Russian-Finnish Border – USA Gov Policy

By their nature successful borders need to be occupied with cooperation from both sides. That type of relationship exists currently on Russia’s eastern front with China. Since World War II it also has existed on Russia’s west with Finland. This year, however, the Russo-Finnish border relationship is showing indications that it is deteriorating. Its loss of integrity is emerging as a flashpoint between Helsinki and Moscow, as well as emerging as a potential North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) security issue.

There is a little-known area called the Saimaa Canal that was built in 1856 and has been upgraded a number of times to accommodate modern shipping requirements. It links Lake Saimaa to the Gulf of Finland. The Canal passes through 21 miles of Russian territory. Both nation-states have reduced their use of the canal due to sanctions, countersanctions, and fear that its use could pose a national security threat with unintended consequences.

Finland “rents” the waterway from Russia and uses it for the transportation of consumer goods from areas as far away as China. It is the sole agreement Russia has with a foreign state to “rent” out its territory. Many political leaders in the Kremlin want it to end. Military analysts in Washington believe that Putin is seriously considering canceling the bilateral agreement. Loss of the commercial waterway will hurt both countries. The situation escalated after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and intensified after Finland joined NATO in 2023. This fall it is not only a growing point of contention between the Russian Federation and NATO, but China is also becoming involved as it represents a potential loss of one of its important trade routes.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine traffic on the waterway has almost slowed to a halt. Leaders in Helsinki view the potential loss of the Canal as an attempt by Putin to undermine Finland’s independence. From Moscow’s perspective, it is convinced that “NATO is planning to use the waterway to invade Russi if Putin’s oft-threatened war between Russia and the West breaks out in earnest,” says Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. EU sanctions, he adds, limit Russian transit through the canal and stops at its various ports. Russian counter-sanctions on Finland reduced trade going in the other direction. Finland believes conflict could break out if Russia uses covert forces or sends in large numbers of refugees.

On September 11, the Finish Ministry of Transport and Communications announced it was indefinitely suspending the Saimaa Canal Advisory Board that oversees canal cooperation with Moscow. “Last week, well-connected Russian commentators suggested that the Kremlin is mulling canceling the agreement that allows Helsinki to rent the portion of the waterway on Russian territory—a step permitted this year under the most recent bilateral treaty governing the canal,” says Goble. If cancelled, it would effectively end the waterway as a trade route and have broad economic consequences for the two states directly involved and for the Central Asian states and China. Goble suggests the stage is set for it to also send “political shockwaves” with the potential for the shuttering of the Saimaa Canal to devolve into a major international crisis. The Russian publication TopWar.ru says that Russian rhetoric regarding Finland over the last two and a half years has become increasingly sharp, and Helsinki has responded in kind, with President Alexander Stubb declaring that his country does not fear Russia and is not about to be pushed around.

Building an alternative route would be extremely expensive for Finland. Russia would lose a valuable source of income, totaling $1.5 million in annual canal rent, and much of its remaining leverage over Helsinki. Perhaps more significant, is that China would be enraged by the loss of the commercial waterway should Moscow back out of the agreement. Putin appears to be left with fewer and fewer options as the war drags on in Ukraine.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.