The impact of Finland’s NATO membership has primarily been examined from the perspective of the Baltic Sea. According to Matti Pesu, Senior Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, an equally significant change has taken place in the Arctic.
So has the Baltic Sea become less important? According to Pesu, the answer is both yes and no. He has examined the role of the Arctic in a recent peer-reviewed research article.
“Finland’s economy and the functioning of Finnish society remain extremely dependent on the Baltic Sea. Most of the population lives in southern Finland, and Finland’s centre of gravity remains there. The Baltic Sea is still Finland’s lifeline, and what happens in the Baltic Sea region remains the most critical issue for Finland’s security,” Pesu tells Verkkouutiset.
“But NATO membership brings a new Arctic and Atlantic dimension to Finland’s defence. Finland’s defence is now more closely connected to the Nordic countries, the North Atlantic and the defence of the Arctic.”
According to Pesu, Finland is no longer alone. He writes that Finland is part of a Nordic defence cluster, which strengthens Finland’s defence capabilities and creates economic opportunities.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and NATO were engaged in an intense struggle over control of the region. After the end of the Cold War, NATO lost interest in the area. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine changed that.
“Since 2022, NATO has increasingly viewed the Arctic and the North Atlantic as a single strategic entity.”
The Nordic countries are gaining importance
During the early stages of Finland’s NATO membership, Finland belonged to the same Joint Force Command Brunssum command structure as the Baltic states.
NATO later transferred Finland, Sweden and Denmark to the area of responsibility of Joint Force Command Norfolk as part of a reorganisation of the defence of the Arctic and the North Atlantic. The decision reflects the growing importance of the Arctic in NATO’s planning.
Pesu says NATO no longer views the Arctic as a separate issue. Instead, Northern Europe, the Barents Sea, the Norwegian Sea, Iceland and the North Atlantic are increasingly seen as one integrated area of defence.
“It is clear that Finland, Sweden and Norway are forming an increasingly close grouping for cooperation within NATO,” Pesu says.
Finland’s geographical location increases the country’s strategic value. According to Pesu, Washington increasingly views the Arctic as part of the United States’ own security. This is due to Russia’s long-range weapons systems, its military activity in the region and growing great-power competition.
Pesu notes that the debate over Greenland was one symptom of this development. In Europe, there has been concern about the US presence on the continent. In the Arctic, the situation is the opposite.
“The importance of the Arctic is growing even as a bond between Europe and the United States,” Pesu says.
Why is Russia interested in the Arctic?
Russia was interested in the Arctic even before the war in Ukraine and had already increased its military presence in the region. In Finland, discussion of the Arctic long focused on issues such as climate change and economic opportunities.
According to Pesu, however, the Arctic is important to Russia above all for security reasons. A significant part of Russia’s nuclear deterrent is based on the Kola Peninsula.
“It is connected to Russia’s submarine-launched nuclear weapons and its so-called second-strike capability,” Pesu says.
Russia seeks to protect its most important military capabilities. For that reason, its interest in the region will not diminish even though the war in Ukraine ties up resources elsewhere.
In addition to its security dimension, Russia sees economic opportunities in the Arctic. The region is linked to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, through which China has sought to build a new Silk Road. The Arctic also contains substantial reserves of critical minerals.
The risk of conflict is unlikely to originate in the Arctic
According to Matti Pesu of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, claims that the Arctic will become a flashpoint for future crises are somewhat exaggerated.
He acknowledges that tensions in the region have increased, but in his assessment there are relatively few disputes in the Arctic itself that would be likely to lead to armed conflict.
Although both NATO and Russia are paying increasing attention to the region, Pesu does not consider the Arctic a likely starting point for a conflict.
“The more likely risk is that a conflict spreads to the Arctic from somewhere else,” Pesu says.
According to the researcher, the future of the Arctic will depend largely on the broader development of European security, the direction of Russia’s military posture and the kind of security order that emerges after the war in Ukraine.
In his view, Finland does not need to prepare for an immediate Arctic crisis. Instead, developments in the northern security environment should be monitored as part of the wider European security landscape.
“There is currently no immediate or acute military threat to Finland in the Arctic. The overall security situation has, however, been worrying for a long time.”