War in Ukraine: why Finland’s choice to join NATO is a “geopolitical tsunami”

Finnish leaders said on Thursday that they wanted to join the Atlantic Alliance. A news which arises in the middle of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and which made the Kremlin react. The decision is expected for Sunday, but it only seems to be a formality. While the Finnish president had estimated on Wednesday that his country’s accession to NATO would not be “against anyone”, the leader and his Prime Minister said they were in favor on Thursday of Finland’s accession to NATO “without delay”. ‘Atlantic Alliance. Olaf Scholz for his part gave his “full support” to the will of the Finnish leaders to join NATO immediately. Emmanuel Macron, for his part, indicated that France fully supported Finland’s sovereign choice. Threat of a Russian “military-technical” response. . Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said membership would “definitely” be a threat to Russia.” NATO enlargement and the Alliance’s rapprochement with our borders does not make the world and a more stable and secure continent,” the Russian official said. If membership materializes, Russia will be “obligated to take reciprocal military-technical and other measures to end threats to its national security,” he said. replied the Russian Foreign Ministry Sergei Lavrov in a press release, calling on Helsinki to “be aware of its responsibilities”. “If we joined (to NATO, editor’s note), my answer (to Russia, editor’s note) would be ‘it’ Are you the one who caused this, look in the mirror'”, declared the Finnish president in response. Invited on the set of 22H Max on BFMTV, General Olivier de Bavinchov evokes a “geopolitical tsunami”. The former chief of staff of NATO’s international force recalls that the term “Finlandization” had been used to characterize the country’s historical neutrality between the two blocs. “It’s a veritable geopolitical tsunami that shows how much President Putin is getting, in all areas, exactly the opposite of what he hoped for. It’s an absolute failure all along the line”, estimated Olivier de Bavinchov on our antenna. “For this neighboring country of Russia, which has a border of more than 1340 kilometers, it is not nothing”, also judges in Ouest-France François Heisbourg, special adviser at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “It is a strategic upheaval. Russia seemed to adapt to this situation where Finland had the free exercise of possible NATO membership, but chose not to exercise this option”, he continues, qualifying Europe as a “co-beneficiary” of this decision taken by Helsinki. If Finland can indeed count on article 42.7 of mutual assistance of the European treaties, the 27 are well aware of not occupying the same place as NATO vis-à-vis Russia. “The big difference in NATO, it is that there is the United States”, underlines Jean Sylvestre Mongrenier for France Info. The researcher at the Thomas More Institute notes that “the United States, by its weight, by its power, is able to provide much more solid security guarantees than those of the countries of the European Union”. For Amélie Zima, “the whole question would be whether we would position troops from NATO countries in Finland, as has been done in the Baltic States”. The international relations researcher, however, explains to our colleagues at France Info that the membership of a single country does not make sense for Finland and Sweden and that it must be done “together to be strategically and politically interesting.” A similar decision expected in Sweden, for Sweden too could well take the plunge: a strategic review prepared by the government and the parties in Parliament will be made public on Friday, before an undoubtedly decisive meeting of the ruling Social Democratic Party on Sunday. “These two neutral countries have powerful armies in relation to their population, and their interoperability with NATO forces. If the political process is accepted, the technical process will be accepted quickly, and ultimately what Putin wanted to avoid – that the ‘NATO is getting closer to its borders – it manages to obtain what it did not want”, analyzed General Jérôme Pellistrandi last week on BFMTV Worried about the reaction of the In Russia, the two countries have already sought to obtain assurances of protection during the months necessary for their formal entry into the Atlantic Alliance, like a mutual defense agreement signed on Wednesday with London. In the US Senate, which is responsible for ratification with a required two-thirds majority, key elected officials from the Democrats and Republicans have promised to support Finland’s membership. Hugues Garnier with AFP Journalist BFMTV