Why Russia Should Not Nuke Sweden and Finland Before They Join NATO

The recent discussions around the potential joining of Sweden and Finland to NATO have sparked intense debates, particularly within Russia. Some voices within Russia have suggested that Russia might consider using nuclear weapons as a last resort against such an expansion. However, these ideas are fundamentally flawed and cannot be justified under international law or practical military strategy.

Nuclear Deterrence as a Last Resort

One of the core principles guiding modern military doctrine is the concept of nuclear deterrence. According to this principle, nuclear weapons are reserved for use only as a last resort, specifically in the case of an existential threat to a country. An existential threat is one that directly endangers the survival of the state, such as an attack using weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Sweden and Finland have not used weapons of mass destruction against Russia, nor have they posed any significant existential threat to the Russian state. Therefore, under the current military doctrine, there is no valid justification for Russia to consider using nuclear weapons in such a context.

US Assurance and NATO Membership

A significant factor in the debate is the assurance provided by the United States to Sweden and Finland during the NATO ratification process. The US has pledged to defend these countries in case of aggression. This assurance is formally codified in the NATO-Russia Council, which aims to prevent any misunderstandings and has been active in diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions.

Furthermore, the NATO-Russia Founding Act is a binding agreement that can only be dissolved through mutual consent or in extraordinary circumstances. Any such move would be met with intense international scrutiny and potential repercussions, both diplomatically and militarily.

Historical Context and International Law

The history of nuclear warfare is fraught with examples where the use of nuclear weapons was treated as a last resort and a clear violation of international law. The concept of alpha strike, wherein a state uses all its nuclear arsenal at once, is a strategy that is generally considered to be in violation of international laws and conventions.

Under international law, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the United Nations Charter prohibit the use of nuclear weapons except in cases of self-defense. Even then, the use of such weapons is subject to scrutiny by the international community.

Conclusion

Given the current military and political climate, it is important to remember that NATO's enlargement is a process that involves mutual security and diplomatic engagement. Using nuclear weapons in such a scenario would be not only impractical but also illegal and likely to trigger a significant escalation of tensions on a global scale.

Both Russia and the West need to engage in constructive dialogue and mutual understanding to address these issues. The use of nuclear weapons should be a last resort, and the current strategic situation does not warrant such measures.