Norway does not want to provoke Russia, nuclear weapons and NATO bases do not speak Estonians, and Denmark wonders whether Finland is not already in NATO

Sweden has also stepped up its NATO deliberations. It has been emphasized in both countries that Finland and Sweden should take their decisions as simultaneously as possible.

We found out what NATO membership has meant in practice for Finland and Sweden’s neighboring countries: Estonia, Denmark and Norway.

Estonia was liberated from the Soviet Union and regained its independence in August 1991. However, NATO membership was not clear at first. The country still had Soviet troops until 1994, and its own defense forces had to be built from scratch.

In the mid-1990s, however, NATO membership became an official goal. Russia’s relations with the West were in a state of backwardness. For the Estonians, it was an exceptional time window that could not be allowed to expire.

– Estonian history has already shown in the 1930s that defending independence is impossible without allies. Considering our small size and geographical location, it was the only logical option, says a researcher at the International Defense Policy Research Institute (ICDS). Kalev Stoicescu.

There is no twofold twist of NATO in Estonia. Even EU membership, which was set to be pursued at the same time as the Defense Alliance, aroused more emotion.

– Estonian parties were practically unanimous about NATO membership. The majority of citizens were also in favor of membership, Stoicescu says.

Estonia participated in NATO-led international operations even before its accession in 2004. Since 2000, a total of 12 Estonian soldiers have been killed abroad, most of them in Afghanistan. There are 30 people with disabilities.

In total, more than 3,000 Estonians have served in NATO operations.

According to Kalev Stoicescu, Estonia sees international operations as a natural part of NATO membership.

– They cannot be treated with the attitude of going to foreign wars. What if a member state important for our national defense thought the same of us?

Estonians have been out of touch with nuclear weapons and NATO bases in Finland’s NATO debate.

According to Stoicescu, the nuclear weapons debate is futile in the sense that it would not even be deployed in Estonia, close to the possible front line between NATO and Russia.

Nor are the bases any coercion that NATO is pushing into the throats of its member countries. Vice versa.

After Russia occupied Crimea in 2014, Estonia wanted NATO troops on its ground. It had to work hard to get even one battalion the size of a reinforced battalion.

The battle department, located in the Tapa garrison in Northern Estonia, was followed this second by another. The number of NATO soldiers in Estonia rose to 1,750.

Finland’s and Sweden’s NATO membership in Estonia is welcomed not only warmly but also with relief.

– This will change the security situation in northern Europe as a whole. When the Baltic Sea becomes, in effect, NATO’s inland sea, everything will be much easier – defense planning, troop transfers, logistics, Kalev Stoicescu estimates.

“Never again on April 9,” was the reasoning of Danish decision-makers. It referred to the people’s painful day on April 9, 1940, when Germany occupied Denmark.

Denmark was particularly interested in Nordic defense co-operation. But since the differences between Norway and Sweden did not lead to an alliance between the three countries, NATO was the only option.

The Danish principle has been that no nuclear weapons or a NATO base will enter the country.

However, after the Cold War, it was revealed that in the 1950s and 1960s, Denmark had allowed the United States to keep nuclear weapons in Greenland. The Danish Autonomous Community of Greenland still has a small US base.

Contrary to the country’s general line, certain conservative parties have not completely ruled out the possibility of maintaining nuclear weapons.

Denmark has participated in several NATO operations, such as in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the largest operations has been in Afghanistan. It involved more than 10,000 Danish soldiers over 12 years, dozens of whom died.

The Danes have also taken part in operations in many other countries, such as under the auspices of the United Nations or in the wake of the United States.

“It is often more a matter of pleasing the United States than NATO,” says a professor at the University of Copenhagen and the University of Helsinki’s Research Council. Ole Wæver.

Despite high defense spending and difficult operations, the Danes have a positive attitude towards the North Atlantic Defense Alliance. Most people and almost all political parties support NATO.

The unity opponent of NATO, the Unity List party, has also curbed its efforts to get Denmark out of the defense alliance since Russia invaded Ukraine.

