Although accession to NATO membership was relatively quick, there were objections from some members, most notably Türkiye and, to a lesser extent, Hungary. Türkiye held up membership for Finland – and is still doing so for Sweden – due to its concerns over what it called support for terrorist groups, namely the Kurdistan Workers’ party.
Hungary also raised objections due to what it regarded as criticism by the Nordic states with regard to the strength of Hungarian democracy. But NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said recently he is confident that Sweden could become a member by summer.
VIEW FROM MOSCOW
If Russian President Vladimir Putin was hoping to achieve the Finlandisation of NATO as one of his strategic aims of the war, what he has actually achieved was the “NATO-isation” of Finland since it has now become the alliance’s 31st member state. With this comes Article 5 guarantees – an attack on one member is an attack on the alliance as a whole and must be responded to as such.
This fundamentally changes the defence and security posture of Finland, and European security architecture as a whole. Implications include the size and geographical focus of the alliance (even more so if Sweden joins in the not-too-distant future) as well as inter-organisational relations between NATO and the EU, the other key pillar of the European security architecture.
And Finland is not playing catch up in order to meet its NATO commitments. In fact, Finland will be a net contributor to the alliance’s overall collective defence. Over recent years, it has been modernising its armed forces, purchasing robust military capabilities and, unlike the majority of member states, it meets the NATO target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product spent on its own defence.
Putin has, of course, issued warnings to Finland (and Sweden) about joining the alliance. In 2016, Putin stated that “When we look across the border now, we see a Finn on the other side. If Finland joins NATO, we will see an enemy.”
For all the latest world News Click Here
