Expansion of NATO: Ukraine, Sweden, and Finland

To: President Joe Biden

From: USFP Group 1 Foreign Policy

Re: The Biden Administration

Issue: Expansion of NATO

Executive Summary- 

    The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949 and currently consists of 30 European and North American countries, including the United States, France, Germany, Poland, and more. The organization ensures the safety of its members under the promise that if one nation is attacked, the other associated countries will rush to its defense and aid in its protection. NATO focuses on the prevention, protection, and peaceful diffusion of conflict and tension, and does not promote provoking war or battles between countries. To join the organization, a country must file for membership and a unanimous vote of approval be won by all current members. Ukraine has been attempting to gain entrance into the organization for years, but failed to garner the unanimous vote requirement, so it is not an official member (however it is a NATO partner, so it can work closely with the group but does not have the protections of it). Finland and Sweden are two other countries who are likely to begin the membership request process soon, and all 3 countries have been sparked by the same event: the Russia invasion into Ukraine.   

    Russia’s invasion into the Ukraine has caught international attention and has many expressing concerns as to why NATO did not let the Ukraine join the organization before, as then they could have received protection early into the attack or have prevented it. NATO is sending the Ukraine non-lethal and humanitarian aid as they defend against Russia, but clearly it is not enough. Due to their proximity to Russia, Sweden and Finland are likely to consider putting in a bid for membership, to help increase the power of NATO, and to protect themselves in the future should they become targets of Russia as well. Obviously, Russian President Vladimir Putin would not be happy if these countries were to enter NATO, and it may increase tensions with the current conflict, but hopefully the addition support of the other members would eb enough to protect against additional attacks. Some talks among leaders of the current members have been occurring, with many expressing quicky entry into the alliance for the 3 countries, but we will likely need to wait until the next NATO Summit for any official news, which is set to take place in Madrid on June 29th of this year. 

 

Introduction 

The possibility of the expansion of NATO to countries like Finland and Sweden has grown with the growing number of voters in the country who believe that NATO membership can provide urgent and necessary protections. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the largest factor that has caused the push for these countries to request membership to NATO. Russia’s harassment of countries like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia who were former Soviet republics has raised questions about the safety of countries like Finland and Sweden. Latvia Lithuania and Estonia are now full NATO Members.  

Effect on US Foreign Policy:  

For the United States in the NATO alliance, we stand out as we do not share a border with another NATO country. NATO was founded in 1949 after World War II to make sure that another country was not able to take over the continent of Europe again. There are mixed reviews in the United States on the NATO alliance some people feel that the other countries in the alliance are not pulling their weight. Each country that joins the NATO alliance must spend at least 2% of its GDP on defense. But there is more to this alliance than countries’ defense budgets. 

    The NATO alliance was the main reason why the Cold War was cold. The alliance was used to contain the Soviets in the Eastern part of Europe. By adding Turkey and Greece, NATO was able to protect the Baltic nation. This stopped the Soviets from moving into Southern Europe and Middle East countries. The idea of containment through alliances helped to assert the United States' dominance as a global leader. 

    Once the focus was not on stopping the spread of communism this was a gate for the United States to spread liberalism around Europe. Since the United States’ NATO allies helped to bring down the dangerous opposition of the Soviets. The well-being of our European allies became one of our priorities. It is also easier for defense as our allies send troops and equipment to help during conflict. NATO was the United States largest ally in the early offense after 9/11.  

The NATO alliance was a major factor in setting the foundation for the world power that the United States. We see it now with Russia, in a time where there is no conflict the defense plan seems extensive. But the NATO alliance is doing the same thing today as it did in the Cold War. Contain Russia to their corner of Europe through alliances. Many wonder if Russia would have still attacked Ukraine if it was part of NATO. As Russia is nervous to cross border into a NATO country. 

 

Three Policy Options 

    Three primary policy options present themselves to the United States when looking at the future of NATO in Eastern Europe, the first two able to be done separately or in conjunction with one another, and the third as an alternative to the first two. 

  

1. Allowing entrance of Ukraine into NATO has become one of the most controversial international debates since the 2014 Annexation of Crimea and has become reignited following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and continued conflict in the region.[1] This discussion centers around the deterrence of Russian aggression towards the young country that has been the focus of Kremlin expansion efforts for years to reclaim previously held territory from the Cold War.[2] This policy decision would require NATO countries to have an overwhelmingly strong support of this change, with a focus being on this being a last resort option to deter the complete absolution of the sovereign Ukrainian state or, potentially, a post-war decision should Russian troops be removed from the country. 

