[Senate Executive Report 117-5]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress        }                          {       Exec. Rept.
                                 SENATE
 2d Session           }                          {          117-5

======================================================================

 
  PROTOCOLS TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY OF 1949 ON THE ACCESSION OF 
                           FINLAND AND SWEDEN

                                _______
                                

                  July 19, 2022.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

         Mr. Menendez, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
                        submitted the following

                                 REPORT

                    [To accompany Treaty Doc. 117-3]

    The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which were referred 
the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the 
Accession of the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, 
adopted at Brussels on behalf of the United States of America, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon subject 
to six declarations and one condition, as indicated in the 
resolution of advice and consent, and recommends the Senate 
give its advice and consent to ratification thereof, as set 
forth in this report and the accompanying resolution of advice 
and consent.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

  I. Purpose..........................................................1
 II. Background.......................................................2
III. Qualifications of Finland and Sweden for NATO Membership.........2
     (A) The Republic of Finland......................................3
     (B) The Kingdom of Sweden........................................4
 IV. Entry into Force.................................................5
  V. Committee Action.................................................5
 VI. Committee Recommendation and Comments............................6
VII. Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification.................8
VIII.Annex 1.--Hearing of June 22, 2022, ``NATO Enlargement: Examining 
     the Proposed Accession of Sweden and Finland.''.................13

                               I. Purpose

    These Protocols are a vehicle for inviting the Republic of 
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to accede to the North 
Atlantic Treaty (also referred to as the ``Treaty'') in 
accordance with Article 10 of the Treaty and thus become 
members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (``NATO''), 
with all of the privileges and responsibilities that apply to 
current Allies. The core commitment made among the Allies is 
embodied in the text of the Treaty, including the collective 
defense provision in Article 5.

                             II. Background

    The Treaty entered into force on August 24, 1949, with 
twelve states having ratified the Treaty. The original parties 
of the Treaty, and thus the original members of NATO, were the 
United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, the 
Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and 
Luxembourg. The alliance has expanded eight times: in 1952, 
Greece and Turkey became members; in 1955, West Germany; in 
1982, Spain; in 1999, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic; 
in 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, 
Slovakia, and Slovenia; in 2009, Albania and Croatia; in 2017, 
Montenegro; and in 2020, North Macedonia.
    The process leading to the enlargement of the alliance has 
been refined since the Cold War, but NATO remains a political-
military alliance, that is an agent of peace, holding new 
members to higher democratic and economic standards and 
creating a secure space for newly-free nations to develop. 
Military reform and achieving interoperability with NATO 
remains essential, but the character of the new allied country 
is also important. The debate over the last several 
enlargements has centered on what standard of political 
development is adequate for accession to the alliance.
    Since the 1990s, NATO has followed guidelines and 
established benchmarks used to assess new members. 
Considerations include democratic elections, individual 
liberty, and the rule of law; commitment to economic reform and 
a market economy; adherence to the norms of the Organization 
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) with respect to 
the treatment of ethnic minorities and social justice; 
resolution of territorial disputes with neighbors; and the 
establishment of democratic control of the military. Finland 
and Sweden have clearly addressed these benchmarks, including 
in the course of their respective applications, and the 
committee considers them below.

               III. Qualifications of Finland and Sweden
                          for NATO Membership

    Consistent with the requirements set forth in the Senate's 
resolution of advice and consent to the ratification of 
Accession Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty on the 
Accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic (see 
Executive Report 105-14) and the Senate's resolution of advice 
and consent to the ratification of the Accession Protocols to 
the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Bulgaria, 
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia 
(see Executive Report 108-6), the Executive Branch has provided 
reports to the Senate describing the candidacies of Finland and 
Sweden and the value each would contribute to the Alliance. 
These reports in addition to voluminous publicly-available 
information and the testimony of witnesses before this 
committee, which makes clear that Finland and Sweden are well 
qualified to contribute positively to the NATO alliance, both 
as robust military powers but also as vigorous democracies that 
are committed to the rule of law and good governance.
    The Executive Branch's reports to the Senate, in addition 
to public reporting, make clear that each country either 
already spends more than two-percent of its GDP on defense or 
is in the process of doing so soon, and the membership of each 
will spread burden-sharing requirements more broadly across the 
alliance. Further, consistent with the aforementioned reporting 
requirements, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
reviewed the Executive Branch's reports to the Senate and found 
that it provided necessary information establishing the 
suitability of Finland and Sweden for NATO membership. For 
instance the GAO reinforced the Executive Branch's 
determination of how Finland and Sweden ``would be net 
providers of security and military power to NATO, thus 
enhancing the national security interests of the United 
States.''
    Additional information regarding the respective 
qualifications of each is detailed below.

                       A. THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND

    Finland is an established democracy, a leading military 
power in Europe, and is one of NATO's most active partners. 
Since 1994, Finland has contributed forces to a wide range of 
NATO-led operations or training missions, including in the 
Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Finland has a well-trained 
military with significant reserve forces, advanced multi-role 
combat aircraft, a large and well-equipped artillery force, and 
extensive military intelligence capabilities. Finland's 
military is also one of Europe's last remaining conscription 
armies. In addition, the Finnish Navy is well suited to help 
maintain security in the Baltic Sea and the Arctic. Their ships 
are capable of operating in waters that limit access to other 
NATO allied navies. Finland's defense forces are regarded as 
having a high level of interoperability with NATO forces, in 
terms of both materiel and familiarity with NATO processes and 
procedures. Finnish forces provide certain types of training to 
the United States including arctic, cold weather training. The 
Finnish military regularly participates in training exercises 
with NATO and U.S. forces, and Finland and NATO also cooperate 
on cyber defense. Finland is home to the Centre of Excellence 
for Countering Hybrid Threats, which collaborates with NATO and 
the European Union on training and exercises.
    Defense spending in Finland is already higher than the 2 
percent asked of NATO members. Spending on equipment and 
capabilities is about 30 percent of its overall defense budget, 
and will approach 50 percent in the next few years as a result 
of modernization and expansion. Finland recently decided to 
replace its entire fleet of
F/A-18 fighters with the new F-35 fighter, continuing its 
military modernization and interoperability with U.S. and NATO.
    The Finnish population overwhelmingly supports NATO 
membership; in light of Russia's unprovoked and unlawful 
February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, public support in Finland 
for joining NATO increased significantly, with polling in May 
2022 indicating that 76 percent of the population supports 
membership. The government, as well as opposition politicians, 
have made clear their commitment to membership.
    In all measures of democratic strength, Finland is highly 
rated. According to the 2021 Freedom House Country Report on 
Finland, its ``parliamentary system features free and fair 
elections and robust multiparty competition,'' and its 
``judiciary is independent under the constitution and in 
practice.'' Moreover, ``corruption is not a significant 
problem''; it ranks first in the world in Transparency 
International's ``Corruption Perceptions Index,'' a snapshot of 
the relative degree of corruption in countries and territories 
around the world.
    On the question of fundamental freedoms and human rights of 
members of minority groups, the Department of State's 2021 
Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Finland stated that 
``[t]he government strongly encouraged tolerance and respect 
for minority groups, sought to address racial discrimination, 
and assisted victims.''
    Finland's economy is likewise strong and possesses 
components likely to be of great use to enhancing NATO's 
defense capacity. As of late 2021, the OECD projects Finland's 
economy will grow by 2.9 percent in 2022 and 1.5 percent in 
2023. Finland is home to Nokia, one of a handful of companies 
worldwide that can produce full-scale 5G telecommunications 
systems. It also has a strong defense industry, most of which 
are small and medium enterprises.
    Finland has long sought to avoid territorial disputes and 
has contributed to efforts aimed at peace and security in the 
region. It joined the Partnership for Peace program in 1994, 
and in 1997, it joined the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, a 
multilateral forum for dialogue among NATO members and partners 
in the Euro-Atlantic area. Finland has been a valued 
contributor to NATO-led operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan, 
and Iraq, and it is one of six ``Enhanced Opportunity 
Partners'' that make particularly significant contributions to 
NATO operations and other objectives. Since Russia's unprovoked 
invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Finland has further 
strengthened relations with NATO, engaging in regular political 
dialogue and consultations; exchanges of information on hybrid 
warfare; coordinating training and exercise; and developing 
better joint situational awareness to address common threats 
and develop joint actions, if needed. Finland is also an active 
member of the Arctic Council.

                        B. THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN

    Similarly, Sweden is already well integrated and 
interoperable with NATO allies. Sweden has contributed troops 
and assets to numerous NATO-led military operations and 
training missions, from Kosovo to Afghanistan to Iraq. Sweden 
also participated in the 2011 United Nations-mandated, NATO-led 
no-fly zone over Libya. Swedish forces frequently train with 
NATO and U.S. forces. It joined NATO's Partnership for Peace 
program in 1994, in 1997 it joined the Euro-Atlantic 
Partnership Council, and it is one of NATO's six ``Enhanced 
Opportunity Partners'' that make particularly significant 
contributions to NATO operations and other objectives.
    Since Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 
2022, Sweden also has further strengthened relations with NATO, 
engaging in regular political dialogue and consultations; 
exchanges of information on hybrid warfare; coordinating 
training and exercise; and developing better joint situational 
awareness to address common threats and develop joint actions, 
if needed.
    In December 2020, Sweden's parliament approved raising 
defense spending by 40 percent for 2021-2025, and following 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Prime Minister 
Andersson asserted that Sweden would seek to increase its 
defense spending to 2 percent of GDP ``as soon as possible.'' 
It is currently on track to reach that mark by 2028, but may 
reach it as soon as 2025.
    The Swedish population supports Sweden's entry into NATO, 
with public opinion in support of accession galvanizing further 
in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 
2022. Only after significant deliberation and analysis and with 
broad support from its parliament, the Riksdag, that Sweden 
decided to apply for NATO membership.
    Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a robust, 
consolidated democracy. In its 2021 Country Report, Freedom 
House described Sweden as a country with ``free and fair 
elections and a strong multiparty system,'' where ``[c]ivil 
liberties and political rights are legally guaranteed and 
respected in practice, and the rule of law prevails.'' Sweden 
also scores 100 out of 100 in Freedom House's Global Freedom 
Score. It ranks fourth in the world in Transparency 
International's ``Corruption Perceptions Index.''
    According to the Department of State's 2021 Sweden Country 
Report on Human Rights Practices, Sweden's constitution charges 
public institutions with promoting equality in society and 
combating discrimination and ``prohibits unfavorable treatment 
of anyone based on ethnic origin, color, or other similar 
circumstances,'' which rights ``the government generally 
respected.''
    Sweden is home to a strong indigenous defense industry that 
sells worldwide. The largest Swedish defense company, Saab, 
produces Gripen fighter jets, which are used by NATO allies 
Hungary and Czech Republic. Sweden is also known for its 
expertise in the construction of submarines and other maritime 
equipment, while its Carl Gustav and Next Generation Light 
Anti-Tank Weapon (``NLAW''), co-produced with the United 
Kingdom, have been used to great effect by the Ukrainian army.
    Like Finland, Sweden remains committed to the resolution of 
territorial disputes and maintaining regional peace and 
security. For instance, Sweden served as OSCE Chair over the 
course of 2021; upon taking over as Chair, the Swedish Foreign 
Minister explained that Sweden's priorities in the role were to 
``emphasize the fundamental tasks of the OSCE, defending the 
European security order, upholding the OSCE concept of 
comprehensive security, and to contribute to resolving the 
conflicts in our region.''

