SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: 54

NATO’s Changing Threat Perception and the Place of Finland and Sweden in the Alliance

NATO’nun Değişen Tehdit Algısı, Finlandiya ve İsveç’in İttifaktaki Yeri

Ayşegül Güler(KARAMANOĞLU MEHMETBEY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5014-4825
Pages
301–321
Publication Date
2026-08-06
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that Finland and Sweden contribute significantly to NATO in terms of military capability, defense expenditure, strategic geography, and institutional compatibility.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the reasons behind Finland and Sweden’s applications for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership, assesses how compatible these two countries are with the Alliance, and evaluates the impact of their membership on NATO’s current position.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The findings indicate that Finland and Sweden contribute significantly to NATO in terms of military capability, defense expenditure, strategic geography, and institutional compatibility.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, over time, it will become clearer how well NATO fulfills the security expectations of these two countries.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:NATO · Güvenlik · Tehdit Algısı

Abstract

This study examines the reasons behind Finland and Sweden’s applications for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership, assesses how compatible these two countries are with the Alliance, and evaluates the impact of their membership on NATO’s current position. The main question of the study is whether the inclusion of Finland and Sweden has strengthened NATO. In this context, the research examines NATO’s evolving perception of threats in the post-Cold War era, its enlargement policy, and the contributions of new members to the Alliance. The research employs a qualitative methodology, involving a literature review that draws from sources such as The Military Balance, NATO reports, data from international organizations, academic studies, and official statements. The study utilizes the frameworks of liberal institutionalism and realism to analyze the various dimensions of NATO membership, including cooperation, burden-sharing, deterrence, the balance of power, and security dilemmas. The findings indicate that Finland and Sweden contribute significantly to NATO in terms of military capability, defense expenditure, strategic geography, and institutional compatibility. However, over time, it will become clearer how well NATO fulfills the security expectations of these two countries.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Finlandiya ve İsveç’in Kuzey Atlantik Antlaşması Örgütü’ne (NATO’ya) üyelik başvurularının nedenlerini, bu iki ülkenin ittifakla uyum düzeyini ve üyeliklerinin NATO’nun mevcut konumu üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Çalışmanın temel sorusu, Finlandiya ve İsveç’in üyeliğinin NATO’yu güçlendirip güçlendirmediğidir. Bu kapsamda, NATO’nun Soğuk Savaş sonrası değişen tehdit algısı, genişleme politikası ve yeni üyelerin ittifaka katkıları ele alınmaktadır. Araştırmada nitel yöntem benimsenmiş, literatür taraması yapılmış ve The Military Balance, NATO raporları, uluslararası kuruluş verileri, akademik çalışmalar ve resmî açıklamalardan yararlanılmıştır. Liberal kurumsalcılık ve realizm yaklaşımları, üyeliğin iş birliği, yük paylaşımı, caydırıcılık, güç dengesi ve güvenlik ikilemi boyutlarını değerlendirmek için kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, Finlandiya ve İsveç’in askerî kapasite, savunma harcamaları, stratejik coğrafya ve kurumsal uyum bakımından NATO’ya önemli katkılar sunduğunu göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, NATO’nun bu iki ülkenin güvenlik beklentilerini ne ölçüde karşılayacağı zaman içinde daha açık biçimde görülecektir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Güler, A., *, A. G. (2026). NATO’s Changing Threat Perception and the Place of Finland and Sweden in the Alliance. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 54, 301–321. https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.1898691

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (75)

