"A striking U -turn." Experts - on the entry of Sweden and Finland to NATO

Are the United States ready to defend Finland? Does the Kremlin see the threat to NATO? Is NATO's extension the only way to stop Putin? Is it possible to agree with the current authorities of Russia?

We are talking about the American reaction to NATO and Sweden, we are talking to the former President of Radio Liberty/Free Europe, the chief editor of the American Interest magazine Jeffrey Gedmin , senior researcher of the Washington Center for Strategic and International Research Kathleen Macinnis and American publicist David Satter .

On May 18, Finland and Sweden submitted applications for joining NATO . This step of the two Scandinavian countries was welcomed in all NATO capitals, with the exception of one - Ankara, who announced his intention to block the reception of new members until they cease to provide asylum to members of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, recognized by the terrorist organization by the European Union and the United States. No one, apparently, doubts that the objections of Ankara will eventually be removed by Finland and Sweden adopted to the North Atlantic Union. According to commentators , one of the most amazing aspects of this story is that how unanimous the support of this decision of the two countries is, despite the fact that the expansion of NATO promises to become the largest geopolitical outcome of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the war launched by the Kremlin under the pretext of preventing the expansion of NATO east to the borders of Russia.

In fact, not everyone is welcoming the expansion of NATO. While President Biden welcomed the heads of Finland and Sweden in Washington, promising complete unconditional support for their entry into the Union, some fairly prominent figures in the American political establishment, close to the right wing of the Republican Party, such as the former presidential candidate Patrick Bukenen, call on to think about: in the interests of the US Two more countries to protect which the United States will have to speak in the event of an attack on Russia? In other words, why should America defend Finland, risking a war with a nuclear power?

However, American skeptics are in a clear minority. The reason, according to my interlocutors, is obvious: Russia's invasion of Ukraine has proved that NATO membership is the only working guarantee from Russia's attack. At the same time, Russia's traditional loud verbal threats addressed NATO member countries, which, by the way, suddenly fell, hardly anyone already pays attention.

Kathleen Makinnis explains so much to Washington’s support in NATO Finland and Sweden:

The unpredictability of Moscow’s behavior forced Finland and Sweden to join NATO

“The possible accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is generally considered in the United States as a positive step, especially from the point of view of official Washington,” says Katherine Makinnis . - The fact is that Finland and Sweden were closely cooperated with NATO for many years. For example, they participated in NATO operation in Afghanistan. These two countries invested in their armed forces. Their armies now have exceptional military-technical capabilities. In fact, in NATO long ago, these countries were not hidden as members of the Union precisely because of the quality of their armed forces and successful cooperation in Afghanistan. To this, it is necessary to add a striking turn of the public opinion of these countries in favor of joining the North Atlantic Union. Just a few years ago, only 20 to 30 percent of the Finns supported the idea of joining NATO, today - 76. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has changed many ideas. Three or four months ago, most military analysts in Washington and other NATO capitals did not understand the strategic significance of these actions of the Kremlin. The prevailing point of view was that these actions are aimed at achieving advantages in negotiations on the future of Ukraine. We can say that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was a shock for them. I believe that it was the unpredictability of Moscow’s behavior that caused the leadership of Finland and Sweden to reconsider its former positions and join NATO.

US President Joe Biden, Prime Minister of Sweden Magdalena Andersson and President of Finland Sauli Ninist after a meeting in the White House on May 19, 2022

- The Kremlin claims that he considers the expansion of NATO as a threat. Some time ago, the Kremlin demanded guarantees of the unacceptable of Ukraine in NATO, further non -expanding the Union to the East as the main condition for the withdrawal of troops from the border of Ukraine. Some prominent American political scientists, however, tend to believe in the reality of these fears of the Kremlin. On whose side are you in a long -standing dispute of American supporters and opponents of NATO expansion?

- I think the disputes about whether the expansion of NATO was the reason for what Russia is doing in Ukraine is now counter -productive. In this regard, it is impossible to draw certain conclusions. But we know that the North Atlantic Union is a defensive organization, that it created different formats in which dialogue and cooperation with Russia was possible. Let us recall that even in 2010, two years after Russia's invasion of Georgia, the NATO Union announced the concept of its strategy, where Russia was not mentioned as a source of threat, but for some reason Moscow decided not to pay attention to this. In my opinion, there is no connection between the expansion of NATO and the current crisis because it is not confirmed by historical facts.

