The Decibel - Why NATO is back to Cold War strength

Episode Date: July 17, 2023

At the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, Turkey agreed to support Sweden’s bid to join the alliance. This paves the way for Sweden to become the 32nd member nation following closely behind Finland, which became a member earlier in the spring. The expansion of NATO is something Russia and President Vladimir Putin have used as a key rationale for the war against Ukraine – saying it jeopardizes Russia’s security.Timothy Sayle is an associate professor of history and director of the International Relations Program at the University of Toronto. He’s also the author of Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order. He’s on the podcast to explain the history and tension between NATO and Russia and what more countries joining the alliance tells us about the current state of global affairs.Questions? Comments? Ideas? E-mail us at [e-mail]

It's well known that Sweden, after 200 years of non-alignment, we seek common protection. That's Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristuson, speaking last week at the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. But I also want all NATO allies to know that we also provide security, provide common security, and we are here for the long term. He's talking about Sweden soon becoming the 32nd alliance member of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. So this treaty was created specifically to defend the allies, the signatories of the treaty, from the Soviet Union, from worries that the Soviet Union was going to encroach into post-war Europe.

Timothy Sale is an associate professor of history and director of the International Relations Program at the University of Toronto. He's also the author of Enduring Alliance, a history of NATO and the post-war global order. The rationale for NATO today is once again actually similar to when it was created in 1949. Today, Timothy is on the show to help us understand how a fear of Russia is leading to NATO expanding and why countries like Sweden and Ukraine think NATO can best protect them. I'm Maina Karaman-Wilms and this is The Decibel from The Globe and Mail. Tim, thanks so much for being here today.

Thanks for having me. I want to start by asking you about Sweden, because last week during the NATO summit, there was a lot of talk about the potential of Sweden joining NATO. So why does Sweden want to be part of NATO? This is a great question, because Sweden could have joined NATO in 1949. And Swedish leaders actually even thought about joining NATO in 1949, and ultimately decided not to. Fast forward now to 2022 and 2023. We see that the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and these Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine caused the people and the leaders of both Finland and Sweden to finally decide that they should join NATO. And so the Swedish effort to join NATO, the invitation from NATO to Sweden, comes directly as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And you mentioned Finland.

Finland just joined NATO this spring, actually. So that was a recent addition. And Sweden is now working to become a member. But just to clarify, Tim, Sweden isn't a NATO member yet, right? This will still take some time? That's right. Sweden, at the time that we're discussing this, is not a member of NATO, but all of the ducks now are finally in a row. What happens is a bit of a tedious and bureaucratic

process whereby every NATO ally has to go through the process of proving a new member. Just a year ago, Finland and Sweden were trying to join at the same time. They sort of applied as a package deal. Finland went through smoothly and Sweden was held up. And this had to do largely with some Turkish-Swedish disagreements. And then Turkey used the Swedish accession issue as sort of a bargaining chip with other allies. And so just at this summit in a major breakthrough, the Turks were convinced to sort of green light Swedish accession. In exchange, we know that Turkey will buy American F-16 aircraft that it wanted and that Sweden will support Turkey's bid to join the European Union. So there was some really hard bargaining and log rolling going on behind the scenes. Yeah, no kidding. Turkey actually kind of got quite a bit out of this little exchange then.

That's right. And now we're going to move to a NATO with 32 states. I want to talk a little bit more about, I guess, the rationale behind Sweden wanting to join here, because this is a country that has been militarily neutral for a couple hundred years. So why is it such a big deal that they've decided to take a side and decided to join NATO at this point? I do think it is a really big deal and has really big implications for European security. Sort of an easy touch point here is the Second World War, where Sweden sort of geographically between Germany and the Soviet Union remained neutral during the Second World War. And building on that in the late 1940s, Swedish leaders

ultimately decided to stick with that idea of neutrality, not joining an alliance. They figured that was the best place for Sweden to be. During the Cold War, there was sort of secret cooperation between Sweden and NATO. So it's not always right when we say that Sweden was neutral. I think that there was closer cooperation than was public at the time. And then certainly in this post-Cold War world, Sweden has cooperated really closely with NATO. And so there are links there. And those links are important because in Vladimir Putin's era, in his leadership of Russia, he has been more willing to flex Russian military muscle to get what he wants. And this has included sort of flexing Russian military muscle off the Swedish

coast, practicing nuclear attacks on Sweden. This pressure we were seeing the Russians put on Sweden really took off in the 2010s. So those kind of actions by Russia combined with Russia actually invading Ukraine recently, I guess, kind of pushes Sweden in this direction then. That's exactly right. Okay, so this is an interesting point in time. Then we have Finland recently becoming a member of NATO this spring. Finland was also a neutral state. Now Sweden, that was a neutral state, is also looking to become part of NATO. I guess, what does it say that the world will now have fewer states that kind of define themselves as neutral? Right. I guess, what does it say that the world will now have fewer states that kind of define themselves as neutral? Right. I think this is what's so important and so

interesting. Finland and Sweden joining NATO gives NATO some military advantages, some geographic ability to position forces and so on. But the far bigger impact in my mind is that NATO is now the only game in town when it comes to European security. Sweden and Finland and these other countries that were not a part of the alliance always represented and in their own ways championed different approaches to security, different approaches beyond an alliance or military collective defense. And so we've seen this change now with more and more states believing that their security is best achieved within NATO. And as a result, we are losing the champions of other options. Can you tell me a little bit more about that?

