Sweden, Finland and nuclear bluffing.

Let’s talk about nuclear blackmail and nuclear bluffing.?

The last few weeks Russia has been spending a lot of time attempting to blackmail Sweden and Finland into not joining NATO. Essentially, they have been warning that if Finland and Sweden join that it will force the Russian state to respond in “Military technical” ways. The Russians have also claimed that as a response they will put nuclear forces in the baltic region. Beyond the fact that the Russians already have nuclear forces in the baltic region (specifically in the Kaliningrad oblast, the exclave between Poland and Lithuania) the entire exercise has been rather farcical. But why has it been farcical? Why have Sweden and Finland not folded to Russian military and nuclear threats??

First, let’s look at what Russia has outright said about the subject. In a Reuters article (1), in which a Russian Foreign ministry statement is translated, Russia states that:

Russia will be forced to take retaliatory steps, both of a military-technical and other nature, in order to neutralize the threats to its national security that arise from this.

Under ordinary circumstances, such fiery rhetoric may have been enough to provoke a withdrawal by nearby nations. After all, sharing a border with what is ostensibly a nuclear superpower does place you in a precarious security situation. However, as has been witnessed by both Sweden and Finlands continued progress towards NATO, this threat has done very little, if anything, to dissuade the two formerly neutral countries from joining NATO. What sort of calculations are leading to this decision?

(credit: https://jenikirbyhistory.getarchive.net/amp/media/a-finnish-air-force-joint-terminal-attack-controller-47128c)

First, let’s look at Finlands security and foreign policy situation. It neighbors Russia, a country it has been nominally at peace with since 1945. During this time, especially during the years of the Soviet Union, Finland operated as a pseudo-satellite state of Russia (for more information, see the term Finlandization) That is to say, while Finland was allowed to operate freely in domestic politics, retaining its democratic institutions and culture, it was not allowed to enter into defensive arrangements with other nations, and the Soviet Union maintained a sort of veto power over both Finnish foreign policy decisions as well as domestic politics. As a result of this precarious situation, Finland spent the majority of the cold war preparing itself for a third Soviet-Finnish war, extensively investing in the military, civil defense and emergency preparedness. By maintaining a strong citizen army with extensive reserves, Finland was able to offset Soviet influence inside their borders. After all, the Soviet Union may have been able to invade Finland if they had felt sufficiently provoked to do so, but such an invasion would be extremely costly, which was supposed to make the entire idea unpalatable. And it worked, Finland remained both neutral and sovereign throughout the conflict.?

With the fall of the Soviet Union, Finland retained its national ethos of placing a heavy emphasis on national defense. The Finnish army remains one of the most capable militaries in Europe, with a relatively (for the nation's size) large standing military and a robust reservist force that is capable of defending the nation if the need arises.? When Russia then threatens with “Military technical” retaliation for Finland joining NATO, this most likely does not provoke much anxiety in the Finnish government. After all, Finland is capable of defending itself, and so far Russia is completely stalemated in Ukraine, which certainly doesn’t lend itself to Russia then suddenly being able to handle invading two countries at the same time. This is where the nuclear blackmail comes into play. So far, Russia has threatened to move more nuclear weapons into the baltic region, as mentioned earlier, but for the reasons that I have outlined in my previous articles on LinkedIn, Russia is simply not in a situation where they have anything to gain from actually using them. Consider the following scenario:

Finland decides that they are going to submit an application to join NATO. Russia wants to stop them from doing so, and in a fit of what can only be described as petulant rage, use a nuclear weapon against Finland in an attempt to scare them off this path permanently. In this scenario, one can perhaps imagine a low-yield nuclear weapon burst high in the air, so that there is very little actual damage besides the electronics that are knocked out within a certain range, but that it still offers quite a significant scary show of force. The reaction, quite frankly, would be immediate from NATO. We have already heard from several individual states that they are willing to defend both Sweden and Finland during the time in which their applications are discussed, and with both Sweden and Finland being in the European Union, Russia would have effectively started a war between itself and the entirety of the European Union and NATO, for no real gain. No territory taken, no political gains made, and Finland certainly was not threatened into not joining NATO. After all, what Russia will have done is merely prove Finland's point, that being that Russia is an unreliable and dangerous neighbor.?

(credit: https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/effects/explostion-types.html)

Even imagining a scenario where Russia decides to use a nuclear weapon to scare off Finland is a bit of a stretch, but it highlights the inherent issues that Russia faces when it comes to its foreign security situation. It has run out of cards to play. Which is also why I would rather call it nuclear bluffing than nuclear blackmail. Quite clearly, Russia is sitting with some very bad cards and is trying to bluff both Sweden and Finland into backing out, but so both nations have, in my estimation, correctly determined that Russia truly does not have the capabilities to effectuate any of its threats, whether they be “military technical” or threats of redirecting more nuclear missiles to the baltic region. It's a bluff, and a bad one at that. The same can be very safely said about Sweden’s situation, insofar as it doesn’t even share a land border with Russia, making it even more immune to the feeble threats of military intervention.?

The war is becoming increasingly embarrassing for Russia in Ukraine, and as it stands so is their attempts at retaining geopolitical power in the eastern european region and the baltic. Finland and Sweden will find security, stability and a future with solidarity in NATO, and I hope that they are ushered into our organization as soon as possible, nuclear-military bluffing or no.?

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61420185
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

For more information see:

https://www.dw.com/en/finlands-nato-accession-bid-better-late-than-never-former-pm-alexander-stubb/a-61776283

Calling Russia's nuclear bluff - Russian nuclear doctrine & the Ukraine war by Youtuber Perun. Highly recommended watching.