- Can after the Russian invasion become a more real prospect of joining NATO Ukraine?

- Any European state has the right to apply for an entry into NATO and the right to consider this application. Russia publicly rejects this message, but the North Atlantic Union has repeatedly confirmed that it is ready to consider the candidacy of Ukraine in the future if it submits an application for joining NATO. This war is an existential event for Ukraine. After its completion, Ukraine will largely be another country that will need to be rebuilt and ensure its security as it considers necessary, ”says Kathleen Makinnis.

The attack of Russia on Ukraine so shook all the previous ideas about relations with the Kremlin that the role of NATO as a unique tool for containing Russia became completely obvious to everyone, says Jeffrey Gedmin: Jeffrey Gedmin:

“From the point of view of the United States, the expansion of NATO due to Finland and Sweden will strengthen security in this part of Europe, and this is an important reason why the decision of these countries is widely supported in the United States,” says Gedmin . - Against the background of what is happening in Ukraine, the Swedes and Finns feel vulnerable, they feel the threat from Russia and perfectly understand that they will be more security in NATO. And the overwhelming number of Americans understand this.

- Mr. Gedmin, I looked at the headlines of comments in the American press. The vast majority is definitely in favor of NATO expansion. But there are several famous people, for example, Republican Patrick Buchenen, a former presidential candidate, who ask the question: in the interests of the United States, admission to NATO Finland, who will look like a provocative step in the eyes of the Kremlin and can potentially plunge the United States into the war with Russia? Why do we need this? How would you answer him?

- There is not a single NATO member and no one in Washington who would consider the expansion of NATO as an attempt to pose a threat to Russia. The presence of such ideas in Russia is obvious, but they are completely divorced from political or strategic reality. As for the position of American opponents of NATO expansion, they are in full minority. Most of the American political establishment believes that there is a wider definition of what is in the interests of the United States Security. Such a question was asked when the Baltic countries were accepted in NATO, or for decades earlier, when we have come in defense of West Berlin, a small island in the territory of communist eastern Germany with two million inhabitants. Then it was completely clear that safety and stability in Europe are in our universal interests. Soon, the issue of joining NATO Finland and Sweden will be considered by Congress, and then we will probably witness the debate on this issue in the Senate.

- Does the benefit of taking Finland and Sweden in NATO justify the potential danger of Russia's response steps, say, the placement of nuclear weapons in the region or other measures that can aggravate the confrontation?

Now it is impossible to exclude the use of biological, chemical and even tactical nuclear weapons by Russia

- The reception of these countries should be considered in a much wider context. Honestly, six months ago I was not particularly worried about whether the defense of Finland and Sweden was strong. But we found ourselves in a situation where Ukraine became the object of unprovided aggression from Russia. This war is far from the end. Now it is impossible to exclude the use of biological, chemical and even tactical nuclear weapons. In this situation, in this new world, the application of Finland to join NATO looks different. I think in our universal interests the joint protection of a single, free, peaceful Europe.

- It is interesting that this very argument is the danger of a nuclear conflict with Russia is just used by those who call for a more restrained response to the Russian attack on Ukraine. Say, you can’t catch Putin to the wall, he can resort to nuclear weapons.

- Nuclear war is a terrible script. This danger has many on their minds, no one treats it lightweight, but if we allow the tyrants to use the threat of the use of nuclear weapons as a trump card, this will mean the end of NATO, the end of the principle of joint defense. Because questions will arise: will we risk the nuclear war for the protection of Poland or Germany? If we allow fear about the nuclear war to dictate our actions, then we will be paralyzed, then it suddenly turns out that Germany, Poland, and other countries are really in danger.

- Mr. Gedmin, we know that NATO without any reason is a red rag for the Kremlin. You and the vast majority of American analysts and politicians advocate the expansion of NATO, for the distribution of security guarantees to a larger number of countries. But at one time I was surprised by the recognition of the great critic of the Kremlin historian Richard Pipe, a native of Poland, that he was against Poland's entry into NATO. Why? In order not to excite the phantom fears of Russia. By this logic, the West again excites these fears?