 Pros: 

• Ukraine being admitted into NATO may prevent further aggression beyond the territories already captured (i.e., the Donbas and Crimea) and limit continued atrocities against the Ukrainian people. It would allow for direct and strong aid in both military personal and equipment, as well as increasing humanitarian evacuation efforts for Ukrainians.[3] This option would also support the ability for better access for Ukraine to receive arms that they have requested since long before this conflict began. 

• By extending the offer to join NATO, it will solidify Western support for the Ukrainian war effort and show a military opposition to Russia to complement sanctions and economic efforts against the country.[4] This gives legitimacy to many of the Western tactics and makes the actual opposition more real than just fiscal strategy or limiting top official’s mobility. Sanction have not always proved effective in stopping conflict so this would potentially accelerate the concerns of Russian elites even further, putting more pressure on Putin. 

• In the long term, Ukrainian entrance into NATO will provide a safeguard against authoritarianism that has begun to arise in many former Soviet states and to allow for international allied help in further democratization.[5] Without conflict, Ukraine still has been the target of Russian propaganda efforts, election interference, and regime change attempts to gain control over the leadership of the country.[6] By instituting and maintaining a strong democratic foothold in the most desired territory of Russia, liberal democratization efforts can be spent elsewhere without facing the same level of opposition. 

Cons: 

• If admitted prior to the conclusion of the current conflict in Ukraine, Russia would see this as a direct escalation by the West and potentially react by expanding bombing and missile targets closer to the Polish border and near allied training facilities. This could lead to direct aggression by Russia towards US troops which could escalate into a widespread European and global conflict.[7]  

• Ukraine is the most likely nation that would be invoking Article 5 of the NATO alliance to ask for support in conflict against Russian occupation of territories, which would threaten direct conflict for the first time between the NATO and Russia and potentially lead to an escalated conflict in Eastern Europe.[8] This alliance would require ground to be tread carefully by American diplomats and Ukrainian officials to ensure that a deal is made with Russia to not progress further into its campaign against Ukraine. 

  

2. The shift in Sweden and Finland’s stance away from the military non-alignment seen during and after the Cold War has become extremely evident in the months following the Russian Federation’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.[9] Fears that Russia may try to do the same to these Nordic countries should they appear to get too close to the West without joining NATO have led “growing numbers of voters in these countries [to be] convinced that NATO membership provides necessary and urgent protection.”[10] This has created the first opportunity for these previously geopolitically neutral countries to seek the option to be accepted into an expanded NATO alliance that would presumably shield them from Russian aggressions. The United States has met with Finnish officials in recent days to discuss a possible alliance and entrance into NATO, and to see whether the United States would give a positive referral to the rest of the alliance on Finland’s desire to join.[11] 

Pros:  

• By supporting the inclusion of Finland and Sweden into NATO, the United States and allied western powers will be sending a very strong message to Russia that Europe is growing increasingly wary of the military threat posed and the opposition to democracy that President Vladimir Putin presents to the region.[12] 

• The expansion of two strong democracies within the perceived Russian “sphere of influence” into NATO allows for the ability for other hesitant counties to see the option as more viable and for current countries in the alliance to strengthen ties. It will increase strategic territory for NATO to train in and to have increased presence on the border of Russia. This increased threat to Russia may increase their desire toward neutrality with these countries and to limit the direct threat to these nations, though this would depend greatly on the mindset of the unpredictable leadership in the Kremlin. 

• Increased support for NATO bolsters the purpose of the organization and may lead to countries in the alliance that have become friendly with Russia in recent years, namely Turkey and Hungary, to rethink their stances and return to a more cautious stance on Russian trade and diplomacy.[13] Russia has successfully instilled an autocracy in Belarus with little resistance, and it is feared that Turkey and Hungary’s dominant, far right political parties are likely to follow if democratic efforts are not put forth. 

Cons:  

• Expanding NATO may lead to Russian escalation of military tactics against other nations that are potentially on track to become aligned with the West. Even if these are primarily for show, they may lead to greater tensions within once allied states and cause a greater possibility of territorial disputes, trade challenges, and threats by the Russian government.[14] These include the deployment of nuclear weapons and troops which poses significant threat to nations that have largely remained neutral throughout their histories. 

• By allowing new nations to enter NATO, an increased responsibility will be placed on the United States to maintain peace in Europe and increase the chances of a regional conflict to draw international powers to direct opposition to one another.[15] This will mean more US troops stationed in more parts of Europe and greater risk of direct interaction with Russia and the United States. 

