[…] However, just as the final barriers to interoperability between Nordic nations were removed with Finland and Sweden’s NATO membership, some are going back up with Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark being split between different Joint Force Commands (JFC) and defense plans. Despite likely being of temporary nature, the results are highly impractical for the Nordic-Baltic region – and ultimately NATO.
Viewed as constituting one common joint operational area, dividing the Nordic countries into separate regional defense plans and commands makes little operational sense. Moreover, by creating a seam running between the Arctic and Baltic, many of the strategic gains offered by Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership risk being reduced. […]
The new defense plans will be continually adapted to changes in operational needs, but if the current separation of the Arctic and Baltic remains in place, a seam runs right down the middle of this northeastern flank. If Sweden joins JFC Norfolk as rumored, it creates a thoroughly counterintuitive situation: Sweden would then presumably be part of the Arctic defense plan, despite maritime capabilities tailor-made for the Baltic Sea. Finland, under JFC Brunssum, would belong to the Baltic and Central European defense plan, although its proximity to the Russian Arctic makes it irreplaceable in any defense plan for the European Arctic. Even if Finland and Sweden are kept together under Brunssum, they are still separated from Norway and the corresponding High-North/Arctic plans and operational command. […]
The Arctic, in its turn, was not an area NATO had much presence in after the Cold War. Keeping the Arctic an area of low tension with limited military activity was in Norway and Canada’s interest. If the Arctic has deliberately been kept out-of-sight out-of-mind, Russia’s decade-long military buildup in the region and proximity to NATO’s new borders makes the Arctic a potential hotspot that Allies can no longer ignore. Läs artikel