If we allow fear about the nuclear war to dictate our actions, then we will be paralyzed

- I understand that a certain number of Russians, including a significant part of the intelligentsia, perceive NATO as a threat. My coordinate system is completely different. Firstly, I want security guarantees to be provided to 135 million people in Eastern and Central Europe, who held a significant part of the twentieth century, living in communist dictatorships and under the threatening shadow of Soviet and German imperialism. They were released in 1989-1990, and they always sought to receive, figuratively speaking, an insurance policy from the West, they knocked on our doors, trying to become part of our security structure. Secondly, the skeptics who called not to expand NATO can be asked the question: today there would be central and eastern Europe in greater safety, would it be more stable if it would live in the world if these countries remained outside NATO? My experience tells me that since in the last twenty -odd years we had to deal with Vladimir Putin, a person who reacts to manifestation of weakness with provocations and respects only strength, the lack of guarantees of Eastern European countries from NATO would provoke more, and not less aggressive behavior of Putin. This is my opinion.

Computer graphics illustrating a blow to the United States with hypersonic weapons, shown on Russian television as an illustration of Vladimir Putin's statement on the creation of new types of nuclear weapons on March 1, 2018

- Mr. Gedmin, from what you say, it should not be stopped, because there are very good reasons for that. For Vladimir Putin, at least in words this is unacceptable. What is the prospect: the enmity is inevitable before the change of power in Moscow?

“I would say yes.” For me, there is no doubt that if the NATO union suddenly decided to refuse to receive new members or even decided to dissolve, we would still have big problems in relations with Russia. Relations will instantly change for the better when a government will come to power in Russia, the purpose of which will not be imperial expansion, not striving to create spheres of influences, which does not make a bet on confrontation with the West. The behavior of the authorities in Moscow led us to the crisis, the change of power there will open the way to the exit from it, ”says Jeffrey Gedmin.

- On Monday, May 16, the unexpected statement was made by Russian President Vladimir Putin. He, unlike the Russian Foreign Ministry, whose warnings against Finland and Sweden border the threats, spoke out quite conciliatoryly regarding the prospects for the membership of these countries in NATO. “We have no problems with these countries,” said Vladimir Putin, “the expansion of NATO does not create threats to Russia at their expense.” Did this, in fact, become a sensational statement by the moment of truth: evidence of Putin’s true attitude towards NATO or the Russian president simply reconciled with circumstances, inability to stop the expansion of the defensive union?

The so -called fears of Russia about the threat from NATO are information for fools

“It's hard to say how to determine the moment of truth,” says David Satter . - For me, the moment came when it became obvious to everyone that we should restrain Russia. And even the most naive person who used to believe that it is necessary to satisfy their fears and requirements, that they have some legitimate reasons to fear NATO expansion, they see that in reality we are dealing with an aggressor country from which we need to defend ourselves. This is the moment when people realized that countries that are not able to protect themselves are the most vulnerable. If, for example, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia would not be NATO members, I think they would have experienced very serious pressure from Russia for a long time, and maybe even an invasion. The so -called fears of Russia about the threat from NATO are information for fools. Thus, the Kremlin will misinform the Russian population, but it also works in relation to Western countries that do not understand Russian psychology very well, believe that maybe they are really afraid of us, maybe we should show them how peaceful we are. But our demonstration of peaceful intentions creates for Russia a space for maneuver. It is better to irritate Russia, but protect against it than to satisfy its unreasonable requirements and be vulnerable. According to this logic, the Baltic countries acted. And their calculation was correct. Little Estonia with the population of one million has not yet been affected, because it is part of NATO. Ukraine, where the population is more than 40 million, is now fighting for its existence, because it was not in the structure of NATO.

- That is, you have no doubt that mortal fears about the expansion of NATO, which the Kremlin speaks of, expressed in modern Russian language, fake?

- All these claims are at least insincere. Yeltsin immediately immediately after he established the so -called democratic power in Russia, although it was essentially not very democratic, began to complain about the suffering of the Russian -speaking population in the Baltic states. This was before the Baltic states joined NATO. It was clearly a deposit of the future with the expectation of expansion. The same thing with complaints about the so -called Western deception regarding the expansion of NATO. It was a deposit to have something in the future, if you need an excuse for aggression. Although they repeat this so often that they themselves can partially believe in this. But as soon as their threats meet opposition, as we saw with Finland, with Sweden, then this bluff collapses.

