Tensions in Europe persist as concerns mount over potential Russian expansion beyond the borders of Ukraine. Speculation is rife that Russia may not confine its ambitions to Ukraine alone, prompting political and military recalibrations across the continent. This is particularly evident in Scandinavia, where longstanding principles of neutrality and non-alignment were reconsidered in light of the evolving security landscape.
Danish Defence Minister Trolls Lund Poulsen has called for expedited military investment in response to „recent intelligence suggesting a faster-than-anticipated rearmament by Russia, raising the specter of a potential NATO nation being targeted within the next 3 to 5 years.”
On the other hand, calls by the Swedish military and Government for war preparedness have provoked intense debate, waves of back-up purchases and heightened concern among the population. Sweden has not participated in any armed conflict since the Napoleonic Wars, and most Swedes do not know anything about wars.
The Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces, Mikael Biden, said that „Russia’s war against Ukraine is a phase and not an ultimate goal. The aim is to create a zone of influence and destroy the world order based on specific regimes.” The army chief also stressed that Swedes „must prepare psychologically for war.”
Finland also joined NATO, where, in addition to many developments in Russia’s policy, the war in Ukraine led it to abandon its neutrality and seek protection from NATO.
In this essay, we will shed the light on what this means for NATO countries and what this reflects on Russia and on Europe’s balance of power.
Scandinavia is gearing up to fend off any potential Russian aggression, spurred by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which shattered the region’s long-standing neutrality stance. Consequently, Finland’s accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was swiftly followed by Sweden’s, despite Russia’s dissimilarities with Ukraine and Crimea. Unlike its rhetoric concerning Ukraine and Crimea, Russia has not publicly threatened to reclaim Finland, which declared independence from Russia in 1917, nor has it voiced aspirations for access to the Atlantic Ocean via Norway. Nevertheless, political tensions are simmering between Russia and Scandinavia, prompting the need for NATO’s backing to counter any potential threat from Russia. The move aims to establish a deterrent force that would compel Russia to carefully consider before embarking on any provocative actions.
Current political tensions are primarily focused on the Arctic region, where nations convene under the Arctic Council to address shared security, scientific, and safety concerns. For years, bilateral and international agreements between Russia and other Arctic countries have been the cornerstone of cooperation.
However, following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, these arrangements swiftly deteriorated. In March 2022, the eight Arctic Forum suspended talks, only cautiously resuming them in May 2023 without clear explanations regarding Russia’s participation. Moreover, in September 2023, Russia withdrew from the European Arctic Barents Council, citing Scandinavia’s role in “paralyzing” cooperation.
Admiral Rob Power, Chairman of the NATO Military Commission, voiced concerns about the escalating competition and militarization in the Arctic during a speech at the Arctic Circle Society in Iceland in October 2023. He emphasized the importance of readiness for potential military conflicts that may arise in the region.
The Council comprises Russia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the European Commission, with the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and Poland serving as observers. In February 2023, Russia made amendments to its Arctic policy, placing greater emphasis on forging new alliances with other BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), particularly China.
Rasmus Bertelsen, President of the Barents University of Politics at the Arctic University in Tromso, remarked: „There exists a post-Cold War political concept known as the ‘Arctic exception,’ which suggests that the North remains insulated from global political developments. However, these arrangements have proven to be ineffective.” He further noted that a closer examination of past decades reveals a „Russian Arctic strategy” closely aligned with its global agenda.
In the same year, Russia launched its first cyberattack on Estonia and made a bold territorial claim in the Arctic by planting the Russian flag at the bottom of the Arctic. Putin also intensified militarization efforts around the far north. Since 2014, the year Russia annexed Crimea, it has steadily bolstered its northern fleet, comprising nuclear submarines, ships, missile facilities, air fleets, and radar stations.
Today, Russia’s largest military base sits on the Kola peninsula, bordering Norway and Finland, where it is also conducting tests on new hypersonic missiles. Andreas Ostagen, a senior fellow at the Arctic Institute in Oslo, Norway, noted, „previously, Russia showed interest in being a constructive partner, including in the Arctic. However, the situation has deteriorated significantly.”
