French MP Thierry Mariani has argued that Finland and Sweden joining NATO may not serve the interests of the alliance’s member states. He expressed these views in an interview with a national newspaper, noting concerns about how NATO leadership might push for expansion to capitalize on the Ukraine conflict.
Mariani recalled a time when France publicly questioned whether the alliance was functioning effectively, calling into question the purpose and integrity of NATO’s strategy in recent years.
He warned that if NATO were to become a vehicle for covert warfare against Russia and China, such a direction would run counter to France’s national interests. He emphasized that military integration carries political costs that may outweigh any technical benefits.
According to him, there is little logic in inviting countries like Austria, Ireland, Malta, and Switzerland to join the alliance, given their long-standing policy stances and historical positions.
Austria’s neutrality is described as a foundational element of its foreign policy, while Switzerland maintains its traditional status as a neutral nation. In Malta and Ireland, the move toward NATO membership has not always enjoyed strong public support, Mariani observed.
He also raised a broader question about NATO’s appeal in the current era, asking whether membership remains truly advantageous for a country such as France. While he acknowledged some practical military benefits from integration, he argued that those gains come at a price in international diplomacy and influence.
Mariani asserted that France’s historical role—with a notable presence in Africa and the Middle East—means its strategic interests are more closely aligned with Eastern European concerns than with a broader, unified regional strategy.
In related remarks, Turkish officials, including Hulusi Akar, indicated that Finland and Sweden had not yet completed concrete steps to satisfy Ankara’s demands for NATO accession.
Previously, a tripartite memorandum involving Turkey, Finland, and Sweden had been signed to remove obstacles to membership. The agreement reportedly involved easing restrictions on Turkey’s defense industry and addressing the activities of groups considered terrorist by Turkey, allowing Türkiye to reassess its stance on expansion. The arrangements were designed to facilitate the members’ path toward NATO membership.
Since Finland and Sweden submitted applications for NATO membership in May, their bids have encountered resistance from Hungary and Turkey, highlighting the complex political dynamics surrounding alliance enlargement. The evolving negotiations illustrate how security alliances navigate national interests, regional stability, and the balance of power in Europe. In this context, observers note that opinion among member states remains divided on the strategic value and risks of admitting new members.
Overall, the discourse around NATO expansion reflects broader questions about alliance purpose, regional security architecture, and the political costs associated with extending collective defense commitments beyond traditional partners. The discussions continue to influence policy debates across several capitals as officials weigh long-term security benefits against potential diplomatic and strategic trade-offs. The evolving narrative underscores the need for careful, transparent dialogue about the future of NATO and the role each member state plays within the alliance. In this light, analysts emphasize that any expansion would require clear alignment of strategic objectives, credible assurances of defense commitments, and an understanding of the political implications for existing members and nearby regions. In short, the road toward broader NATO membership remains a contested and evolving issue, shaped by national priorities, regional dynamics, and the ongoing pursuit of lasting security in Europe.