- Do you mean the Russian bluff about NATO as an enemy with whom they are ready to fight?

- It would be better to expose this bluff earlier when we refused NATO membership for Ukraine. Ukraine was left without protection. Russia attacks those whom they consider easy prey. The victory in Ukraine was not as easy as they expected.

-Mr. Satter, do you think, does this situation offer us any lessons in regard to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Seductive by analogy to assume that Ukrainians exposed the Blef of the military power of Russia and the Kremlin will have to retreat?

- The situation remains very dangerous. Потому что полное поражение в Украине грозит внутренней нестабильностью России, нестабильностью режима. За это они могут бороться и даже принимать экстремальные меры. Мы не знаем точно, что творится в их головах. Противостояние не кончилось, просто попытка использовать блеф, чтобы остановить расширение НАТО, – скорее всего, кончилось. Использование блефа, чтобы лимитировать западную помощь украинцам, – это продолжается, и вероятность того, что Россия может прибегнуть к экстремальным мерам, лимитирует нашу помощь Украине. Но отступление Путина по вопросу расширения НАТО может быть хорошим сигналом. Потому что если даже внутри страны русские власти будут говорить, что НАТО не так нам угрожает, – это только способствует уступкам в самой Украине. Они создали эту историю вокруг НАТО частично, чтобы оправдать собственную агрессию в Украине. Если они будут сейчас признавать, что угроза очень сильно преувеличена, – это дает им тоже пространство для дипломатического маневра в смысле, что они могут даже перед русским населением оправдывать какие-то уступки в Украине, которые они рано или поздно будут вынуждены сделать. И это может частично поменять атмосферу внутри страны.

Министр иностранных дел Украины Дмитрий Кулеба и генеральный секретарь НАТО Йенс Столтенберг во время встречи министров иностранных дел стран-членов НАТО, обсуждавших помощь Украине. 7 апреля 2022 года

– Как вы думаете, появляется ли в такой ситуации у Украины хотя бы зыбкая надежда на членство в НАТО, пусть и в неопределенном будущем?

– Она всегда есть. Но Зеленский сам сказал, что они согласны на нейтралитет. В любом случае время для вступления Украины в НАТО было раньше, до того, когда Россия напала на Украину.

– Как вы объясняете позиции тех американских комментаторов, как например, Патрик Бьюкенен, да и некоторых политиков, которые говорят, что расширение НАТО неразумно, поскольку оно может заставить США вступить в прямой конфликт с Россией в случае, например, российского вторжения в Финляндию. Джеффри Гедмин говорит, что на этот счет наверняка будут дебаты в Конгрессе, когда будет обсуждаться вступление Финляндии и Швеции.

– Эти люди не понимают, что безопасность и стабильность в мире может поддерживаться только тогда, когда агрессор знает, что не в его интересах нападать на другую страну. Гарантии для Финляндии только уменьшат пространство для запугивания в мире и как результат – нестабильность. Это, скорее всего, своего рода гарантии, что часть планеты будет защищена от нападения и не будет риска ситуации, которую мы сейчас имеем в Украине. Весь мир заинтересован в определенных правилах, которые обеспечивают мир в интересах всех. Такие люди, как Бьюкенен, с американским опытом могут этого не понимать.

– Дэвид, как вы думаете, возможна ли в принципе договоренность с путинской Россией или кризис в более или менее открытой форме будет продолжаться до прихода новых людей к власти в Кремле, как считает Джеффри Гедмин?

– Нет, я не согласен с этим. Все возможно, если Запад готов использовать серьезные меры, чтобы вынудить Россию вести себя цивилизованно, включая экономические санкции, военное сопротивление, помощь соседним странам. Мы можем создать условия, в которых он будет вынужден вести себя мирно, потому что у него просто не будет альтернативы. Но мы создали обратную ситуацию, когда Украина была не защищена. Мы убедили весь мир, чтобы мы не будем защищать близких союзников, в общем, предав союзников в Афганистане. При этом у Путина была необходимость делать что-то, чтобы консолидировать режим, сплотить русское население вокруг власти. Совмещение всех этих факторов и привело к войне. Если бы Украина была защищена, если бы Америка демонстрировала, что не бросает союзников, то дряхлый российский режим, пусть даже ищущий нового подтверждения своей легитимности, не решился бы на вторжение.