With Finland and Sweden joining NATO, seven of the eight Arctic countries are now part of the alliance. This means that in the future, Russia will find itself at the Arctic cooperation table with seven NATO members. Such a scenario would make security and military cooperation between Moscow and the other polar states challenging, if not impossible.
The conflict has significantly disrupted global shipping routes across the Arctic Ocean, impacting the development of new international trade routes, particularly those passing through Russia’s maritime waters. With the Arctic Council’s operations on hold, international organizations involved in its affairs, including those focused on environmental protection, infrastructure development, climate change, and scientific research, face increased challenges.
Russia’s military buildup in the Arctic, both preceding and during the conflict in Ukraine, has spurred NATO and Arctic states to enhance their military capabilities. This has led to increased military cooperation among polar states, particularly between Sweden, Norway, and Finland. In 2022, these three states announced an agreement to strengthen their military alliance, with a focus on the northern regions. Additionally, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden have engaged in discussions regarding the formal sharing of their air forces.
China is in the game
This shift in dynamics extends beyond Russia to include concerns about its allies, particularly China, which is emerging as a significant player in the Arctic. After Russia opened its doors to Chinese involvement, Moscow seeks Beijing’s assistance in facilitating increased oil shipments eastward through Arctic routes.
China has long aspired to play a major role in the Arctic, but its ambitions have been hampered by Russia, which has historically safeguarded its dominant position in the region. However, „Wall Street Journal“ reports that Moscow’s resistance to Chinese involvement in the Arctic appears to be thawing.
Facing economic isolation, Russia is turning to China for support in Arctic development, while Western energy companies are distancing themselves from the Kremlin’s projects. The burgeoning cooperation between Moscow and Beijing is most evident in the rise of crude oil shipments through the Northern Sea Route, which traverses the Arctic from northwestern Russia to the Bering Strait.
While the volume of cargo transported via this route remains modest compared to southern routes, it has seen significant recent growth, with Russia asserting its authority to regulate transit along the route. Marcus Cube, an economics lecturer at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology’s Military Academy, notes that for China, which declared itself a „near-Arctic” nation in 2018 despite being over 900 miles from the Arctic Circle, Russia’s newfound openness presents a long-awaited opportunity.
Beijing’s ambitions in the Arctic extend to enhancing access to shipping routes, natural resources, climate and scientific research opportunities, as well as bolstering its military and strategic influence. As part of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s broader „Belt and Road Infrastructure Initiative“, Beijing has proposed the „polar silk road,” leveraging the Arctic’s shorter shipping distances to bypass congested chokepoints like the Suez Canal and the Malacca Strait.
However, Western Arctic nations, aside from Russia, are growing increasingly wary of Chinese investments. Denmark, citing security concerns, blocked a Chinese plan to construct three airports in Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory. Similarly, Canada prohibited a Chinese company from acquiring a gold mine in the Arctic region in 2020, following security apprehensions raised by military officials.
Marcus Cube notes that „Russia may possess human resources and regional expertise, but it lacks capital and technology. This creates a significant advantage for China, allowing it to exert influence and economic pressure on Russia and shape the development of Arctic routes according to its own interests.”
Anatoly Tkachuk, a former Russian intelligence officer, disclosed that he met with representatives from two Chinese infrastructure giants, China Communications Construction and China Railway Construction, in January. They discussed plans to extract titanium and other raw materials from the Russian Federal Republic of Komi, located near the Arctic Circle. The project entails the construction of a rail line to transport materials to the coast and the establishment of a deep-water port for loading ships destined for the North Sea route.
In the Nenets region, situated above the Arctic Circle along the Barents Sea, the regional government announced in August 2023 that a Chinese energy engineering company had agreed to establish a branch in the region. Additionally, they are exploring the development of natural gas deposits in the area.
If these projects proceed, Chinese companies will collaborate with the Chinese state-owned national oil giant already active in the region. China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has partnered with the Russian natural gas production company PAO Novatek, TotalEnergies, and the Chinese Silk Road Fund for the Yamal LNG project, which commenced production in 2017. Furthermore, CNPC is involved as a partner in the Arctic 2 LNG project’s development.
