Nuclear weapons | Finland too will soon be protected by nuclear weapons – We have to think about how we feel about it, says the researcher

French president Emmanuel Macron stated in a TV interview on Wednesday that France would avoid using a nuclear weapon in a counterstrike if Russia attacked with nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

Macron’s comment drew criticism, because it was considered to have broken the general line of the military alliance in NATO, of which Finland will probably soon be a member. Along with the United States and Great Britain, France is one of the three nuclear weapons states in NATO.

“Part of the deterrence is not publicly speculating in which way in which situation nuclear weapons would be responded to,” Dutch Defense Minister Kasja Ollongren told the Financial Times.

Read more: Macron’s nuclear weapons speeches broke the line and aroused criticism in NATO countries

Defense Committee chairman, member of parliament of the coalition Antti Häkkänen emphasizes the role of NATO and the United States.

“The tightened nuclear rhetoric speaks to the fact that the role of the USA and the nuclear deterrent it creates as a counterforce to Russia is still crucial for Europe’s security. I would pay more attention to the speeches of the United States here,” he says.

Nuclear weapons strategy and nuclear deterrence have been associated with secrecy: revealing as little as possible to the other side. This gives rise to the concept of balance of horror. There is a deliberate smokescreen of mystery, Häkkänen reminds.

“This is so that deterrence remains high and so that preparing for a response would be increasingly difficult. The answer is tough if Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons, but we have not deliberately gone beyond that in this assessment,” Häkkänen assesses.

“In this sense, Macron’s comment seems to be a new kind of step.”

Häkkänen reminds that different countries have different core doctrines, i.e. policies.

This is also the case in France, says an expert on international politics Hanna Ojanen. France considers nuclear weapons to be its own or, more broadly, the protection of Europe, while the arsenals of Britain and the United States are the basis of NATO’s nuclear weapons doctrine.

“There is nothing special in Macron’s words in this sense, because the French president must naturally speak in the name of France,” Ojanen opined. He works as a research director at the University of Tampere. Ojanen has researched European foreign and security policy in particular.

Macron is not the only European influencer who has responded to Putin’s nuclear threats in recent days. Also High Representative for EU Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Spanish Josep Borrell stated on Thursday that Russia’s possible nuclear strike in Ukraine will be responded to – but not with nuclear weapons.

“Militarily, we will respond with such force that the Russian army will be destroyed,” Borrell said.

Ojanen thinks Macron and Borrell said out loud what many are thinking but not saying out loud.

“In my opinion, even within the NATO countries, there is rather a dominant thinking that a possible nuclear attack would be responded to very strongly, but not with nuclear weapons. In that case, there would also be no need to go to the same low level as Russia, that nuclear weapons are used. However, it is shown that even conventional weapons are so superior that they can destroy the Russian armed forces or the desired part of them.”

Is Borrell’s position also Finland’s position, research director Hanna Ojanen?

“Good question. Borrell is the highest representative of the common foreign and security policy, i.e. he outlines it, and the common policy also applies to us. On the other hand, nuclear weapons have not been on the EU’s agenda, so in that sense this is a new type of speech. In any case, Finland cannot at least wash its hands of what is said in the EU at that level.”

The Defense Committee in the opinion of leader Häkkänen, Borrell’s thinking differs from NATO’s official line. In his opinion, the question of whether Borrell’s thinking represents the EU line should be raised by the foreign minister Pekka Haavisto (green).

“The big lesson of this crisis about the relations between NATO and the EU has so far been that NATO manages the tough military security situation, and the EU manages a broad entity related to overall security, sanctions, the defense industry and humanitarian aid. Both roles are very important, but it’s not worth mixing up the roles too many times, which is what this is all about,” says Häkkänen.

In Häkkänen’s opinion, taking care of Europe’s military security does not directly belong to Borrell. “I would pay more attention here Jens Stoltenberg words”, says Häkkänen.

Norway’s Stoltenberg is the Secretary General of NATO, who, unlike Borrell, stated on Thursday that NATO does not reveal details of its way of responding to a possible nuclear attack. “If Russia uses any kind of nuclear weapon in Ukraine, the consequences would be serious,” Stoltenberg said.

Häkkäsen According to

“Rhetoric now is the same as it was during the Cold War, the same kind of art, and even in that frame of reference, the recent comments from the European continent are a new kind of thinking out loud,” says Häkkänen.

Read more: Biden: Nuclear weapons as a threat for the first time since the Cuban missile crisis

“We don’t know what the USA’s or Russia’s actual operating model is like. They don’t even share information with their allies. I trust that the USA is well informed about the game, which is played publicly and behind the scenes.”

Häkkänen also says that he trusts that the United States and Russia have a connection in the matter.

“In the end, neither side can win a nuclear war. Yes, it is known in the Kremlin. Conventional warfare, no matter how brutal and bloody it is, is still far from the amount of destruction that would be caused by a nuclear war. China is also aware that the use of nuclear weapons will change the entire international politics completely differently, and in that situation Russia will very likely be left alone.”

Read more: Putin does not have an exit strategy, says diplomat René Nyberg

Research Director Hanna Ojanen estimates that Macron’s and Borrell’s speeches could spark a welcome discussion in Finland about the role of nuclear weapons. Finland used to be known as a country pushing for disarmament, but we are currently applying to become a member of NATO under nuclear deterrence.

Nuclear weapons have not been discussed in Finland, says Ojanen.

“In Finland, we should form a position on whether it is acceptable for Finland to be defended with nuclear weapons and how these weapons are viewed in general: what is the long-term goal regarding nuclear weapons, and how NATO’s nuclear weapons doctrine should be viewed in general.”

Ojanen reminds us how the EU’s own security and defense policy has made enormous progress this year. “Borrell’s words were clear and strongly spoken by the EU. This is the new EU,” he says.

“For now, the EU will certainly leave the nuclear weapons to France and NATO, but later, when the war is over and Russia is certainly weak, then there could be a prospect of discussing nuclear weapons in the EU as well.”

Nuclear disarmament is a difficult nut to crack, Ojanen admits.

“Nuclear disarmament is everyone’s pious wish and goal, but what makes it difficult is that no one wants to be the first to give it up.”