  1. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(1), 3-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002798042001001
  2. Aggestam, L., Schierenbeck, I., & Wackenhut, A. (2023). Sweden, NATO and the role of diasporas in foreign policy. International Affairs, 99(6), 2367-2385. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad239
  3. Baharçiçek, A., & İnan, C. E. (2013). Dış politikanın belirlenmesinde ulusal güvenlik algısının rolü. Akademik Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 4(1), 101-120.
  4. Baylis, J. (2008). Uluslararası ilişkilerde güvenlik kavramı. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 5(18), 69-85. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43926429
  5. BBC News Türkçe. (2024). Macaristan, İsveç’in NATO üyeliğine neden ayak diriyor? https://www.bbc.com/turkce/articles/cgrl32r9ly7o
  6. Berg, E., & Fredriksson, E. (2024). Don’t say peace: Militarisation and the shrinking space for critical voices in the Swedish NATO debate. Critical Studies on Security, 12(3), 235-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2024.2358643
  7. Blackburn, M. (2025). Reacting to a geopolitical setback: NATO expansion in Sweden and Finland through the lens of Russian geopolitical culture. European Journal of International Security, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2025.10019
  8. Burns, N., & Lute, D. (2019, April 2). NATO’s biggest problem is President Trump. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/natos-biggest-problem-is-president-trump/2019/04/02/6991bc9c-5570-11e9-9136-f8e636f1f6df_story.html
  9. Buzan, B. (2008). Askerî güvenliğin değişen gündemi. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 5(18), 107-123. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43926431
  10. Caparini, M. (2003). Security sector reform and NATO and EU enlargements. In SIPRI yearbook 2003: Armaments, disarmament and international security (pp. 237-260). Oxford University Press.
  11. Chomsky, N. (2017). Güç kimin elinde? (C. Özpınar, Çev.). İnkılâp Kitabevi.
  12. Christiansson, M. (2023). New northern flank: Sweden and Finland in NATO. International Relations and Diplomacy, 11(5), 225-232. https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-2134/2023.05.005
  13. Daban, C., & Aktaş, H. (2024). Savunma iş birliği kapsamında Türkiye-Somali ilişkileri: TÜRKSOM Askerî Eğitim Merkezi örneği. İmgelem, (14), 73-100. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1435425
  14. Davis, I. (2024). NATO’s direct funding arrangements: Who decides and who pays? Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2024/natos-direct-funding-arrangements-who-decides-and-who-pays
  15. Deni, J. R. (2022a). Finland and Sweden in NATO: Looking beyond Madrid. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Finland-and-Sweden-in-NATO-Looking-beyond-Madrid.pdf
  16. Deni, J. R. (2022b). Sweden would strengthen NATO with fresh thinking and an able force. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/sweden-would-strengthen-nato-with-fresh-thinking-and-an-able-force/
  17. Donnelly, J. (2005). Realism. In S. Burchill, A. Linklater, R. Devetak, J. Donnelly, M. Paterson, C. Reus-Smit, & J. True (Eds.), Theories of international relations (3rd ed., pp. 29-54). Palgrave Macmillan.
  18. Duignan, P. (2000). NATO: Its past, present, and future. Hoover Institution Press.
  19. Eminoğlu, A., & Demir, S. (2018). Küresel rekabetin karşılaştırmalı bir analizi: Kuzey Atlantik Antlaşması Örgütü (NATO) ve Şangay İşbirliği Örgütü (ŞİÖ). Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (52), 115-142.
  20. Forsberg, T., & Christiansson, M. (2025). NATO’s northern enlargement: Finland and Sweden’s path to membership. Bristol University Press.
  21. Forsberg, T., & Vaahtoranta, T. (2001). Inside the EU, outside NATO: Paradoxes of Finland’s and Sweden’s post-neutrality. European Security, 10(1), 68-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662830108407483
  22. Frantzen, H.-A. (2005). NATO and peace support operations, 1991-1999: Policies and doctrines. Frank Cass. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203010310
  23. Government Offices of Sweden. (2024). Military budget. https://www.government.se/government-policy/military-budget/
  24. Grand, C. (2023). Savunma harcamaları: Çabaların uzun vadede sürdürülmesi. NATO Review. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/tr/articles/2023/07/03/savunma-harcamalari-cabalarin-uzun-vadede-suerdueruelmesi/index.html
