The American scholar John Mearsheimer has commented on Finland’s NATO membership in an extremely negative tone. According to him, joining the alliance has weakened Finland’s security situation, and furthermore, the decision was made at the worst possible time.
In Mearsheimer’s view, instead of joining NATO, Finland should have continued its post-World War II policy of "Finlandization," where the country refrained from criticizing the Soviet Union's actions, no matter what they were. During that time, politicians and the media lied directly to the Finnish people about the conditions, human rights issues, and ambitions of their eastern neighbor.
However, it is noteworthy that despite all this, most Finns lived in constant fear, day and night, that Russia would occupy the country — a country with no allies to come to its aid in times of crisis. In other words, people feared a repeat of the Winter War.
Mearsheimer has also stated that Finland joined NATO at a completely wrong moment, as the alliance is now facing deep problems. He even speculated that U.S. forces might withdraw from Europe and that NATO’s Article 5 — the obligation to assist a member state under attack — would lose its significance.
He further claimed that Finland’s President Alexander Stubb has been wrong about Ukraine from the very beginning because Stubb believes in discredited ideas promoted by Western liberal imperialists since the end of the Cold War.
* * *
After reading Mearsheimer’s views, I found myself reflecting on his words. His credibility is bolstered by the fact that already in 1993, he predicted that Ukraine should not give up its nuclear weapons the following year.
First, I concluded that neither I nor almost any other Finn — except for some on the far left — want in any way to return to the era of Finlandization. That’s why I deeply support Finland’s NATO membership and the DCA agreement with the United States, to ensure we are never again left alone if Russia attacks.
Second, I fully understand that if NATO and the DCA were to lose their significance, it would be impossible for a country of five and a half million people to maintain its independence in the event of a full-scale Russian assault. Finland’s only option would be to make the price of conquest unbearably high for Russia — just as happened in the Winter War of 1939–40 (as a result of which Finland lost about 10 percent of its territory), during which Soviet casualties reached 321,000–381,000 in about one hundred days, despite Finland's lack of modern weaponry and allies.
* * *
In light of the threat posed by Putin, I have advocated here on this blog that Western European states must build sufficient military strength and commit — within the EU framework or otherwise — to each other’s defense. Many leading European politicians, including Germany’s new Chancellor Friedrich Merz, currently share this view.
Thus, it seems to me that by the time Russia and Vladimir Putin find a way out of Ukraine, Western Europe — including Finland — will have grown militarily strong enough that Russia will no longer have the capacity even to threaten its security. This is something Mearsheimer should be aware of as well.
Therefore, I found it puzzling and decided to look more closely into this scholar. I discovered that in 2019, he supported the far-left Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Considering the historical record of socialists worldwide, this revealed to me that Mearsheimer is completely incapable of rational thinking.
Thus, I asked myself how much weight should really be given to Mearsheimer’s views on Finland’s security policy — and I concluded: not very much after all.
Previous thoughts on the same topic:
From Finnish Neutrality to Russian Ruins
Donald Trump’s Reliability as an Ally Has Proven to Be Questionable
Finally, Finland Speaks the Truth Without Fear!
