Finland and Sweden bury long-held neutrality in bid to join NATO at risk of future proxy war

When Finland and Sweden opted to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization led by the United States,the two Nordic countries can no longer claim their status as neutral states.

That claim of neutrality begins before the warring factions commence hostilities. Once a party joins the conflict, its neutrality automatically ceases.

When Sweden and Finland manifested to join NATO, that decision already constitutes a potentially belligerent stance against Russia, mainly because they run counter to Russia's long-professed opposition to NATO expansion to its border. It so happens Finland even has a longer border with Russia than Ukraine.

Stopping Ukraine to join NATO so as to keep a buffer zone is behind Russia's military operation on Feb 24 into the two "republics" in eastern Ukraine which are breaking away. Against this background the rush of Finland and Sweden to embrace NATO for fear of Ukraine's fate could boomerang.

Though NATO and Russia are not to officially declare war, the claim of status quo ante-bellumcan no longer apply. Military and political analysts term this as "proxy war" for the fact that the US and United Kingdom are not directly engaged in combat against Russia but have motivated and engaged in other elements of fighting Russia with intelligence, command, finance and logistics and in cyberworld and by sending of nationals as "volunteers" to support Ukraine.

In this case, the line that distinguishes proxy war from real war is the absence of actual conflict between parties at war. Traditionally, international relations mandate countries to make a declaration of war like what the Allied and Axis forces did during World War II. This explains why proxy war has been categorized as a US-invented concept.

First, a proxy war is often fought in a foreign land like many of the US' military adventures.

Second, proxy war is progressive that it begins by making an incident to justify the party's involvement without officially declaring war. This mode of war is resorted to get away with the constitutional requirement of sending troops and to secure the release of the defense appropriations. US involvement in Vietnam began when it refused to abide by Geneva Agreement signed in 1954.

Third, countries where proxy war is fought suffer as a result. Civilian population and their properties bear the brunt. Countries involved in proxy war provide little or no compensation to countries where the war was fought.

Fourth, proxy war is principally instigated by the big arms dealers, to test new weapons, and promote sales by guaranteeing the supply of these weapons.

The fact that a proxy war is now raging in Ukraine is more than enough to forewarn Sweden and Finland of their status, judging from US-led NATO's constant abetting to provoke and prolong the conflict in Ukraine. The two applicants' participation in the latest NATO war exercise is an indicator.

For long, Finland and Sweden have trodden the path of neutrality and resisted NATO allure. For instance, though Finland is not a "neutralized" state similar to Switzerland, Finland's neutrality is recognized and was guaranteed by the then USSR, the predecessor of Russia-led Commonwealth of Independent States.

The irony is, the moment when Finland and Sweden applied to join the North Atlantic alliance, the two practically renounced the guarantee made by the USSR.

The guarantee of neutrality is impliedly obligatory to the great powers that recognize their status. That commitment to Sweden and Finland automatically ended upon their change of status. As one political analyst commented, Finland and Sweden volunteered to become new type of "colony" of the US.

Though Sweden acceded to the European Union in 1995, it had remained neutral and a non-aligned country in regard to foreign and security policy. Now that it has officially applied for NATO membership, Sweden is straying off its military neutrality for about two centuries.

At least, their membership to NATO would force them to pay tribute by spending up 2 percent of their GDP for defense purposes of which 70 percent will go to the purchase of US-made armaments.

In fact, only a few of the 26 member-states of NATO are able to meet the required 2 percent of their GDP defense budget. The US leads by spending 3.42 percent, currently followed by UK at 2.14 percent, Romania 2.04 percent, Greece 2.28 percent, Bulgaria 3.23 percent, Lithuania 2.03 percent, Croatia 1.68 percent, Latvia 2.01 percent, and Estonia 2.14 percent

As Sweden and Finland cannot be assured of their long-standing neutrality any more, instability and tension will ensue not only because of NATO's animosity against Russia, but also because of the future frontline position in the bloc facing Russia. NATO's further advance toward Russia could open the door for a threatened Russia to potentially retaliate against Finland and Sweden, which may put them also at Ukraine-like proxy war.

Moreover, risks increase judging the Finland's dependence on Russia for power, which has remained unimpeded for years. Even Sweden's scarce natural gas can be up for grab by other NATO members following their embargo against Russian products.

Peace for Finland and Sweden with NATO membership will be far more costly to achieve in the future.

The author is a Manila-based political analyst and columnist with the Manila Standard. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.