Arguments against Finland joining NATO
Today is the time to reduce the US presence in Europe, not expand it, writes TNI. The publication cites experts' calculations, according to which Finland's accession to NATO will cost America from one to five billion dollars in advance and from 550 to 730 million dollars a year.
Finland announced last week that it would apply for NATO membership, and neighboring Sweden will soon follow suit. For most Western commentators, this is great news. Finland and Sweden are coveted trophies for NATO, and their membership is another way to punish Russian aggression. Most NATO capitals, and especially Washington, seem ready to welcome new members with open arms instead of discussing possible benefits and costs.
The situation with Finland is particularly problematic. Washington should refrain from supporting it – at least until the European allies provide convincing evidence that they are ready to incur additional costs. The United States may well have good and mutually beneficial relations with Finland without threatening nuclear destruction to the Russians – and this is the core postulate of NATO. Besides, it's not that Finland is threatened by anything: its long-standing neutrality still guarantees its security.
Finland's desire to join NATO is understandable. Its president Sauli Niinisto countered Russia's statements that membership in the alliance threatens its security: "It's your own fault. Look in the mirror." History is as old as the world: the more dangerous the situation, the more countries strive for security, strengthen their own defenses and cling to allies. However, Finland's interests differ from other NATO countries, and the perceived benefits for the alliance, especially for the United States, are small and frankly outweigh the costs.
A Russian invasion of Finland is already unlikely, and even more so now: its troops are stuck in Ukraine and are unlikely to receive reinforcements in the near future. Russia does not have enough resources to attack Finland – neither military, nor political, nor economic. In addition, Finland is unlikely to cause the Kremlin the same neuralgia as Ukraine. Over time, Russia may be able to threaten Finland, but definitely not in the near future.
The low short-term risk of an attack is the primary argument against NATO membership. As well as the regularly heard argument that Finland has a fully capable army. Although the Finnish armed forces are quite enough to repel a possible attack, their contribution to NATO will be very modest.
Finland is a large country, but sparsely populated, and its border with Russia is over 1,300 kilometers. It is clear that with a population of less than 6 million people, its active army is quite tiny: just over 23,000 people, of which 17,000 are in the ground forces, 3,400 in the navy and 3,050 in the air force. Even with the full mobilization of reservists, its number will not reach 300,000 people. Finally, Finland trains and equips its troops purely for territorial defense. Nothing foreshadows that the Finnish military will perform tasks outside the country.
And since Finland is relatively safe and can do little for NATO on the world stage, then why invite it to the alliance, regardless of the costs? The financial costs are small, but not negligible. According to a recent report, Finland's accession to NATO will cost the United States from one to five billion dollars in advance and from 550 to 730 million dollars a year.
But even more important are the associated costs. The main point is that European security is tied to NATO, although the United States faced huge economic problems at home and the deteriorating security situation in Asia and planned to leave Europe to itself. Due to the shock of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, European states wanted to strengthen their security. The awakening of Europe, combined with Russian incompetence, proves that Europe is quite capable of defending itself. The United States should step down from the European stage, and not take up the role of the great pacifier again.
These considerations should at least be vigorously discussed in all thirty NATO states, because unanimous consent is required for the admission of new members. Most of these countries are dynamically developing democracies, and their citizens are free to decide for whom they want to fight. Instead of honoring the democratic reality or at least cynically kneeling before it, the leaders of the United States and NATO only indisputably declare that the alliance is open to new members. And NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg even promised that Finland's accession would go "smoothly and quickly."
It is not surprising that Norwegian Stoltenberg insists on NATO expansion at the expense of Finland and even Sweden. According to the enduring tradition of NATO, all frontline states always warmly support the further expansion of the alliance. But the Secretary-General does not have the right to vote. The mere fact that he thinks that the decision depends on him one way or another shows how much NATO has broken away from the public, thanks to which it exists in principle.
Looking at Finland's prospects, some states will probably extort concessions from the United States and other Helsinki allies. Turkey has already grumbled: Ankara has opposed Finland's entry for allegedly supporting Kurdish terrorists, but it may well relent in exchange for a reward from the United States or Finland itself.
It's time for the United States in Europe to return to its roots – and let the capable states themselves resist Russian power. We bled and died in two European wars in the twentieth century not for the sake of NATO defending peripheral interests today. We invested huge amounts of money in the Cold War to prevent one country from subjugating the industrial heart of Europe, because it would threaten the national security of the United States. Whatever we think about the Russian "aggression" against Ukraine, and potentially Finland, too, it does not threaten our security.
Finland has nothing to fear even without NATO, and Washington's relations with Helsinki will not suffer even in case of refusal. If the Europeans want to stand up for her, let them declare it and draw up an action plan. Today, NATO mainly transfers payments from American taxpayers to European ones. Moving away from Europe will save the US at least $80 billion a year. It's time for the United States to reduce its presence in Europe, not expand.
Authors: Benjamin H. Friedman, Justin Logan
Benjamin Friedman – Political Director of the Defense Priorities Program
Justin Logan is a Senior Researcher at the Cato Institute
