The accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO will not add to the security of the United States
American politicians approved of the idea of Sweden and Finland joining NATO, writes the website of the Fox News channel. However, according to the authors of the article, this step does not meet the interests of the United States, since it increases the likelihood of confrontation with Russia.
After the start of the Russian military special operation in Ukraine, Sweden and Finland abandon their long-standing neutrality in favor of joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The American political elite greeted this news with great enthusiasm. President Joe Biden welcomed the move at a joint press conference at the White House with the participation of the leaders of both countries. At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Senators Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell - the leaders of the two parties' congressional offices, who seem to disagree on almost nothing these days — sponsored a resolution calling for the accelerated admission of Sweden and Finland to NATO.
Most of the popular media, as expected, joined the chorus of approval, and editorials from newspapers such as the Washington Post described the event with enthusiasm.
For the American political establishment, the expansion of NATO was one of the closest acts to the sacred sacrament in foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. But our political elite is doing the American people a disservice by stamping the expansion of America's security commitments in the NATO format at a time of economic turmoil at home and security problems in other parts of the world.
It is not in the national interest of the United States to commit itself in the NATO format to protect two rich European "welfare states" whose neutrality has ensured their security and prosperity for more than 70 years. Although some argue that Russia's special operation in Ukraine changes everything, the fact remains that new security guarantees will lead to the need for new compromises, the consumption of more resources and an increase in the likelihood of confrontation with a nuclear adversary.
Despite the rhetoric of ardent adherents of NATO, which can often produce the opposite impression, the entry of Finland and Sweden into the alliance will lead to a significant increase in US spending.
The admission of both countries to NATO could lead to an initial cost of more than eight billion dollars, as well as additional annual costs of $ 1.5 billion. And although the US military today states that the membership of both countries in the alliance will not lead to the permanent deployment of troops on their territory, they recognize that more American troops are likely to move more often to both Finland and Sweden. This will create an additional burden on the US armed forces, which are already running out of strength, trying to maintain deployment in support of dozens of ongoing operations, including active combat missions in Iraq, Syria and Somalia.
One of the frequently mentioned justifications for the admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO is that they have combat-ready armed forces that will strengthen the alliance. However, the reality is that both countries have relatively small professional armed forces of about 20,000 people. Stockholm and Helsinki rely on large reserve formations during the war. But they lack the capacity to project military force over long distances. Sweden is already requesting a broader U.S. naval presence in the Baltic Sea, questioning the ability of its own armed forces to provide security in its "backyard."
In addition, none of the countries currently reaches the target of defense spending of 2% of GDP, which was agreed by NATO members. As in other parts of Europe, the security guarantees provided by the United States can only encourage "stowaways" and deprive them of motivation to increase defense spending in favor of multiplying spending on politically popular social programs.
But the greatest danger is that the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO will increase the risk of a nuclear confrontation with Russia. As a result of Moscow's failures in Ukraine, the threat posed by the Russian conventional armed forces has decreased. But Russia still possesses a large nuclear arsenal, which, according to the head of the Intelligence Department of the Ministry of Defense, Moscow is likely to rely more on to protect its borders, including the border line shared with Finland with Finland with a length of almost 1,500 kilometers. The membership of Finland and Sweden in NATO includes the "stretching" of the American nuclear deterrent umbrella over them, which increases the risk that any border dispute could escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes.
Instead of allowing Finland and Sweden to join NATO, the United States should take measures that would encourage the strengthening and development of non-NATO security structures in Europe, such as the Northern Defense Cooperation, of which Finland and Sweden are already part. The difficulties experienced by the Russian armed forces in Ukraine have demonstrated that a collective Europe is more than capable of protecting itself even without significant US support, if it properly prioritizes defense spending.
In these times of record inflation and $30.5 trillion in public debt, it is difficult to justify spending even more dollars in American taxes and allocating more American troops to protect two wealthy European social democracies.
This is especially true given that neither of these states strengthens the security of the United States itself, and both of them have enjoyed the benefits of neutrality for decades. The absence of a serious socio-political discussion on this important topic and the slander of those who dare to question the benefits of NATO expansion only increase the risk that the United States forces will be unnecessarily stretched, or, even worse, potentially America, like a somnambulist, will inadvertently get involved in a war with Russia, which has nuclear weapons.
After decades of foreign policy failures that have cost the United States dearly, elected officials in the United States owe the American people something much more than making expensive new security commitments that are not directly related to our security and economic prosperity.
Authors: Russ Vought (Russ Fought) — President of the Center for American Renewal, was the director of the Office of Administration and Budget in the Trump administration.
Dan Caldwell is the vice president for foreign policy of the organization Stand Together, a veteran of the Marine Corps and the Iraq War.
