It is foolish for Finland and Sweden to join NATO and ignore both the real causes and consequences

It is foolish for Finland and Sweden to join NATO and ignore both the real causes and consequences

Jan Oberg

May 12, 2022

Here’s what the West is intellectually unable – in the midst of its boundlessly self-righteous, militarist mood to see:

NATO’s expansion policy created – and is responsible for – the conflict. Russia created – and is responsible for – the war. There exists no violence which is not rooted in underlying conflicts. Conflict and peace literate people, therefore, talk about both.

And if they want peace, they do not increase the symptoms – the war – they address the real cause, the conflict and ask the conflicting parties to tell what they fear and what they want and then move, step-by-step towards a sustainable solution.

But neither the mainstream media nor politicians have the civil courage to address the conflict. It’s only about the war and only about Russia/Putin who must be punished, no matter the price to be paid by future generations. If we survive.

It’s a banality to point out that it takes at least two to conflict. But that’s the intellectual and moral level decision-makers, media and much of academia operate in these dark times.

This approach has no future and can never bring peace. Period.

Decisions taken with this irrational approach and emotionalism will only make things worse. Such as Sweden and Finland joining NATO based on the hysteric panic of the moment: There simply exists no credible, realistic scenario that would lead to an isolated, out-of-the-blue Russian attack on either of them if they remained non-aligned as they’ve been for decades.

That some less knowledgeable people – or people who speak for NATO membership – have been talking about even an isolated, out-of-the-blue attack on the Swedish island of Gotland is Monty Python politics.

Why will Sweden and Finland join?

So why will Finland and Sweden now make a disastrous, tension-increasing decision to join NATO? Here are some of the possible reasons:

• Both have been under heavy pressure by NATO and the US in particular. Sweden’s prime minister, Olof Palme, was murdered – a man who stood for the UN goal of international disarmament, nuclear abolition and the intelligent concept of common security. US ambassadors have held secret meetings with Swedish MP, there are many channels, demands and rewards.

• Sweden’s single worst security challenge was the Russian submarine, U 137 Whisky on the Rocks. It was Russian, yes, but the operation was an American PSYOP – Psychological Operation – conducted by the “Navigation Expert” on board who was the only one never interviewed in Sweden and who soon after disappeared.
It was a PSYOP intended to make Sweden recognise that the Soviet Union was a threat, that its defence against the East was deficient and that it should seek protection from the West itself. This is extremely well-documented by professor emeritus, Ola Tunander’s, eminent multi-decade research, latest published in the book, “Navigations-Experten. Hur Sverige lät sig bedras av U 137” (The Navigation Expert. On how Sweden accepted to be deceived by U 137).
Step by step, Sweden was guided in the right direction. Certain Swedish politicians knew what was going on, but the media and the people didn’t.

• Both countries have moved to be wooed by the US and NATO. They have, over the last 20 years, become engaged with NATO in all kinds of ways – so, as the saying goes, why not marry now? In other words, Finland and Sweden now join because they have – incrementally – made one wrong decision after the other, painted themselves into a “no-choice-but-NATO” corner and abdicated every ounce of their historical, independent-minded creative foreign policy thinking. And stopped criticism of warfare and militarism.
That has also been possible because critical, or alternative, independent intellectual input into ministries of foreign affairs has been cut out and substituted by various types of pro-American marketing of policies. For decades, the NATO Echo Chamber has defined the national pro-NATO Groupthink. Nobody was allowed in to ask: Where on earth are we heading in, say, 25 years from now?

• Further, Sweden and Finland are now joining because elites related to the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC, in both countries – rather than the people – decide security and foreign policy matters. Of course, there was extremely little open public discussion; it wasn’t wanted. Decision-makers knew that NATO’s nuclear weapons foundation and its members’ contact wars, particular in the Middle East were seen as basically evil among the citizenry.

