The Return to Collective Defense in Northern Europe
Finland and Sweden’s entry into NATO is rightly hailed as a historic event: It represents the first time in centuries that all the Nordic countries are in a military alliance. As a result, enthusiasm for reinvigorated security and defense cooperation can be felt across the Nordic region. But this path is not straightforward, and the countries in the region face challenges ranging from overstretch to regional grievances to strategic messaging. Despite the fresh enthusiasm, it is worth remembering that the new Nordic defense integration must take place within the larger NATO framework. Finland and Sweden’s formal accession to the alliance represents the beginning of a lengthy process for both countries, and it will take time before they are fully incorporated into all NATO structures. This article discusses some of the opportunities and challenges the two countries and the broader Nordic-Baltic region are facing in this process.
The Return to Collective Defense in Northern Europe
NATO began its supposed return to collective defense at the Wales Summit in 2014. The move was a response not only to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the invasion of eastern Donbas but also to the closure of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Mission to Afghanistan. Allies realized that collective defense had been neglected during the many years of international operations. There were, for instance, no defense plans with dedicated forces for Europe. Hence, in Wales, new defense plans were adopted for all of Europe, the NATO Response Force was revigorated, allied troops were deployed in the Baltic states and Poland, NATO’s command structure was revised, and allies agreed to begin to increase defense spending again (by “work[ing] towards” spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense by 2024). All these processes represented a major structural, as well as organizational, shift of the entire alliance. Since then, these initiatives have been adjusted and adapted to the rapidly evolving security environment, particularly, of course, to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Bilateral Cooperation in Northern Europe
Collective defense in Europe has also always included bi- and multilateral security arrangements, which are not formally part of NATO but which in practice reinforce it. In the Nordic-Baltic region, the United States and the UK have been the primary countries to increase their footprints over the last few years. The United States has signed new bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreements (DCAs); these agreements allow for U.S. investments in numerous military facilities across the region. Washington has signed similar agreements with Poland and other allies, enabling the swift movement of U.S. equipment and personnel between allies, so that the United States can more rapidly respond to incidents or situations if needed. Storing U.S. gear and materiel is nothing new for Norway, but with DCA agreements across the region, the deterrence posture is more coherent and integrated.
New Nordic Initiatives
Nordic defense cooperation has been a widely discussed topic since the end of the Cold War. In 2008, military cooperation was formalized in the Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO), with the primary aim to pool scarce resources to achieve greater effect, particularly in weapons procurement, maintenance, and international operations. NORDEFCO had limited initial success, but received a boost after Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. The joint focus then turned to regional security, and the Nordic defense ministers agreed to cooperate in “peace, crisis and conflict.” Numerous new initiatives aimed to improve shared regional situational awareness, facilitate military mobility, and increase joint exercising. Nevertheless, the nonaligned status of Finland and Sweden represented an impediment to full defense integration: Finnish and Swedish forces were not guaranteed to be available in the case of war, so Norway and Denmark could not make themselves militarily dependent on them. Cooperation and conducting joint military exercises were possible; full integration was not. All that has changed now. Nordic ministers of defense as well as chiefs of defense all hail close Nordic defense cooperation to be the objective, and myriad new Nordic defense initiatives are popping up.
Risks
While optimism and creativity dominate the Nordic military space these days (despite the brutal backdrop of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that led to these developments), there are also a few risks that cannot be ignored.
Conclusion
NATO enlargement in the north has created a range of opportunities across branches, regions, and sectors. The potential to find solutions that increase NATO’s overall military capacity is huge. Therefore, more Nordic defense cooperation and integration is likely, both within a NATO framework and in close tandem with major allies. However, some risks must also be mitigated to avoid overstretch, intra-Nordic rivalry, or grievances from other allies in the region. Nonetheless, just as it was Russia’s war that made Finland and Sweden decide to join NATO, the continued, brutal warfighting should serve as a stark reminder of the gravity of the situation—thus helping to overcome whatever obstacles Nordic-Baltic defense planners are facing.
SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
SDGs Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article:
- SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
- SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
Specific Targets under the SDGs Based on the Article’s Content:
- Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere
- Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all
- Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources
Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article:
- Indicator for Target 16.1: Number of homicides and other violent crimes per 100,000 population
- Indicator for Target 16.3: Proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute in the past two years and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, by type of mechanism
- Indicator for Target 17.16: Amount of financial resources mobilized and allocated to developing countries in support of sustainable development
Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
| SDGs | Targets | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions | Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere | Number of homicides and other violent crimes per 100,000 population |
| SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions | Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all | Proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute in the past two years and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, by type of mechanism |
| Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources | Amount of financial resources mobilized and allocated to developing countries in support of sustainable development |
Analysis:
The issues highlighted in the article are connected to SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions and SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals.
Under SDG 16, the specific targets identified are Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere, and Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
The article mentions the need for defense cooperation, integration, and the establishment of new command structures within NATO to enhance collective defense and ensure peace and security in the Nordic-Baltic region. These efforts align with the targets of SDG 16 to reduce violence and promote the rule of law.
Under SDG 17, the specific target identified is Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources.
The article discusses the bilateral cooperation between Nordic countries, the United States, and the United Kingdom, as well as the need for coordination, integration, and joint exercises. These partnerships and collaborations contribute to enhancing the global partnership for sustainable development and align with Target 17.16.
The indicators mentioned or implied in the article are related to measuring progress towards the identified targets. For Target 16.1, the indicator is the number of homicides and other violent crimes per 100,000 population. For Target 16.3, the indicator is the proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute and accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism. For Target 17.16, the indicator is the amount of financial resources mobilized and allocated to developing countries in support of sustainable development.
Overall, the issues discussed in the article are connected to SDGs 16 and 17, with specific targets and indicators that can be used to measure progress towards achieving peace, justice, strong institutions, and sustainable development in the Nordic-Baltic region.
Source: carnegieendowment.org
