Scandinavians will be balanced

A mistake with far-reaching consequences.

That is how Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Sergei Ryabkov described the intention of Finland and Sweden to join NATO.

Apparently, on May 14, Vladimir Putin spoke about these consequences with his Finnish counterpart Sauli Niinistö.

However, the President of Finland either did not hear the words or pretended not to.

He said that, based on what he understood, the Russian president would not create "any immediate problems" for the Finns.

And already on May 15, Finland announced that it had officially decided to go to NATO.

“This is a historic day, a new era is beginning,” said Sauli Niinistö.

“Today … we made the historic decision to accept membership in the NATO defense alliance,” Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde echoed him on the same day.

Her country "made a historic decision" within hours of Finland.

At the same time, the ruling Social Democrats in Sweden said: they "will seek to ensure that Sweden, if the NATO application is approved, expresses unilateral reservations against the deployment of nuclear weapons and permanent bases on Swedish territory."

And, apparently, the United States will accept this reservation and agree with it.

In the end, they need Sweden not for bases and not for the deployment of nuclear missiles (the Balts and Poles, who are closer to Russia, will happily agree to this role).

Washington needs greater control over the foreign and defense policy of Stockholm, as well as the very expansion of NATO to the east (albeit the northern part of this east).

A kind of virtual victory over Putin.

And, of course, creating tension on yet another section of the Russian border.

“The goal of NATO, whose member countries vigorously convinced the Finnish side that there was no alternative to membership in the alliance, is clear - to continue expanding towards the borders of Russia, to create another flank for a military threat to our country.

But why would Finland turn its territory into a line of military confrontation with the Russian Federation, while losing independence in making its own decisions, history will judge, ”the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

And indeed: what do the Scandinavian countries themselves get from joining?

Do they get anything at all?

One of the main arguments of the supporters of the entry is, of course, security.

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine worsened the security situation for both Sweden and the whole of Europe,” says Ann Linde.

“If Sweden became the only non-NATO country in the Baltic Sea region, we would be in a vulnerable position,” says Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson.

But vulnerable to what?

The landing of the Russian troops by the forces of the Baltic Fleet?

Sweden has no land borders with Russia, and territorial claims are also a thing of the past.

Sweden, for all the complexity of the attitude of the Swedes towards the Russians, is by no means anti-Russia.

It does not shell cities inhabited by Russians (and even citizens of Russia), does not send saboteurs to Russia, does not provide (judging by the statement about “prevention of bases and nuclear weapons”) territory for an attack on the Russian Federation.

At the same time, Moscow tolerated and, apparently, was ready to continue to tolerate very close cooperation between Sweden and the alliance.

As for Finland, it has a land border with Russia, but until today, the Finnish territory has been occupied only by Russian tourists and summer residents (wealthy residents of St. Petersburg have a fashion to start country houses in Finland).

And right up to the beginning of the special operation in Ukraine, only about 20% of the Finns were so afraid of neighboring Russia that they were in favor of joining NATO, while the rest felt safe.

Now there will be no security, especially if Finland is given a task within the framework of NATO, for example, to pump separatism in Karelia (the Finns have enough public organizations that want this region to come under the control of Helsinki).

Therefore, there will be no additional security for Sweden or Finland from joining the alliance - rather, on the contrary, only one cost.

Plus, countries expect other problems, both “immediate” and long-term.

The latter will primarily include economic ones: countries will have to increase the level of defense spending (in order to meet NATO criteria), as well as come to terms with limiting their economic ties with Russia, for which Finland and Sweden are now moving into the category of unfriendly countries, members of the bloc that calls Russia main enemy.

As for the "immediate", Finland and Sweden are already being forced to abandon the image of countries that stand up for human rights.

Moreover, it is not Russia that forces them, but the future NATO ally - Turkey.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is demanding that Helsinki and Stockholm stop supporting the Kurdish movement and any criticism of Ankara for fighting against the Kurds.

According to Erdogan, the Scandinavian countries "have become guest houses for terrorists" and even "let them into parliament" (there are six Kurdish deputies in the Swedish Riksdag).

Accordingly, in order to join the alliance, the Scandinavians must meet Turkish requirements, because a) the entry of a new member must be approved by consensus of the existing ones;

b) The states are unlikely to risk pushing Erdogan now, preferring to push the Swedes and Finns so that they accept Turkish conditions.

In addition to these consequences, Sweden and Finland will face other difficulties, depending on their future behavior in the alliance.

According to Sergei Ryabkov, Moscow's reaction will depend on concrete steps taken by Stockholm and Helsinki.

Yes, the same Sweden has already declared its unwillingness to accept bases and nuclear weapons.

Finland is likely to take plus or minus the same position.

It is even possible that these positions will be enshrined in contracts.

However, we recall that the same Finns have already violated one agreement - the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947 (which provides for the obligation of the parties not to enter into alliances or not to participate in coalitions directed against one of them).

As the Russian Foreign Ministry's statement rightly notes, "given the current indifference of the collective West to international law, such behavior has become the norm."

Thus, neither the Swedish nor the Finnish population will benefit from membership in the alliance.

The main internal beneficiaries of this process will be the elites of these countries, which are part of the globalist-liberal "international" and for which joining NATO is an end in itself.

They were able to take advantage of the media hysteria that had turned on their own population in order to push their states into the alliance on a wave of panic.

To drag the states themselves to the detriment - with far-reaching consequences.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.