• Liberal media suggest that there cannot be a referendum because there is such a time pressure – presumably before that Russian invasion of Sweden and Finland – and, so, just make the most important foreign and security political decision since 1945 in a hurry now there is popular outrage at Russia – the beloved, necessary enemy.
The Swedish decision-makers of course know that there will never be a 75% or so majority for NATO – which is what there should be to make such a fundamental, fateful decision. So much, you may say, for democracy – but no new NATO member has held a referendum where NATO and other alternatives were freely discussed and a 75% majority came out in favour. (According to the Swedish Svenska Dagbladet daily of May 6, 2022, 48% think that Sweden shall join, but in just one week those who are not sure what to think have increased from 22 to 27%).
Finland’s pro-NATO opinion seems to have grown from 53% in February to 76% in May 2022. It was 19% in 2017 according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. Ukraine has played its role.

• A further reason to join is the intellectual disarmament that decision-makers have unified around one alternative, forgotten to leave other doors open and deliberately quelled alternatives. The discourse of peace – in media, politics and research – has been disappeared. Peace has come to mean weapons, deterrence, more and more of it coupled to blind loyalty with every US/NATO war. For instance, then Social Democratic prime minister Göran Persson’s government quickly decided to disable Sweden’s weapons export prohibition legislation in 2001 in order to be able to continue exporting weapons to the US during its invasion of Iraq.
This multi-year intellectual disarmament is manifest – and always tends to favour military over civilian means as well as diplomacy. And not only in these countries, of course.
An institute such as SIPRI – Stockholm International Peace Research Institute – has decayed intellectually into something that should rather be named Stockholm International Military Security Research, SIMSI – as I have suggested years ago.
In other words, the political creativity that was needed to run an independent policy of neutrality, non-alignment and global disarmament coupled with a strong belief in international law vanished years ago.
It’s easier to follow the flock – particularly when, as it seems, the Social Democratic party today exists only by name.

• Without exhausting all those – tragic – reasons, one final reason to mention is the role of the media. Like everywhere else, media from left to right have unified around a pro-Western, non-neutral policy. The present pro-NATO propaganda, not the least in the liberal Dagens Nyheter, is pervasive. Critical voices are marginalised and public information “explainers” are reduced to some high school-like basic facts coupled with FOSI, Fake + Omission + Source Ignorance. Sweden is able to have televised panel discussions where, de facto, all the participants are more or less pro-NATO thus leaving out a large part of public opinion. *)

What will be the consequences of Finland’s and Sweden’s NATO membership?

There are potentially so many – some more likely than others – that they cannot all be listed in a short pointed analysis like this. But let me mention:

The Swedes and the Finns will become less secure. Why? Because there will be harder confrontation and polarisation instead of soft borders and mediating attitudes. In a serious crisis, they will, for all practical purposes, be occupied and told what to do by the US/NATO.

• To the degree that, at some point in the future, the two countries will be asked to host US bases – like Norway and Denmark now – they won’t be able to say ‘No’! Such bases will be Russia’s first-order targets in a war situation.

• From a Russian point of view, of course, their NATO membership is extremely tension-increasing and confrontational. Russia has 8% (US$ 66 billion) of the military expenditures of the 30 NATO members. Now there will be a huge re-armament throughout NATO; Germany alone plans to increase to almost twice as much as Russia’s expenditures. Ukraine will receive about US$ 50 billion. Add a re-armed Sweden and Finland and we shall see Russia rush down to 4% of NATO’s expenditures – and still be called a formidable threat.

• There will be virtually no confidence-building and conflict-resolution mechanisms left in Europe. No discussion will be possible about a new all-European peace and security system. And whether it is understood and respected or not, Russia will feel even more intimidated, isolated and – in a certain situation – become even more desperate. As does, normally, the weaker party in an a-symmetric conflict. We are living in very dangerous times and these two countries in NATO will only increase the danger, there is no way it could reduce it.

• If Finland and Sweden so strongly want to be “protected” by the United States and/or NATO, it is completely unnecessary for these two countries to join because, if there is a serious crisis, the US/NATO will under all circumstances come to “protect” or rather use their territories to be closer to the Baltic republics. That’s what the Host Nation Support agreements are about.
The only reason to join would be paragraph 5 – but the disadvantage is that paragraph 5 requires that Finland and Sweden will be expected to participate in wars that are not about their defence and perhaps even in future international law-violating wars à la those in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. So, will Finnish and Swedish young people be killed in future NATO-country wars? Are they ready for that?