  25. Hallams, E. (2010). The United States and NATO since 9/11: The transatlantic alliance renewed. Routledge.
  26. Hämäläinen, P. K. (1974). Revolution, civil war, and ethnic relations: The case of Finland. Journal of Baltic Studies, 5(2), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/01629777400000131
  27. Herz, J. H. (1950). Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma. World Politics, 2(2), 157-180.
  28. Heywood, A. (2013). Küresel siyaset (N. Uslu & H. Özdemir, Çev.). Adres Yayınları.
  29. Huntington, S. P. (2014). Batı tektir, ama evrensel değildir. In M. Yılmaz (Ed.), Medeniyetler çatışması (2. bs., p. 126). Vadi Yayınları.
  30. International Institute for Strategic Studies. (2025). The Military Balance 2025 (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003630760
  31. Ischinger, W. (2005). Pax Americana and Pax Europea. In T. Lindberg (Ed.), Beyond paradise and power: Europe, America, and the future of a troubled partnership (pp. 81-92). Routledge.
  32. Jacoby, W. (2004). The enlargement of the European Union and NATO: Ordering from the menu in Central Europe. Cambridge University Press.
  33. Jokinen, S. M. (2023). Never again alone: Finland’s path to NATO. EA WorldView. https://eaworldview.com/2023/05/finland-path-to-nato/
  34. Kaim, M. (2017). Reforming NATO’s partnerships (SWP Research Paper No. 1). German Institute for International and Security Affairs. https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2017RP01_kim.pdf
  35. Karaosmanoğlu, A. L. (2014). NATO’nun dönüşümü. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 10(40), 3-38.
  36. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
  37. Kıyağan, A., Altuntaş, A., & Pala, M. (2024, February 26). Macaristan Meclisi, İsveç’in NATO üyeliğini onayladı. Anadolu Ajansı. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/macaristan-meclisi-isvec-in-nato-uyeligini-onayladi/3148373
  38. Larrabee, F. S. (2003). NATO’s eastern agenda in a new strategic era. RAND Corporation.
  39. Lokker, N., Townsend, J., Hautala, H., & Kendall-Taylor, A. (2023). How Finnish and Swedish NATO accession could shape the future Russian threat: A report of the Transatlantic Forum on Russia. Center for a New American Security. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep47256
  40. Mezhevich, N., & Nogaev, I. (2024). Finland in NATO: Genesis of the current situation and prospects for its evolution. Contemporary Europe, 7(128), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0201708324070118
  41. Michalski, A., Brommesson, D., & Ekengren, A. M. (2024). Small states and the dilemma of geopolitics: Role change in Finland and Sweden. International Affairs, 100(1), 139-157. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad244
  42. Ministry of Defence of Finland. (2024). Finland’s membership in NATO. https://www.defmin.fi/en/areas_of_expertise/finland_s_membership_in_nato
  43. Moore, R. R. (2007). NATO’s new mission: Projecting stability in a post-Cold War world. Praeger Security International.
  44. NATO. (2016, November 2). Lord Robertson and the self-defence clause. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137121.htm
  45. NATO. (2020). Crisis management. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49192.htm
  46. NATO. (2022a). NATO 2022 strategic concept. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/290622-strategic-concept.pdf
  47. NATO. (2022b). Standardization. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_69269.htm
  48. NATO. (2024a). NATO member countries: Finland. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm#finland
  49. NATO. (2024b). NATO member countries: Sweden. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm#sweden
  50. NATO. (2024c, July 10). Washington Summit Declaration. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_227678.htm
  51. NATO. (2025a). Defence expenditure of NATO countries (2014-2025). https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/finance/def-exp-2025-en.pdf
  52. NATO. (2025b, June 25). The Hague Summit Declaration. https://www.nato.int/fr/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2025/06/25/the-hague-summit-declaration?selectedLocale=en
  53. NATO. (2026, May 9). What is NATO? https://www.nato.int/en/what-is-nato
  54. O’Dwyer, G. (2023, October 13). Finland’s 2024 defense budget targets arms restocking, border security. Defense News. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/10/13/finlands-2024-defense-budget-targets-arms-restocking-border-security/
  55. Özgöker, U., & Güney, F. B. (2017). Uluslararası siyasi, askerî, ekonomik ve sosyo-kültürel örgütler. Der Yayınları.
