed very quickly indeed - a point even underscored by the NATO Secretary-General.
There's no doubt that they meet the political and legal criteria for membership.
Likewise, militarily, they are already closely aligned to NATO.
As well as having cooperated closely on multilateral missions,
they enjoy what's called enhanced cooperation with the alliance.
By all accounts, the process could therefore be completed in a matter of months.
However, an unexpected problem has arisen that now threatens to derail their application altogether.
While most NATO members have warmly welcomed the decision by Finland and
Sweden to apply to join the organisation - not only because it marks a powerful
symbol of European solidarity at a crucial moment but also because it will strengthen
the alliance's all-important northern flank - Turkey has come out against their membership.
Accusing both countries of harbouring Kurdish separatists and other anti-government groups,
the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, made international headlines when he told Finnish
and Swedish representatives not to bother coming to Ankara to win Turkey's support.
Of course, this isn't the first time that the country has opposed membership by another state.
Greece blocked North Macedonia's application for over a decade.
But many will see this as far more serious given the wider
political developments taking place at the moment.
The question is whether the impasse can be broken.
On the one hand, many observers see this as brinksmanship by the Turkish government
and believe that it will ultimately relent; especially in the face of strong pressure
from other NATO partners, and perhaps with the promise of new equipment.
But this is far from certain.
The Kurdish issue is incredibly sensitive in Turkey.
To this end, they've already been reports that Ankara wants to see both countries
formally denounce Kurdish militancy before it lifts its objections.
On top of this, there's also talk that Ankara wants to see both countries lift restrictions
on arms exports that were imposed after Turkey launched incursions into Syria - restrictions
that it should be noted were also imposed by various other Western countries.
Whether a bargain can be reached remains to be seen.
Notwithstanding the Turkish president's statements,
it's known that both countries are in fact in back channel talks with Turkey.
But for now the alliance is trying to put out a positive public message
with Washington insisting that it is confident that the two will eventually join.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes one can be sure that there'll be constant negotiations going on
to try to win over the Turkish government.
But what can be said for certain is that if Turkey does maintain its current position
and blocks Finland and Sweden from joining there will be real anger.
Quite apart from denying Europe a truly historic opportunity to strengthen its security by bringing
on two strategically valuable new members at a moment of real crisis, it will further confirm
the view in many quarters the Turkey - which in fact has its own long history of consorting with
groups and regimes its partners don't like - is utterly unfit to be in the alliance.
Indeed one suspects that most NATO members would already readily trade Finland and Sweden for
Turkey; that is, if the North Atlantic Treaty had a clause setting out how to expel a member.
And if you're interested in learning more about Turkey's difficult relationship with
its NATO partners, here's something else you might find interesting.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.