• It will cost a fortune to convert their military infrastructure to full NATO membership – and when they have joined, they cannot not pay whatever the price will turn out to be. In addition, there will be much less de facto sovereign decision-making possible – here de jure is almost irrelevant. And it was already very self-limited before they joined.

• As NATO members, Finland and Sweden cannot but share the responsibility for nuclear weapons – the deterrence and possible use of them by NATO. It’s also obvious that NATO vessels may bring nuclear weapons into their ports – but they will of course not even ask – they know the arrogant US response is that “we neither confirm nor deny that sort of thing.”
This goes against every fibre of the Swedish people – and Sweden’s decision to not develop nuclear weapons dating some 70 years back.

The days when Sweden and Finland can – in principle, at least – work for alternatives are numbered. That is, for the UN Treaty on nuclear abolition and the UN goals of general and complete disarmament, any alternative policy concepts like common security, human security, a strong UN etc. They won’t be able to serve as mediators – like, say, Austria and Switzerland. No NATO member can pay anything but lip service to such noble goals. NATO is not an organisation that encourages alternatives. Instead, it seeks monopoly as well as regional and global dominance.

Finland and Sweden say yes to militarist thinking, to a ‘peace’ paradigm that is imbued with weapons, armament, offensiveness (long-range + large destructive capacity), deterrence and constant threatening: NATO is human history’s most militaristic organisation. Its leader, the United States of America, has been at war 225 out of 243 years since 1776. Every idea about nonviolence, the UN Charter provision of making peace by predominantly peaceful means (Article 1 in the Charter) will be out of the window.

The political attention, as well as funds, will tend to switch to military matters, away from contributing to solving humanity’s most urgent problems. But – we know it now – the excuse will be Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Is there any huge change that cannot be justified with reference to that?

• While everybody knows that the Arctic is going to be a region of central security and peace concerns in the near future, this issue has hardly been discussed in relation to the two countries’ NATO membership. However, it doesn’t require much expertise to see that US/NATO access to Sweden and Finland is a clear advantage in the future confrontation with Russia and China there.

• As NATO members, Sweden and Finland not only accept but reinforce decades of hate of the Russian people, everything Russia including Russian-European culture. It will say yes to the West’s reckless, knee-jerk collective (illegal) punishment of everything Russia, the cancellation of Russia on all dimensions.
Once upon a time, in contrast, Finland’s President Kekkonen stood for policies of active neutrality, a go-between role and initiating the OSCE. Finland was proud that its people felt that neither the East nor the West was an enemy, various kinds of equidistance prevailing. And that was during the height of the First Cold war when the Warsaw Pact was about 10 times stronger vis-a-vis NATO than Russia is today. How and why? One reason was that policies had an intellectual foundation and leaders a consciousness about what war meant. Not so today.

• The prospect that no NATO advocates talk about is this: In all likelihood, we have only seen the hard beginning of an extremely Cold War with an ever-increasing risk of a Hot War too. It is the stated purpose of the US – and that means NATO – to weaken Russia militarily in Ukraine so it can’t rise ever again and to undermine its economy back home through history’s hardest, time-unlimited and unconditional sanctions – that is, sanctions that will not be lifted in a lifetime or more.

• And, finally, by joining NATO, the two countries will be forced to side with the larger West in the future world order change in which China, the Middle East, Africa and South America as well as huge non-Western regional associations will gain strength.
The US priority Number One is China. As NATO members, Sweden and Finland will be unable to walk on two legs in the future, a Western and a Non-Western, and will decline and fall with the West – the US Empire and NATO in particular.
If you think that’s a too daring and pessimistic scenario, you’re not following developments and trends outside the West itself. Also, please consider that a split and problem-torn US, EU and NATO have just come together for one reason: the negative policy of hating Russia and cover-up for its crystal clear co-responsibility for the conflict that brought us where we now are.

The West has no positive vision anymore – its actions are about re-armament, threats, sanctions, demonisation, the self-righteous “we-never-did-anything-wrong” and the concomitant projection of its own dark sides upon others, China in particular.
For small countries to put all their eggs in one basket when they do have alternatives and acting without a clue about the next five-to-ten years has always been a recipe for disaster, for war.
Both NATO and the EU act these days as the passengers did in the restaurant of the elegant, luxurious RMS Titanic.
There were huge problems which should have been solved for humanity to survive: climate, environment, poverty, inequality, militarism, nukes, etc. They are now forgotten. Economic crisis and disruptions followed, and then came the Corona and took a heavy toll on all kinds of resources and energies. And, finally, now this war in Europe with its underlying NATO-created conflict.