                          IV. Entry Into Force

    Each Protocol will enter into force when all of the current 
Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty have notified the 
Government of the United States of America, which is the 
depositary for the North Atlantic Treaty, of their acceptance 
of each Protocol. Once each Protocol has entered into force, 
the Secretary General of NATO shall extend an invitation to the 
named state to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty and in 
accordance with Article 10 of the Treaty, that state shall 
become a Party to the Treaty on the date it deposits its 
instrument of accession with the Government of the United 
States of America.

                          V. Committee Action

    The committee held a public hearing on the candidacies of 
Finland and Sweden for NATO membership on June 22, 2022. 
Testimony was received from Assistant Secretary of State for 
European Affairs Karen Donfried and Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for International Security Affairs Celeste Wallander. A 
transcript of this hearing is attached to this report as Annex 
I.
    On July 19, 2022, the committee considered the resolution 
of advice and consent to ratification of these protocols and 
ordered it favorably reported by voice vote, with a quorum 
present. The committee considered and voted on one amendment 
offered by Senator Paul. The amendment did not pass by a vote 
of 3-15.

               VI. Committee Recommendation and Comments

    The Committee on Foreign Relations believes that these two 
countries have the significant potential to make substantial 
contributions as members of the NATO alliance. Finland and 
Sweden have regularly participated in NATO missions including 
the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and military 
training in Iraq. Since the United States, Finland, and Sweden 
made a trilateral defense cooperation commitment in 2018, the 
United States has benefitted from increased integration with 
both nations. Most specifically, the three nations have 
together undertaken a series of Arctic exercises that has 
greatly benefitted the United States, augmenting our 
capabilities to operate in the High North. On Arctic issues, 
both nations have been key partners at the Arctic Council.
    The admission of Finland and Sweden to the alliance will 
have a stabilizing effect in Europe at a time of critical 
importance in the face of Russia's unprovoked and unlawful 
aggression. Finland and Sweden's accessions to NATO would be a 
boon for NATO's eastern flank, and in particular for Baltic 
security. Should the two countries join NATO, the ability of 
NATO to defend its Baltic member nations from potential Russian 
invasion would be greatly augmented as the Baltic Sea littorals 
would be nearly entirely under the control of NATO member 
nations. Defending NATO from threats that emerge from the high 
North will also be made easier by the admission of Sweden and 
Finland to NATO. With their inclusion, Russia will be the only 
Arctic Ocean littoral state that is not a NATO member.
    Finland's and Sweden's contributions to ongoing NATO 
operations will augment NATO's resources, reducing the resource 
burden on existing NATO members, including the United States. 
They are both committed to continuing to strengthen their 
militaries and means of defense. Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for International Security Affairs Celeste Wallander testified 
before the committee that Finland and Sweden bring similar 
strengths in their democracies, in their market economies, in 
their strengths as European countries, and they each bring its 
own complementary military capabilities that will further 
strengthen the NATO Alliance. Meanwhile, in her testimony 
before the Committee, Assistant Secretary of State for European 
Affairs Karen Donfried reaffirmed that Finland, Sweden, and the 
United States are fundamentally united in respect for democracy 
and human rights.
    In the face of increased threats to peace and security in 
Europe, it is important that the Open Door policy for NATO 
membership indeed remains open to countries willing to shoulder 
the responsibilities of membership. The committee is confident 
that as NATO members, Finland and Sweden would be positioned to 
make significant contributions to NATO and regional peace, 
security, and stability, through their military and economic 
strength and their commitments to rule of law, democracy, and 
human rights.

                               RESOLUTION

    The committee has included in proposed resolution six 
declarations and one condition, which are discussed below.

                            A. DECLARATIONS

Declaration 1. Reaffirmation that Membership in NATO Remains a Vital 
        National Security Interest of the United States

    Declaration 1 restates that U.S. membership in NATO is a 
vital national security interest for the United States. For 
more than seventy years, NATO has served as the foremost 
organization to defend the territory of the countries in the 
North Atlantic area against all external threats. NATO was 
successful in ensuring the survival of democratic governments 
throughout the Cold War, and NATO has established a process of 
cooperative security planning that enhances the security of the 
United States and its allies, while distributing the financial 
burden of defending the democracies of Europe and North America 
among the Allies.

Declaration 2. Strategic Rationale for NATO Enlargement

    Declaration 2 lays out the strategic rationale for the 
inclusion of the Finland and Sweden in NATO. NATO members have 
determined that, consistent with Article 10 of the North 
Atlantic Treaty, Finland and Sweden are in a position to 
further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to 
contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area, and that 
extending membership to Finland and Sweden will enhance the 
stability of Northeast Europe, which is in the interests of the 
United States.

Declaration 3. Support for NATO's Open Door Policy

    Declaration 3 expresses support for NATO's Open Door Policy 
for any European country that expresses interest in the 
alliance and is able to meet the obligations of membership.

Declaration 4. Future Consideration of Candidates for Membership in 
        NATO

    Declaration 4 declares that the consideration of future 
members in NATO provided for under Article 10 of the Senate-
approved North Atlantic Treaty is subject to the requirement 
for advice and consent under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of 
the United States Constitution. Article 10 of the North 
Atlantic Treaty provides for an open door to the admission into 
NATO of other European countries that are in a position to 
further the principles of the Treaty and that can contribute to 
the security of the North Atlantic area.
    The United States will not support any subsequent 
invitation for admission to NATO if the prospective member 
cannot fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of NATO 
membership in a manner that serves the overall political and 
strategic interests of the United States. The Senate emphasizes 
that no state will be invited to become a member of NATO unless 
the Executive Branch fulfills the Constitutional requirement 
for seeking the advice of the Senate, a consensus decision to 
proceed is reached in NATO, and ratification is achieved 
according to the national procedures of each NATO member, 
including the consent to ratification by the Senate.

Declaration 5. Influence of Non-NATO Members on NATO Decisions

    Declaration 5 states that non-NATO members shall not have 
the ability to impact the decision-making process of the 
alliance in relation to NATO enlargement. The Senate notes 
concerns regarding non-NATO members seeking to influence public 
opinion in prospective members or otherwise stand in the way of 
enlargement efforts, and the Senate emphasizes that non-NATO 
members shall not have the ability to influence the decision-
making process of NATO enlargement.

Declaration 6. Support for 2014 Wales Summit Defense Spending Benchmark

    Declaration 6 reaffirms support for the resource 
commitments by alliance members outlined in the 2014 Wales 
Summit Declaration. These commitments obligate each NATO member 
to spend a minimum of two percent of GDP on defense and twenty 
percent of their defense budget on major equipment, including 
research and development. The Senate encourages all members of 
NATO to satisfy their commitments and address any shortcomings 
with respect to defense spending.

                              B. CONDITION

Condition 1. Presidential certification

    Condition 1 requires the President to certify, prior to the 
deposit of the instrument of ratification for the Protocol, 
that (1) the inclusion of the Finland and Sweden in NATO will 
not have the effect of increasing the overall percentage share 
of the United States in the NATO common budget; and (2) the 
inclusion of Finland and Sweden in the alliance will not 
detract from the ability of the United States to meet or fund 
its military requirements outside the North Atlantic area.

         VII. Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification


        Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification

    Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein),

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO DECLARATIONS AND 
                    CONDITIONS.

    The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the 
Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession 
of the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, subject 
to the declarations of section 2 and the condition of section 
3.

SEC. 2. DECLARATIONS.

