Answer to a Question
Question:
Why did Russia move militarily against Ukraine when it revealed its intention to seek NATO membership, yet did not take any military action against Finland, which has actually joined the alliance, nor did it move against Sweden, whose accession to the alliance has become a matter of time?
Answer:
To clarify the answer, we review the following points:
First: We have previously issued many publications regarding Ukraine and the reasons that led Russia to declare war on it:
- We said in a Q&A dated January 24, 2004: ("As for Ukraine, it is closely linked to Russia and is an important ally for it, in addition to the presence of Ukrainians who consider themselves as if they are Russians; they speak Russian and are of Russian origin to a large extent, especially those living in eastern Ukraine...").
- We said in a Q&A dated March 20, 2010: ("Ukraine, which has an area of 603,700 square kilometers and a population of 48 million, is distinguished by a strategic location overlooking the Black Sea, and is distinguished by the passage of energy lines through it, especially natural gas lines, in addition to being distinguished by its location that connects Europe to Asia...").
- We said in a Q&A dated May 23, 2013: ("As for Russia, Ukraine is one of the most important countries for it. If it loses it, the West becomes directly on its borders, so it is like a protective shield for it from the side of Europe, besides its economic importance where Russian gas pipes pass through it to the West. Knowing that Russia insists on restoring its hegemony in the Soviet Union region, of which Ukraine was a part...").
- We said in a Q&A dated February 22, 2014: ("As for Russia, Ukraine is one of the most important countries for it. If it loses it, the West becomes directly on its borders, as it is like a protective shield for it from the side of Europe... as Ukraine is located only 300 kilometers from Moscow. This is the reason for Russia's intervention in Ukraine... this is on one hand, and on the other hand, the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet military base in it. From one side, it is considered a bridge between Europe and Russia, and from the other side, it is considered a buffer zone between them").
- We said in a Q&A dated December 22, 2021: ("Ukraine is Russia's front yard, and for Russia, it is not like Central Asia, for example, a backyard in terms of location, national ties, religion, and history. Ukraine is the front face of Russia and its international status; it overlooks the Black Sea and controls it... And if the weakness of the Soviet state forced it to abandon Eastern Europe as a buffer zone, then in the face of NATO's advance to Eastern Europe, it wants at least its two neighbors, Ukraine and Belarus, to provide it with the area that isolates it from the dangers of NATO and the advance of its military machine toward the East. Today, Russia wants to prevent Ukraine from joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), or its support for it").
Second: All of this demonstrates the importance of Ukraine to Russia. In fact, Russia almost does not consider it an independent state. Putin said in his speech on February 21, 2022: ("Putin pointed out that Ukraine is not just a neighboring country to us, it is an integral part of our history, culture, and spiritual space. These are not only our comrades, colleagues, and friends, but they are also our relatives, connected to us by blood and family ties... Anadolu Agency, February 23, 2022). Likewise, Russia considers it a buffer zone from NATO—a red line—due to its geographical and strategic location and its demographic structure. It does not allow NATO to reach it. Putin warned NATO (against deploying its forces and weapons in Ukraine, saying: 'Expanding NATO's military infrastructure in Ukraine is a red line for Russia and will lead to a strong response'... Noon Post, December 4, 2021).
After Russia's failure to bring Ukraine back into its fold—whether in the issue of sharing the Black Sea Fleet in the early nineties, or the issue of the vast gas pipelines that the Soviet Union had built inside Ukraine to transport gas from Russian territory to Europe, or in trade matters where the Russian market was in dire need of the sugar and oils produced by Ukraine's fertile lands, or after the emergence of Ukrainian tendencies toward the European Union and NATO—after its failure in that, it resorted to military force as a last resort. This was due to Putin's belief that by doing so, he would restore Russia to an international status as a superpower, and his belief that America was busy with the issue of China and would therefore remain silent if Russia attacked Ukraine. Putin especially thought he could dominate Ukraine quickly before America could move due to its preoccupation with China, driven by his political folly and megalomania alike! The result was that America adopted the cause of Ukraine, provided it with military equipment, conducted military training for its soldiers, mobilized Europe behind it, and ignited the war to the last Ukrainian and Russian soldier while its own soldiers watched from a distance!
Third: As for why Russia did not take any military action against Finland, which actually joined the alliance, nor did it move against Sweden, whose accession to the alliance has become a matter of time, the answer is as follows:
- Although Sweden is not a neighbor of Russia and Finland is, they are not like Ukraine in terms of their geographical and demographic location, history, hegemony, economy, and security as is well known. Therefore, these two countries are not a matter of life or death for Russia like Ukraine. In addition, Russia's view of these two countries is completely different. Russia does not see Ukraine as a completely independent state from it, as per Putin's statements we mentioned, especially since it was part of the Soviet Union, whereas the reality of Finland and Sweden is different. Finland has been a member of the European Union since 1995 and joined NATO in 2023. As for Sweden, it enjoys a close relationship with NATO, and they regularly conduct joint exercises; Sweden is one of six European Union members that were not members of NATO, having joined the Union in 1995. Thus, Russia has no pretext, even a formal one, to attack them as it did with Ukraine.
- Furthermore, Russia is now in a quandary in Ukraine and has not emerged from it. This reality does not make it capable of entering a new field of war. It is not unlikely that it has realized the size of its forces and capabilities; its war on Ukraine has approached a year and a half and it has not succeeded yet. Therefore, entering a new war while it is in apparent weakness before Ukraine and the West that supports it is unlikely under its current circumstances.
- There is a similar precedent worth mentioning. When the former Warsaw Pact countries—Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia (which were part of the former Soviet Union)—joined NATO in waves of alliance expansion since 1997, Russia was weak. It had not yet gotten rid of the chaos left by the collapse of the Soviet Union, was suffering from the effects of its collapse, had not yet fully recovered from these effects, and had not yet stabilized as a major state politically or economically. Therefore, it was not able to stand in the face of the West to prevent those countries from joining the alliance. Likewise, its attack on Ukraine, which failed to result in Ukraine's surrender to its terms, revealed a dangerous military weakness in its ranks. Its reputation and status were shaken, becoming as they were in the nineties. Therefore, it is not currently in a position to oppose Sweden and Finland's membership in NATO due to its current military weakness.
I hope the picture has become clear regarding the difference between Russia's stance on Ukraine and its stance on Sweden and Finland.
26th of Muharram, 1445 AH Corresponding to August 13, 2023 AD