I stumbled across two conflicting views of NATO expansion yesterday I thought were worth sharing. At Diplomatic Courier former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt avers:
Even surveying the bleak political landscape, one can find the occasional bright spot. For example, Finland’s and Sweden’s applications for NATO membership have renewed the alliance’s credibility and relevance, and strengthened transatlantic relations. And the European Union, having exceeded its own expectations in marshaling support for Ukraine, is now emerging as a critical pillar in the European security order. While major challenges lie ahead, the EU now has a strong foundation on which to build.
More broadly, the democratic West has regained some of its lost vigor and moral clarity in its firm, united opposition to Russia. With Russia continuing to commit the international crime of aggression (as well as numerous atrocities), its support in the United Nations General Assembly has dwindled to just a handful of outlaw regimes.
For the negative there’s Sumantra Maitra at The National Interest:
A fast-track process for Finland and Sweden’s NATO membership is now underway, at the behest of those European states who are taking advantage of the situation and war hysteria to further enlarge an already bloated and diluted alliance. Consolidating an arrangement that has worked well for them in the past few decades is an understandable desire, but it does not correspond that it has worked well for the United States. Policymakers in the United States should ignore the popular currents and encourage open public debates about the limits of NATO’s constantly mutating frontiers and fluid commitments.
Finland and Sweden are in no real danger of any invasion, and neutrality worked well for them. Russia is a shadow of its former self, with a broken military and damaged economy due to an attritional war of choice, and collectively, Europe massively outspends Russia. In fact, Germany, France, and Britain combined are more than capable of providing deterrent forces in the Baltics, and have their own nuclear umbrella. Neither Finland nor Sweden adds enough to the security of the alliance to justify the additional costs. Adding them would mean two more states as protectorates for whom the United States would be treaty-bound to go to a nuclear war.
Can the U. S. afford additional demands on its military? Doing so will require us to expand our military spending in real terms. Are we willing to do that?
I think a lot depends on what one believes is the purpose of NATO.
Bildt, like all Western leaders, is delusional. It is obvious that EU/NATO are in total disarray on how to response to Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey all have objections to NATO expansion and/or sanctions on Russia.
Maitra is also confused. The Russian army is far from broken. It has captured an area in Ukraine that is larger than the UK, and it did so in record time. Compare Russia’s advance in Ukraine to the US in Iraq for speed of advance. The Russians come off pretty well.
The Ukrainians have spent the last 8 years digging trenches and fortifications along the Donbas, and the current fighting has something of the character of WW I trench warfare. Nonetheless, Russia is slowly grinding the Ukrainian army down, and it is steadily advancing, albeit slowly.
Russia is minimizing the amount of force they are using in Ukraine, apparently in expectation that US/NATO will intervene militarily. Indeed, the US is taking giant steps towards WW III. The proposal to send MLRS to Ukraine is a case in point. Should any of those missiles land in Russia, Putin has promised that Russia will attack the mainland US.
Moreover, the Russian economy is hurting, but not as much as the EU economy. This morning, oil prices range from $116/bbl (WTI) to $120/bbl (Brent). Also, the ruble has strengthened considerably against both the dollar and the euro. This morning, $1 gets R63. This is up from $1 to R57 a week ago, but it is well below the prewar rate of $1 per 75 or 80 rubles. The rise in the ruble has alarmed the Russian central bank, and they have been lowering interest rates to weaken the ruble.
Unsurprisingly, Turkey is using the Ukraine crisis and the desires of Finland and Sweden to join NATO to extract concessions. Erdogan wants Finland and Sweden to stop support of the Kurdish Workers’ Party and the extradition of their leaders to Turkey. Turkey wants cancellation of all sanctions against it from US/NATO, resumption of weapons exports from Finland, Sweden, and US/NATO, and readmission the the F-35 program.
Other NATO countries have concerns, too, and it will be interesting to see if they and Turkey can get what they want. It only takes one country to prevent Finland’s and Sweden’s admission.
It also looks like the ban on Russian oil and gas exports to EU are off the table for now.
“Can the U. S. afford additional demands on its military? Doing so will require us to expand our military spending in real terms. Are we willing to do that?”
Given that this country is in a proxy war with Russia, a cold war with Iran, and a rapidly developing cold war with China — military spending will increase in real terms, unless the intention is to lose any ensuing conflict. Even an increase in real terms may not be enough; recall my comments how much spending must increase to reach similar levels to defense in the 1980’s, before the so-called “peace dividend”.
As to NATO expansion; one must treat the cases of Sweden and Finland differently. Sweden is surrounded by EU / NATO members, it has not fought a war against Russia since George Washington was President, and is a developed economy with a notable military-industrial base; from that I would suggest Sweden is a small net positive to NATO. However, Finland shares a 1340km border, and fought 2 wars against the USSR. Looking at the map, to my unexpert eye — supplying Finland by sea or land in a conventional conflict with Russia looks difficult. In a un-conventional conflict, Finland would play a similar role to Cuba vis a vis the US; i.e. something likely to trigger a crisis. Overall, I am much more cautious Finland’s NATO membership would increase security for the alliance.
As Bob alluded to; the highlight of the membership bids so far is Turkey’s attempted blackmail (including crushing the Kurds in Syria). I find it ironic that official Washington screamed bloody murder for things Trump accepted (“live with COVID”, “dump the Kurds for Turkey”) then says nothing when Biden is forced into the same position.