    The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following declarations:
          (1) Reaffirmation That United States Membership in 
        NATO Remains a Vital National Security Interest of the 
        United States.--The Senate declares that--
                  (A) for more than 70 years the North Atlantic 
                Treaty Organization (NATO) has served as the 
                preeminent organization to defend the countries 
                in the North Atlantic area against all external 
                threats;
                  (B) through common action, the established 
                democracies of North America and Europe that 
                were joined in NATO persevered and prevailed in 
                the task of ensuring the survival of democratic 
                government in Europe and North America 
                throughout the Cold War;
                  (C) NATO enhances the security of the United 
                States by embedding European states in a 
                process of cooperative security planning and by 
                ensuring an ongoing and direct leadership role 
                for the United States in European security 
                affairs;
                  (D) the responsibility and financial burden 
                of defending the democracies of Europe and 
                North America can be more equitably shared 
                through an alliance in which specific 
                obligations and force goals are met by its 
                members;
                  (E) the security and prosperity of the United 
                States is enhanced by NATO's collective defense 
                against aggression that may threaten the 
                security of NATO members; and
                  (F) United States membership in NATO remains 
                a vital national security interest of the 
                United States.
          (2) Strategic Rationale for NATO Enlargement.--The 
        Senate declares that--
                  (A) the United States and its NATO allies 
                face continued threats to their stability and 
                territorial integrity;
                  (B) an attack against Finland or Sweden, or 
                the destabilization of either arising from 
                external subversion, would threaten the 
                stability of Europe and jeopardize United 
                States national security interests;
                  (C) Finland and Sweden, having established 
                democratic governments and having demonstrated 
                a willingness to meet the requirements of 
                membership, including those necessary to 
                contribute to the defense of all NATO members, 
                are in a position to further the principles of 
                the North Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to 
                the security of the North Atlantic area; and
                  (D) extending NATO membership to Finland and 
                Sweden will strengthen NATO, enhance stability 
                in Europe, and advance the interests of the 
                United States and its NATO allies.
          (3) Support for NATO's Open Door Policy.--The policy 
        of the United States is to support NATO's Open Door 
        Policy that allows any European country to express its 
        desire to join NATO and demonstrate its ability to meet 
        the obligations of NATO membership.
          (4) Future Consideration of Candidates for Membership 
        in NATO.--
                  (A) Senate Finding.--The Senate finds that 
                the United States will not support the 
                accession to the North Atlantic Treaty of, or 
                the invitation to begin accession talks with, 
                any European state (other than Finland and 
                Sweden), unless--
                          (i) the President consults with the 
                        Senate consistent with Article II, 
                        section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution 
                        of the United States (relating to the 
                        advice and consent of the Senate to the 
                        making of treaties); and
                          (ii) the prospective NATO member can 
                        fulfill all of the obligations and 
                        responsibilities of membership, and the 
                        inclusion of such state in NATO would 
                        serve the overall political and 
                        strategic interests of NATO and the 
                        United States.
                  (B) Requirement for Consensus and 
                Ratification.--The Senate declares that no 
                action or agreement other than a consensus 
                decision by the full membership of NATO, 
                approved by the national procedures of each 
                NATO member, including, in the case of the 
                United States, the requirements of Article II, 
                section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the 
                United States (relating to the advice and 
                consent of the Senate to the making of 
                treaties), will constitute a commitment to 
                collective defense and consultations pursuant 
                to Articles 4 and 5 of the North Atlantic 
                Treaty.
          (5) Influence of Non-NATO Members on NATO 
        Decisions.--The Senate declares that any country that 
        is not a member of NATO shall have no impact on 
        decisions related to NATO enlargement.
          (6) Support for 2014 Wales Summit Defense Spending 
        Benchmark.--The Senate declares that all NATO members 
        should continue to fulfill or move towards the 
        guideline outlined in the 2014 Wales Summit Declaration 
        to spend a minimum of 2 percent of their Gross Domestic 
        Product (GDP) on defense and 20 percent of their 
        defense budgets on major equipment, including research 
        and development, by 2024.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS.

    The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following condition:
          (1) Presidential Certification.--Prior to the deposit 
        of the instrument of ratification, the President shall 
        certify to the Senate as follows:
                  (A) The inclusion of Finland and Sweden in 
                NATO will not have the effect of increasing the 
                overall percentage share of the United States 
                in the common budgets of NATO.
                  (B) The inclusion of Finland and Sweden in 
                NATO does not detract from the ability of the 
                United States to meet or to fund its military 
                requirements outside the North Atlantic area.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

    In this resolution:
          (1) NATO Members.--The term ``NATO members'' means 
        all countries that are parties to the North Atlantic 
        Treaty.
          (2) Non-NATO Members.--The term ``non-NATO members'' 
        means all countries that are not parties to the North 
        Atlantic Treaty.
          (3) North Atlantic Area.--The term ``North Atlantic 
        Area'' means the area covered by Article 6 of the North 
        Atlantic Treaty, as applied by the North Atlantic 
        Council.
          (4) North Atlantic Treaty.--The term ``North Atlantic 
        Treaty'' means the North Atlantic Treaty, signed at 
        Washington April 4, 1949 (63 Stat. 2241; TIAS 1964), as 
        amended.
          (5) United States Instrument of Ratification.--The 
        term ``United States instrument of ratification'' means 
        the instrument of ratification of the United States of 
        the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on 
        the Accession of the Republic of Finland and Kingdom of 
        Sweden.



                      NATO ENLARGEMENT: EXAMINING



                       THE PROPOSED ACCESSION OF



                           SWEDEN AND FINLAND

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:52 p.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Kaine, Van 
Hollen, Risch, and Hagerty.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

    The Chairman. This hearing will come to order.
    As we sit here, Putin's forces continue to fire missiles at 
innocent Ukrainians, his generals continue to bombard cities, 
and his soldiers are committing war crimes.
    And, still, brave Ukrainians are fighting back, proving 
time and again that Putin gravely miscalculated the resolve of 
the Ukrainian people. He also grossly miscalculated how the 
rest of the world would respond to his brutal, unprovoked 
aggression.
    The United States, the overwhelming majority of Europe, 
and, indeed, of the entire free world, are now more united in 
support of not just Ukraine but of our collective resolve to 
support democracies, the rule of law, and defend against brazen 
authoritarian aggression--indeed, the very values that drove 
the foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the 
first place.
    Perhaps, more than ever it is crystal clear that NATO plays 
a vital role not only in the security of the United States but 
as a bulwark protecting peace and democracy, and I feel 
confident when I say both the ranking member and I believe 
carefully considering new candidates for NATO expansion is one 
of the most important responsibilities this committee has.
    Today, we will learn more about Finland and Sweden's 
candidacies for NATO membership. These are two steadfast NATO 
and U.S. allies with strong, durable military institutions and 
democratic institutions.
    They have every reason to participate in collective defense 
against Russian aggression, and NATO has every reason to 
embrace and welcome them into the Alliance without delay.
    In many ways, Finland and Sweden are ideal candidates for 
NATO membership. NATO is a defensive military alliance designed 
to preserve, in part, by holding members to high democratic 
governance and economic transparency standards.
    Indeed, further to that point, democratic processes in both 
countries have shown that the Finnish and Swedish people 
themselves are strongly supportive of joining NATO.
    While NATO has not yet formally prepared the accession 
protocols for Finland and Sweden, we expect it will very soon.
    There is tremendous urgency and a strong case for inviting 
these countries. Expansion of NATO requires unanimous agreement 
by all NATO member states, of course, and with time of the 
essence, the eleventh-hour concerns by Turkey standing in the 
way of this process only serve Putin's interests.
    In the meantime, and as members prepare to meet next week 
in Madrid, it is imperative that we press ahead with our own 
approval process, which is why we are having this hearing 
today.
    This may very well be one of the most important decisions 
this committee and this Senate makes in the decade and beyond 
as it relates to foreign policy.
    Finland and Sweden are well positioned to integrate into 
NATO. Both have large, technologically advanced, and growing 
militaries. They have long partnered with NATO and have 
contributed to NATO-led operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan, 
and Iraq.
    Since Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, they have 
strengthened their relations with NATO even further, engaging 
in regular dialogue and consultations, exchanging information, 
and coordinating training and exercises.
    In fact, given geography and history, Finland and Sweden 
have long equipped their militaries and prepared their 
societies for the prospect of Russian aggression.
    Their participation in NATO would actively contribute to 
burden sharing with the United States and the whole military 
alliance.
    Belonging to NATO is not just a measurement of military 
capability. We were established as a club of democracies that 
abide by a certain set of principles.
    All U.S. administrations have used certain criteria for 
assessing candidates for NATO membership: a functioning 
democratic political system based on a market economy, fair 
treatment of minority populations, a commitment to resolve 
conflicts peacefully, an ability and willingness to make 
military contributions to NATO operations, and a commitment to 
democratic civil military relations.
    I would like our witnesses to address how Finland and 
Sweden fulfill these criteria. The required information the 
departments have already provided give me great confidence, but 
I believe it is important to address them in an open setting.
    We thank Sweden and Finland for their partnership and 
support. I look forward to welcoming you into NATO.
    With that, I welcome Assistant Secretary of State for 
European Affairs Karen Donfried and Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for International Security Affairs Celeste Wallander.
    And, finally, it is my great pleasure to welcome 
Ambassadors Karin Olofsdottir from Sweden and Mikko Hautala--is 
that the right pronunciation?
    All right. From Finland here today for this hearing. We 
appreciate both ambassadors being here with us, probably the 
first outside guests that we have had. I could not think of 
better guests to have for a better cause and a better moment.
    With that, let me turn to the distinguished ranking member 
for his remarks.

               STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome, Assistant Secretaries. We are glad to have you 
here to discuss this important subject, and welcome to both of 
you ambassadors, and I want to thank you personally for 
spending the time, both of you, and other officials from your 
countries in discussing these important issues.
    The Ambassador from Finland and I were early to the party, 
having met on this long before the invasion occurred, but with 
the obvious view that this day might come.
    With that, let me say also that the chairman and I have 
discussed this matter at length between ourselves and there is 
no daylight between us as to our view of this matter either.
    About four months ago, Russia's invasion of Ukraine sent a 
seismic shock through the transatlantic community and it made 
it abundantly clear that the assumptions many had made about 
security in the 21st century were false or at least 
misperceived and forced us to reconsider how we will restore 
peace and preserve it.
    Our immediate response has been strong, but there is no 
doubt NATO needs serious updates and reforms if we hope to face 
these emerging challenges over the long term, and it is going 
to be a long term, obviously. One of these proposed changes is 
the enlargement of our alliance to include Finland and Sweden.
    In this hearing today, I look forward to a deep and 
thorough discussion of Finland and Sweden's potential accession 
to NATO. Any country that meets the requirements like Sweden 
and Finland should be able to join if they want.
    Sweden and Finland both have strong democracies and capable 
militaries that will contribute immediately to NATO. Through 
their participation in multiple joint combat operations they 
have both proven their willingness and their ability to fight 
alongside NATO allies, and through multiple NATO partnerships 
programs they have proven their commitment to NATO's goals and 
developed highly interoperable NATO standard forces.
    Let us also be clear. Sweden and Finland in particular, 
have been guarding NATO's High North for decades. They have 
been doing the mission of NATO from the outside. This has been 
an asset to NATO and transatlantic security. It is fair that 
they be allowed to finally sit at the table with everyone else.
    With this hearing, the Senate will take its first official 
step in considering this next wave of NATO enlargement. 
Throughout this entire process, we must remember to take the 
utmost care as we examine the details and implications of this 
decision.
    In my mind, both countries have fully demonstrated their 
worthiness to join NATO and the value they each will bring to 
it. But we cannot leave any room for doubt about their place 
and commitment in our alliance.
    I also want to reiterate my expectation that once the North 
Atlantic Council agrees and sends out the accession protocols 
that the Biden administration will swiftly prepare the final 
reports and submit everything to the Senate quickly so we can 
begin our consideration.
    In closing, let me say, raising the issue that the chairman 
also raised regarding Turkey's remarks about not being in favor 
of accession at this time, we are told and assured by both 
Sweden and Finland that they have been in good faith involved 
with Turkey in discussions to resolve that.
    I think that is best left to them, between they and Turkey, 
without us at this point in time. But let there be no mistake, 
this must be done. This is so important it must be done.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
    We will start with our witnesses. Both of your statements 
will be included fully in the record, without objection.
    Secretary Donfried, we will start with you. We would ask 
you to summarize--both--in about five minutes or so so that we 
can have a conversation with you.
    And the floor is yours.

