With the invasion of Ukraine, the international debate surrounding Russia, its objectives, and Russian power in the global sphere has intensified. Firstly, as Mika Aaltola points out, Russia does not have the status of a global superpower like China or the United States; rather, it is a power that could be considered more regional. This is why the theory of power transition and Russia’s application of this theory are now being discussed. The country is using force as a tool to demonstrate its power on the European stage and attempt to change the international order to a multipolar world.

This is not the first time a country has carried out such interference to impose a power transition, as it tends to happen once or twice every century. Furthermore, the recent invasion of Ukraine is just a sign that the worst is yet to come, as Russia’s intention to change the international order began in 2008. That war, considered a mere reactive operation, was relatively short and successful from the Russian perspective. However, six years later, came the invasion of Crimea, which was based on proactive principles, as it was a reaction to the political change occurring in Ukraine at that time.

For these reasons, the beginning of the war in Ukraine on February 24th is very significant from multiple perspectives. Before the invasion took place, Russia had proposed a list of demands, including the country’s need to have a say and voice on the security and defense issues of its neighboring countries, including Sweden and Finland, as well as the geographic retreat of NATO on the eastern flank, among others. These demands aimed to reverse the security order established in Helsinki in 1975 and institutionalized at the end of the Cold War. From the Finnish perspective, all these aspects are what drive Finland’s shift in attitude toward NATO membership. As the director of FIIA states, “what happens in Ukraine does not stay in Ukraine.”

Dealing with an autocratic country like Russia at such a time is not easy, and Finland knows this, says Aaltola. The forced model of Finlandization kept Finland as a neutral country; however, the events of 2008 marked a turning point in Finnish-Russian relations, which deteriorated further with the invasion of Crimea. Finland has approved and accepted the sanctions imposed by the European Union. From experience, Finland highlights the containment of Russia as a key element when using war as a political tool.

In conclusion, two possibilities loom for the future, not only of Finland but also of Sweden, in the defense field: becoming a NATO member or establishing a Sweden-Finland defense alliance with security guarantees, which would represent a middle-ground solution between NATO membership and the current situation. The sense of collective defense, adds Mr. Aaltola, has always been present in the country; «national defense is collective defense in Europe given our geographic position; so why, then, not be part of a collective defense alliance?»

Judit Anidjar

Communication Assistant, INCIPE