Columns Mika Niiko became a useful idiot in a game where Pokka should not be deceived

Congressman On Tuesday, Mika Niikko (ps) tweeted a message about the status of Ukraine that had spectacularly questioned the basic regulations of Finland’s foreign policy. According to Niiko, someone should say to Russia out loud that Ukraine will not be admitted to NATO.

Niikko became a useful idiot under the authority of the chairman of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee just when Pokka in the West should not be deceived. The error estimate paid Niiko the trust and the position of chairman of the committee.

At the same time, it was revealed that there are quite different views on what the crisis in Ukraine is all about. Differences of opinion also apply to possible solutions – if they can even be found.

The differences between Russia and the West over the European security order are so fundamental that they cannot be negotiated. Thus, it is also difficult to actually resolve the matter.

One of Russia’s goals may just be an unresolved dispute. Russia can benefit from a Cold War-like setup in which the West is constantly afraid of Russia.

Niikko apparently considers Ukraine’s problem with NATO membership a problem and put forward its own solution to it with its weaknesses: Russia is well aware that Ukraine is not eligible for NATO membership.

NATO does not admit countries in crisis. The crisis for Ukraine was organized by Russia by occupying Crimea in 2014 and starting an eight-year war in eastern Ukraine. And while Russia considers Ukraine politically and militarily unstable, NATO and the EU have also broadened their understanding of whether a corrupt Ukraine is wanted under security guarantees.

At the same time, Western democracies still adhere to the principle that each state makes its own security policy decisions. NATO also determines for itself whether its door is open to new members. Finland has also raised its voice in favor of the principle. It is hardly unnoticed how President Sauli Niinistö has repeated the mantra of the right of all states to make their own security policy decisions.

Even if there is no opinion that there is no solution to the escalating confrontation between Russia and the West, they must still be sought. The reason is the threat of a great war. But because there is a multidimensional tangle of problems and there may not be solutions, there is a long and frozen process ahead. It also affects the gap between Finland and Russia.

Negotiations on the basis of the Minsk agreement have now returned. The problem is that Ukraine had to negotiate the Minsk agreement at the gunpoint. Now Ukraine is once again at gunpoint when it should be agreed in what order the content of the Minsk agreement will be implemented. Ukraine and Russia strongly disagree.

Ukraine fate is harsh. Russia’s demands for a new division of interests are also a serious matter for Finland, although there is no immediate threat to Finland. Russia challenges the fundamental questions of the existence of states. Ukraine shows that the fate of small states is not in their own hands.

Expertise and knowledge of foreign policy and high security is also unfortunate in Parliament. It would be needed now that Russia and the West are moving into a different security policy situation.

Its own question is whether the changed relationship and the new situation between Russia and the West can be called a crisis or a solution. There must have been disagreements about that.

If solutions are seen as changing the European security order and NATO principles, the crisis will deepen. It would be dangerous if Russia’s blatant lying and ruthless intimidation proved to be effective ways to change the security order.

The risks of a narrowing of Finland’s security policy are real. Even now, confidence in the Western security community’s ability to resolve crises is fierce. More instability is known.

The author is the editorial editor of HS.