– In other words: there is no alternative, concludes the dissertation researcher Jakob Linnet Schmidt From the Danish Institute for International Affairs DIIS.

According to researchers, the biggest benefit of NATO membership has been that Denmark has not had to fear external threats only against itself – in the event of a war, it would be the whole West against the East.

During the Cold War, the situation was different, with East Germany a short distance away and Poland and the Soviet Union not far away. Since then, Russia has been considered the biggest threat.

After the start of the war in Ukraine, Denmark decided to significantly increase its defense budget. Now the goal is to meet the NATO benchmark of 2% of GDP by 2033. That would mean more than € 7 billion in annual defense spending.

In Denmark, Finland’s and Sweden’s possible NATO membership is viewed positively – both among decision-makers and the people.

– If you asked the Danes, many of them might wonder if Finland is not already in NATO. Now it would be worth joining, concludes a senior researcher at the DIIS Mikkel Runge Olesen.

According to researchers, the membership of Finland and Sweden would make Nordic co-operation even stronger and easier. In their view, Denmark and Norway could be good examples of membership.

Professor Ole Wæver says that it would be important for Finland to think about its position in NATO.

– Certain exceptions, such as a negative attitude towards nuclear weapons or a military base, would be worth considering. Finland can influence how threatened Russia perceives its position, he reflects.

Norway’s membership was also based on being occupied by Nazi Germany during World War II. Impartiality was no longer seen as a good option. In addition, U.S. armed support was considered important.

Norway has imposed certain restrictions on its membership of NATO. It does not accept nuclear weapons or permanent foreign troops or bases in peacetime.

Norway has voluntarily incorporated these restrictions into its national NATO policy and they are not included in the agreements between NATO and Norway, points out in an interview with ‘s World Political Day program the director of the Norwegian National Defense College Kjell Inge Berga.

Norway’s voluntary restrictions have a long history. At the time of NATO’s founding, the Soviet Union sent Norway a note warning that joining the Defense Alliance would bring U.S. military bases to Norway.

Norway wanted to appease the Soviet Union’s concerns and replied that no foreign troop bases would be established in Norway during the peace.

Norway’s NATO membership was – and still is – motivated by domestic political reasons, Berga adds.

In Norway, it is seen as important that there is a broad consensus on defense and security policy. NATO critics also want to assure that membership will not undermine Norway’s sovereignty.

In the 1960s, Norway decided not to accept nuclear weapons on its land either. The issue is still very important to Norway and no change is expected in that or in the ban on foreign bases.

According to experts, Norway still wants not to provoke Russia unnecessarily, even though it seems less topical due to the war in Ukraine.

There is widespread support for NATO membership in Norway. NATO’s deterrent effect and Allied support for the preservation of its integrity are considered important – and outright necessary because of geography. Extensive sharing of intelligence is also appreciated.

There has not been a completely problem-free NATO sky. Norway found it difficult to change from a recipient of Allied aid during the Cold War to an active donor in the 1990s, says researcher Karsten Friis From the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI).

– It took some time before we were able to send credible troops to the Balkans, Friis points out.

Norway’s own national restrictions on NATO membership are considered to have worked well.

According to Kjell Inge Berga, director of the Norwegian National Defense College, during the Cold War, Norway and Denmark managed to keep tensions in Northern Europe relatively low.

The possible NATO membership of Finland and Sweden is welcomed in Norway.

– Even joyfully, describes the historian Helge Pharo From the University of Oslo.

If Finland and Sweden join NATO, Norway will see that it would strengthen NATO’s Nordic dimension and increase stability in the Nordic and Baltic region. In addition, it would open up new opportunities for cooperation between the countries.

The Norwegian NATO model has aroused interest in Finland.

Experts estimate that it might also be sensible or possible for Finland to impose national restrictions on bases and nuclear weapons similar to those in Norway.

Below you can listen to the section on Everyday World Politics about whether the Norwegian NATO model would also be suitable for Finland and Sweden:

You can discuss the topic until Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 11 p.m.