Magnus Nordenman (Atlantic Council) pohtii jutussaan hyötyjä ja haittoja NATO:n näkökulmasta.
Nordenman näkee, että Suomessa ja Ruotsissa on osaamistaso korkealla ja ilmapuolustuksesta olisi hyötyä. Samalla loppuisi pohjoisen harmaan vyöhykkeen epävarmuus.
Hänen mukaansa maat voisivat kuitenkin lisätä vapaamatkustaja-ongelmaa, koska molemmilla mailla on tapana käyttää niin vähän rahaa puolustukseen. Lisäksi Venäjä-suhteet voisivat kiristyä entisestään, mikä voi olla joillekin maille ongelma.
Nordenmanin mukaan edut ovat haittoja suuremmat.
Puolesta:
Sweden and Finland maintain small military forces, but they are sophisticated and are already closely aligned with NATO and relatively interoperable after more than two decades of participating in NATO operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Libya. This is no small matter, as many other recent NATO members, from Estonia to Croatia, had to work hard for years to get their forces to approach NATO standards before joining the alliance.
The two Nordic countries would also bring a set of capabilities that would serve as meaningful contributions to NATO’s combat power. The Swedish and Finnish air forces, operating JAS-39 Gripens and F-18 Hornets, respectively, are especially strong and would do much to bolster NATO air power on the alliance’s northern flank. To boot, Finland recently acquired JASSMs, a long-range strike weapon, from Lockheed Martin, and Sweden is eyeing a similar capability, which would be a real contribution to NATO’s conventional deterrence. Swedish and Finnish NATO membership would therefore bring new, well-equipped forces and high-quality capabilities into the NATO fold, albeit of modest size.
Vastaan:
Even though their armed forces are capable, Stockholm and Helsinki spend only modest amounts on defense, far below the 2 percent of GDP that the alliance has set for itself as a benchmark—although most current members fail to reach that level too. The NATO summit in Wales in September gave a new impetus to increasing defense spending across the alliance, which now closely watches members’ spending levels and trends. Given their current levels of defense spending, bringing Sweden and Finland into NATO could be seen as letting in additional free riders, thereby lessening the pressure on current allies to increase their own defense spending. Furthermore, some current NATO members in central and eastern Europe would probably worry that bringing in Sweden and Finland would further provoke an already irate Russia, which could result in more aggressive military, political and economic prodding by Moscow along NATO’s eastern flank. Sweden and Finland themselves may be subject to provocations during the membership process, which would further test NATO’s resolve in its approach to both expansion and Russia.
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/...-of-adding-finland-and-sweden-outweigh-costs#