 

3. Not extending the opportunity to countries who are of interest of joining the NATO alliance remains a strong option for the United States to back, especially during a period of revived conflict in Eastern Europe. By not increasing the size and breadth of NATO to new countries in the regions surrounding Russia, there is no risk of providing a thin justification for an increased effort of the current invasion or for expansion of the invasion to new territories that may be at risk.[16] NATO also would not have to risk internal fractures between the counties vying for expansion and those that are fearful of potential blowback, or those who want to maintain the size of the alliance.  

Pros:  

• Refraining from permitting additional countries into NATO will prevent what many Americans see as an already bloated military obligation that provides limited direct benefit to the United States and questionable benefit to Europe.[17] These claims have diminished following the invasion of Ukraine but persist as a possible challenge avoided through current actions. 

• By not supporting the admission of Ukraine to NATO, the United States can focus its efforts on aid to Ukraine and strategizing around a well-known doctrine of a proxy conflict rather than the unknown allied nation conflict. This is an advantage in the current conflict where a threat still looms large for Ukrainians and several US allies, and assistance rather than direct involvement may limit the spread of violence beyond what it would reach otherwise. 

Cons:  

• This does carry ethical questions into consideration. With the increasing confirmation of suspected Russian war crimes, especially those against civilians, it makes one wonder if there becomes a point where intervention will need to be made to fulfill humanitarian requirements.[18] If there is a continued and systematic destruction of cities with populations being killed en mass and thrown in unmarked graves or burned by Russian troops, not having the ability to forcefully enter to prevent atrocities could cost the lived of tens of thousands and risk the emotional trauma of many more. 

• The United States has proven its desire to remain a hegemonic power globally through continued support of nations at risk from the next two largest threats of Russia and China, but limited action has been taken to reassert itself in this role of global superpower, especially in the wake of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.[19] This concern would be expanded in the event of there being a retraction of NATO power over global conflicts and the full force of the alliance not being available when needed. 

• Russian efforts still have unclear motivations, and the full scope and scale of their grand plan are yet to be realized. This makes the future unclear and increases the chance of more conflicts breaking out, and potentially even expand into a continental war.[20] By allowing these proposed nations into NATO, a greater force will be ready, and a greater deterrence set against Russia. 

 

Recommendation 

We recommend that NATO allows these countries to join the alliance because it is now clear after the invasion that Russia is out of line and willing to use military force. In the past, Russia has used the innocence card, saying that it is NATO encroaching on their territories. The invasion of Ukraine shows who the true aggressor is. Putin and Russia and trying to rebuild the former Soviet Union, and as mentioned, a strong alliance on the boarder of Russia is the only way to stop the expansionism. Letting these countries into NATO bolsters NATO’s military capabilities as well confirms the backing of most European countries against Russia.  

As also mentioned, the greatest fear of allowing in these new members is the escalation of military conflict, the risk is worth the reward for two reasons. First, Russia has already done something unexpected and used force already, why should NATO believe they won’t do it again regardless of NATO membership. Secondly, Russia is struggling to take hold of Ukraine, and it is costing them lives and money. I do not believe Russia has the will or the capability to increase military conflict more than it has. 70% of Russia's military is Ukraine, which would leave only 30% of the military to fight the rest of NATO. This obviously changes are if Russia can conquer Ukraine. The most real threat would be from Russia’s nuclear arsenal, which is also an unlikely resort for any country. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page BreakPage Break

 

Works Cited 

 

Anonymous. “I Served with the NATO Mission in Afghanistan – It Was a Bloated Mess | Anonymous.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, August 27, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/27/afghanistan-nato-mission-corruption-military-soldier. 

  

Bardakçı, Mehmet. “Is a Strategic Partnership between Turkey and Russia Feasible at the Expense of Turkey's Relations with the EU and NATO?” De Gruyter. De Gruyter Oldenbourg, December 1, 2021. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/soeu-2021-0001/html?lang=en. 

  

Bilefsky, Dan, Richard Pérez-peña, and Eric Nagourney. “The Roots of the Ukraine War: How the Crisis Developed.” The New York Times. The New York Times, January 10, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/article/russia-ukraine-nato-europe.html. 

  

Bremmer, Ian. “Why Finland and Sweden Seem Likely to Join NATO.” Time. Time, April 23, 2022. https://time.com/6169708/finland-sweden-nato-expansion/. 

  

Carpenter, Ted Galen. “Many Predicted NATO Expansion Would Lead to War. Those Warnings Were Ignored | Ted Galen Carpenter.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, February 28, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine. 

