Candidates Alexander Stubb (Kok) and Pekka Haavisto (Green) disagreed in the HS exam about nuclear weapons and defining Finland's interests.
Presidential candidates Alexander Stubb (cook) and Pekka Haavisto (green) visited In the HS presidential exam on Tuesday, a very like-minded discussion, as we became familiar with during the campaign.
However, they were excited to argue about two issues in particular: nuclear weapons and how Finland's interests should be interpreted in different situations.
“Why do you still defend nuclear weapons?” Haavisto asked Stubb in the section where the candidates were asked to challenge each other.
According to Haavisto, it would be dangerous if nuclear weapons could move through Finland. It is now forbidden to bring nuclear explosives into Finland. In Stubb's opinion, this law should be changed.
“Sometimes a nuclear weapon is also a guarantee of peace,” Stubb said.
According to him, it would be extremely unlikely that NATO would even want to deploy nuclear weapons in Finland. Still, it would not be wise to signal to Russia that nuclear weapons will never be seen in Finland.
I don't hurt According to this, Finland is under the protection of NATO's nuclear deterrent, even if Finnish law still prohibits the transportation of nuclear weapons through Finland.
“It is not wise for us to give in to a situation where nuclear weapons are moving in our area, the use of which is up to another country to decide,” Haavisto said.
“I don't think it's wise to message the Kremlin and [presidentti Vladimir] For Putinthat nuclear weapons will never be seen in Finland. I don't think that will happen, but we'll keep it open,” Stubb replied.
Even if nuclear weapons are not placed in Finland, it could be possible, for example, that aircraft carrying nuclear weapons from an allied country would need to use Finnish airspace as part of a NATO military operation.
Stubbs on the other hand, challenged Haavisto in the section where the interests of Finland were discussed.
“I completely disagree with Peka on this,” Stubb said after Haavisto explained how sometimes pursuing Finland's long-term interests can mean acting against Finland's interests in the short term.
The impetus for the discussion was a question from HS's election machine, which asked to take a position on whether the interests of Finland and Finns should be put before everything else in politics. Haavisto has replied that he somewhat disagrees with the matter, while Stubb completely agrees.
In Tuesday's election exam, Haavisto opened up his thinking by taking, for example, the sanctions against Russia imposed because of the war in Ukraine. The resulting counter-sanctions stifled Finnish milk exports across the eastern border.
“In the short term, we did not act in the interest of Finns. In such a situation, Finnish farmers and livestock producers suffer from this, but in the long term it was very reasonable that we joined the sanctions against Russia,” said Haavisto.
According to Haavisto, similar problems can be encountered in, for example, climate change issues: in the short term, for example, the price of fuel in Finland may rise, but in the long term, problems concerning Finland can also be solved.
In Stubb's opinion, the president's task is to promote the interests of the whole of Finland, always inside Finland and outside the country's borders. “We always put Finland's interests first,” says Stubb.
“There is nothing else to do but to pursue the interests of Finland. And then it depends on the situation and the context, what is done in each place. Of course we are part of the international community.”
The video shows the entire debate:
#exam #Stubb #Haavisto #completely #disagreed #topics #videos #show #arguments