This is not the time to make decisions in a moment of historical hysteria and panic. This is indeed a moment to keep cool.

One can only regret that Sweden and Finland lack the intellectual power to see the larger picture in time and space. NATO has had the time since 1949 to prove that it can make peace. We know now that it can’t. Joining it, therefore, is one big gift to militarism and future warfare.

*) Rest assured that an analysis like this will cause no reaction in any NATO country’s media or among decision-makers although sent to thousands of them.

Is this type of reasoning, based on decades of free research and knowledge-building, of merit in a democracy and for the discussion about NATO?
If you think so, TFF would be grateful for your support. Thanks!

24 Responses to "It is foolish for Finland and Sweden to join NATO and ignore both the real causes and consequences"

  1. Pingback: Bør Finland og Sverige slutte seg til NATO? - Helsemagasinet vitenskap og fornuft

  2. Pingback: Fokus på Finlands og Sveriges skæbnesvangre kurs mod NATO – og NATOs march ind i disse lande – 🗝 Jan Oberg

  3. Pingback: Comment la Finlande et la Suède sont-elles entrées dans l’OTAN? | Arrêt sur Info


  5. Pingback: ✅ TFF Miniblog, News & Notes from 2021 till today - The Transnational

  6. Pingback: 🔗 Miniblog & notes 2021-2022 – 🗝 Jan Oberg

  7. Pingback: ✅ TFF Miniblog, News & Notes 2021-2022 - The Transnational

  8. Pingback: Tåbeligt at Finland og Sverige går med i NATO og ignorerer både de virkige årsager og konsekvenser – 🗝 Jan Oberg

  9. Pingback: Der mögliche NATO-Beitritt Finnlands und Schwedens ist eine Gefahr für den Frieden - ÜberDenken

  10. Pingback: Is peace in Ukraine even possible? | Phil Ebersole's Blog

  11. Pingback: IT IS FOOLISH FOR FINLAND AND SWEDEN TO JOIN NATO? — What will be the consequences of Finland’s and Sweden’s NATO membership? — Novelkingdom1 News. – novelkingdom1

  12. Pingback: ANALYSIS #Geopolitics #Ukraine #PEACEAllergy: HOW Foolish for #Finland and #Sweden to join #NATO but ignore the root causes and consequences! | | truthaholics

  13. Pip   May 17, 2022 at 8:06 pm

    YOUTUBE Proof Zelensky REJECTED Peace With Russia in 2019 and in 2022
    Apr 5, 2022
    Reporting from the Wall Street Journal as well as recently unearthed video footage of an interview with a top lieutenant of President Zelensky reveal that Ukrainian leadership was not only well aware of the risk of a Russian invasion, but that Zelensky and company rejected a possible peace deal and instead allowed Russia to be pressured by the US and NATO to launch that invasion. Jimmy and The Grayzone’s Aaron Maté discuss the options faced by Ukraine prior to the Russian invasion.
    The Jimmy Dore Show

    YOUTUBE: So They DO Run The World
    Feb 28, 2022
    Russell Brand
    5.52M subscribers
    As the WEF pushes a digital ID that proposes monitoring online behaviour, purchases, biometrics, and more – are we heading towards our own social credit system?

    YOUTUBE: Irish Politician EVISCERATES Pro-Ukraine Warmongers & NATO
    Apr 9, 2022
    The Jimmy Dore Show
    1.01M subscribers
    Clare Daly is an Irish representative in the European Parliament, and among the few willing to speak out against NATO, call out the organization’s lengthy history of aggression around the globe and criticize western nations’ role in fomenting the Ukraine crisis.
    Jimmy and The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal discuss Daly’s recent fiery pro-peace speech in front of her fellow members of the European Parliament.
    Google: Klaus Schwab.
    This is the Nazi who is going around picking politicians to put into power.
    YOUTUBE: Video: Trudeau & Cabinet Trained By Global Economic Cabal – Admits WEF Chairman
    122,456 viewsFeb 19, 2022
    The Jimmy Dore Show

