Page:The Effects of Finland's Possible NATO Membership - An Assessment.pdf/26

 The latter part of the declaration again serves as a reminder of the natural limits of defence cooperation between the Nordic states. Joint preparedness or planning to fully implement the solidarity clause in a collective defence setting will be hindered as long as the Nordic states have different positions with respect to NATO.

Finland and Sweden have deepened defence cooperation. Differences in the political climate of the two countries, including the issue of possible NATO membership, has not impaired this cooperation. In the Nordic context, the difference in status between NATO members (Denmark, Iceland and Norway) and non-NATO members (Finland and Sweden) has not in itself prevented deepening of cooperation, and the same could apply if Sweden and Finland made a different choice with regard to NATO membership. But there are clear limits further down the road: a true collective defence alliance between the two countries – including integrated capabilities and a mutual defence clause with joint structures and planning – would force them to adopt an identical position towards NATO membership as long as the bilateral union were in force. 26