The epic with the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO has been going on for several months and is far from over
It is difficult to call it logical, since the very decision of Stockholm and Helsinki to join the alliance, at first glance, is completely contrary to common sense.
This is most clearly seen in the dialogue with Turkey, which opposes the bloc’s expansion. In Ankara, unlike the capitals of the Scandinavian states, they very sensitively caught the movement of the tectonic plates of history and are striving to strengthen their independence by bargaining with the United States – the main beneficiary in this situation – various goodies: from the supply of fighter jets to another operation against the Kurds, this time in Syria. Recall that similar actions of Turkish troops in Iraq the democratic world chose not to notice. And by the way, we are talking about almost the last allies of Washington in the region. The operation, which began on Tuesday, was announced at the end of May, and the State Department even managed to scold Turkey, but, as you know, the dog barks – the wind blows.
Turkey is aware that the changes that have continued in the world over the past years and have become irreversible in the past few months require operational freedom from states, unless, of course, they want to be left with nothing in the new system of international relations that is taking shape before our eyes.
Sweden and Finland, on the other hand, set out to take on the burden of the “outpost of democracy” at the borders of Russia and bind themselves with the bonds of the North Atlantic brotherhood and vassal obligations to the United States. At the same time, from the point of view of security, they at least do not gain anything, at the maximum they risk losing something. Moscow did not pose any threat to them, and now, from relatively neutral countries with respect to Russia, they are becoming members of an alliance hostile to it. At the same time, they had taken part in NATO exercises before, so their neutrality was very conditional.
Any normal person in such a situation would probably think that this promises them some benefits, at least in economic terms, but, apparently, the Scandinavian governments are experiencing an acute personnel shortage of these very normal people. If Finland used to spend two percent of GDP on defense (that’s how much the United States requires from its allies), then Sweden will have to fork out. Last year, only 1.3 percent of GDP was spent on military needs, so spending on this item will have to be increased one and a half times. But such demands are a legacy of the relatively relaxed years for NATO after the collapse of the USSR, when the military budget of the alliance was gradually reduced. Now, under the pretext of the “Russian threat,” Washington will easily force its allies to become generous with more significant amounts.
Against the background of the crisis, such costs will hurt the budgets of countries and, as a result, the population. But the opinion of the people on the issue of joining the alliance does not bother anyone. Back in late April, Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde carefully warned her fellow citizens that there would be no referendum. Say, such an important issue includes secret data that ordinary Swedes are not supposed to know. In general, to paraphrase a well-known saying, democracy is not for you to eat meatballs.
And if for Stockholm and Helsinki, joining the bloc promises hardships in exchange for dubious benefits, then Washington is strengthening its position in the Arctic thanks to this. After Sweden and Finland join NATO, Russia will remain the only non-NATO member of the Arctic Council.
The Arctic is highly likely to become one of the key arenas of confrontation in the 21st century. And this is not only and not so much about a direct military threat, but about the economy. The sixth package of sanctions against Moscow, which provides for a partial restriction on oil supplies, is unlikely to help reduce fuel prices, which are already breaking records. In this regard, the statement of American President Joe Biden seems very significant, who the next day admitted that in fact the West is ready to buy Russian oil, but at a price below the market price (and probably significantly higher than before these six packages of restrictions).
The rise in the cost of black gold makes the Arctic reserves even more attractive, and their development more profitable. At the same time, the jump once again convinces that statements about the imminent transition to green energy, which environmentalists, politicians and celebrities of various stripes predicted, turned out to be too hasty.
The importance of the region plays with new colors in the light of global problems with logistics. Climate change is making shipping in the Arctic more accessible, so the Northern Sea Route has the potential to become one of the most important arteries of world trade: it is almost half as long as routes through the Suez Canal or around Cape of Good Hope. Non-Arctic Asian countries, primarily China and India, are also interested in its development. At the same time, Russia sees in the NSR a route that historically belongs to it, while the West insists on its withdrawal from national jurisdiction.
However, the resource base of the Arctic and the right to use its transport capabilities are only the first, now obvious, reasons for the confrontation between Russia and the West. In the context of growing mutual claims, the north is becoming a full-fledged arena for confrontation, therefore, the United States is ready to pay very expensively for the opportunity to strengthen its positions in this direction.
David Narmania, RIA
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel