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.