 STATEMENT OF KAREN DONFRIED, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR 
   EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
                        WASHINGTON, DC.

    Ms. Donfried. Thank you so much.
    Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, distinguished 
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
appear before you today to discuss the critical role NATO plays 
in our security and the safeguarding of our freedom and 
democratic values, and Finland and Sweden's future place in the 
Alliance.
    I welcome the opportunity to share with you today why the 
administration strongly and unequivocally supports Finland and 
Sweden membership in NATO.
    We strongly support NATO's open door policy and firmly 
believe that these two countries' membership in the Alliance 
would benefit the national security of the United States and 
strengthen the collective defense of NATO and the broader 
security of the Euro-Atlantic region.
    As President Biden said when he welcomed Finnish President 
Nisto and Swedish Prime Minister Anderson to the White House 
last month, we are proud to offer, quote, ``the strong support 
of the United States for the applications of two great 
democracies and two close highly capable partners to join the 
strongest, most powerful defensive alliance in the history of 
the world,'' end quote.
    Likewise, I want to thank the more than 80 Senators who 
signaled their full support for Sweden and Finland's 
applications for NATO membership in a letter to the President, 
as well as the bipartisan Senate Resolution 646 in support of 
their NATO accession.
    This provided yet another endorsement for these two strong 
and capable democracies. The administration has provided 
reports to Congress on Finland and Sweden's accession as called 
for in the Senate's resolution of ratification of the NATO 
accession protocols for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
Republic.
    Russia's unprovoked February 24 full-scale invasion of 
Ukraine caused a seismic change in both Swedish and Finnish 
public support for NATO membership.
    Each country carried out inclusive and thorough democratic 
processes, leading to the decision to apply for NATO 
membership.
    In an historic foreign and security policy shift, Finland 
and Sweden together officially applied for NATO membership on 
May 18. Since its inception, NATO's goal is to achieve a 
lasting peace in the North Atlantic area through collective 
security based on the common values of democracy, the rule of 
law, and individual liberty.
    As advanced democracies that uphold the rule of law and 
world leaders in protecting and promoting global human rights, 
Finland and Sweden would strengthen NATO as an alliance of 
values and expand the circle of North American and European 
democracies committed to defending each other.
    The United States has close bilateral defense relationships 
with both Finland and Sweden and has built robust cooperation 
and interoperability with these two countries through exercises 
and presence in the Baltic Sea region and elsewhere.
    In addition, Finland and Sweden both are already active in 
NATO political dialogues, exercises and operations, and are 
highly interoperable with NATO.
    Since Russia's further invasion of Ukraine in February 
Finland and Sweden have drawn even closer through enhanced 
political dialogue and sharing of information with the 
Alliance.
    The two countries began cooperating with NATO in 1994 
through the Partnership for Peace program. In 2014, Finland and 
Sweden were granted Enhanced Opportunities Partner status, 
which affords partners the closest level of cooperation short 
of being a member.
    Sweden has participated in NATO missions since 1995, 
including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, and Libya, share cyber 
defense information, is home to a world-class defense industry, 
and is steadily increasing defense spending with the stated 
goal of reaching 2 percent of GDP as soon as possible.
    Finland has contributed to NATO missions in Afghanistan, 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, and Kosovo, and will spend 2.16 
percent of its GDP on defense in 2022.
    In 2026, Finland will receive the first of its 65 F-35As 
from its $12 billion deal, the largest national procurement in 
Finland's history and one that will give Finland a significant 
military capability, increase interoperability with the United 
States and other NATO allies, and have a positive economic 
impact on both the U.S. and Finnish economies. Both countries 
will enhance NATO's situational awareness and capabilities in 
the High North.
    In short, I concur with what you both and many other 
Senators have said already. NATO enlargement that includes 
Finland and Sweden would further bolster the Alliance. They 
would be net providers of security to NATO and would enhance 
the national security interests of the United States.
    Turkey has raised concerns about some of Finland and 
Sweden's policies in advance of NATO accession. We recognize 
Turkey's legitimate concerns regarding terrorism, which NATO 
Secretary General Stoltenberg has also highlighted.
    We continue to encourage Stockholm, Ankara, and Helsinki to 
work together to find a path forward that addresses the 
security concerns of all allies and urge the Alliance to reach 
consensus on the accession process in an expeditious manner.
    We are confident Sweden and Finland would be net 
contributors to the alliance and their membership will bolster 
the security of every NATO member.
    Thank you so much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Donfried follows:]


                Prepared Statement of Karen E. Donfried

    Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, and distinguished members 
of the committee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 
today to discuss the critical role NATO plays in our security and the 
safeguarding of our freedom and democratic values, and Finland and 
Sweden's future place in the Alliance. I welcome the opportunity to 
share with you today why the administration strongly and unequivocally 
supports Finland and Sweden's membership in NATO. We strongly support 
NATO's Open Door policy and firmly believe that these two countries' 
membership in the Alliance would benefit the national security of the 
United States and strengthen the collective defense of NATO and the 
broader security of the Euro-Atlantic region. As President Biden said 
when he welcomed Finnish President Niinisto and Swedish Prime Minister 
Andersson to the White House last month, we are proud to offer ``the 
strong support of the United States for the applications of two great 
democracies and two close, highly capable partners to join the 
strongest, most powerful defensive alliance in the history of the 
world.'' Likewise, I want to thank the more than eighty Senators who 
signaled their full support for Sweden and Finland's applications for 
NATO membership in a letter to the President, as well as the bipartisan 
Senate Resolution 646 in support of their NATO accession. This provided 
yet another endorsement for these two strong and capable democracies. 
The administration has provided reports to Congress on Finland and 
Sweden's accession, as called for in the Senate's Resolution of 
Ratification of the NATO Accession protocols for Poland, Hungary, and 
the Czech Republic.
    Russia's unprovoked February 24 full scale invasion of Ukraine 
caused a seismic change in both Swedish and Finnish public support for 
NATO membership. Each country carried out inclusive and thorough 
democratic processes leading to the decision to apply for NATO 
membership. In an historic foreign and security policy shift, Finland 
and Sweden together officially applied for NATO membership on May 18.
    Since its inception, NATO's goal is to achieve a lasting peace in 
the North Atlantic area through collective security based on the common 
values of democracy, the rule of law, and individual liberty. As 
advanced democracies that uphold the rule of law and world leaders in 
protecting and promoting global human rights, Finland and Sweden would 
strengthen NATO as an alliance of values and expand the circle of North 
American and European democracies committed to defending each other.
    The United States has close bilateral defense relationships with 
both Finland and Sweden and has built robust cooperation and 
interoperability with these two countries through exercises and 
presence in the Baltic Sea region and elsewhere. In addition, Finland 
and Sweden both are already active in NATO political dialogues, 
exercises, and operations, and are highly interoperable with NATO. 
Since Russia's further invasion of Ukraine in February, Finland and 
Sweden have drawn even closer through enhanced political dialogue and 
sharing of information with the Alliance. The two countries began 
cooperating with NATO in 1994 through the Partnership for Peace 
program. In 2014, Finland and Sweden were granted ``Enhanced 
Opportunities Partner'' status, which affords partners the closest 
level of cooperation short of being a member. Sweden has participated 
in NATO missions since 1995 including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, and 
Libya; shares cyber defense information; is home to a world-class 
defense industry, and is steadily increasing defense spending with the 
stated goal of reaching 2 percent of GDP as soon as possible. Finland 
has contributed to NATO missions in Afghanistan, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Iraq, and Kosovo and will spend 2.16 percent of its GDP on 
defense in 2022. In 2026, Finland will receive the first of its 64 F-
35As from its $12 billion deal--the largest national procurement in 
Finland's history--and one that will give Finland a significant 
military capability, increase interoperability with the United States 
and other NATO Allies, and have a positive economic impact on both the 
U.S. and Finnish economies. Both countries will enhance NATO's 
situational awareness and capabilities in the High North.
    In short, I concur with what many of you have said already: NATO 
enlargement that includes Finland and Sweden would further bolster the 
Alliance. They would be net providers of security to NATO and would 
enhance the national security interests of the United States.
    Turkey has raised concerns about some of Finland and Sweden's 
policies in advance of NATO accession. We recognize Turkey's legitimate 
concerns regarding terrorism, which NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg 
has also highlighted. We continue to encourage Stockholm, Ankara, and 
Helsinki to work together to find a path forward that addresses the 
security concerns of all Allies, and urge the Alliance to reach 
consensus on the accession process in an expeditious manner. We are 
confident Sweden and Finland would be net contributors to the Alliance 
and their membership will bolster the security of every NATO member.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of this 
committee, Finland and Sweden are NATO's closest partners, and we look 
forward to welcoming them into the Alliance. Neither country's 
membership would detract from the ability of the United States to meet 
or fund its military requirements outside the North Atlantic area. We 
believe U.S. and overall Transatlantic security will be strengthened by 
their membership. Once the accession protocols are signed, we urge the 
Senate at the earliest opportunity to provide its advice and consent.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.


    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Secretary Wallander?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CELESTE WALLANDER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
                    DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, DC.