What do you mean by that? In addition to NATO, there are other organizations and structures that sort of foster relationships and peace in Europe. One of them would be the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Russians are a part of that, the Swedes are a part of that, and also many NATO countries are a part of that. It's more premised on the idea of states sitting down and discussing issues that they disagree about or trying to find cooperative solutions. It's just a different way of doing business. I think we're seeing the end of that idea.

We're returning far more to the idea of armed camps in Europe. It's really more of a Cold War attitude. The thing is we have more and more states that were neutral in the Cold War that are now a part of NATO. Okay. So we have these two countries, Sweden and Finland, joining NATO essentially at this point because Russia is invading Ukraine, kind of pushing them over the edge there. So let's talk about the flip side, Tim. What does Sweden and Finland joining NATO, what does that mean for Russia?

The first sort of most obvious one when you look at the map is that Finland has an enormously long border with Russia. And now all of a sudden that is a NATO border. So the number of places where NATO just physically butts up against Russia is far greater than it used to be. The Finnish military is a more significant addition to NATO, but I do think the most important element of Sweden joining the alliance is just this boost it gives NATO as the place where states must turn to be secure in Europe. And so it really continues, I think, Putin's sort of isolation from Europe, sort of changing, I think, the political geography of Europe even more. This is a really interesting kind of irony here, actually, Tim, right? Because Russia and Putin have used NATO expansionism as a key rationale for why Russia invaded Ukraine, the war against Ukraine. But this war actually had the effect of pushing countries towards NATO, having two other countries join NATO. There's some irony here that these actions are actually having the opposite

effect of what Russia wants. I think you're exactly right. And in fact, there's a bigger historical pattern here. NATO has had difficulties in the past when its leaders and the people of NATO countries have sort of wondered, is NATO still necessary? Do we need this alliance? And a British ambassador to NATO in the Cold War had this great line. He said, every time NATO gets in trouble, the Russians come along and save it. And so he was speaking about 1956 after the Suez crisis, the allies are in disagreement. And it's the Soviet invasion of Hungary that reminds people why NATO is important. In 1968, Soviet tanks roll into Czechoslovakia.

That's another reminder for people during the Cold War that NATO is important. And I think that's what we're seeing again now in this last decade. We have seen the Russians take a number of actions that have caused people in NATO to remember why NATO is important. But then, as you're saying, it's causing these other people, leaders but also publics who were not a part of NATO NATO to say, this is what we need to be secure. We'll be back in a minute. All right, let's take a step back here. And I want to ask you a basic question, Tim.

Why does Russia not like NATO? Can you give us some of the history there? Sure, absolutely. NATO's history is entirely wrapped up with the Soviet Union. NATO was created in 1949 because of the Allies' concerns about the Soviet Union. There were a number of incidents in the years after the Second World War where the Soviets used their military power to sort of blackmail European countries for political change. There was a case in Finland, where the Soviets really dictated Finnish policy going forward. We have the word Finlandization as a result of that. The Soviets were preparing these threats against Norway. They supported the coup in Czechoslovakia. So all of these incidents in the 1940s caused the first 12 allies to decide to

band together to protect themselves from the Soviet pressure. And Canada was one of those allies, right? We were one of the first countries there. Canada was absolutely a major part of this. And in fact, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, those three countries played an incredibly important role in beginning the discussions about NATO. Okay. And so then what happened? Because yes, of course, there's tensions in that period and throughout the Cold War, but we also saw a lot of countries joining NATO in the 90s after that period. So how did this grow? Sure. I think the most fascinating thing, just to remind ourselves, is that the countries that joined NATO in the 1990s and 2000s were almost all Warsaw Pact allies of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. So Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland. That's essentially the other military alliance

around the Soviet Union there. Exactly right. This is the Warsaw Pact, the alliance that was formed to counter NATO by the Soviets. It's members of the Warsaw Pact. And in fact, former Soviet republics, the Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union that then joined NATO in the 1990s and 2000s. And this is really important, I think, to understanding our world today. It reveals that even after the end of the Cold War, when the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet-led military alliance fell apart, after the Soviet Union fell apart, these states that had been sort of forced to ally with Moscow now looked to NATO for their security. And so these states were pressing hard

on NATO allies to be admitted to the alliance. So why did they join? Why did they feel like they needed the security that NATO could provide? The people that lead these countries after the end of the Cold War are the people that had resisted the Soviet Union and who had resisted communism and who wanted to make sure that even if the Soviet Union was gone, that Russia would not use its power to again, seek influence or control over these states. So it's fear of a repeat of history of Russia doing what the Soviet Union had done for decades before. So it's, I mean, it sounds like since the 90s, we actually have seen a lot of countries joining NATO, right, in a relatively short period of time. So I guess, does Russia have a point that

