The near unanimity on the question of this round of NATO expansion may mask a lack of strategic thinking.
This week Mitch McConnell (who’s not having a masterly term as minority leader), took a shot at Senator Josh Hawley, unburdening himself this way:
Oooof — McConnell with a not-so-subtle dig at Hawley, who is voting no on Finland/Sweden joining NATO.
“If any senator is looking for a defensible excuse to vote no, I wish them good luck. This is a slam dunk for national security that deserves unanimous bipartisan support.”
— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) August 3, 2022
Now, Finland’s and Sweden’s membership in NATO is not as preposterous as that of, say, North Macedonia, a country that brought with it no serious military or intelligence assets while having the very serious liability of being unstable, corrupt, and in service to an electorate roughly evenly split between parties that tilt toward Russia or away from it. In cases like these it was clear NATO was being used as a kind of internationalist finishing school for states that wanted to matriculate into the EU or perhaps the euro zone in the future.
By contrast, Finland and Sweden are relatively wealthy, advanced economies. And Finland has a history in the 20th century of bravely confronting and halting the Soviet Union at a time when even hawks in the United States were, to their shame and ours, mostly indifferent to or in denial about Moscow’s participation in Germany’s war.
But one doesn’t need excuses when you have reasons. Josh Hawley has his, which he articulated in the National Interest.
I’m concerned that the near unanimity on the question of this round of NATO expansion masks a lack of strategic thinking. Finland and Sweden don’t usually invest the benchmark 2 percent of GDP numbers in their military. The vast percentage increase of military spending by Sweden is a single year’s worth of investment without a guarantee. Joining NATO may be a path toward free-riding on America’s nuclear-security umbrella. With Finland joining NATO we have lost a formidable buffer state between NATO and Russia, and NATO has gained almost 900 miles of border with Russia.
NATO already has military superiority over Russia. But the “credibility” of Article 5 is much more easily challenged along 900 miles of additional border, is it not? NATO is militarily mighty, but expanding its liabilities can undermine the political promises that support its military strength.