  14. Pingback: Ukraine: Foolish for Finland & Sweden to Join NATO | Altindx

  15. Pingback: Ukraine: Foolish for Finland & Sweden to Join NATO –

  16. Michel de la Bruyere Vincent   May 16, 2022 at 8:59 pm

    It is a Disgrace for all of us in Scandinavia.
    Denmark, Pharoe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Norway,Svalbard, Sweden
    and Finland,all members of the “Arctic Council” and “Nordic Council”,
    the scandinavian local and native population, samer and eskimos aso.
    It is a disgrace that Sweden and Finland after (se) 200 years neutrality
    without wars and extreme important and global wide respected roles as
    peacemediators in UN and outside , under and since the 2. worldwar,
    who nobody could have replaced, just could think about to apply for
    membership of NATO and hereby cancel any possibility peacemediation
    in future – for in the same time – only to create a total unsecurity for the
    entire scandinavia – and a totally dependance of the anglosachsian pop
    ulation in the UK and the USA.
    Scandinavia should instead work on creation of a new UN security structure
    for the world as proposed by the TFF “Nobel Peace Prize Watch”, april 27,2022.
    Scandinavia, Sweden and Finland should instead act as peacemediators
    in the actual conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
    From a danish citizen and pacifist.

  17. perspective_south   May 15, 2022 at 9:23 am

    Assessing root causes are so very important & also agree on your assessment of the media – there’s been no 360 degree discussion anywhere and it’s commendable that the other side of the story receives amplification here.

  18. delia ruhe   May 15, 2022 at 12:21 am

    Thank you, Jan Oberg. I could not agree more with this analysis. I was stunned by the news that Sweden and Finland were contemplating joining NATO. I could not understand why they would even consider making such a huge mistake. Now they are actually in the process of securing NATO membership and I am over my shock. I see that like most of the other NATO members, neither Sweden’s nor Finland’s political leadership see themselves as having any other option. As a Canadian living with the fact that geography is destiny, I can understand that. The US has many ways of coercing states it covets as vassals.

    Canada, my country, has so far survived as an obedient vassal state of Washington, seat of Empire. But survival is not permanent, especially now that Washington is operating irrationally—that is to say, operating under the influence of its longstanding Russophobia. Russia is to be both despised and feared, its leader consistently and repetitively demonized to the point where the vast majority of the populations of NATO states consider him the spawn of Satan instead of the comic-book villain American propaganda has created. As one of the world’s more intelligent and rational leaders, Putin has intimated that it is pointless to talk to Washington’s elites, most of whom appear to have become strangers to reason.

    Washington’s only solution to its nightmares of a disgusting and horrifying Russia is to annihilate it—presently described euphemistically as “weakening” it. Washington is driven by the conviction that unless the US recaptures its tarnished hegemony and establishes “full spectrum dominance” over the planet, civilization will go to hell in a handbasket. For Washington, the road to this irrational form global hegemony is expansionism, and expansionism is best achieved when operating within the legitimizing framework of NATO. Therefore, no European state shall be left free to practise its autonomy through the exercise of progressive democracy. All states—including Georgia and Ukraine, Sweden and Finland—shall become imperial possessions through NATO, under the coercive command of the USA. To quote the unforgettable Maggie Thatcher, “There is no alternative” (TINA).

  19. Pingback: Det är dåraktigt av Sverige och Finland att gå med i NATO og ignorera både de verkliga orsakerna och konsekvenserna - The Transnational

  20. Ed Lindgren   May 13, 2022 at 1:51 pm

    Mr. Oberg –

    Excellent analysis!

    As a citizen of the USA, allow me to say that the governments of Sweden and Finland are making a terrible mistake. They are both signing up to become colonies of the US National Security State.

    Sweden and Finland will regret their impulsive decisions to join NATO. This will not turn out well for the Nordic region.

    Ed Lindgren

  21. ola   May 13, 2022 at 9:40 am

    Thanks Jan.

    You are totally in line with Scott Ritter.

