Finland officially joined the NATO alliance last week with great fanfare after a year-long accession process marked by a distinct lack of debate. The Nordic country, nestled between Sweden and Russia, has long advocated a neutral foreign policy, but when Russian forces crossed Ukraine’s eastern border in February 2022, public opinion in Finland shifted dramatically towards support for membership in NATO. While Finns may believe that this decision bolsters their national security, Americans should ask themselves how defending another European ally, particularly one that shares an 830-mile border with Russia, is in the United States’ interest.
One would think that the consequent decision to send US troops to fight and die for another country would merit a rigorous debate in Congress. Yet that debate was virtually nonexistent last summer when the proposal was brought to the floor of the Senate, with only one senator, Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), voting against further NATO expansion. With Finland now firmly under NATO’s Article 5 guarantee that an attack on one member is an attack on all members, the best strategic outcome for the United States is to use this moment as a turning point to transform a transatlantic relationship. unilateral. to be more equitable.
The initial shock of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine seemed to rouse Europe from its security complacency. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz delivered an impassioned speech at the Bundestag, calling the moment a “Zeitenwende,” or turning point in Europe’s history. Yet 14 months later, just seven NATO countries, including the US a decade later, remain unfulfilled by 23 members, all while the biggest conflict since World War II rages on European soil.
Germany, the strongest economic power on the continent, unfortunately remains unprepared to play a leading role in defending Europe. Not only is Germany forecast to miss the 2 percent spending mark once again, but its military is severely undermanned, supplies and equipment, with reports claiming it only keeps enough ammunition for two days of combat. Germany’s new defense minister Boris Pistorius recently commented that continued shortages are expected until 2030.
NATO’s European allies seem content with the continuation of the status quo for two reasons. First, the Biden administration has reduced US military might in Europe, raising an additional 20,000 troops, bringing the total to 100,000 stationed across the continent. The United States, despite protests by American presidents for decades for Europe to take over, remains committed to using American blood and treasure to ensure European security. Second, Russia’s dismal military performance in Ukraine demonstrates its conventional weakness. A Russia that cannot conquer Bakhmut, let alone Kyiv, poses no conventional threat to Warsaw, Berlin, or Paris.
With a national debt of $31 trillion and a rival superpower on the rise in China, the United States can no longer afford to be Europe’s sole defender. Washington, therefore, must take tangible steps to ensure that European allies take primary responsibility for providing for their own defense. This would involve working with European allies on an agreed timetable to withdraw US forces, transfer responsibilities to the European military, and allow the Europeans to develop the capabilities they rely on the US to provide, such as command and control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. . and strategic support. Simply requiring Europeans to do more has been shown not to make a difference. Without taking the step of actually bringing US forces home, there is little to no incentive for European allies to make the necessary concessions to spend on expensive defense investments.
For its part, Finland can be a model example of this transfer of responsibility. With a population of just 5.5 million, Finland maintains a small but well-equipped professional army. Finland’s defense strategy focuses on the threat posed by its neighbor and historical adversary, Russia. Informed by its experience during the Winter War of 1939, where vastly outnumbered Finnish forces resisted a Soviet invasion, Finland prides itself on its self-reliance and whole-of-society approach to defense. It is one of the few remaining post-Cold War European states to maintain a conscription program, with a reserve pool of more than 900,000 soldiers. Finland’s location also lends itself to taking primary responsibility for helping the Baltic states should they come under attack, a problem that has long challenged NATO defense planners.
Finland’s acceptance into the alliance further increases Europe’s aggregate military power, further reducing the need for the United States to do all the heavy lifting. Helsinki’s continued defense prioritization and high standard of living should serve as an example to other wealthy European states on how to proceed without the hand of the United States. With Russia’s weakness exposed by its failed war in Ukraine, and the United States facing more pressing problems at home and in Asia, the time has come for Europe to fight back.
Sascha Glaeser is a Research Associate at Defense Priorities. He focuses on US grand strategy, international security, and transatlantic relations. Follow him on Twitter @SaschaGlaeser.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