  56. Person, R., & McFaul, M. (2024). Why NATO is more than democracy’s best defense. Journal of Democracy. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/online-exclusive/why-nato-is-more-than-democracys-best-defense/
  57. Prior, T. (2017). NATO: Pushing boundaries for resilience (CSS Analyses in Security Policy No. 213). Center for Security Studies, ETH Zürich. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000184886
  58. Recchia, S. (2015). Soldiers, civilians, and multilateral humanitarian intervention. Security Studies, 24(2), 251-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2015.1036626
  59. Rühle, M. (2013). Reflections on 9/11: A view from NATO. In E. Hallams, L. Ratti, & B. Zyla (Eds.), NATO beyond 9/11: The transformation of the Atlantic Alliance (pp. 54-66). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230391222_3
  60. Rühle, M. (2025, December 15). Beware of NATO’s enlargement trap. Defense News. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2025/12/15/beware-of-natos-enlargement-trap/
  61. Salum, K. (2015). Finland and Sweden in NATO: Implications for NATO-Russia relations. In R. Czulda & M. Madej (Eds.), Newcomers no more? Contemporary NATO and the future of the enlargement from the perspective of “post-Cold War” members. NATO Public Diplomacy Division.
  62. Särkkä, I. (2024). Finland and Sweden in NATO: Bridging the gap between hard and soft security in the Baltic Sea region. Baltic Rim Economies. https://www.centrumbalticum.org/en/publications/baltic_rim_economies/baltic_rim_economies_2_2024_-_nato_present_status_and_forthcoming_developments/iro_sarkka_finland_and_sweden_in_nato_-_bridging_the_gap_between_hard_and_soft_security_in_the_baltic_sea_region
  63. Simons, G., Manoylo, A., & Trunov, P. (2019). Sweden and the NATO debate: Views from Sweden and Russia. Global Affairs, 5(4-5), 335-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2019.1681014
  64. Sloan, S. R. (2001). Continuity or change? The view from America. In NATO after fifty years (p. 11). Scholarly Resources.
  65. Stone, R. W. (2011). Controlling institutions: International organizations and the global economy. Cambridge University Press.
  66. The Brussels Times. (2024). NATO wants to improve the standardisation of its equipment. https://www.brusselstimes.com/1276261/nato-wants-to-improve-the-standardisation-of-its-equipment
  67. The Economist. (2019, November 7). Emmanuel Macron warns Europe: NATO is becoming brain-dead. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11/07/emmanuel-macron-warns-europe-nato-is-becoming-brain-dead
  68. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı. (2024). İsveç ve Finlandiya, NATO’ya üye olacaklarsa Türkiye’nin güvenlik endişelerini dikkate almak zorundalar. https://www.tccb.gov.tr/haberler/410/138533/-isvec-ve-finlandiya-nato-ya-uye-olacaklarsa-turkiye-nin-guvenlik-endiselerini-dikkate-almak-zorundalar-
  69. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti İletişim Başkanlığı. (2024). Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, İsveç’in NATO üyeliğini onaylayan tasarıyı kabul etti. https://www.iletisim.gov.tr/turkce/dis_basinda_turkiye/detay/turkiye-buyuk-millet-meclisi-isvecin-nato-uyeligini-onaylayan-tasariyi-kabul-etti
  70. Vabulas, F., & Snidal, D. (2013). Organization without delegation: Informal intergovernmental organizations (IIGOs) and the spectrum of intergovernmental arrangements. The Review of International Organizations, 8, 193-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-012-9161-x
  71. Walker, P. (2014, October 19). Sweden searches for suspected Russian submarine off Stockholm. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/19/sweden-search-russian-submarine-stockholm
  72. Waterton, B. (2022, March 1). Swedish word of the day: Rysskräck. The Local. https://www.thelocal.se/20220301/rysskrack-just-how-long-have-swedes-been-scared-of-russia
  73. Webber, M. (2013). NATO after 9/11: Theoretical perspectives. In E. Hallams, L. Ratti, & B. Zyla (Eds.), NATO beyond 9/11: The transformation of the Atlantic Alliance (pp. 27-53). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230391222_2
  74. Zapolskis, M. (2012). 1999 and 2010 NATO strategic concepts: A comparative analysis. Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10243-012-0012-5
  75. Zellen, B. S. (2025). The dark side of NATO expansion—Part I. The Arctic Institute. https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/dark-side-nato-expansion-part-i/