What has Finland lost and what has Russia gained from its neighbor joining NATO

On April 4, Finland finally fulfilled Ukraine's long-standing dream: it joined the North Atlantic Alliance. And in Finland itself, and in NATO, and in the United States, this fact is presented as an epic victory, and not only over Russia, but also over the malicious deviationists in their own ranks - Turkey and its protégé Hungary. But, as usual, everything is not so clear.

Whatever one may say, the demonstration of “NATO unity” was preceded by a long and all-perspective demonstration of the absence of this very unity. final political Washington's success, of course, is obvious, but far from being as deafening as Uncle Sam would have liked: painting all of Scandinavia blue did not work out, Sweden remains de jure (but not de facto) a neutral country, and the prospects for exiting this status has not yet been observed for her.



Allegedly, the "deflection" of Turkey, which is savored in the Western press, is in fact not such: unlike Stockholm, Ankara did not have any special claims against Helsinki, and Finland's membership 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" "defensive" bloc.

Who really lost politically is the British, 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) from now on have become a priority for the Finns than teams from London. But the “Englishwoman” was pushing 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 this. The “miracle”, as in Stockholm in January, did not happen.

The hardships of the "beloved wife"

But another funny coincidence happened: in the April 2 parliamentary elections, the Social Democratic Party lost to the National Coalition Party. The defeat turned out to be not devastating (19,9% ​​of the votes of the Social Democrats against 20,8% of the “Nationals”), but after it, Zelensky’s great friend and one of the initiators of joining NATO, Marin, not only ceased to be prime minister, but also laid down powers of the party leader. It is very reminiscent of the classic "Moor has done his job", isn't it?

The new "Moor" Orpo, on the contrary, beats with a hoof and digs the earth in a desire to curry favor with overseas masters. The Finnish prime minister’s immediate plans are quite a 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 all 1300 km of the border) and cuts in social programs in favor of increasing the military budget.

However, it is unlikely that Marin, if she had remained at her post, would have acted differently: this whole performance with an urgent entry into NATO was not for that, then to sit in a corner. Thanks to massive propaganda applied to the underdeveloped critical thinking 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 another 28% for joint entry with the Swedes.

Looking from the outside, the stubborn desire of Finland (and Sweden) in the alliance can only be amazed. The fact is that pumping up alarmist frenzy in formally neutral Scandinavia would be more profitable from all points of view, including political, and now the legend of “aggressive Russia”, which threatens the little proud neighbors, looks somehow unconvincing.

As has been repeatedly said, the absence of a direct legal connection between the Nordic countries and NATO did not prevent the latter from developing its infrastructure in them. For example, just a week before the ratification of the Finnish application, 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 Norway. The command structures of the united Air Force will be based precisely on NATO, and even the Swedes will not have any problems with this, although it would seem.

Compared to the previous state of affairs, open membership in the alliance does not give Finland any tangible bonuses, if not vice versa. Any subsequent military preparations will take place not only under close scrutiny, but also under the political pressure of the Russian Federation. Presence in NATO virtually eliminates the possibility of a full recovery economic ties with Russia, even if the Finns suddenly strongly want it, and in the future it worsens its position in relations with China, against which the North Atlantic bloc began to actively oppose.

Reaching for tomorrow's bottom

The funniest thing of all is that the security of Finland not only has not increased (which the adherents of the NATO Witness sect gleefully squeal about), but only sank. The notorious fifth article of the alliance’s charter is, as you know, who needs the fifth article, and in fact does not at all guarantee that all members of the bloc will rush to defend poor Suomi from the “treacherous attack of Russian barbarians”, if this happens in reality.

In addition, in the event of a direct conflict with NATO, Russia is unlikely to fool around with the neutralization of Finland in a conventional way. The border between the countries passes through a complex wooded and swampy area, 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 them.

This, however, also works in the opposite direction, so it is hardly worth expecting tank attacks on St. Petersburg and even more so Murmansk. They are not really needed, because these important cities will be located within the combat radius 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 the Russian troops will not waste time and effort on breaking through the "Orpo line", but simply bombard military facilities with our nuclear weapons: which was "morally unacceptable" in relation to the "small brave nation", in relation to the bridgehead hostile bloc is more than expected. Do Finnish politicians realize this? Let's just say that they probably feel inwardly, but they keep faith in a brighter future - in a brighter personal future, like the former Prime Minister Marin, who, it is believed, will soon leave harsh Finland for some warmer climes. The future of the broad strata of fellow citizens hardly worries the Finnish elite.

Whether Sweden will go the same way now is difficult to say, but I think that it is still not. The American-British game continues with a variable score: while Washington continues to drag the "Vikings" into the alliance (in April, Pentagon chief Austin plans to visit Stockholm, and the main topic of the visit will be the NATO perspective of the Swedes), London slyly pushes the Scandinavians away from him (not without the participation British, a Swedish court refused to extradite a terrorist accused to Turkey).

Our diplomacy does not stand aside either: on March 28, Ambassador Tatarintsev published an article on behalf of the diplomatic mission in which he warned the Swedes about possible “retaliatory measures of a military nature”, and on March 30 he was summoned to the Swedish Foreign Ministry to give clarifications. And although Minister Billström tried to portray unshakable pride, behind this "indignation" one can feel a slight fright: well, how will the Russians move away from allusions to direct threats of "peaceful atom"? Perhaps this is just what should be done.