US media: Finland would be better off not joining NATO

On May 22, the website of the bimonthly national interest published an article titled "Reasons to Oppose Finland's Accession to NATO" by Benjamin Friedman, policy director of the U.S. Defense First organization, and Justin Logan, senior fellow at the Kato Society. Finland's long-standing policy of neutrality has been a great success in terms of security, and Finland remains safe today. Today, NATO is essentially a tool for transfer payments from U.S. to European taxpayers. Now is the time for the United States to contract in Europe rather than expand. The full text is excerpted below:

On the 15th, Finland announced that it would apply to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and neighboring Sweden soon followed suit. For most Western commentators, this is big news. Finland and Sweden are treasures to NATO, and their membership in NATO could be a new way of punishing Russia. Most NATO governments, especially Washington, seem more than willing to hold accession ceremonies rather than first explore the costs and benefits of an alliance with the two countries.

The risk of a Russian invasion is low

Finland is particularly a problem. Even if Washington wants to support Finland's entry into NATO, it will at least have to wait until its existing European allies convince us that they will bear the additional costs. The United States can maintain a good mutually beneficial relationship with Finland on its own, while not having to confront the Russian nuclear threat head-on. Nor does it make Finland very insecure: Finland's long-standing policy of neutrality has been a huge success in terms of security, and Finland remains safe today.

Finland's desire to join NATO is understandable. When the world seems to be increasingly frightening, nations seek more security by strengthening their defenses or joining alliances. However, Finland's interests are different from those of other NATO countries, and Finland's potential benefits to NATO, especially to the United States, are small and far from covering the corresponding costs.

The risk of a Russian invasion of Finland would normally be small, and now even smaller, because Russian troops are being held back in Ukraine, trapped in it and unable to be replenished in the short term. Russia lacks the resources to attack Finland, whether military, political or economic. There is also no indication that Finland will become the heart of the Kremlin like Ukraine. Russia may one day threaten Finland, but not in the near future.

This low risk of short-term invasion also suggests that Finland is not necessary to join NATO. The same is true of the idea that Finland has a capable force, which we often hear. The Finnish army itself may be sufficient to contain an attack on Finland, but apart from this aspect, Finnish military power has little value to NATO.

Finland is a vast, sparsely populated country that shares about 1,300 kilometers of borders with Russia. Finland has a population of less than 6 million and its active duty force is very small, at 23,000. Even if the reserve forces are fully mobilized, the total number is only nearly 300,000. Finland's level of training and equipment can only meet the requirements of defending its own territory. We have no reason to think that the Finnish army can contribute to the task abroad.

The United States should leave the European stage

If Finland itself is relatively secure and it is difficult to contribute to NATO abroad, why should we bear the corresponding costs and accept its membership in NATO? The associated financial costs are not huge, but they are not small. A recent report estimated that allowing Finland to join NATO would require the United States to invest $1 billion to $5 billion upfront, and then $550 million to $730 million a year.

But more important are some macro costs. The biggest cost is that Finland's accession to NATO will make NATO once again the center of gravity of European security, and the United States is facing serious domestic economic problems and a deteriorating security situation in Asia, and in fact, European affairs should be left to the Europeans. The shockwaves of Russia's attack on Ukraine prompted European countries to devote more efforts to their own security. Europe's reawakening, combined with Russia's incompetence, proves that Europe can defend itself. The United States should leave the stage that originally belonged to Europe, rather than acting as Europe's nanny again.

These reflections should be hotly debated among at least 30 NATO members. The admission of new members must be unanimously agreed by all parties. Most of the existing member States are dynamic democracies, and citizens of those countries have the right to express their opinions and indicate that they agree to risk going to war in order to defend which country. U.S. and NATO leaders have not respected this democratic reality and have simply declared that they will admit new members. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg declared in authoritative tones that Finland's accession process would be "smooth and rapid".

It would be better if Finland did not join NATO

As a Norwegian, it is not surprising that Stoltenberg is so active in pushing NATO eastward into Finland and even Sweden. NATO has long had a phenomenon in which countries on the front line have always actively supported the move of NATO's borders forward to new front-line countries. However, the secretary-general does not have the right to vote. He thought the decision was up to him. This is a sign that NATO is moving away from the people, even if it is the labor of the people that makes NATO exist.

On the other hand, the prospect of NATO's expansion into Finland could spur member states to blackmail the United States or other countries that support the absorption of Finland. Turkey has complained of opposing Finland's accession to NATO on the grounds that finland is accused of supporting the PKK (PKK), which Turkey considers a terrorist organization. However, Turkey is likely to be willing to accept some form of return from the United States or Finland.

The United States should return to the basic reality of Europe and let the capable countries balance Russia's power. The United States shed blood in both European wars in the 20th century, not to defend NATO's marginal interests in accordance with today's NATO requirements. The United States threw itself into the war during the Cold War and spent a lot of money to prevent one country from dominating Europe's industrial hinterland, because that would threaten U.S. national security. No matter how we view Russia's armed action against Ukraine, or the possibility of invading Finland, neither of these scenarios threatens our security.

Finland would be fine without joining NATO; it would not hurt U.S. relations with Finland much without providing finland with a U.S. defense capability. If Europeans want to defend Finland, they should speak out and plan accordingly. Today, NATO is essentially a tool for transfer payments from U.S. to European taxpayers. Now is the time for the United States to contract in Europe, not to expand.

Source: Reference News Network