Arctic importance for Russia and the world
The Arctic region boasts abundant resources, with the Royal Institute of International Affairs estimating reserves of up to 90 billion barrels of oil, roughly equivalent to those of the UAE. Additionally, according to the United States Geological Survey, one-fifth of the world’s natural gas lies untapped beneath the North Pole’s ice sheet, while the region also contains significant deposits of rare metals.
Over the past decade, Russia’s aspirations in the Arctic have garnered increasing attention from Western nations, particularly as climate change opens up new opportunities for navigation and resource exploration in the region. Moscow perceives challenges to its position and ambitions from the United States and NATO, leading to heightened rhetoric from the Kremlin about Western encroachment.
As melting sea ice facilitates easier passage for ships through the Arctic Ocean, the number of large vessels traversing the region is expected to rise. This raises security concerns for Arctic states, which must regulate increased traffic through their territories and may face conflicts over regional claims, especially those related to valuable resources.
The Russian Arctic region contributes significantly to the country’s economy, accounting for over 11% of GDP and more than 20% of exports. Home to over 2.5 million Russians, including indigenous peoples in the north, Russia’s polar territory encompasses nearly one-third of the Arctic region, hosts over half of the Arctic’s population, nearly half of its entire coast, and facilitates nearly 70% of economic activities at higher latitudes, according to Russian officials.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg characterized Russia’s „war against Ukraine“ as a pivotal moment, emphasizing NATO’s response in the Arctic as indicative of a new normal for European and Arctic security. Referring to NATO as the „Arctic Alliance“, he underscored the region’s strategic significance for the security of the entire Euro-Atlantic area and its crucial role in bridging North America and Europe.
Stoltenberg highlighted the Arctic as a zone of growing strategic competition, noting a significant uptick in Russian military activity in recent years. He pointed out that Russia has revitalized Soviet-era Arctic bases and tested several new weapons systems, including strategic submarines. Stoltenberg labeled the Russian military buildup as the most pressing challenge to stability and allied security in the northern region.
What’s the achievement after Sweden and Finland joined NATO?
With Finland and Sweden’s accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the military strength of this international organization, now composed of 32 states, is on the rise. The inclusion of these two strategically significant new members enhances NATO’s capabilities, particularly in terms of countering potential threats from Russia.
Michael Paul, a senior fellow in security policy at the German „Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik“, suggested that history would likely view this new northern alliance as „one of Putin’s greatest mistakes.” He remarked, „if the war in Ukraine has achieved anything, it is the consolidation of the Nordic countries on security matters.”
Researcher Niall Ferguson emphasized the mutual benefits of joint US, Swedish, and Finnish military bases, noting that while the US possesses resources, it often lacks expertise in harsh conditions. He described the alliance with NATO as a potential game-changer, with these smaller nations offering valuable lessons to the US military.
Ferguson highlighted the significance of having seven out of eight Arctic countries geopolitically aligned with highly capable armies. However, experts stressed that widespread conflict in the North is „unlikely“ noting Russia’s vast military capabilities and economic resources, which both contribute to tensions in the Arctic and deter actual escalation.
In the Arctic region, Russia stands to lose significantly due to the presence of vast fossil fuel resources. As a result, the Kremlin has a vested interest in maintaining a „low level of tension” in the region.
However, experts cautioned against assuming that Putin would always act rationally. They explained that if the Russian President feels cornered by NATO expansion and Ukrainian advances, predicting his reaction becomes challenging.
Sweden’s NATO membership marks a profound shift in its defense policy, integrating it into a collective framework and representing a major geopolitical development in the region. For Sweden, joining NATO after 200 years of neutrality signifies a significant shift in both military and political mindset. Despite contributing to international peacekeeping efforts, Sweden has not engaged in warfare since its conflict with Norway in 1814.
