Why Should Finland and Sweden Join NATO?

It has long been no secret that Russia and China have growing ambitions in the Arctic region, particularly as continuing climate change opens new opportunities for transit and exploration at the North Pole. Would the potential admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO, in itself, legitimise increased US military activity in the Arctic and the Baltic Sea?

According to US Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro, the United States welcomes Sweden and Finland joining NATO soon. ‘I foresee the day when we will increase our maritime operations in the Baltic Sea,’ Del Toro said recently in a speech to the congressional committee responsible for naval appropriations. He also noted that, by applying for NATO membership, Finland and Sweden had broken with decades of neutrality and their defence doctrines.

If Finland and Sweden joined NATO, Russia would remain the only non-NATO member of the Arctic Council, an organisation addressing the challenges facing the eight countries with Arctic territory. What might the future look like? Several scenarios and possibilities were outlined at the congressional naval appropriations hearing.

US General David Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps, said that formally admitting two armed forces with extensive cold-weather experience would be a boon for developments in the region.

Norway, a founding NATO member since the alliance’s creation in 1949, has, for example, shown US troops how to fly and maintain helicopters in sub-zero temperatures. ‘Norway, Finland and Sweden are the best in the world at operating persistently in this environment,’ Berger said.

US Representative Pete Aguilar of California added that it was helpful to consider the possible effects of new NATO allies on future training opportunities.

The United States is one of 30 alliance countries that will decide on Finland’s and Sweden’s applications. American sailors and Marines train with Norway at least every other year, and a US warship enters the High North or Arctic Circle region almost every month, said Admiral Michael Gilday, US Chief of Naval Operations. He said the United States had aggressively increased its presence in the area following a ‘turning point’ in 2018, when a US carrier strike group crossed the Arctic Circle for the first time since the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 prompted the US Navy to send small groups of destroyers into the High North ‘to put pressure on Russia and make sure they know we are there with capable platforms’, Gilday said.

‘I believe we are on an upward trajectory with regard to the Arctic, and I do not think we will turn back,’ he added.

Some time ago, General David Berger predicted that, in the coming years, the Marine Corps would increasingly send small units to the region and to Alaska for two to four weeks at a time. ‘You hold large exercises to learn big lessons and send big messages, but smaller units deployed more frequently and more persistently also have great value,’ he said.

US Representative Betty McCollum suggested that there could be more opportunities for the US military to make its mark on the Arctic. The Pentagon should consider sending National Guard units north to train and acclimatise to the weather, she said, and the Navy should consider how to use icebreakers to assert its dominance. ‘I am very focused on the fact that we must work with the Coast Guard, but we must also consider the Department of Defense and the US Navy in power projection,’ McCollum said.

It remains an open question how far the concentration of US military power can actually rein in Russian ambitions at the North Pole—and, in particular, whether it can deter China from building a new Silk Road in the Arctic.