Helsingin Sanomat: Finland will wait for the ratification of Sweden's membership in NATOWhat options would Finland have if Turkey approved only its membership in NATO?
Helsingin Sanomat journalists asked the experts this question. Analysts have named two options, and both do not involve "bargaining" with Turkey.
Anni Keski-HeikkiläIf Finland decides to join the NATO military alliance without Sweden, it could lead to a deep split between the countries, says Iro Särkkä, a researcher at the Institute of Foreign Policy.
On the other hand, Finland could promote Sweden's membership in NATO from within, says Mika Aaltola, head of the Foreign Policy Institute.
On January 29, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Turkey could ratify Finland's membership in NATO — but not Sweden's membership.
"If necessary, we can send a different message regarding Finland, if it does not repeat the same mistakes. Sweden will be shocked when this happens," Erdogan said in a televised speech for Turkish youth.
According to President Sauli Niinisto, Finland immediately contacted Turkey.
Apart from Turkey, Hungary has not yet ratified the membership of Finland and Sweden, so Turkey's actions are not decisive yet. Hungary has promised to ratify membership in February-March.
What options would Finland have if Turkey had approved only its membership? Helsingin Sanomat journalists talked with experts about possible strategies for Finland's accession to NATO — in case of ratification by Turkey and Hungary.
Option 1: Finland will wait for Sweden to ratify
Researcher at the Institute of Foreign Policy Iro Syarkka believes that it is important for Finland to show solidarity and support for Sweden.
"You can't leave someone else in trouble."
Joining NATO requires not only the ratification of Turkey and Hungary, but also the final consent of Finland and Sweden themselves.
If Finland receives the necessary ratification before Sweden, Finland can wait for Sweden — for example, leave the issue without the approval of the president.
Sark has three arguments in favor of such a strategy.
First, the close partnership between Finland and Sweden is important for foreign and security policy. Untimely progress "would leave a deep crack in our cooperation," Syarkkya is sure.
Secondly, the simultaneous accession of Finland and Sweden will expand NATO's defense planning in Northern Europe.
As a third argument, Syarkkya cites arguments about the image of NATO. The accession of Finland alone is unprofitable for the alliance. NATO has always stressed that the expansion of the alliance is possible if the applicant countries meet the membership criteria.
"The appearance of special criteria for individual countries will undermine the credibility of NATO's open door policy."
According to Syarkka, the situation with applications for NATO membership has changed little since last week.
"Turkey constantly makes some statements, sometimes the rhetoric gets louder, sometimes it subsides a little. The main line is still that Finland and Sweden are joining NATO at the same time and side by side."
Syarkka believes that Finland should not be embarrassed by new statements. The country must remain strong and persistent.
In her opinion, the pace of accession can change only if the situation in the field of security policy deteriorates significantly. For example, if a war engulfs the whole of Europe or if Russia begins to threaten Finland.
"If the security policy situation had weakened significantly, we would have quickly prepared all the documents and moved forward. But, it seems, there are no problems with this now, — says Syarkkya. — There is no rush. It's not about weeks or months. In the current situation, we can well wait for Sweden."
Iro Syarkka believes that Finland should not bargain with Turkey.
Option 2: Finland can confirm membership in NATO immediately, without waiting for Sweden
The second option: Finland will confirm its membership in NATO as soon as Turkey and Hungary ratify the country's accession to the alliance. That is, Finland could join NATO before Sweden.
Mika Aaltola, director of the Institute of Foreign Policy, considers such a step quite reasonable. In his opinion, Finland could promote Sweden's membership in NATO from within and at the same time develop defense cooperation with it.
Aaltola recalls that Finland applied to NATO on its own.
"In the end, the goal was precisely membership in NATO. Simultaneous entry was an important idea. But in a sense, the parliament did not take a decision on this last May."
The Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Jussi Halla-aho, held the same positions in an interview with Helsingin Sanomat on January 30.
Mika Aaltola also emphasizes that Turkey should not be included in the games. Finland should focus on its own processes and support Sweden, since Sweden's accession to NATO is in Finland's national interests.
"But is this national interest so great that Finland is slowing down its own path to NATO? It's worth thinking about it carefully. NATO membership is very important for us, because Russia counts Finland among its interests more than Sweden."
Aaltola draws attention to the fact that with a quick accession, Finland will fall under NATO security guarantees and the so-called "nuclear umbrella".
"All these are additional arguments in favor of joining NATO as soon as possible."
According to Aaltol, Sweden can wait if Turkey ratifies Sweden's membership relatively quickly. He shares the opinion of the Finnish government that the situation will be resolved as the July NATO summit approaches.
"It will all end with handshakes and smiles, including for Sweden."
