Editorial|Editorial
By joining NATO, Finland solved the problem that undermined its security position. There are new problems ahead in NATO, which should have been discussed already during the parliamentary elections.
Vthe looming fear of failure stifled the debate on Finland’s foreign and security policy and future NATO membership during the parliamentary elections. The ongoing NATO trip gave the parties a reason not to say anything about NATO.
The parties turned inward to celebrate income and expenditure. Feelings were kept under wraps about the long-term consequences of the geopolitical and geoeconomic upheaval initiated by Russia’s war of aggression. Security policy slipped into the election debates only because of the speeches of the Sdp chairman, Prime Minister Sanna Marini, which broke the foreign policy consensus. Marin was left alone in the debate over whether or not to deploy the decommissioned Hornet fighters to the war-torn Ukraine.
NATO elections were neither wanted nor obtained. It’s a shame because a year ago the real discussion about joining NATO didn’t take place. The decision on NATO was made under duress. When Russia began to draw the borders of its sphere of interest, the government of President Sauli Niinistö and Marin had to make a quick decision on an existential question for Finland in a situation whose risks were not fully disclosed to the citizens.
The elite would no longer have had reasons to hold back the discussion about Finland in NATO and Finland’s place in the world. Still, the NATO discussion did not take place again.
OFiinistö, Marin’s government and the parliament that concluded its work on Wednesday will go down in history because of the NATO decision. Finland joins NATO in the midst of a major upheaval in the organization. The NATO countries were not prepared for the era of strategic competition.
Finland and Sweden could not stay at Russia’s feet. The same observation was made elsewhere in the friction points of the superpower game. For Australians, the Aukus nuclear submarines are like the NATO decision for Finns and Swedes. The Philippines allowed the United States to have military bases in Southeast Asia. Germany’s and Japan’s big moves in security policy sealed the fact that there is no going back to the way things used to be.
“
NATO elections were neither wanted nor received in Finland.
China is watching what is happening in Europe. The relationship between Europe and the United States is also changing. Europe cannot survive on defense without the United States. At the same time, Europe fears a change of power in the White House. In the United States, Europe is required to increase its defense spending, but the idea of a too independent Europe is rejected.
Researchers describe the transatlantic relationship as a broken status quo: we can still get through it, but in the long run the situation is unsustainable.
Sunder our NATO membership, the war in Ukraine is moving to the next phase. As the scale of the war increases, the West makes a transition to a war economy.
Finland has a significant role to play in NATO as a military power in Northern Europe and the Arctic region. It changes the perception of Nordic cooperation: now we are talking about joint air forces and arms procurement. At the same time, we are fighting for the distribution of NATO’s resources.
Finland is always on Russia’s border, and in NATO Finland is part of both the Baltic defense and the Arctic region. The confrontation between the West and Russia is also accelerating in the Arctic region. As neighbors of Russia, Norway and Finland have a lot in common. In NATO, Norway naturally acts as a tutor for Finland and Sweden. It is a failure on NATO’s part that Sweden is still waiting in NATO’s lobby.
Before NATO membership, Finland’s foreign and security policy was defined by its relationship with Russia. Even though the relationship is broken, the United States and Russia, as nuclear weapons states, always keep some channel of communication open in one way or another. For Finland, the relationship between the EU and NATO with Russia is vital. Finland’s role in defining NATO’s relationship with Russia must also be discussed.
By joining NATO, Finland solved the problem that undermined its security position, but NATO is facing new problems. A more open discussion about security policy deepens the understanding of how we live in the midst of a shocking upheaval.
The editorials are HS’s positions on a current topic. The articles are prepared by HS’s editorial department, and they reflect the magazine principle line.
#Editorial #horror #stifled #discussion #NATO