    There is also the multifactorial question about the reasons for the west’s intellectual decline, you mention the media, for that it needs a playbook. A few quotes from a 2020 paper on cognitive warfare from NATOS innovation hub..

    “Cognitive Warfare causes an insidious challenge. It disrupts the ordinary understandings and reactions to events in a gradual and subtle way, but with significant harmful effects over time.
    Cognitive warfare has universal reach, from the individual to states and multinational organisations. It feeds on the techniques of disinformation and propaganda aimed at psychologically exhausting the receptors of information.

    As defined by Clint Watts, cognitive Warfare opposes the capacities to know and to produce, it actively thwarts knowledge.

    Since the early 1990s, this capability has tended to be applied to the political, economic, cultural and societal fields.

    The most striking shift of this practice from the military, to the civilian, world is the pervasiveness of CW activities across everyday life that sit outside the normal peace-crisis-conflict construct (with harmful effects). Even if a cognitive war could be conducted to complement to a military conflict, it can also be conducted alone, without any link to an engagement of the armed forces. Moreover, cognitive warfare is potentially endless since there can be no peace treaty or surrender for this type of conflict.

    Cognitive Warfare is a war of ideologies that strives to erode the trust that underpins every society.

    Cognitive warfare pursues the objective of undermining trust (public trust in electoral processes, trust in institutions, allies, politicians…). , therefore the individual becomes the weapon, while the goal is not to attack what individuals think but rather the way they think .It has the potential to unravel the entire social contract that underpins societies.

    Cognitive Warfare is methodically exploited as a component of a global strategy by adversaries aimed at weakening, interfering and destabilising targeted populations, institutions and states, in order to influence their choices, to undermine the autonomy of their decisions and the sovereignty of their institutions. Such campaigns combine both real and distorted information (misinformation), exaggerated facts and fabricated news (disinformation).
    Disinformation preys on the cognitive vulnerabilities of its targets by taking advantage of pre-existing anxieties or beliefs that predispose them to accept false information.This requires the aggressor to have an acute understanding of the socio-political dynamics at play and to know exactly when and how to penetrate to best exploit these vulnerabilities.

    Where CW differs from propaganda is in the fact that everyone participates, mostly inadvertently, to information processing and knowledge formation in an unprecedented way. This is a subtle but significant change. While individuals were passively submitted to propaganda, they now actively contribute to it.
    The exploitation of human cognition has become a massive industry. And it is expected that emerging artificial intelligence (AI) tools will soon provide propagandists radically enhanced capabilities to manipulate human minds and change human behaviour

    In the cognitive war, it’s more important than ever to know thyself.”

    Its easy to detect brainwash in others but a bit preposterous to claim immunity for oneself without clear criterias, where is the PCR-test to objectively diagnose it?

  22. orjappel   May 13, 2022 at 7:20 am

    A clear and insightful analysis of the increased risks – unprovoked – that the governments of Finland and Sweden are taking. sleepwalking into disaster!

  23. John Smith   May 13, 2022 at 6:27 am

    There are reasons the Nordic nations are not a danger to Russia as is Ukraine. They do not exist on the precipice of being controlled by an endemic historically embedded demographic of fascist nationalists. They are not insecure about their national identities or borders and thus do not feel the need to clamp down on the rights of their ethnic minorities as an expression of ownership & control. And while perhaps having the tech skill, they show no sign of having the desire to create the most serious weapons of mass destruction as Ukraine has stated it wishes to do. The Nordic nations are sane, sensible, and self confident. They would in fact be a vote for reasoned reserve against aggressive proposals to threaten or intimidate the Russian Bear.

  24. Joseph Mbugua   May 12, 2022 at 5:51 pm

    The ideas expressed here are also shared by many scholars and activists in Africa. There seems to be very little lessons learnt from previous wars and historical tragedies. An outnumbered Russia is more dangerous than the former Soviet Union that matched each step of the Americans move in the world. The next conflict will not have the luxury of being cold in the West and hot in Africa, Asia, Central and South America. It will be hot in the West and everywhere else. It will only take even a mere misreading of signals to ignite a catastrophic doomsday scenario. God forbid.


To promote dialogue, write your appreciation, disagreement, questions or add stuff/references that will help others learn more...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.