Russia’s Reaction to Finland’s NATO Membership

Finland, previously a neutral nation, officially joined NATO on April 4th, 2023. This move has significant implications not only for Finland but also for Russia's geopolitical landscape. How is Russia likely to react to this sudden turning of events?

Initial Attempts at Influence

Speaking of Russia’s response, Putin will first attempt to exert influence through financial means. Turkey, a non-aligned country with a strong position in NATO, presents a strategic opportunity for Russia to manipulate. However, Turkey’s potential veto power over NATO membership applications may be a double-edged sword. Putin may exploit any weakness and corruption within Turkey’s institutions, similar to how he manages his own regions, but this could also backfire.

Contingent Actions and Global Outlook

While Russia may try to use economic measures to pressure Finland, its actions are unlikely to have any meaningful effect. The rest of the world, including NATO members, already recognizes the security benefits of a Finland within the alliance. Economic retaliations, such as trade bans or cutoffs, might cause short-term inconvenience but would ultimately prove ineffectual.

Instead of engaging in fruitless conflict, Russia should prioritize the security of its borders, engage diplomatically, and find ways to coexist peacefully. The historical context of Finland's defense against the Soviet Union in 1939 offers a stark reminder of how resilience and strategic maneuvers can thwart even the most powerful adversaries.

Lessons from History: Finland’s Defense in 1939

Finland, rather than succumbing to Soviet aggression in 1939, mounted a remarkable defense. In just a few short months, the Finns were able to thwart the Soviet invasion by leveraging their strategic mobility and resistance. This rapid, skiing-based warfare strategy effectively hampered the numerically superior Soviet forces, leading to a peace agreement and a territorial loss that was a mere 1/10 of Finland’s total land area.

Comparative Analysis: Ukraine vs. Finland

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia, on the other hand, has been far less successful. Marshall Zhukov’s 1940s campaigns against Finland demonstrated that strategic planning and rapid mobilization are crucial factors in winning a war. In contrast, Russia’s present-day military actions in Ukraine have been plagued by logistical issues and lack of clear strategic objectives.

Attempting to replicate this with another conflict, such as one with Finland, would be a mistake. The 21st-century geopolitical landscape is vastly different from the mid-20th-century, and prolonged conflicts require a clear, achievable goal to be both sustainable and successful. The annexation or sieging of Ukraine was never a goal that could be accomplished with conventional military means alone. Strategic bombing or precise strikes would have sufficed.

Therefore, Russia’s attempt at influencing Finland’s decision to join NATO, through any means, should be seen as a wasted effort. The historical precedent and current strategic conditions suggest that Russia neither has the resources nor the opportunity to alter the outcome of Finland’s membership in NATO.