Sverige, Finland och Nato efter Krim - En fallstudie av skillnaden i synen på Natomedlemskap

Sammanfattning: Sweden and Finland have very similar strategic situations being militarily non-aligned, perceiving an increased military threat from Russia, and engaging in extensive partnerships with NATO. However, the two nations have chosen different approaches towards a hypothetical NATO membership. Sweden has officially closed the door to membership while Finland maintains an option to join NATO if deemed necessary. This case study aims to explain why Finland and Sweden have chosen these different stands. The analysis uses Allison's and Zelikow's Rational Actor and Governmental Politics Models to analyse national security policy and parliamentary decision making. The study shows that Finland’s NATO option is rational, given the nations confidence in its national defence, maintaining an open relation to its neighbour Russia, while keeping the door open if the need should arise. The general parliamentary consensus regarding a national independent narrative supports the option, while opinions differ as to the criteria for it to be activated. Sweden, on the other hand, having a more polarised national debate, can be described as choosing the most rational option available through parliamentary politics bargaining. As opinions and narratives are polarised, public opinion weak and disinterested, the political incentives for change are marginal.