  

“Conflict in Ukraine | Global Conflict Tracker.” Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, April 22, 2022. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine.    

  

Csaky, Zselyke. “Dropping the Democratic Facade.” Freedom House, 2020. https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2020/dropping-democratic-facade. 

  

CSIS. “Four Myths about Russian Grand Strategy.” Four Myths about Russian Grand Strategy | Center for Strategic and International Studies. CSIS, September 25, 2020. https://www.csis.org/blogs/post-soviet-post/four-myths-about-russian-grand-strategy. 

  

Daalder, Ivo. “Let Ukraine In.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, April 21, 2022. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/ukraine-join-nato-eu-membership/629619/. 

  

Dunlop, John B. “Aleksandr Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics.” FSI. Accessed April 24, 2022. https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics. 

  

Editorial Board. “Putin's Aggression Is Pushing Finland and Sweden into NATO.” Subscribe to read | Financial Times. Financial Times, April 24, 2022. https://www.ft.com/content/368a297f-d6da-4720-b9d6-88ebdf07a086. 

  

Faulconbridge, Guy, and Guy Faulconbridge. “Russia Warns of Nuclear, Hypersonic Deployment If Sweden and Finland Join NATO.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, April 14, 2022. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-baltic-nuclear-deployment-if-nato-admits-sweden-finland-2022-04-14/. 

  

Fukuyama, Francis. “Francis Fukuyama on the End of American Hegemony.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, November 8, 2021. https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2021/11/08/francis-fukuyama-on-the-end-of-american-hegemony. 

   

Gramer, Robbie. “'Thanks, Putin': Finnish and Swedish Lawmakers Aim for NATO Membership.” Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy, April 22, 2022. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/22/finland-sweden-nato-membership-russia-ukraine-war/. 

  

Greaney, Alec. “Ukraine Wanted to Join NATO's Alliance for Years. What Stopped It?” NBC Chicago. NBC Chicago, April 22, 2022. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/ukraine-wanted-to-join-natos-alliance-for-years-what-stopped-it/2813488/. 

  

Langfitt, Frank. “The Russia-Ukraine War Drives Countries to Consider NATO Membership.” NPR. NPR, April 22, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/1094240470/the-russia-ukraine-war-drives-countries-to-consider-nato-membership. 

  

“NATO / Otan.” What is NATO? Accessed April 24, 2022. https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html. 

  

Nato. “NATO's Response to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine.” NATO. Accessed April 24, 2022. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm. 

  

RFE/RL. “Un Says Growing Evidence of Russian War Crimes in Ukraine.” RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty. UN Says Growing Evidence Of Russian War Crimes In Ukraine, April 22, 2022. https://www.rferl.org/a/un-russia-ukraine-war-crimes/31816271.html. 

 

 

Ukraine Election Task Force. “Foreign Interference in Ukraine's Election.” Atlantic Council, February 4, 2021. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/foreign-interference-in-ukraine-s-election/. 

  

Wong, Edward, and Lara Jakes. “NATO Won’t Let Ukraine Join Soon. Here’s Why. - the New ...” New York Times, March 16, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/nato-ukraine.html. 

 

Page Break 

In-Text Citation 

[1] https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine 

[2] https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics 

[3] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/1094240470/the-russia-ukraine-war-drives-countries-to-consider-nato-membership 

[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/ukraine-join-nato-eu-membership/629619/ 

[5] https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2020/dropping-democratic-facade 

[6] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/foreign-interference-in-ukraine-s-election/ 

[7] https://www.nytimes.com/article/russia-ukraine-nato-europe.html 

[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/nato-ukraine.html 

[9] https://www.ft.com/content/368a297f-d6da-4720-b9d6-88ebdf07a086 

[10] https://time.com/6169708/finland-sweden-nato-expansion/  

[11] https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/22/finland-sweden-nato-membership-russia-ukraine-war/ 

[12] https://www.ft.com/content/368a297f-d6da-4720-b9d6-88ebdf07a086 

[13] https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/soeu-2021-0001/html?lang=en 

[14] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-baltic-nuclear-deployment-if-nato-admits-sweden-finland-2022-04-14/ 

[15] https://time.com/6169708/finland-sweden-nato-expansion/ 

[16] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine 

[17] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/27/afghanistan-nato-mission-corruption-military-soldier 

[18] https://www.rferl.org/a/un-russia-ukraine-war-crimes/31816271.html 

[19] https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2021/11/08/francis-fukuyama-on-the-end-of-american-hegemony 

[20] https://www.csis.org/blogs/post-soviet-post/four-myths-about-russian-grand-strategy