On April 4, NATO celebrated its 74th anniversary, and Finland officially became the 31st member state, completely upending the geopolitical landscape of post-World War II Northern Europe. Finland's decision to join NATO not only worsens relations between NATO and Russia, but also marks the end of the "Finnish model" that has lasted for more than 50 years.
Finland has abandoned "survival in the cracks".
Former Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin made it clear in January 2022 that Finland would not consider joining NATO in the short term, but four months later, Finland submitted its application to join the alliance with Sweden. In January 2023, Marin admitted that the core reason for Finland's accession to NATO was the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If Ukraine had been a member of NATO, Russia might not have launched a special military operation in February last year.
The Finnish model is drifting away.
The "Finnish model" was first proposed by the German Richard Lowenthal in 1966 and is a diplomatic model chosen by Finland to maintain national sovereignty under pressure from the Soviet Union. After World War II, Finland actively developed cooperation with Western countries while maintaining friendly relations with the Soviet Union through a flexible foreign policy. This art of "surviving in the cracks" has provided Finland with a relatively stable domestic situation and more development opportunities, and its GDP per capita has exceeded the EU average.
Neutral countries" were lowered.
However, Finland's abrupt abandonment of the policy of neutrality became the key to the Russian special military operation. The operation not only endangered Ukraine, but also upset Finland and Sweden. Former Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb said that joining NATO was a "certainty" for Finland and seemed to remind people of the tragedy of the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939.
The changing role of neutral countries.
Finland and Sweden's NATO applications leave Europe with only four traditionally neutral states: Austria, Ireland, Malta and Switzerland. However, the role of neutrals in the 21st century is much lower than it was during the Cold War. The military capabilities of these countries are not sufficient to meet the demands of today's all-out warfare, and the EU's respect for neutral countries is waning. In times of crisis, neutral countries may face military danger if they do not receive assistance from NATO.
Finland Demonstration: Neutrality is not the only option.
Foreign Policy notes that Finland is an example of neutrality and that neutrality is not the only option. Finland's historical neutrality was based on pragmatic considerations, but now under the changes in the international situation, Finland has readjusted its development direction and abandoned the original choice of neutrality. This may provide an opportunity for countries such as Austria, Ireland, and Malta to reflect on the changing landscape of international relations today.
Conclusion: Finland has made a decision, and the geopolitical situation in Northern Europe has changed.
Finland's NATO membership has not only changed its geopolitical position, but also made waves in the Nordic region. Finland's choice to move away from the "Finnish model" raises new questions for neutral countries. In the face of today's grim international situation, whether neutrality is still a feasible path is a question worthy of deep consideration by these countries.
Look at the world" braided |Han Yuxuan Edited |Eclipse of the moon.
Finland's decision to join NATO triggered a dramatic change in Nordic geopolitics. The seemingly calm Nordic country's choice to leave its "Finnish model" for more than 50 years is undoubtedly a far-reaching decision for the international community. First, Finland's choice marks a dramatic shift in the geopolitical map of Northern Europe after World War II. Finland, which had always maintained a neutral stance, has now decided to join NATO, bringing the group's membership to 31. This is undoubtedly unpleasant news for Russia, because Finland's accession gives NATO a stronger defense line on Russia's northwestern border, which constitutes a certain deterrent to Russia.
Secondly, Finland's decision also highlights the far-reaching impact of the Russia-Ukraine conflict on the Nordic region. Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin admitted that the situation in Ukraine was the central reason for Finland's accession to NATO. This shows that changes in the international security situation have a direct impact on the strategic choices of the Nordic countries. For Finland, joining NATO is to protect itself, but it also means a further deterioration in its relations with Russia. Behind this decision is the complexity of international politics and the subtle changes in interrelations.
Finland's long-standing "Finnish model" or "Finlandization" also came to an end with this decision. This model was initially a foreign policy adjusted out of concern for a strong Soviet Union. By remaining neutral, Finland found a balance between the USSR and the West, ensuring the relative security of the country. However, as the international situation evolves, in particular the security threats posed by Russia's actions, Finland has had to reassess the viability of its neutral position.
Historically, Finland has paid a huge price in its conflict with the Soviet Union, but it has also maintained a certain level of friendly relations with the Soviet Union through clever diplomacy. However, the landscape of international relations has changed dramatically, and the role of neutral countries has been significantly reduced. This is also reflected in Finland's decision to join NATO, which shows the enormous challenges that neutral countries face in today's era of globalization.
This decision has had far-reaching implications for other Nordic countries as well. Finland and Sweden are applying to join NATO at the same time, while the other four traditionally neutral countries face more complex choices. In the 21st century, it has become increasingly difficult to remain neutral. Finland may have set an example for these neutral countries, showing that neutrality is not an absolute choice, but a flexible adjustment to the country's realities and the international situation.
Overall, Finland's accession has brought profound changes to Nordic geopolitics. This decision not only changed Finland's own geopolitical positioning, but also triggered a rethinking of the role of a neutral country. In the current grim international situation, Finland's decision is undoubtedly for the sake of the country's long-term security, but it has also shaken the original geopolitical pattern to a certain extent. The future of the Nordic region will be profoundly affected by this event and deserves close attention.
Disclaimer: The above content information is ** on the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or insinuate any real country, political system, organization, race, or individual. The above content does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising from the above or related issues, and does not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.
If the content of the article involves the content of the work, copyright**, infringement, rumors or other issues, please contact us to delete it. Finally, if you have any different thoughts about this event, please leave a message in the comment area to discuss!