    Ms. Wallander. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, and 
members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you 
today alongside Assistant Secretary Donfried to express the 
Department of Defense's unwavering support for NATO membership 
for the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.
    Thank you for holding this important hearing. This historic 
moment builds on the positive relationship that the Department 
of Defense enjoys with Ministries of Defense and Armed Forces 
of both Finland and Sweden.
    DOD strongly assesses that the membership of both Sweden 
and Finland would be an asset to the North Atlantic Treaty as a 
values-based organization for defense and security.
    Both countries maintain a high degree of interoperability 
and cooperation with NATO and are capable military partners 
whose values align closely with that of the United States.
    A few key points on each of these NATO aspirants.
    On Finland, general conscription, a well manned and trained 
reserve, and a strong will to defend the country are the 
foundations of Finland's defense. Finland's location on the 
Baltic Sea, diplomatic experience with Russia, and advanced 
capabilities make it an asset to the Alliance.
    Finland spends more than 2 percent of its GDP on defense 
and possesses unique military capabilities and expertise, 
particularly operating in the Arctic environment.
    As a democracy and market economy, Finland's foreign policy 
is underpinned by a commitment to and the promotion of 
democracy, individual freedom, and rule of law. Finland is a 
modern, highly industrialized democratic country with one of 
the highest standards of living in the world.
    The country has a well educated and media savvy population, 
making its citizenry and institutions resilient to 
misinformation and malign influence while serving as a model to 
others.
    In particular, Finland would augment NATO's capacity to 
defend critical infrastructure, operate in the cyber domain, 
and strengthen individual and collective resilience.
    Finland first participated in a NATO-led operation in 1996 
and became a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner in 2014. It 
has contributed to or otherwise supported NATO missions in 
Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, and Kosovo.
    The Finnish Defense Forces comprise a total active and 
reserve force and strength of 280,000 with an additional 
900,000 trained individuals available for military service.
    Unlike many other European countries, Finland has 
maintained a general conscription model for defense. This 
allows Finland to rapidly call up its reserve force when needed 
at a lower overall training cost.
    On Sweden, Swedish accession to NATO would further the 
principles of the North Atlantic Treaty by combining a first 
rate and rapidly growing military with a principled foreign 
policy that ardently defends democracy and human rights.
    Sweden is both a highly capable military partner and home 
to a world-class defense industry. Its military expertise in 
the Arctic and undersea environments would substantially 
advance Alliance capabilities.
    Sweden already maintains a high degree of interoperability 
and cooperation with NATO, having become a NATO Partnership for 
Peace member in 1994 and a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner 
in 2014.
    Sweden has contributed to or supported NATO missions in 
Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, Kosovo, and Libya. 
Sweden's membership in NATO will strengthen the security of the 
Baltic Sea region, which remains an active area for Russian 
military activity, and accelerate regional maritime and air 
domain awareness.
    Our bilateral defense relationship currently focuses on 
deepening interoperability, enhancing Sweden's defense 
capabilities, building regional air and maritime domain 
awareness, increasing Swedish contributions to multinational 
operations, and aligning strategic communications.
    In particular, Sweden has an acknowledged level of 
competency in domestic crisis resilience and preparedness that 
distinguishes it as a leader among European nations.
    The Department of Defense is confident the accession of 
Sweden to NATO will have a positive effect on the Alliance's 
military effectiveness based on Sweden's defense capabilities, 
support of U.S. and allied actions in multiple theaters, and 
expectation that Sweden will be able to contribute available 
capabilities to operations.
    In closing, the Department of Defense assesses that Finland 
and Sweden are ready for NATO membership. Their accession will 
provide additional security and stability in Europe.
    They already have close bilateral defense relationships 
with the United States, close working relationships and 
military interoperability with NATO as enhanced opportunity 
partners, and are thriving democracies that share our values 
and fit the ideals of the North Atlantic Treaty.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Wallander follows:]


            Prepared Statement of Hon. Dr. Celeste Wallander

                              introduction
    Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, and members of the 
committee, thank you for this opportunity to express the Department of 
Defense's support for NATO membership for the Republic of Finland and 
the Kingdom of Sweden. This historic moment builds on the positive 
relationship that the Department of Defense enjoys with Ministries of 
Defense of Finland and Sweden and the interoperability we have worked 
to develop with each country's Armed Forces. The Department fully 
supports both countries' sovereign choice to apply for NATO membership.
                                finland
    Finland is a highly capable military partner whose democratic 
values align closely with those of the United States. General 
conscription, a well-prepared and trained reserve, and a strong will to 
defend the country are the foundations of Finland's defense 
capabilities. At the core of Finland's will to defend itself is the 
belief that the Finnish way of life is worth protecting. Finland's 
location on the Baltic Sea, experience with Russia as a frontline 
state, and advanced capabilities would make it an asset to the 
Alliance. Finland spends more than two percent of its GDP on defense 
and possesses unique military capabilities and expertise, particularly 
its experience operating in the Arctic environment.
    In 2016, DoD and the Finnish Defense Ministry signed a Statement of 
Intent to increase practical cooperation. Our bilateral defense 
relationship currently focuses on deepening interoperability, enhancing 
Finland's defense capabilities, building regional air and maritime 
domain awareness, increasing Finnish contributions to multinational 
operations, and aligning strategic communications. Finland and the 
United States have enjoyed strong military-to-military cooperation 
dating to Finland's acquisition of F/A-18 Hornets in the mid-1990s. In 
December 2021, Finland announced plans to purchase 64 F-35A fighter 
jets, which will only deepen our cooperation and ensure another 
generation of close bilateral defense ties.
    Finland also maintains a high degree of interoperability and 
cooperation with NATO. Finland first participated in a NATO-led 
operation in 1996 and became a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner in 
2014, the closest level of partnership with the Alliance. It has 
contributed to or otherwise supported NATO missions in Afghanistan, 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, and Kosovo.
    Finnish membership in NATO would further the principles of the 
North Atlantic Treaty and enhance the security of the North Atlantic 
area. As a democracy and market economy, Finland's foreign policy is 
underpinned by a commitment to and the promotion of democracy, 
individual freedom, and rule of law. Finland is a modern, highly 
industrialized democratic country with one of the highest standards of 
living in the world. Finland has a well-educated and media-savvy 
population, making its citizenry and democratic institutions resilient 
to misinformation and malign influence while serving as a model to 
others. As an advanced democracy, Finland's support of values enshrined 
in NATO's founding Washington Treaty--including--democracy, human 
rights, and respect for territorial integrity--align strongly with 
those of the United States.
    Finland's NATO membership will be an asset to the Alliance as a 
values-based security organization. Finland is a world leader in 
advanced telecommunications. As a NATO Ally, Finland would augment 
NATO's capacity to defend critical infrastructure, operate in the cyber 
domain, and strengthen individual and collective resilience. A founding 
member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 
(OSCE) and a member of the European Union (EU) since 1995, Finland has 
demonstrated for decades its commitment to individual liberty, 
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Finland emphasizes the 
importance of international cooperation to collectively resolve the 
world's most pressing global challenges, including climate change, 
international terrorism, defending human rights, and promoting open and 
fair trade. Finland has a seat on the UN Human Rights Council from 
2022-2024, will serve as OSCE Chair in 2025, and has ambitions to join 
the UN Security Council in 2029-2030.
    The Finnish Defense Forces comprise a total active and reserve 
force end-strength of 280,000, with an additional 900,000 trained 
individuals available for military service. Unlike many other European 
countries, Finland has maintained a general conscription model for 
defense. This allows Finland to rapidly call up its reserve force when 
needed, at a lower overall training cost.
    In addition to military forces, Finland maintains a comprehensive 
security model with a whole-of-society approach to security and 
preparedness. Vital societal functions are handled together by 
government authorities, businesses, NGOs, and citizens ensuring that 
every part of society is invested and understands the role they play in 
defense of the country.
    Finland's accession to NATO is likely to decrease the United 
States' overall cost-share percentage of NATO's common funded budgets. 
Relative to other accessions, Finland's modem military forces and 
existing close partnership with NATO will reduce the time, effort, and 
costs associated with its integration into NATO structures. Finland 
would provide a net increase in security and military power to the 
Alliance. Given Finland's capable military forces, high level of 
readiness, and ability to provide for its self-defense, Finland's NATO 
membership presents no discernable additional cost requirements to the 
U.S. defense budget.
    The Department of Defense is confident the accession of Finland to 
NATO will have a positive impact on the Alliance's military 
effectiveness. This high level of confidence is based on Finland's 
defense capabilities, its support of U.S. and NATO actions in multiple 
theaters, and its ability contribute available capabilities to 
operations.
                                 sweden
    Swedish accession to NATO would further the principles of the North 
Atlantic Treaty as Sweden will combine a first-rate and rapidly growing 
military that will contribute to the collective defense of the North 
Atlantic area, with a principled foreign policy that ardently defends 
democracy and human rights.
    Sweden is a modern, highly industrialized democratic country with 
one of the highest standards of living in the world. A member of the 
European Union (EU) since 1995, Sweden's commitment to democracy, 
individual freedom, and rule of law align closely with those of the 
United States.
    Sweden is a highly capable military partner and home to a world-
class defense industry. Sweden's military expertise in the Arctic and 
undersea environments would further the Alliance's capabilities. The 
Swedish Armed Forces, which has about 60,000 personnel, set a goal in 
2020 to reach 90,000 by 2025. Sweden is working to increase military 
spending to two percent of GDP as soon as practically possible, 
expecting to meet this benchmark not later than 2028.
    Sweden also maintains a high degree of interoperability and 
cooperation with NATO, having become a member of Partnership for Peace 
in 1994. Sweden first participated in a NATO-led operation in 1995 and 
became a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner in 2014, the closest level 
of partnership with the Alliance. Sweden has contributed to or 
supported NATO missions in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, 
Kosovo, and Libya.
    Sweden is a capable military partner that would be a net 
contributor to Alliance and transatlantic security should it be 
approved for NATO membership. Sweden has an acknowledged level of 
competency in domestic crisis resilience and preparedness that 
distinguishes it as a leader among European nations. In 2016, the 
Department of Defense and Swedish Ministry of Defense signed a 
Statement of Intent (SOI) to increase practical cooperation. Our 
bilateral defense relationship currently focuses on deepening 
interoperability, enhancing Sweden's defense capabilities, building 
regional air and maritime domain awareness, increasing Swedish 
contributions to multinational operations, and aligning strategic 
communications.
    Sweden would be a net provider of security and military power to 
the Alliance area, thus enhancing the national security interests of 
the United States and all NATO Allies. Sweden considers the United 
States and Finland to be its two most significant strategic partners. 
Both the governing coalition and the opposition are committed to strong 
ties with the United States. Sweden's inclusion will not detract from 
the ability of the United States to meet or fund its military 
requirements.
    Sweden's membership in NATO will strengthen the security of the 
Baltic Sea region, which remains an active area for Russian military 
activity. Swedish NATO membership will accelerate regional maritime and 
air domain awareness.
    Sweden's accession to NATO is likely to decrease the United States' 
overall cost-share percentage of NATO's common funded budgets. Sweden's 
modern military forces and existing close partnership with NATO will 
reduce the time, effort, and costs associated with Sweden's integration 
into NATO structures, relative to other recent accessions. Given 
Sweden's capable military forces, high level of readiness, and ability 
to provide for its self-defense, its NATO membership presents no 
discernable additional cost requirements to the U.S. defense budget.
    The Department of Defense is confident the accession of Sweden to 
NATO will have a positive impact on the Alliance's military 
effectiveness. This high level of confidence is based on Sweden's 
defense capabilities, Sweden's support of U.S. and Allied actions in 
multiple theaters, and expectation that Sweden will be able to 
contribute available capabilities to operations.
    In closing, the Department of Defense assesses Finland and Sweden 
are ready for NATO membership. Finland and Sweden's accession will 
provide additional security and stability in Europe. They have close 
bilateral defense relationships with the United States; already enjoy 
close working relationships and military interoperability with NATO as 
Enhanced Opportunity Partners; and are thriving democracies that share 
our values and fit the ideals of the North Atlantic Treaty.