NATO's expansionism is kind of threatening them in a way because it's getting so close? Yeah, this is crucial. I like to think of it this way, that NATO has no plans to invade Russia. But I do think I understand why someone like Putin sees NATO as a threat. And I think that's because NATO does represent a threat to him and the way that he rules. By being a part of NATO, these countries of Europe are secure. They're able to pursue the political and economic goals that they want to pursue. It's connected, of course, with things like the European Union and economic freedom in Europe. But when the Russian people, if they were able to see what life was like in NATO countries, they would see political and economic freedoms that are not

available in Russia. And so I do think that NATO does, in a sense, pose a threat to Russia by visibly demonstrating that there is a way of life different than what Putin offers. Yeah, that's an interesting point. Tim, I want to ask you about Ukraine as well, because in 2008, 15 years ago now, NATO said that Ukraine will one day be part of the alliance. And at this year's summit, NATO talked about how Ukraine joining the alliance will work, but they didn't have a definitive timeline. And it's actually unlikely for Ukraine to become

a member while the war is still happening. So why is that? At the heart of NATO lies this commitment that the states have made to each other, where they will consider an attack upon one ally to be an attack upon all of the allies. And this is Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. It's really the core of the alliance. And the real question, of course, is that if a country at war, if Ukraine, having been invaded by the Russians, were to become a member of NATO, would that mean that all of the NATO allies would then join the war on Ukraine's side. That would be one sort of path here, right?

That Ukraine, by becoming a member, now means that all members consider this a war upon themselves and will join the war. So it would draw this 31-state alliance into war with Russia. Which I take it most of the world does not want. They do not. And they do not want that. And we have real hard evidence of that because no NATO allies have agreed to fight in Ukraine for Ukraine.

So that's a sticking point. of this war, and the NATO states did not fight for Ukraine, then that would really make a mockery of the treaty and Article 5 and the alliance itself. It would suggest that that Article 5 commitment, that's the very core and essence of NATO, isn't actually that strong because a NATO ally could have been invaded and the other allies not fight. So it just would leave NATO, I think, in an impossible situation. Yeah, both of those are really interesting points. And I guess I want to ask you a little bit more about this last one, because as NATO expands, as more states join NATO, I mean,

doesn't the likelihood of NATO getting drawn into some kind of conflict actually increase? This has always been an issue for NATO, but I agree that it's more and more of an issue now as the alliance is bigger and bigger. But this is the fundamental test of NATO. Is NATO credible? Meaning, will the allies actually uphold the promise they've made to each other by signing this treaty and agreeing to Article 5? And so NATO states try to demonstrate that credibility in all sorts of ways. And that's why we have Canadian forces in Latvia today. Article 5. And so NATO states try to demonstrate that credibility in all sorts of ways, right?

And that's why we have Canadian forces in Latvia today. They're there to demonstrate that Canada stands with Latvia, that Canada stands with the alliance and that the allies will fight for each other if it comes to that. And ideally, of course, they'll deter the Russians in the first place from ever doing anything that would lead to fighting. But this has always been NATO's struggle. It's a struggle that doesn't have a solution. Just always trying to demonstrate that, yes, the Article 5 commitment, the commitment to defend each other is credible. Just lastly here, Tim, you actually wrote a book on NATO, examining the strength of NATO and how sometimes NATO's future has been uncertain and times the organization was considered weak. But now, I mean, these days,

NATO is continuing to expand. At this point, is NATO stronger than ever? NATO is certainly in the strongest position it's been since the end of the Cold War. NATO is doing the things now that it was doing in the Cold War that it had taken sort of a holiday from after 1989 and 1990. So at this recent summit, the Allies agreed to 4,000 pages worth of new defense plans, war plans to defend NATO. So NATO is sort of back in a way. It's back to its Cold War self.

And that does strengthen the alliance in that it shows that the leaders behind NATO believe in it. They're willing to invest in it. NATO involves the total military power of 31 states, including the nuclear weapons of the United States, United Kingdom, and France. And we're looking at defense spending on something on the order of $1 trillion a year that is devoted to these militaries. But with that strength and commitment come a lot of difficulties because making war plans and deciding who spends how much money creates a lot of disagreements between allies. And NATO may be in a strong position right now, but it just came from an extremely weak position during the Trump presidency when there were real questions about whether NATO would last. And so we do have this lingering question of how long this commitment

to NATO will last and how long it will last in the United States and whether a change in the presidency of the United States could just fundamentally pull the rug out from under NATO. It's not inconceivable. So NATO can be strong. It's in a strong position now, but that can change so quickly. Tim, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. Thanks for having me here. That's it for today. I'm Mainika Raman-Wilms. Our summer producer is Nagin Nia. Our producers are Madeline White, Cheryl Sutherland, and Rachel Levy-McLaughlin. David Crosby edits the show. Adrienne Chung is our senior producer,

and Angela Pachenza is our executive editor. Thanks so much for listening, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.