There are, in the western field, two interpretations of the course of the Ukrainian War. The first, taken over by the US, the UK and the Baltic countries, maintains that peace can only be achieved with the definitive weakening of Russia. The other line, led by the Franco-German axis, which was strengthened after the re-election of Emmanuel Macron, defends pragmatism in negotiations with Russia. Paris has again warned of the need not to “humiliate” Putin, while Berlin has resisted the implementation of new sanctions.
The announcement of Finland’s application for NATO membership will have a decisive impact on defining the West’s position vis-à-vis Russia. It is worth remembering that Finland’s decision is sovereign, popular and inevitable. Finnish President Sauli Niinistö, one of Putin’s closest European rulers, is a historic advocate of Finnish neutrality, a masterpiece of diplomacy that guaranteed Helsinki autonomy and stability throughout the Cold War.
However, after the invasion of Ukraine, the European populations, and especially those of the Eastern countries, stopped seeing Russia as a rational and bureaucratic actor. Images of razed cities and massacred populations have forged the perception that the Putin regime is an existential threat to the entire European continent. Finnish support for NATO membership soared from 21% in 2017 to 76% in May 2022, and the local political class had no choice but to make a historic turnaround in its foreign policy.
It remains that Finland’s eventual accession to NATO is a disaster for advocates of a quick resolution to the war. If it does not have immediate implications, given that the country is already fully integrated into the western political system, its political potential is explosive. Finland’s membership of NATO will be seen as a victory for the belligerent Washington-London line against the Paris-Berlin diplomatic line.
It will also spark a new rush of candidacies from other countries neighboring Russia, such as Georgia and Moldova, which may also allege the imminent threat posed by the Putin regime. These developments will give new materiality to the thesis of Russia’s military siege by NATO, a central argument for legitimizing the conflict in Moscow’s military and political circles.
Wars only end in two ways: the destruction of one of the belligerents or a negotiated settlement. With Russia’s military failure in Donbass, the front lines in Ukraine are consolidating, which could create the conditions for a ceasefire. The return of the theme of NATO expansionism at this turning point in the war compromises a rare, if not unique, chance to find a diplomatic way out. The reasons that lead Helsinki to apply to join NATO are perfectly understandable. But when NATO ratifies the incorporation of Finland, the world will be even further from peace.