    The Chairman. Thank you both for very comprehensive 
testimony.
    We have votes going on on the floor. It is the chair's 
intention to just continue through and rotate to somebody 
presiding so we can get through the hearing.
    So let me start with you, Assistant Secretary Wallander.
    Some of this you have--both have referred to but I want to 
just detail the record. Is it accurate to say that Finland and 
Sweden have large, technologically advanced militaries and both 
have long partnered with NATO contributing to NATO operations, 
including in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and also understand 
that both countries either meet or have plans to meet the 2 
percent NATO spending benchmark?
    Ms. Wallander. Yes, Senator. That is accurate.
    The Chairman. Since Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, 
popular support for joining NATO in Finland and Sweden and 
their governments' commitments to NATO have grown 
significantly.
    Secretary Donfried, can you speak to how attitudes towards 
joining NATO in Finland and Sweden have changed and where those 
countries stand today on the subject?
    Ms. Donfried. Yes. I agree with your analysis that February 
24th fundamentally changed the perspective of both Finland and 
Sweden. We saw Finland very decisively make a decision then to 
move on NATO membership, and Sweden shortly joined Finland in 
that membership aspiration.
    And I think--it is interesting, there is a colleague of 
mine who works for the European Union who has talked about 
February 24 as Europe's 9/11, and I think for many Europeans it 
was unthinkable before February 24 that Russia would undertake 
a full-scale, brutal, unprovoked invasion of its neighbor, 
Ukraine, and that action fundamentally shifted security 
perspectives.
    I agree with you that is how to understand the change in 
public opinion that we have seen in both countries and the 
strong support for NATO membership.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Respect for human rights, commitments to 
transparency, rule of law, democracy, are values that NATO 
members share and which are important to look at in assessing 
candidates for NATO membership.
    Assistant Secretary Donfried, can you speak to how Finland 
and Sweden exemplify those values?
    Ms. Donfried. I would be happy to do so.
    And when we are talking about Finland and Sweden, we are 
talking about two of our closest partners, and one of the 
fundamental things that unites us is our respect for democracy 
and human rights.
    And if you look at Sweden, there are so many examples that 
we could point to. One would be Sweden's one-year OSCE 
chairpersonship in 2021 where they played an important 
invisible role on so many issues--Ukraine already at that time, 
Belarus, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in Transnistria--and 
Sweden brought to all of these conflicts its deep commitment to 
global democracy and human rights.
    We also see gender equality as a fundamental aim of Swedish 
foreign policy and we also see Sweden as having been an active 
contributor to last December's Summit for Democracy where 
Sweden co-hosted a side event on women's economic empowerment.
    I think there is no question that Sweden is deeply 
committed to advancing democracy, human rights, and the rule of 
law, and will do so also in its upcoming presidency of the 
European Council of the European Union in 2023.
    And then if we shift our attention to Finland, Finland, 
too, in all of its foreign policy has shown a deep commitment 
to promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
    Finland has emphasized the importance of the rules-based 
international system to collectively resolve the world's most 
pressing global challenges.
    Finland, too, has been a leader in international fora, 
whether it is the number of Finns in the U.N. system and other 
key international organizations, whether it is promoting 
democracy in the OSCE in the Human Rights Council, and I 
believe that we will see Finland continue to cooperate strongly 
with the United States, with the EU, and will bring that 
sensibility to NATO membership.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Secretary Wallander, Finland has a long history of opposing 
Russian military advances and Sweden has a well-equipped 
fighting force.
    Could you confirm that enlarging NATO to include Finland 
and Sweden will reduce the burdens including defense burden on 
the United States rather than increase them?
    Ms. Wallander. Senator, membership in NATO of Sweden and 
Finland would enhance the capabilities of the NATO Alliance on 
both the ground, air, and sea domain and in new domains of 
importance, including the cyber domain and combating Russian 
malign influence in the area of disinformation, and both 
countries bring strong economies and strong democratic support 
for defense spending.
    The Department of Defense sees no negatives in the 
membership of Sweden and Finland on burden sharing or on the 
capabilities of the Alliance.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Congress has a long and bipartisan track record of support 
for Baltic security as well as a more generally robust defense 
of NATO's eastern flank.
    How would Sweden and Finland's membership in NATO affect 
our security posture in the eastern part of the Alliance?
    Ms. Wallander. We have already seen in just the last month 
the potential of an improved, enhanced capability of NATO from 
the membership of Sweden and Finland with a participation in 
the BALTOPS exercise, which is vital for the ability of the 
NATO Alliance to enhance the security in the Baltic region 
where Russia is active and often irresponsible in its military 
presence.
    Already BALTOPS has benefited from Swedish and Finnish 
participation as partners. But having a higher degree of 
interoperability and integration from members of the Alliance 
would further support those kinds of planning and exercises.
    The Chairman. Finally, Secretary Donfried, even though we 
do not yet have texts of accession protocols, all NATO 
accession protocols are substantively identical and we are well 
positioned to assess the candidacies of Finland and Sweden even 
prior to the signature of the protocols.
    Would you say that that is your understanding as well as it 
relates to the protocols?
    Ms. Donfried. Yes. My understanding is that once the 
accession protocols are signed we would then urge the Senate at 
its earliest opportunity to provide its advice and consent.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    I am strongly supportive of accession and will work both 
with the ranking member through the committee and on the floor 
to get this ratified.
    Senator Risch?
    The Chairman. And I am going to ask Senator Kaine to 
preside so I can go vote.
    Thank you.
    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I think we have had a really good robust 
discussion here and one of the reasons is because we are all 
ready and we have all been expecting this, and as the chairman 
just pointed out, I wrote a letter--I do not know--two weeks 
ago--maybe it is three weeks ago now--to both the White House 
and State directing your attention to the fact that this was 
coming down the pipe pretty quickly and to start work on it.
    Can you give us any kind of a time frame? You talked about 
as early as possible and what have you. How quickly can you get 
that material to us, I guess, is the question I would have?
    Ms. Donfried. What is happening now, as was already 
mentioned, is there is a conversation happening among Turkey, 
Finland, and Sweden, and the decision within NATO is a 
consensus decision, and Turkey has raised some concerns 
relating to terrorism in the approach of Sweden and Finland.
    Of course, the United States, along with Turkey, shares a 
desire to end the scourge of terrorism and we all take this 
very seriously. My understanding is those conversations are 
moving at pace. They are happening among those three countries.
    But what we saw this week is that NATO Secretary General 
Jens Stoltenberg also invited the parties to have a 
conversation that he mediated. That was on Monday. We 
understand that was constructive.
    We are confident that there will be progress here and that 
will allow the accession protocols to be signed and the 
ratification process here to move forward.
    Senator Risch. Are you intending to be in Madrid next week?
    Ms. Donfried. Yes, sir. I am.
    Senator Risch. Okay.
    Again, I come back to time. We all want to work as quickly 
as possible. Let us assume that we get this one wrinkle ironed 
out next week. How quickly can we expect to see something here 
in the Senate?
    Ms. Donfried. I think, to use your term, Ranking Member 
Risch, once that wrinkle is ironed out I think it would move 
immediately.
    Senator Risch. That is important.
    And I think you indicated about consensus. By the word 
consensus did you mean unanimously, essentially?
    Ms. Donfried. Yes. Yes.
    Senator Risch. So have a clear understanding of that.
    All right. That is clear, and as you have heard from the 
chairman and I, we are all in on this and we want this to 
happen as rapidly as possible.
    It is something that is--it will be a great addition for 
NATO, for the North Atlantic, and I appreciate your work on it.
    And with that, I am going to yield back, Mr. Chairman, as 
we have had a--or Mr. Acting Chairman.
    Senator Kaine [presiding]. Mr. Acting Chairman. Thank you, 
Mr. Ranking, and to our witnesses and others.
    I, actually--oh, excuse me, do we have either--anyone on by 
WebEx right now?
    All right. That means I am next.
    I want to thank, actually, Chairman Menendez and Ranking 
Member Risch. Apropos of this discussion, this committee acted 
in the last couple of months on a resolution I have with 
Senator Rubio to make clear that no President of the United 
States can withdraw from NATO without congressional approval.
    The Constitution is silent about exiting treaties. It is 
very clear about entering treaties. A two-thirds Senate vote is 
needed.
    It is squarely within the jurisdiction of this committee, 
and the chair and ranking had a markup on this and it passed 
overwhelmingly in the committee. They gave me permission--a 
clearance--to try to get it added to the annual defense 
authorizing bill, which we passed out of the SASC Committee 
last week overwhelmingly.
    But because SASC will not consider matters in the 
jurisdiction of another committee, even with the agreement of 
the chair and ranking, I was not able to get it added.
    I was trying to get it added because I thought it would 
send a really powerful signal about congressional support for 
NATO on the verge of this next NATO meeting.
    But we can have another opportunity.
    Senator Risch. There is other ways of doing that, as the 
Senator well knows.
    Senator Kaine. Yeah. We will look for other ways to do it. 
But I just wanted to thank the chair and ranking for being 
willing to let us try it in the Armed Services bill. We will 
look for another way.
    One of the things that, I think, is interesting about 
Sweden and Finland--and we have talked about their respective 
capacities, economic strength, worked together with the United 
States in the past--is the fact that on these defense matters 
they also have a really significant cooperation among them.
    So you are not just getting two different new allies. You 
are getting two allies that have significant capacity but that 
also do a lot together, and the fact that they would both 
approach this NATO membership together is also interesting to 
me.
    Talk a little bit about the long-term defense and 
diplomatic relationship between Sweden and Finland, because I 
think that actually brings an additional element to the table 
as we consider NATO accession for the two countries.
    Ms. Donfried. I am happy to start, and you may want to 
weigh in as well.
    I think your observation is on point, and it is striking 
how closely Finland and Sweden do cooperate in the security and 
defense area, and, interestingly, we saw Finland be the first 
to announce its intention to seek NATO membership and then 
