NATO headquarters building in Brussels. Archive photoMOSCOW, May 31.Finland's long border with Russia will be a «strategic nightmare» for NATO, says Emma Ashford, Senior Fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Bloomberg. , while there are only two obvious pluses of this decision: symbolic, that is, a demonstration of solidarity, and technical, related to the fact that the entry of Sweden and Finland into the alliance will be more closely linked with their membership in the EU.
Erdogan was dissatisfied with the negotiations with Finland and Sweden on NATO «In all other respects, the membership of Finland and Sweden is a complex and worrying issue,» Ashford points out. Thus, both countries have highly developed economies, thanks to which they could contribute to the technological potential of NATO, and militarily they are stronger than many other European states. «However, from the point of view of the entire alliance — and especially the United States — the benefits are no longer so obvious» , she emphasizes. According to her, the armies of Finland and Sweden have long focused on protecting their own territories, so their contribution to the overall defense is very doubtful. In addition, it is possible that the obligations of Helsinki and Stockholm to increase military spending and strengthen their potential will not be fulfilled, as a result why they will use the military power of the United States «for nothing.» «History teaches that the most likely outcome is that at the moment when it is time for Washington to turn to Asia, the care of two more states will fall on America's shoulders,» expert warns As Ashford points out, Sweden's membership still promises some strategic benefits for NATO due to increased control over the Baltic Sea. «Finnish territory, on the other hand, is a strategic nightmare,» she writes. Finland and Russia share over 1,300 kilometers of a common border «open to Russian military threats,» the author claims.The Russian Foreign Ministry believes that NATO will have to look for compromises with Turkey «There are many other reasons for caution — for example, on-duty fears that with the admission of new members, the alliance will become even more cumbersome. It does not take a genius to foresee that there will be more to govern 32 countries harder than 30,” she writes, while reminding that support for new members in NATO is by no means unanimous. According to her, before approving the applications of Stockholm and Helsinki, politicians should see the strategic picture in its entirety and think about whether this step will strengthen alliance or not. “It follows from Article 10 of the NATO Charter that current members can invite new states if they “contribute to the security of the North Atlantic region.” By this criterion, a strategic decision to admit Sweden and Finland by no means guarantees success,” notes Ashford, Finland and Sweden, against the background of the events in Ukraine, on May 18 handed over to the NATO Secretary General an application for joining the alliance. Turkey has blocked the start of the process of consideration of these applications. Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Ankara will not support the applications of Helsinki and Stockholm to NATO, because it cannot rely on their assurances regarding the PKK banned in Turkey. Russia has repeatedly noted that NATO aims at confrontation. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasized that further expansion of the alliance would not bring greater security to Europe, since the bloc was of an aggressive nature. At the same time, he noted that he does not consider the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO an existential threat to Russia. /05/62cfdd1d1286ecf11c140bc0c3c0b76c.jpg» />NATO eastward expansion threatens Russia, Chinese Ambassador to France believes
