Key Summary
Sweden’s NATO Membership Approved: After months of negotiation and holdouts from Hungary and Turkey, Sweden has been approved to join NATO, strengthening the alliance’s presence in Scandinavia.
Geopolitical Implications: The approval of Sweden’s NATO membership marks a significant shift in European security dynamics amid ongoing tensions between Russia and Ukraine, potentially reshaping the regional balance of power.
Strategic Bargaining: Sweden made concessions, including passing anti-terrorism laws and increasing military spending, to secure approval from Turkey and Hungary, highlighting the strategic bargaining involved in NATO expansion.
Russian Response: Russia is likely to perceive Sweden’s NATO membership as a security threat, potentially leading to further aggression and military buildup in the region, raising concerns about escalation.
Long-Term Uncertainty: While Sweden’s NATO membership strengthens the alliance’s defense capabilities, it also raises questions about NATO’s purpose and the potential for further conflict with Russia, highlighting the complex geopolitical landscape in Europe.
The geopolitical implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 are continuing into 2024. Sweden, a historically neutral country regarding hegemonic and counter-hegemonic power politics, has just been approved to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). After months of holdouts from Hungary and Turkey, Turkey agreed to the addition of Sweden and January, and Hungary obliged in February. Prime Minister Orban, of Hungary, and his party have maintained warm relations with President Putin. Yet, even with Prime Minister Orban’s party having a majority in parliament, the nineteen month stalemate came to an end, paving the way for NATO membership for Sweden.
The Scandinavian countries have historically been neutral in regards to American – Russian tensions. This has allowed them to benefit from trade relations with the United States while maintaining a stable and non-violent relationship with Russia. However, Scandinavian leaders understood that this neutrality would most likely fail in another cold war or large conflict between these two great powers. The onset of Russia’s invasion into Ukraine sparked a formal change of alliance networks as both Sweden and Finland applied for NATO membership. This application came three months after the invasion and ultimately when these countries figured that they were better off securitizing themselves even at the cost of raising tensions with Russia then to risk being the subject of Soviet imperialism.
Article ten of the NATO treaty lays out the process of how NATO can be enlarged. This process requires a unanimous vote from all member countries. This allows even just one country to act as a filibuster to membership, which is exactly what Hungary and Turkey engaged in. Finland gained NATO membership in April as both Hungary and Turkey approved their bid. This was a major blow to Russian security as Finland borders Russia’s Northwestern border, where, effectively, there are now NATO military capabilities. Although this violated the promise made to Russia by the United States that NATO wouldn’t push any further east, NATO members justified Finland’s addition as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent insecurity shivers down the backs of bordering countries.
Sweden, similarly to Finland, suffered from the strategic stalling of Hungary and Turkey. Sweden, although near Russia, was not as paramount as Finland’s bid due to the shared border of Finland and Russia. This allowed Hungary and Turkey to justify their stalling which lasted almost an additional year. In order to appease the two countries Sweden used some bargaining chips to try and gain votes. First, Sweden passed an anti-terrorism law in June 2023, which was done to address Turkish concerns of Sweden not cracking down on terrorist groups that have carried out attacks in Turkey. Sweden, at a NATO conference in Lithuania, also promised to increase military spending to 2% of their GDP to meet the NATO member state standards. These adjustments in Swedish fiscal and terrorist policy led to Turkey eventually approving the bid in December. Further bargaining arrangements were made with Hungary as they became the lone holdout. In bartering for Hungary’s vote, Sweden will provide Hungary with four Swedish Gripen jets and Saab would open an AI research facility in Hungary. In addition to Sweden’s offering, a bipartisan delegation of United States Senators visited Budapest to demand that parliament and Prime Minister Orban approve Sweden’s NATO bid.
The addition of Sweden is beneficial to the NATO alliance. First it reinforces Finland’s NATO membership as all the Scandinavian countries are now members and it provides a vital location for boosting NATO defense with easy access to the Baltic Sea. Further, Sweden has maintained a high level of military capabilities especially with their production of Gripen jets, which also will aid other NATO countries as Sweden is expected to produce and possibly provide these jets to countries wishing to rearm in the aim of deterring further Russian aggression.
However, this addition also works in the opposite direction. Russia will undoubtedly see the additions of Finland and Sweden as a security threat. This perception could lead President Putin to acting even more aggressively with NATO pushing more and more east. Further the stallings of both Hungary and Turkey highlight another important aspect of NATO, where not all countries perceive Russia as the security threat. This leads to questions about what some countries are to gain from holding out on approving future members, which in the case of Sweden, led Hungary and Turkey to gaining some level of concessions. Secondly, it asks what the purpose of NATO is. Is NATO the central security provider of Europe or is it the central institution of defending a liberal international order?
Sweden’s membership into NATO brings military and strategic geopolitical benefits that strengthen NATO’s alliance and its security in the Baltic region. However, the now NATO members of Scandinavia provide a security dilemma that Russia will more than likely react to by a further buildup of arms. Accepting Sweden, and Finland, now provides a justification for Russia to ramp up their own military capabilities, even if they are in the form of defense measures. President Putin’s aggressive actions make Russia the primary security threat of the west which is also perceived as the central threat to the liberal world order. The addition of Finland and Sweden into NATO mark one of the attractive strategies that the United States and NATO countries have come to adopt. Expand NATO membership. In the midst of the Russia and Ukraine war, this appears to be one of the only reasonable options in deterring further Russian aggression. However, this is ultimately a short term solution, until there is a regime change in Russia. How this regime change will occur is unknown, but using the Russia and Ukraine war as evidence signals that the United States and allied countries see that a convincing Ukrainian victory is the only solution to securing the rest of Europe.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine does not seem like there is a possibility for a peaceful agreement in the near future, due to President Putin’s desire to gain control of Ukraine. This aggression sent waves of insecurity across European countries. With diplomacy, in the near future, off the table, European countries will turn to the NATO alliance to deter Russia from advancing further than Ukraine. However, this solution of pushing NATO eastward poses a dangerous externality of giving Russia a justification of continuing aggression westward. We forecast that Ukrainian financial and military support will continue through 2024 and into 2025 with Sweden ramping up military expenditure and no near end goal in sight.
Author: Tucker Henry