NEWS
ANALYSIS
The alliance’s expansion, with Finland last year and
soon Sweden, was a consequence from the invasion of Ukraine that Russia’s
president may not have calculated.
Steven
Erlanger
By Steven
Erlanger
Steven
Erlanger has covered NATO for many years and has reported from Sweden, Finland
and Norway since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
Feb. 26,
2024
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/world/europe/nato-sweden-ukraine-russia.html
BERLIN —
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine two years ago was an enormous shock to
Europeans. Used to 30 years of post-Cold War peace, they had imagined European
security would be built alongside a more democratic Russia, not reconstructed
against a revisionist imperial war machine.
There was
no bigger shock than in Finland, with its long border and historical tension
with Russia, and in Sweden, which had dismantled 90 percent of its army and 70
percent of its air force and navy in the years after the collapse of the Soviet
Union.
After the
decision by Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to try to destroy a
sovereign neighbor, both Finland and Sweden rapidly decided to apply to join
the NATO alliance, the only clear guarantee of collective defense against a
newly aggressive and reckless Russia.
With
Finland having joined last year, and the Hungarian Parliament finally approving
Sweden’s application on Monday, Mr. Putin now finds himself faced with an
enlarged and motivated NATO, one that is no longer dreaming of a permanent
peace.
As NATO
countries look with some trepidation at the possibility that the unpredictable
Donald J. Trump, no fan of the alliance, may become U.S. president again, its
European members are taking measures to ensure their own defenses regardless.
Critics
consider their actions to be too slow and too small, but NATO is spending more
money on defense, making more tanks, artillery shells, drones and jet fighters,
putting more troops on Russia’s borders and approving more serious military
plans for any potential war — while funneling billions of dollars into
Ukraine’s efforts to blunt Russia’s ambitions.
The reason
is sheer deterrence. Some member states already suggest that if Mr. Putin
succeeds in Ukraine, he will test NATO’s collective will in the next three to
five years.
If Mr.
Trump is elected and casts serious doubt on the commitment of the United States
to come to the defense of NATO allies, “that might tip the scales for Putin to
test NATO’s resolve,” said Robert Dalsjo, director of studies at the Swedish
Defense Research Agency.
Even now,
Mr. Dalsjo said, Mr. Trump or not, Europe must prepare for at least a
generation of heightened European containment and deterrence of a Russia
becoming militarized, and where Mr. Putin clearly “has considerable public
support for his aggressive revanchism.”
Still, with
Hungary finally voting for Sweden’s accession to NATO, at last the pieces are
falling into place for a sharply enhanced NATO deterrent in the Baltic and
North Seas, with greater protection for the frontline states of Finland, Norway
and the Baltic nations, which border Russia.
Once
Hungary hands in a letter certifying parliamentary approval to the U.S. State
Department, Sweden will become the 32nd member of NATO, and all the countries
surrounding the Baltic Sea, with the exception of Russia, will be part of the
alliance.
“Sweden
brings predictability, removing any uncertainty about how we would act in a
crisis or a war,” Mr. Dalsjo said. Given Sweden’s geography, including Gotland,
the island that helps control the entrance to the Baltic Sea, membership “will
make defense and deterrence much easier to accomplish,” he said.
It was
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine two years ago that pushed Finland into
deciding to join NATO, and Helsinki pulled a somewhat more reluctant Sweden
into applying to join as well.
Finland,
with its long border with Russia, saw the most imminent danger; the Swedes did
too, but were also convinced, especially on the political left, by a sense of
moral outrage that Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council,
would seek to destroy a peaceful, sovereign neighbor.
“Overall
the feeling is that we’ll be safer,” said Anna Wieslander, a Swede who is
director for northern Europe for the Atlantic Council.
History
mattered, too, said Mr. Dalsjo. “If Finland joined we had to — we could not be
a wall between Finland and its helpers in the West one more time,” as neutral
Sweden had been during Finland’s brave but losing “Winter War” against the
Soviet Union in 1939, when Finland had to cede some 11 percent of its territory
to Moscow.
With Sweden
and Finland together in NATO, it will be much easier to bottle up the Russian
surface navy in the Baltic Sea and to monitor the High North. Russia still has
up to two-thirds of its second-strike nuclear weapons there, based on the Kola
Peninsula.
So the new
members will help provide enhanced monitoring of a crucial part of Russia’s
military, said Niklas Granholm, the deputy director of studies at the Defense
Research Agency.
Russia’s
fleet in Kaliningrad, on the Baltic Sea between Poland and Lithuania, is only
200 miles away, and so are its Iskander nuclear-capable missiles. NATO planners
have long worried about how to support the Baltic nations if Russia seized the
40-mile “Suwalki Gap” between Kaliningrad and Belarus, but Sweden’s position
straddling both the North and Baltic Seas would make it much easier to send
NATO reinforcements.
Russia will
still retain its land-based missiles, of course, but its nuclear-armed
submarines may find it more difficult to maneuver out into the open sea without
detection.
Sweden,
with its own advanced high-tech defense industry, makes its own excellent
fighter planes, naval corvettes and submarines, designed to operate in the
difficult environment of the Baltic Sea. It has already begun to develop and
build a new class of modern submarines and larger corvettes for coastal and air
defense.
With NATO
membership, it will be easier now to coordinate with Finland and Denmark, which
also have key islands in the Baltic Sea, and with Norway.
After the
collapse of the Soviet Union, Stockholm decided that war was a thing of the
past. It removed nearly all of its forces from Gotland, and reduced the
national army by around 90 percent and the navy and air force by about 70
percent.
The forces
are slowly being restored, and spending on the military, which was close to 3
percent of gross domestic product during the Cold War but sank to about 1
percent, this year will reach 2 percent, the current NATO standard. “These
investments will take time, and we need to move faster,” Mr. Granholm said.
Sweden may
also join NATO’s multinational enhanced forward brigade in Latvia, intended to
put allied troops in all the alliance countries bordering Russia.
Sweden’s
main tasks, Ms. Wieslander said, will be to help guard the Baltic Sea and the
airspace over Kaliningrad; to ensure the security of Gothenburg, which is key
for resupply and reinforcements; and to serve as a staging area for American
and NATO troops, with agreements for the advance positioning of equipment,
ammunition, supplies and field hospitals.
For both
Finland and Sweden, membership is the end of a long 30-year process of what Mr.
Dalsjo called “our long goodbye to neutrality.” First came the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the decision to join the European Union, which meant dropping
neutrality for what both countries called “military nonalignment.”
Sweden,
which had quiet defense guarantees from the United States, gradually became
more explicitly Atlanticist and integrated more and more with NATO, he said.
“And now we take the final step.”
Sweden will
need to adapt its strategic culture to working within an alliance, Ms.
Wieslander said. “It will be a big difference for us, and allies will expect
Sweden to show some leadership.”
Like
Finland, Sweden will need to integrate its forces into NATO and develop new
capabilities for collective defense rather than concentrating solely on
defending the homeland.
“It’s a
steep learning curve,” said Mr. Granholm. “We don’t yet have the full picture
of NATO’s regional plans,” but will now as a full member. “Then we need to sink
our teeth into what NATO wants us to do, and what we want to do. We are doing
this to protect ourselves, after all.”
Steven
Erlanger is the chief diplomatic correspondent in Europe and is based in
Berlin. He has reported from over 120 countries, including Thailand, France,
Israel, Germany and the former Soviet Union. More about
Steven Erlanger

Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário