Finnish President Sauli Niinistö spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin by phone and indicated that Finland would decide soon to pursue NATO membership. The presidents discussed how Russia’s demands to block new members since late 2021 have shifted Finland’s security landscape, according to a Finnish official summary. The Helsinki decision appears linked to Russia’s military operation against Ukraine and its impact on Finland’s safety considerations.
As Niinistö has noted, in his first talks with Putin back in 2012 he emphasized that every independent nation bears responsibility for its own security. He reiterated that Finland joining NATO would bolster its security and enable Finland to address practical neighborhood issues with Russia in a careful and capable manner. The Finnish statement framed the phone call as constructive and understandable, aimed at preventing unnecessary tension. Finland initiated the dialogue, the Kremlin press release confirmed, highlighting an open exchange of views.
Putin reportedly argued that abandoning a longstanding policy of military neutrality would be a misstep since there is no immediate threat to Finland’s security. The Kremlin noted that the discussion reflected a wide range of perspectives on how to preserve regional stability and avoid unnecessary confrontation in the North. The shift in Finnish policy, if it moves forward, could affect Moscow’s long-standing bilateral relationship with Helsinki, which has been sustained by years of cooperation and neighborly ties.
During the conversation, Putin also offered his view on the state of the Russia-Ukraine negotiations, describing Kyiv as showing little interest in serious dialogue. The Russian side conveyed a belief that Kyiv has placed obstacles in the path to constructive talks, while insisting that Moscow remains open to discussions under the right conditions.
Don’t be guided by emotions
Earlier, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko remarked that Moscow would not let emotions drive its response to possible NATO expansion. He argued that Finland and Sweden expanding their alliance presence would demand a thorough political assessment of the consequences in the evolving regional power dynamic. Grushko contended that a Sweden-Finland security framework would not serve broader European stability and could lead to greater militarization of the North, despite years of cooperation in the region.
Grushko stressed that Russia does not harbor hostile intentions toward Finland or Sweden. He suggested that the steps taken by Stockholm and Helsinki align with a narrative of portraying Russia as a foe, a view he challenged as counterproductive to practical security and diplomatic engagement.
The Russian side suggested that the process of inviting Sweden and Finland into NATO has progressed, implying a smoother onboarding path for new members. He described the procedural aspects as largely complete and anticipated a seamless transition, with the alliance moving forward under the usual readiness and accession protocols.
The national debate over NATO membership in Finland was set to continue in the Finnish Parliament, with a vote expected on a crucial milestone in mid May. Media reports indicated that Sweden would officially apply to join the alliance on that same day, signaling a notable shift in regional defense posture.
If Finland and Sweden join NATO, the regional security map would change by increasing the alliance’s border exposure with Russia by more than a thousand kilometers. Finland already maintains a border with Russia, and Sweden’s proximity to the Baltic coast would alter the strategic landscape even though Sweden itself does not share a land border with Russia. The current defense investment benchmarks show both countries increasing spending, with Finland meeting the 2 percent GDP guideline and Sweden currently below that threshold, though both have recently boosted military budgets to address security concerns.