FINLAND IN, SWEDEN OUT. Although this appears an unlikely option, it is not impossible. It would generate substantially different effects than the baseline scenario for both Finland and NATO. The conditions under which Article 5 would be implemented would be more complex for geographical reasons than in the joint membership hypothesis and would probably be less appealing for NATO in terms of facilitating the defence of the Baltic States.
FINLAND OUT, SWEDEN IN. Although this possibility lies outside of a strict interpretation of our Terms of Reference, it calls for some consideration given its degree of likelihood. It may also have some attractiveness viewed from a logistical and operational NATO perspective, despite the potential for adverse effects for Finland. The membership of Sweden would greatly facilitate the circumvention of Russian Anti-Access Area Denial (A2AD) assets in Kaliningrad threatening NATO forces en route to the Baltic States. Given the military geography of the region, Article 5 defence of Sweden would also represent little stress for NATO compared to other recent members, notwithstanding the dismantling of territorial defence. Sweden’s military and defence-industrial cooperation with the US since the late 1950s, its American defence guarantee, and its relationship with NATO during the Cold War would give its possible membership of NATO a natural quality in the eyes of many observers.