Sweden has invested in strengthening its defense capabilities to maintain neutrality, although military spending decreased after the end of the Cold War. However, military investments began to rise again in 2014 following Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
The Swedish Army can deploy approximately 50,000 troops, with about half being reservists. The Swedish Air Force relies on over 90 Jas and 39 Gripen fighter jets manufactured by Saab. Additionally, Sweden maintains a military fleet in the Baltic Sea, including cruisers and submarines.
Sweden’s NATO accession significantly bolsters the alliance. In the event of a Russian attack on Finland, a NATO member, Sweden would contribute to its defense. The country aims to meet NATO’s target of investing at least two percent of its economic strength in defense this year. Further investments worth billions are planned in the coming years, positioning Sweden to surpass Germany in defense spending.
According to NATO military strategists, defending the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) poses challenges due to their connection to the rest of the alliance’s territory solely through a narrow land corridor between Poland and Lithuania. This is compounded by Belarus’s alignment with Russia. With the Scandinavian countries joining NATO, shorter supply routes via air and sea will become available compared to those through Poland and Germany.
The Swedish island of Gotland holds particular significance as a strategic outpost. Situated in the central Baltic Sea, approximately 300 kilometers from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, it can serve as a crucial hub for supplying and reinforcing NATO troops defending the Baltic States. According to internal NATO plans, naval forces from Sweden, Finland, and Germany can deploy from Jutland against the Russian fleet stationed in Kaliningrad.
From the Russian perspective, the prospect of Sweden and Finland joining NATO raises concerns as NATO troops would gain easy access to the R-21 highway, spanning 782 kilometers and connecting Russia’s core around Saint Petersburg to the far northern Kola Peninsula. Russia’s northern fleet, anchored at ports in Murmansk and Severomorsk on the Kola Peninsula, includes submarines armed with ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads. These nuclear submarines play a pivotal role in Russia’s nuclear strategy.
Returning to Finland, while its standing army may be relatively small compared to other nations, the country boasts approximately 280,000 military reserves, who can be mobilized at any given time, as reported by War on The Rocks’ military analysis website. Finland also possesses one of Europe’s most formidable artillery arsenals, comprising around 1,500 guns, and boasts squadrons of modern American F36 aircraft, of which Finland purchased 64.
Finland’s NATO membership guarantees the country access to the entire spectrum of NATO resources in the event of an attack. Moreover, NATO affiliation facilitates closer integration of Finnish and Swedish forces into training and planning with NATO allies. Finland has extensive experience collaborating with NATO, as its defense forces operate several weapons systems utilized by NATO members, including US F18 fighters, German-designed Leopard main battle tanks, and K9 howitzers used by Norway, Estonia, and others.
The potency of Finland’s artillery surpasses that of the combined armies of Poland, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. Additionally, a Wilson Center report underscores Finland’s robust cybersecurity capabilities, highlighting the country’s status as the primary 5G infrastructure provider, alongside Swedish Ericsson and Chinese Huawei.
The declaration of Finland’s accession to NATO has ruffled feathers in Russia, not only due to its military strength but also because it effectively doubles NATO’s borders with Russia. Finland shares an 832-mile border with Russia, the longest border among European Union members.
Expectations
Despite NATO’s positive reception of Sweden and Finland and increased cooperation among Scandinavian countries, caution pervades Europe due to the potential re-election of former US President Donald Trump in 2024. Trump’s questioning of NATO’s essence, particularly the obligation to provide solidarity, has created uncertainty, even among countries like the Baltic States and neighboring Poland, which invest significantly in their defense.
If Trump secures a second term, he would be the first head of state in NATO’s 75-year history to openly challenge the commitment to provide assistance. Even if Trump were to reaffirm this obligation while in office, trust would be damaged. Ultimately, NATO’s strength relies heavily on trust—trust among member states to provide military support when necessary. Trust serves as the primary deterrent against Russian aggression.
Should Russia perceive a decline in confidence among NATO countries, President Vladimir Putin might be emboldened to test NATO’s cohesion. This could potentially involve occupying a region in the Baltic states to gauge NATO’s response. The unity and readiness of NATO to confront such provocations would be crucial in preventing further escalation, especially given Russia’s nuclear capabilities.
All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research Center.