Sweden followed.
    But if you look at public opinion in Sweden, you saw about 
a 10 percentage point jump when the Finns announced their 
commitment to pursuing this, and I think that gets to your 
point of how joined up these two countries are when they think 
about their own security, and it also relates to how current 
NATO member states see this.
    There was a question earlier about the BALTOPS, and it is 
interesting because if Finland and Sweden or when Finland and 
Sweden join NATO, the Baltic littoral, with the exception of 
the Russian coast on the Gulf of Finland and Kaliningrad, would 
be ally territory, which enables NATO to better monitor 
activity in and plan the defense of the entire vital region.
    You have seen the Baltic foreign ministers state publicly 
that they and NATO will benefit from Finland and Sweden's 
strong military capabilities so I think you see that benefit 
both on the diplomacy side and on the military side.
    Over to you.
    Senator Kaine. Secretary Wallander, do you have anything to 
add to that?
    Ms. Wallander. Thanks. Yes.
    Finland and Sweden bring not only common advantages as 
strong potential allies but have, through their own 
complementary capabilities, worked together, participated in 
NATO-led or, simply, multinational exercises in really 
constructive ways.
    I will give you a couple of examples. One is Finland, 
obviously, has a very strong territorial defense capability, 
very important for a country with an over 800-mile border with 
Russia and experience of fighting the Soviet Union in the 1930s 
and doing so effectively.
    And Sweden has substantial capabilities in the maritime 
domain and has carefully monitored Russian maritime and air 
activity over the Baltics, and Sweden also has participated in 
bilateral programs and cooperation with the United States in 
the area of Special Operations Forces as well.
    The two potential allies--aspirant allies bring similar 
strengths in their democracies, in their market economies, in 
their strengths as European countries, and then they each bring 
their own complementary military capabilities that will further 
strengthen the NATO Alliance.
    Senator Kaine. That is excellent.
    And, Secretary Donfried, I want to ask you a question. You 
said that some of your colleagues in Europe have described this 
moment, the February 24 attack of Ukraine, as Europe's 9/11, 
and I am pretty sure I know what you mean by that. But I kind 
of wanted to dig into it further.
    People who are not spending a lot of time in Europe and do 
not know the European reality might think, oh, but Finland and 
Sweden, they are quite a ways away from Ukraine so why would 
they view an attack on Ukraine as the equivalent of a 9/11 
style attack on Europe.
    Just dig into that a little bit more. I think I know what 
you mean but I think it would be important to get this 
testimony out there.
    Ms. Donfried. Thank you for the question.
    I will tell you how I heard it, in fairness to the 
individual who said it. But the way I heard it was just the 
sense of shock that Russia, in 2022, would undertake this full-
scale, unprovoked, unjustified brutal invasion of its neighbor, 
Ukraine.
    And, of course, in the first instance, that has tragic 
implications for Ukraine, and I think we have all been inspired 
by the bravery of Ukrainians in meeting that challenge and 
their resilience.
    But it also fundamentally alters the European security 
landscape, and so that is how I understood it, that every 
country in Europe recalculated its own assessment of its 
security, and I think Finland and Sweden in so doing, whereas 
in the past they always believed their security interests were 
best served by having a NATO partnership but not being members, 
that changed almost overnight.
    That was how I understood the comment.
    Thanks.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you very much for that.
    This is one where in my 10 years here I have never seen a 
bigger gulf between the United States and our European allies 
on our predictions about what was going to happen.
    We shared the hopes for what would happen or would not 
happen and we were sharing the same set of facts upon which to 
make a prediction.
    But I agree, I think there was a degree--and I can, 
certainly, understand that wishful thinking is a somewhat 
derogatory phrase, a deep hope that, of course, Russia is not 
going to invade. I mean, it is a muscle flexing exercise.
    But when it became a reality, which much of U.S. intel was 
saying it was going to become a reality, I can see that that 
caused this kind of continent wide recalibration as you 
describe.
    I am going to--oh, please.
    Ms. Donfried. And I should just--I should not lump all of 
Europe together. I want to be clear.
    Senator Kaine. Yeah.
    Ms. Donfried. I do think there were differences in 
perception----
    Senator Kaine. Yes.
    Ms. Donfried [continuing]. Across the European continent, 
just to be clear. I do not mean to say all of them.
    Senator Kaine. Yeah. I hear you.
    There being no Senators on WebEx now, Senator Hagerty, you 
are up next.
    Senator Hagerty. Okay. Thank you very much, and to our 
witnesses here today, Assistant Secretaries Donfried and 
Wallander, welcome to you. Thank you for being here to discuss 
an important topic regarding strengthening the NATO Alliance.
    I would like to take you back to my service as U.S. 
Ambassador to Japan. There, I spent a tremendous amount of my 
time and effort in increasing the capabilities of the U.S.-
Japan alliance on a military front, trying to ensure that the 
agility, the interoperability, and the overall military 
capability was being maximized for our combined forces.
    I worked very often with then Prime Minister Abe on this 
topic. I support our current Ambassador Emanuel as he works 
with current Prime Minister Kishida in the same arena. It is 
very important.
    Up front I would like to say I support Finland and Sweden's 
accession to NATO because their addition will be accretive to 
the overall capabilities of the Alliance, and I appreciate 
that.
    But as the United States advances its NATO policy in the 
21st century I believe it is going to be important to get back 
to the basics. There, I mean, in the very first instance, NATO 
is a military alliance that needs to focus on deterring 
military threats with real military capabilities, and if the 
last year has demonstrated anything it is that the NATO 
Alliance must stand stronger to better deter Russia's military 
threat to us and to our allies.
    My first question will be to you, Assistant Secretary 
Wallander.
    When will Finland and Sweden, respectively, meet the goals 
of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense? And I know that 
Finland is closer than Sweden but both were on track, as I 
understand it.
    Can you give me your sense of when they will meet their 
goals?
    Ms. Wallander. Sure. It is a great question, Senator, and I 
share your commitment to making sure that NATO allies are 
contributing to security of the Alliance.
    Finland already in 2022 does meet the 2 percent floor--the 
Wales Pledge. Finland's defense spending is at 2.2 percent of 
GDP and Sweden is----
    Senator Hagerty. That is projected for 2022?
    Ms. Wallander. This is for 2022. And Sweden's government 
has committed to meeting the 2 percent pledge as soon as 
possible and no later than 2028.
    And I would note also that Sweden meets the NATO--the less 
cited but no less important NATO standard of spending at least 
20 percent of its defense budget on acquisition of capability.
    Senator Hagerty. I met with Sweden's Ambassador recently 
and she told me in very encouraging terms that they were doing 
everything they could to accelerate their progress toward that 
goal. So thank you for that.
    Assistant Secretary Wallander, you also talked with Senator 
Kaine about some of the current capabilities that Finland and 
Sweden will contribute to the Alliance.
    Can you give me a sense of what you would like to see them 
develop for the future?
    Ms. Wallander. Certainly, one of the hopes would be that 
both countries would contribute and, I believe, will contribute 
to the battle groups on the eastern flank, the eight eastern 
front countries of NATO.
    Finland and Sweden both have very strong bilateral 
relations with the Baltic countries, in particular----
    Senator Hagerty. Yes. Yes.
    Ms. Wallander [continuing]. And they--Sweden and Finland--
can become not just strong defense partners or allies of the 
Alliance but strong contributors as those countries face 
Russian aggression right on their borders.
    Senator Hagerty. I hope you will work to guide their 
acquisition strategies in that direction and I look forward to 
their contributions.
    I want to sum it up, though, with you, Assistant Secretary 
Wallander.
    It is your testimony today, I presume, that from the 
Defense Department's perspective that adding both Sweden and 
Finland to the NATO Alliance will, indeed, strengthen NATO's 
military capabilities and, therefore, their deterrence 
capabilities?
    Ms. Wallander. Yes, Senator. That is the Department of 
Defense assessment.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you very much.
    I would like to turn to you, Assistant Secretary Donfried.
    I support adding Finland and Sweden to the NATO Alliance, 
as you know, but I also want to ask you about other important 
things that the United States should be doing to counter and, 
to frankly, defund Russia's military aggression.
    The Biden administration's energy policies have perversely 
helped to fund Putin's war machine in Ukraine. Do you dispute 
the fact or the assessment, at least, that despite 
international sanctions Vladimir Putin's regime has earned 
nearly $100 billion from energy exports during the first 100 
days of Russia's unprovoked and unjustified invasion of 
Ukraine?
    Ms. Donfried. Senator Hagerty, thank you for that question.
    And what I would say is I think it is a complicated 
equation because what we have seen is that as more Russian oil 
is going off the market we are also seeing that Russia has 
declining oil profits as a result of being forced to sell its 
oil at steep discounts.
    And so there is a calculation about what is the discounted 
price of that Russian oil and then how does that affect the 
scarcity of supply. So I----
    Senator Hagerty. Actually, what has happened is there has 
been a windfall that has come to Russia. Do you accept the fact 
that oil and gas markets are global markets?
    Ms. Donfried. Yes, they are.
    Senator Hagerty. And all other things being equal, if the 
United States were to actually ramp up its oil and gas 
production would the increase of energy supplies actually lower 
the global price of energy?
    Ms. Donfried. An increase in energy supply should reduce 
the price.
    Senator Hagerty. It, certainly, should. And if you think 
about Russia's energy exports, they made up half of Russia's 
budget--more than half of their budget before the windfall that 
has come into the marketplace took place.
    Is a price increase actually helpful or hurtful to Vladimir 
Putin?
    Ms. Donfried. A price increase is helpful. But if you are 
having a challenge selling Russian oil because of the 
sanctions, that is what has forced some price decline on 
Russian oil, in particular.
    Senator Hagerty. The reports are that Russia has actually 
had a massive increase in its revenues from oil sales just in 
the first five months of this year. Its oil sales are up close 
to $100 billion. That is more than enough--in fact, almost one 
and a half times its annual military budget.
    In effect, we are inadvertently funding Vladimir Putin's 
war machine. That is the point that I am trying to make, and I 
want to encourage you to please take the message back home that 
when President Biden decided to wage the war on fossil fuels 
here in America it has a global impact and that global impact 
not only hurts American consumers here at home but it also is 
hurting the brave Ukrainians that are trying to fight right now 
because they are also a casualty of President Biden's anti----
