Finland's reversal
actions create consequences
Those of you who dialed in for Dr. Hill’s presentation (webinars I am now labelling ‘Timely Topics’) yesterday heard an amazing, thorough (as 60 minutes allowed), and intriguing assessment of Vlad’s ambitions and efforts of late. Those who are generously supporting this substack will receive an email message with the transcript. I also will start a chat thread later today to hear from you, the people who matter in this, what other topics pique your interest for speakers. I also desperately want to hear your thoughts on what is going on with all sorts of actions creating consequences.
Dr. Cassandra Lewis, the Chancellor of the College of Information & Cyberspace at the National Defense University, will offer a Timely Topic Webinar on cyber education in the federal government on Thursday, 20 April at 1000 eastern. Cassandra served on the College faculty for many years before stepping into the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs position, then Dean of Faculty & Academic Programs job. The NDU President selected her as Chancellor after an international search in the fall of 2021. With all the discussion of AI, I thought it important we hear from her on how we are approaching it as a national security concern. Link forthcoming.
Secretary General Jan Stoltenberg’s announcement that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation intended to raise Finland’s flag in Brussels today at the Alliance’s headquarters is a formality but it’s a big deal as well. It confirms that Vlad’s actions hurt Russia far more than what he is likely to achieve by invading Ukraine last year.
Finland is a nation decidedly threatened by its erstwhile compatriots in Russia. The long, narrow nation of 5 and a half million was a Russian Grand Duchy for the century between 1809 and 1917 after which the Finns declared their independence and non-alignment. A densely-forested rural country, Finns recognise the danger of an 830 mile border with Russia.
While Finns always understood the danger facing a smaller state adjacent to one with a much bigger military, economy, and population, Helsinki managed to navigate its autonomy well over the century following independence. Finnish leaders made absolutely clear their determination to remain neutral, largely because that signaled no hostile intentions.
Russian nationalists, such as Putin but including many others, were unhappy with any erosion of Russia’s status as the largest country on the Eurasian landmass but the loss of the Grand Ducky only hurt pride. Russian fear mounted in the 1990s as the Clinton administration began responding to former Soviet bloc states seeking to join the NATO alliance. Finland was not one of those aspirants.
Russians, plagued by many invasions historically, feel vulnerable with the vast open terrain opening into several neighbours. Russians panicked, even under relative patsy Boris Yeltsin, about the heavily armed, disciplined, U.S.-led military alliance kissing the their border in states such as Ukraine or in the Caucuses. Once Vlad unveiled his true criticisms of the United States at the 2007 Munich Security Conference, he aggressively moved to deter any possibility of the NATO expansion which he feared most. He saw any and all former Soviet states as threats NATO created for his people. This is not new in 2023 nor has it diminished since 2008 when Vlad first menaced Tiblisi for the timerity of discussing entry, admittedly years away from fruition, to the alliance. In short, NATO at Russia’s border is a code red for the Kremlin.
Since 2008, Putin acted more aggressively to include probably suborning the shootdown of a Malaysian civilian airliner in 2014, seizing Crimea along with sending ‘little green men’ into Russian-speaking areas from Ukraine, and overall threatening the European status quo ante. He indicated his willingness to shut off natural gas supplies in the brutal northern European winters to show his determination to put Russian security above anything else on the continent. Considerable evidence exists that Putin concentrated between 2015 and 2017 (at a minimum) on disinformation campaigns in western democracies to destabilise the west.
In short, Vlad the Impaler sought to use each and every instrument available to him without going nuclear to express his deeply-held fear of both NATO expansion to his border and overall democratic strength.
It was the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, however, that drove Finland and Sweden to drop their decades’ dedication to neutral status. Both states moved fairly rapidly after the late February invasion to apply for membership but Sweden remains outside because of member Turkey’s veto.1 Finland received its final approval for membership only this past Friday, a tribute to how quickly the allies responded to a genuine threat by an angry and frightened bear.
The Finnish decision validates the dangers seen by Europeans living so near the nationalists in Russia. Their frustration, anger, anxiety, and determination to deter, if not penalise, Russian aggression is clear and has remained remarkably united over 13 plus months, something rare in Europe these days. It’s also a historic victory for the NATO alliance, one seen in recent years as much stronger with the addition of new states even if they don’t have the capacity of the United States or Germany.
The Helsinki move also validates the networking prowess President Joe Biden brings to the White House. His ability to discuss foreign policy details over a fifty year career in Washington is an asset no other leader, with Queen Elizabeth’s passing last year, can offer. He will have a new interlocutor at the helm in Helsinki as the remarkable Prime Minister, Sanna Marin, saw her party ousted in elections this week. Biden will welcome, however, yet more Europeans, regardless of their politics, participating with Finland’s entry into an alliance still confronting many choices as Putin blusters.
It’s hard to imagine tensions will moderate with NATO now firmly on the other side of the border. The question is whether Russians will react as Putin does in escalates warnings of further aggression or could they begin asking why this sort of transformation of a long-standing neutral happened? The Russian well could come to a different conclusion than Vlad’s narrative if they really thought about it with evidence. FIN
Cynthia Watson, 'Turkey, turkey: the trials and tribulations of expanding NATO’, cynthiawatson.substack.com, 27 January 2023, retrieved at