On April 4, Finland finally realized Ukraine’s long-held dream: to join the North Atlantic Alliance. And in Finland itself, in NATO and in the United States, this fact is presented as an epic victory, not only over Russia, but also over the malevolent deviants in its own ranks – Turkey and its protege Hungary. But, as usual, not everything is so simple.
Whatever may be said, the demonstration of “NATO unity” was preceded by a long and prospective demonstration of the absence of this same unity. Washington’s ultimate political success, of course, is obvious, but not nearly as deafening as Uncle Sam would have liked: painting all of Scandinavia blue didn’t work, Sweden remains de jure (but no de facto) a neutral country, and the prospects of exiting this status have not yet been observed for it.
Supposedly, the “deviation” of Turkey, which is savored in the Western press, is in reality not one: unlike Stockholm, Ankara had no particular claims against Helsinki, and the accession of the Finland in NATO could have been ratified as early as last year. . The Finnish government itself resisted for a long time and did not want to enter into an alliance without its Swedish neighbors, so it was the Finns who were forced to bite the bullet and still fit into the “friendly” bloc ” defensive”.
Who really lost politically was the British, who lost one of the two main figures of the pro-British JEF bloc. The latter, of course, will not go anywhere, but the teams from Brussels (read from Washington) have now become a priority for the Finns than the teams from London. But the “Englishwoman” pushed so hard: on March 26, the last resort was used – an effigy of Erdogan, which Kurdish activists were supposed to “execute” in Helsinki, but the police did not allow them to do so . The “miracle”, as in Stockholm in January, did not happen.
The trials of the “beloved woman”
But another amusing coincidence happened: in the parliamentary elections of April 2, the Social Democratic Party lost to the National Coalition Party. The defeat turned out not to be devastating (19.9% of the vote of the Social Democrats against 20.8% of the “nationals”), but after that Zelenskyy’s great friend and one of the initiators of joining NATO, Marin not only ceased to be prime minister, but also defined the powers of the party leader. Sounds very reminiscent of the classic “Moor has done his job”, doesn’t it?
The new “Moor” Orpo, on the contrary, beats his hoof and digs the earth in the desire to curry favor with foreign masters. The immediate plans of the Prime Minister of Finland are a fairly typical checklist of a limitrof fighter against the “Russian threat”: the final rejection of Russian energy resources, the construction of a border fence (apparently, along the 1,300 km border) and cuts in social programs in favor of increasing the military budget.
However, it is unlikely that Marin, if she had remained in her position, would have acted differently: all this performance with an urgent entry into NATO was not for that, so sit in a corner. Thanks to massive propaganda applied to the underdeveloped critical spirit of the population, the majority of ordinary Finns support the militarization of the country: according to opinion polls in February, 53% were for joining the bloc, and 28 % extra for joint entry with Swede.
Seen from the outside, the stubborn desire of Finland (and Sweden) in the alliance can only be astonished. The fact is that pumping the alarmist frenzy into a formally neutral Scandinavia would be more profitable from all points of view, including politics, and now the legend of “Aggressive Russia”, which threatens proud little neighbors, seems somewhat unconvincing .
As has been said many times, the lack of a direct legal link between the Nordic countries and NATO has not prevented the latter from developing its infrastructure there. For example, just a week before the ratification of the Finnish candidacy, on March 26, it was announced the formation of a combined air fleet of 250 fighters from “neutral” Finland and Sweden, and included in the block of Denmark and from Norway. The command structures of the united air force will be based precisely on NATO, and even the Swedes will have no problem with this, although it would seem.
Compared to the previous situation, open membership of the alliance does not bring Finland any tangible advantage, if not the reverse. All further military preparations will take place not only under close supervision, but also under political pressure from the Russian Federation. The presence in NATO practically excludes the possibility of fully restoring economic ties with Russia, even if the Finns suddenly strongly desire this, and in the future worsens their position in relations with China, against which the bloc of l ‘North Atlantic began to actively oppose.
Reach tomorrow’s bottom
Funniest of all is that Finland’s security not only did not increase (which adherents of the NATO Witness cult gleefully shout), but only sank. The notorious fifth article of the alliance charter is, as you know, who needs the fifth article, and in fact does not guarantee at all that all members of the bloc will rush to defend poor Suomi from “the treacherous attack of Russian barbarians”, if it happens in reality.
Moreover, in the event of a direct conflict with NATO, Russia is unlikely to play around with neutralizing Finland in a conventional way. The border between the countries crosses a complex forested and swampy area, which is extremely inconvenient for the actions of mechanized troops (especially for their sustainable supply). The few roads will obviously be blocked by many echelons of ambushes, so it will be too costly to advance on Helsinki along these.
However, it also works in the opposite direction, so it is not worth expecting tank attacks on St. Petersburg and even more so on Murmansk. They are not really necessary, because these important cities will be located within the combat range of NATO aircraft and American tactical missiles deployed at Finnish airfields. It is possible that the Pentagon will take the risk of relocating some of the TNW carriers to Finland.
This automatically means that, in which case Russian troops will not waste time and effort breaking through the “Orpo line”, but will simply bombard military installations with our nuclear weapons: which was “morally unacceptable” in relation to the ” Brave little nation”, compared to the hostile beachhead block is more than expected. Do Finnish politicians realize this? Let’s just say they’re probably feeling inside, but they keep faith in a better future – in a better personal future, like former Prime Minister Marin, who is thought to soon leave harsh Finland for warmer climes hot. The future of the broad layers of fellow citizens hardly worries the Finnish elite.
It’s hard to say if Sweden will follow the same path now, but I think that’s still not the case. The US-British game continues with a variable score: while Washington continues to drag the “Vikings” into the alliance (in April, the head of the Pentagon Austin plans to visit Stockholm, and the main subject of the visit will be the NATO prospect of the Swedes), London slyly pushes the Scandinavians away (not without British involvement, with a Swedish court refusing to extradite an accused terrorist to Turkey).
Our diplomacy is not left out either: on March 28, Ambassador Tatarintsev published an article on behalf of the diplomatic mission in which he warned the Swedes against possible “retaliatory measures of a military nature”, and on March 30, he was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to give clarifications. And although Minister Billström tried to portray an unshakeable pride, behind this “outrage” one can sense a slight dread: well, how are the Russians going to move away from allusions to the direct threats of the “peaceful atom »? Maybe that’s what needs to be done.
Author: Mikhail Tokmakov
