NATO | Kimmo Kiljunen used to strongly oppose Finland’s NATO membership – now he wrestles with at least two arguments in opposite directions: “A sensitive, sensitive, sensitive matter”

YearN 2019 According to polls conducted during the parliamentary elections, the vast majority of MPs were strongly opposed to NATO membership.

However, since the start of the war in Ukraine, it has been difficult for parliamentarians critical of NATO to get a clear answer from NATO.

Citizens’ support for NATO membership is increased in opinion polls at a historic pace. Finland’s foreign and security policy as a whole is in turmoil.

Congressman Kimmo Kiljunen (sd) has been one of NATO’s staunch opponents for decades. He has also criticized, among other things The large number of new fighters purchased by Finland.

Now, too, he no longer detaches the absolute position of NATO.

“I answer that I am not putting myself anywhere at all right now. In the sense that the position has changed, that in the past my position was that definitely not to NATO. Previously, my argument was that NATO membership exposes Finland to the forefront and party to the potential great power conflict, ”says Kiljunen.

According to Kiljunen, all alternatives must now be carefully examined and only from the perspective of Finnish security.

“However, I am still called an opponent of NATO because I have said that right now, in the acute situation of war, it is not the right time to make a decision on a military alliance but to investigate and find out what has really changed.”

Is it right for democracydo not tell MPs how their NATO position has changed as a result of the war in Ukraine?

“About me this is not a bad line but a matter of course. We must remember that we have a crisis. On the other hand, there is no direct threat to Finland now, and we are not in the position of forcing the people to squeeze some other position than we have now. We can decide that collective protection is better for Finland’s security, but then we must also be prepared to take the first attacks in the worst of the great power crisis, ”says Kiljunen.

“Here we need to give a little time to the process of reflection, which, however, I understand, is about months. However, it is a decision of the century. ”

“

“It would be insanely brave to throw a stock right now without an analysis of the rapidly changing situation.”

Political Science Dr. Kiljunen is an expert in the SDP’s long-standing foreign and security policy. He is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Grand Committee and the Defense Committee. He speaks in Russia and studied for a year in Kiev.

He says there is a time in NATO’s position formation before and after February 24, when Russia invaded Ukraine.

Parliament is likely to begin addressing the government in April Report on the war in Ukrainewhich also examines a possible application for NATO membership.

“It would be insanely brave to throw a stock right now without an analysis of the rapidly changing situation. I also want to figure it out myself, and I’m currently making a book about it. I just read Paasikivi’s diaries and Koivisto and study recent events carefully. This is a huge thing. ”

Kiljusen the reflection is guided by two nuclear arguments.

“First, geography is still valid.”

Kiljunen refers to the Finnish border of more than 1,300 kilometers. Finland has more in common with Russia than all NATO countries combined.

He says that as a military alliance, Finland would be in danger of becoming a party to major conflicts and, due to its long borders, becoming the front of the conflict and the target of first attacks.

The second argument is in favor of NATO.

According to it, Finland alone would be in a weaker position than in a situation where it has the collective protection offered by a military alliance.

According to Kiljunen, these two arguments are true at the same time.

“The second argument is just as valid as the first, because Russia has broken the principle of common security by attacking its neighbor.”

He says that Finland is not alone in the same way as it was in the Winter War. Or as Ukraine is now.

“We are members of the European Union. Membership is much more than just military security or whether or not EU Security Guarantee Article 42.7 is in force. It is about cohesion security, which comes from common assessments, currency, freedom of movement, and a common internal market and legislation. If this entity were to be attacked and the EU did not fight it together, it would be the end of the EU and pretty much the end of the world. ”

Kiljunen points out that although the EU is not a military alliance, its member states have a total of four times larger defense budgets than Russia.

And no the arguments here remain.

Kiljunen reminds that Finland’s longest period of peace has been achieved when Finland has been outside the military alliances and an outsider has not been able to interpret that Finland’s territory is being used against anyone.

“As a member of the military alliance, there will be a different interest in this, because Finland can be tied into the conflicts of other countries.”

And more:

“We are very close to the fact that Finland may consider joining the military alliance, but in that situation it does not matter when that would happen. There is a terrible danger here that Ukraine’s war will escalate, and Finland’s NATO application may be one of the things that increases this danger of escalation. There is a war in Europe, and it is wise to think that there is no reason to escalate the situation now. ”

According to Kiljunen, it is a big threat that Finland will become a “football player in other countries”. This means that due to the risk of escalation, Finland’s membership could be decided on grounds other than those related to Finland’s security.

“Now we have to think at least 13 or 15 times what it would mean to change the line that has guaranteed a stable situation in the North after the Second World War in one fell swoop. A delicate, delicate, delicate matter. ”

What happens if Russia ends the war in Ukraine and drags its army to the Finnish border and says ‘you are not looking for NATO’?

“I I wouldn’t go to the polls at all. Russia always finds a justification if it wants to attack. ”

However, he says that the situations in Ukraine and Finland are different.

According to Kiljunen, the war in Ukraine is a quake in the process of the break-up of the Soviet Union. “This is the last point of frozen conflicts. After the attack, the geographical concept of the Soviet empire has disintegrated. It no longer exists because Ukraine’s identity has changed irreversibly as a result of the attack. “

According to Kiljunen, another core dimension of the war is that Russia was above all afraid of Ukraine’s Europeanization and the development of democracy.

“From the point of view of the Russian leadership, it was above all a matter of protecting the authoritarian regime, which was threatened by the example of open democracy in the former Soviet Union.”

Kiljusen In this sense, Finland is a different matter from Ukraine.

Finland is not a former part of the Soviet Union, and Finland’s long-standing open democracy is not a catalyst that would set in motion a process of democratization that would threaten Russia’s power machinery.

“Instead, Putin’s speeches and actions set in motion an unprecedented force in Finland that could lead to NATO membership.”

Read more: The Ministry for Foreign Affairs has started preparing a “comprehensive” foreign and security policy report – this is how decision-making on possible NATO membership will proceed in Finland

Read more: Finland’s accession to NATO would be primarily a loss of prestige for Russia, says the expert – What would joining the military alliance change?

Read more: Would Finland’s road to NATO be a hotbed? One of the strongest countries in the military alliance may stand in the way of membership