Erdoğan’s Choice: Why Finland and not Sweden?
In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sweden and Finland have begun vying for entry into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The war in Ukraine has shifted European policy to focus on military defense, sparking renewed interest among these Scandinavian countries who view NATO as crucial in deterrence of further Russian aggression.
However, NATO membership requires approval from all thirty members, a continued obstacle to both nations' entry into the organization. Turkey and Hungary have both expressed hesitancy about admitting new members into NATO. Turkey has long disagreed with the Swedish authorities on the continued political activism from Sweden’s Kurdish community, and it appears Hungary has continued to follow Turkey’s lead when approving the new NATO members.
Turkey and Hungary recently signed off on Finland’s NATO bid, spurring the domestic ascension process, but Turkey has continued to leave Sweden’s bid in limbo. These ongoing membership bids have sparked conflict in NATO, raising questions of membership legitimacy, future cohesion, and military prowess. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's delay has the potential to disrupt NATO cohesion, which could threaten NATO's legitimacy, especially at a time where NATO attempts to project strength in anticipation of potential conflict with Russia. Cohesion has always been the foundation of NATO, and schisms could prevent future action imperative to checking back Russian aggression. With every member having effective veto power, any discord risks strategic policy passage in the future.
Why Finland?
Erdoğan has been accusing the Swedish government of housing Kurdish terrorists. Though the Swedish government has denied these allegations, Erdoğan remains steadfast in opposing Sweden’s bid for NATO. Turkey has repeatedly clashed with independent Kurdish groups who demand separation from the official state of Turkey to form Kurdistan. With a Kurdish community estimated at around 100,000 people, political campaigns in Sweden are held regularly against the Turkish state. In May of 2022, Erdoğan demanded the extradition of 33 alleged supporters of Kurdish terrorist groups to Turkey from Sweden and Finland. Additionally, Turkey demands that Sweden must classify the YPG, a Kurdish political group, as terrorists. This is something major leaders of NATO, such as the United States and the UK, have not done.
Between May and December 2022, Sweden and Finland have extradited slightly under a dozen Kurdish protesters. However, in the wake of Kurdish protests in January, Erdoğan demanded over 130 terrorists be extradited from Sweden and Finland. No extraditions have occurred; however, the Kurdish protest in Stockholm is a substantial reason Erdoğan denies Sweden membership in NATO. Tensions have escalated since protestors in Stockholm hung an effigy of Erdoğan. The Prime Minister of Sweden later denounced these demonstrations as an “act of sabotage” towards Sweden’s entry into NATO.
As of this April, Turkey has moved past its concerns for Finland's potential support of Kurdish terrorist groups, with Erdoğan praising Finland for taking ”concrete steps.” However, it is unclear what those steps are, as Finland has not acted beyond its initial few extraditions in response to Erdoğan’s demand.
Conversely, Hungarian Prime Minister, Victor Orban, accused Finland and Sweden of spreading “outright lies” about Hungary’s rule of law record and potential human rights abuses. The European Union has accused Hungary, under Orban’s leadership, of suppressing media freedom and LGBTQ rights to serve the governing Fidesz party. Daniel Hegedus, an analyst and fellow for Central Europe at the German Marshall fund, believes Hungary’s delay will pressure the EU to release billions of funds they have frozen over corruption concerns. Hegedus claims Hungary wants to “push the Swedes and the Finns to support a potential release of the Hungarian funds in April.”
However, his position has changed since the March approval of Finland’s bid. A decision on Sweden will occur at another time, further delaying Sweden’s bid to join NATO. Though this delay may not seem too important, the heightened risk of military aggression from Russia, is pushing NATO members to act.
Why is it Crucial that Finland and Sweden join NATO?
Finland and Sweden hold prime locations in the Baltic, adding critical strategic placement of NATO military resources. Celeste A. Wallander, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, advocated for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to accept Finland and Sweden’s bid. Wallander emphasized Finland’s location on the Baltic sea and expansive border with Russia. Currently, NATO has a 1,200-kilometer border with Russia, and Finland’s membership will add another 1,300 kilometers. If Russia were to launch an offensive in the Baltic, the admission of both Sweden and Finland would open up new possibilities for NATO’s military actions against Russia. In the case of conflict, Finland would be a valuable NATO ally, providing space for NATO military bases and troops to be stationed if a conflict emerges.
Additionally, Wallander argued Sweden’s “military expertise in the Arctic and undersea environments would substantially advance alliance capabilities.” Sweden has the Patriot long-range air defense systems and the capabilities to build fighter jets. Accepting Sweden as a NATO ally would include the island of Gotland, only 320 kilometers from the headquarters of Russia’s Naval base. Situated in the center of the Baltic, the island is a prime location that provides a base of operations for the majority of the Baltic’s sea and air.
In August, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmed Finland and Sweden’s bid to NATO; however, other nations have continued to hold out.
If Finland and Sweden already possess self-defense capabilities, why should it matter if they join NATO or not?
NATO is a unique international organization that places countries in a ‘military contract,’ with a doctrine called “Article V.” Article V states that an attack against one country is an attack against all, holding all NATO members to defend a NATO ally in the event of an attack.
Fundamentally, Finland and Sweden’s bid to NATO affords two more nations the backing of thirty allies worldwide. If Russia takes offensive actions against either country, partners like the United States would be bound to defend them. Similarly, if Russia decides to instigate an offensive attack on another NATO ally, Finland and Sweden would be obligated to respond and house NATO military operations.
Will Sweden be admitted?
The verdict is still out on when Sweden will be admitted into NATO. Sweden’s entry remains subject to the political calculus of Erdoğan and Obran, with both holding out admittance. Though it is unclear how Erdoğan is framing his decision calculus, there remains a lingering question over Sweden’s next step.
Carly Salonius-Pastrnak, an Institute of Foreign Affairs researcher, doesn’t believe Turkey will decide to “keep Sweden hanging for no reason for years and years.” There is uncertainty over what Erdoğan has to gain from a continued withholding of Sweden’s admittance, and it is likely diplomatic pressure will cause Erdoğan to acquiesce.
But only time will tell.