    The Chairman [presiding]. The time of the Senator has 
expired. I just want him to acknowledge I have given him a 
significant amount of time over the time.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope this will 
change.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I was watching part of the hearing on WebEx and, of course, 
we were interrupted by votes.
    Let me, first, thank our witnesses for their work.
    As has been already demonstrated in this hearing, there is 
strong support for NATO expansion in Finland and Sweden, and we 
recognize there is a process we go through and we also 
recognize, as you have already pointed out, that all NATO 
members have to agree and you want to give space for Turkey to 
be able to have the conversations it needs with the aspirant 
countries.
    We all appreciate that. But we certainly urge that we have 
to make sure that that is constructive and timely and we would 
hope that our leadership would help provide that type of 
accommodations so that those conversations take place but they 
do not unnecessarily delay the considerations of their entry 
into NATO.
    I want to sort of follow up on the impact that this is 
having on Russia's calculation--Mr. Putin's calculation. He is, 
obviously, watching very closely what is happening with Sweden 
and Finland. He is also watching what is happening with the 
European Union and their invitations in regards to Moldova and 
Ukraine.
    And can you just tell us how you feel these expansions, 
whether of the EU or of NATO, would affect Mr. Putin's 
calculations in regards to his aspirations for a greater 
Russia?
    Ms. Wallander. Let me start on the defense and military 
side.
    The accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO would 
significantly complicate Russian military planning for any kind 
of military operations against NATO by doubling the length of 
Russia's front border with NATO allies and by strengthening 
NATO-allied capabilities in the Baltic Sea region and in the 
Arctic High North.
    There is no question that this accession of Finland and 
Sweden is something that is not welcome in Moscow as it plans 
for a hostile relationship with NATO. NATO is a defensive 
alliance, but the Russian military would have to take this into 
account.
    And I would, simply, also note that for 20 years Russia has 
sought to divide the NATO Alliance on multiple issues, sought 
to fracture it in order to paralyze it diplomatically and 
militarily, and the strength with which the--and the public and 
political strength of the desire to accede to NATO by both 
Finland and Sweden has further strengthened the Alliance and 
has shown to the Kremlin that its efforts to weaken the 
Alliance have not only failed but have actually reverberated 
negatively.
    Ms. Donfried. And if I could just make two quick comments 
in response to your question, Senator Cardin.
    First, in terms of your question about the impact on 
Russia's calculation, the irony here is that Vladimir Putin 
said one of the reasons he was engaging in this brutal assault 
on Ukraine was his concern about NATO getting too close to 
Russia's borders.
    Well, what a miscalculation. What a strategic 
miscalculation. If that was his concern, he now has Finland 
with an 830-mile border with Russia and Sweden saying they want 
to join NATO. That is quite striking.
    And the second point is, of course, we are concerned also 
about the security of Finland and Sweden in this interval 
between their application and accession. We are confident that 
we and our allies are well positioned to help these two 
countries address their security needs and any concerns that 
they might have in this interim period, and President Biden 
said on May 18 that while their applications for NATO 
membership are being considered the United States will work 
closely with both countries to remain vigilant against any 
threats to our shared security and to deter and confront 
aggression or the threat of aggression.
    As has already been mentioned, we exercise regularly 
together in the Baltic Sea region and the U.S. military 
routinely maintains presence in the vicinity of both countries. 
We feel that we are also being vigilant during this interim 
period.
    Thank you.
    Senator Cardin. Let me just make a comment. We are, today, 
concerned about the expansion as it relates to Finland and 
Sweden. But we also need to be concerned of the focus in the 
Black Sea.
    Russia, clearly, is interested in dominating the Black Sea, 
and with Ukraine being compromised by the Russian presence it 
even makes it more urgent for us to shore up NATO's capacity 
within the Black Sea.
    I just mention that because I think we need to look at that 
as the next chapter of our challenges in regards to national 
security threats.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Great to see both of you here. Thank you for your service.
    And just for the record, President Biden has been calling 
upon oil refiners in the United States to increase their 
capacity. In fact, the other day he said he might--he is 
looking at the Defense Production Act as a potential tool to 
push that in the right direction.
    I am a strong believer that having both Sweden and Finland 
as part of the NATO Alliance would be good for the Alliance and 
good for those countries. They are both democracies. They both 
believe in the rule of law.
    We already have strong security partnerships and they would 
be great additions, in my view, to the NATO Alliance.
    My question to you, Assistant Secretary Donfried, we have 
the Madrid Conference coming up. What is the likelihood that we 
will be in a position to offer a formal invitation to Sweden 
and Finland to join the Alliance at the upcoming Madrid 
Conference?
    Ms. Donfried. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen, for that 
question.
    What has been happening is that Turkey, which has expressed 
its concerns about, in particular, Swedish and Finnish stances 
with regard to the fight against terrorism, has been engaged in 
conversations with Finland and Sweden to find a resolution to 
their concerns, and this week we saw the NATO Secretary General 
help in mediating that conversation. On Monday there were 
meetings among those parties, which we heard were quite 
constructive.
    And so we are confident that this will be resolved in a 
positive way. There is broad and deep support across the NATO 
Alliance for Finnish and Swedish accession. We are hopeful that 
we will soon achieve a positive resolution.
    Senator Van Hollen. Look, I am hopeful as well and I am 
glad to hear the talks are coming along. But let us be clear on 
what we mean by Turkey's so-called concerns about Sweden and 
Finnish positions in the fight against terrorism.
    We are specifically talking about President Erdogan's 
concerns about support for the SDF and elements of the SDF, 
right?
    Ms. Donfried. It is a concern, in the first instance, about 
the PKK, which we all recognize is a terrorist organization, 
and then you are right, it has to do with those PKK-affiliated 
groups.
    Senator Van Hollen. Right. But just to be clear, Sweden 
already has a law on the books that recognizes or identifies 
the PKK as a terrorist organization, correct?
    Ms. Donfried. Yes.
    Senator Van Hollen. They are in line with the United States 
and most of our other partners. And is it not the case that the 
United States has been a strong partner with the SDF in the 
fight against ISIS?
    Ms. Donfried. Yes.
    Senator Van Hollen. Right.
    Just to be clear, I mean, we want to work this out. But we 
should make clear to President Erdogan that they are 
criticizing Sweden and Finland for taking actions the United 
States government has taken.
    President Erdogan also wants to extradite Gulen. We are a 
country that recognizes the rule of law. So are Sweden and 
Finland. And, again, you know, we have had concerns here about 
the deployment of Russian S-400s by Turkey and have taken 
action in this committee and the Congress.
    I want to, amen, support the ongoing talks. But let us 
recognize, I think, that the positions that Sweden and Finland 
have taken are pretty much on the same page with the position 
the United States has taken with respect to the SDF and the 
very important fight against ISIS and terrorism.
    Sweden and Finland have been, in my view, on the right side 
in that fight against ISIS.
    Can you just lay out what you see as the time line, again, 
whether you are--whether you believe that we will be successful 
at getting everybody on the same page, including Turkey, by the 
time the Madrid Conference comes around?
    Ms. Donfried. I will say that we, certainly, are pushing 
for that.
    Senator Van Hollen. All right. I am going to end there. 
Again, I think we all recognize what the challenge is here. We 
want to make sure these are constructive talks.
    Sweden and Finland have already taken measures in response 
to Turkey's concern. Is that not correct?
    Ms. Donfried. That is correct. Finland and Sweden have been 
engaging very constructively in these talks and they have been 
forward leaning in terms of being responsive to the concerns 
raised.
    Senator Van Hollen. Right. I mean, Sweden, as I understand 
it, ended their arms embargo against Turkey. Is that right?
    Ms. Donfried. That is correct.
    Senator Van Hollen. Got it. All right.
    Thank you both. I think we would all like to see for the 
good of the Alliance and to make sure we send a strong signal 
to Putin that what he is doing is an attack on democracy, on 
the rule of law, and I would hate to see--this moment, which 
you described, would underscore the fact that Putin's invasion 
of Ukraine is a strategic failure because it actually 
encouraged Sweden and Finland to join this defensive alliance.
    I would hate to see that moment squandered because of an 
inability to address the issues that we are talking about 
today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Let me just echo Senator Van Hollen's bit of frustration 
about the comments we make about Turkey, Sweden, and Finland as 
it relates to urging them to work together.
    As, Secretary Donfried, you know I had the opportunity to 
speak to the chiefs of missions this morning--all of our 
ambassadors around the world and several others. I know you 
were there.
    I am not constrained by the constraints maybe you all feel 
you have at the State Department. I believe you call out 
whoever is wrong on something, and if there are multiple 
parties that are wrong then you call out multiple parties.
    But as Senator Van Hollen has said, Secretary, there is a 
possibility in the future--as Senator Van Hollen has said, the 
reality is is that Finland and Sweden are aligned with our own 
policies as it relates to the PKK and the SDF and our fight 
against ISIS. So it is a little disingenuous to suggest we urge 
all parties to work together.
    Of course, it would be great for them all to work together 
and come to a conclusion. I do not know what Turkey is trying 
to extract from them.
    But, at the end of the day, that is what this is about, and 
maybe if we get in the game they want to extract from us, too, 
which I will be vehemently opposed to.
    We do not need for any extraction to take place or any 
concessions to take place to have two great democracies join 
NATO.
    But having said that, I just think, for the record, it is 
one of the things that for 30 years of doing foreign policy 
irks me about the State Department, regardless of which 
administration is in, that we call upon all parties to do 
something when not all parties are responsible, at the end of 
the day, for the conflict that we have, with the issue that we 
have, or the problem that we have.
    I have extended the time here to--I know there are some 
members who had an interest but there is no member presently 
before me either on--virtually or in the committee.
    So with the thanks of the committee for your participation 
and for your insights, this record will remain open until the 
close of business tomorrow.
    And this hearing is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                  [all]