Why hurry to NATO now?
Like the Finnish government launching a process of reflection on the nation’s NATO membership, while the scary news of the war in Ukraine is flooding the media, all of us in the country need to stop to think about how this situation came about and where to turn now.
Perhaps we also need to consider why we have not sought NATO before.
This is not the first time Russia has attacked a neighboring country recently. We could mention the invasion of Afghanistan, which led many Western countries to boycott the Moscow Olympics. But not Finland.
Then there is the invasion of Georgia, the occupation of Czechoslovakia. – even bloody suppressors of pro-independence uprisings in Chechnya and Hungary.
All of these, of course, had unique historical and geopolitical circumstances. However, they all had two things in common:
A. These were events that shocked and shocked many Finns as they happened.
B. No Finnish government has ever even suggested that we consider joining NATO because of them.
Why now?
The suffering and deaths caused by the Russian invasion and the escape of more than four million refugees are certainly very shocking. Especially our modern access to graphic coverage of mainstream and social media. The public’s sympathetic response to the war victims is understandable and commendable.
But this may not be the main reason why the government now wants to consider joining NATO. Past conflicts were also frightening at the time and the attackers were often even more brutal.
An oft-quoted explanation for past stability, advocated by President Paasikivi after the last war – his successor, President Urho Kekkonen, learned that maintaining cordial relations with the country’s biggest neighbor was the cornerstone of Finland’s foreign relations. Finland must always remain a non-aligned people between East and West. From crisis to crisis, this was an instruction repeated by both Russian and Finnish leaders to keep the peace on the border.
What’s different this time? Apparently nothing. The border remains silent, and Russia has not made any attack with the exception of Putin’s warnings of supporting Ukraine’s war effort and joining NATO, which would have “consequences.” This is hardly different from previous conflicts. But Finland was left out of them, and the long peace continued.
In less than two weeks, Sanna Marin’s government changed everything. First with arms deliveries to Ukraine and now by starting this process of considering NATO membership. All the textbooks on the virtues of Finland’s non-alignment, its internationally recognized role as a peacekeeper and the convener of the Helsinki Conference, which created unrest between East and West – all went out of the window with the headline Lemming media ready to eat. Out of the hands of Marin and President Niinistö.
The defense security report, rented to Parliament before Easter, only obscures the government’s rationale for a worrying political withdrawal. The sudden turnaround in arms supplies to war zones is not even discussed. The growing threat to peace and security worldwide is also not due to the illegal espionage and cyber activities of the United States and its NATO allies, the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from agreements restricting nuclear weapons with Iran and Russia, not to mention the increase in illegal illegal activities. attacks.
The security of the world, and of Europe in particular, seems to depend on the coordinated opposition of non-aligned countries to these dangerous actions. It is quite the wrong time to join some of the worst criminals.
Why NATO now? This question is questionable, but the Finnish media hardly ask it – let alone criticism.
In 2015, during the Maidan crisis and after the President of Ukraine ousted good relations with the Russians, the US Congress and the Canadian government, both NATO countries, decided not to supply weapons to parts of the Ukrainian army such as the Azov Battalion and the right-wing sector due to neo-Nazi propaganda and racist attacks … Several credible sources (such as the Canadian Institute of Foreign Policy) mentioned Victoria Nuland, then U.S. Under Secretary of State, as the main manipulator of 2014. a coup to oust the president of Ukraine, which led many of the country’s Russians to flee to Donetsk and Luhansk in the east, both of which later declared independence. This started a civil war in Ukraine and could upset NATO countries such as the US and Canada to stop supporting weapons to right-wing terrorist elements – although in 2015 the United States changed its mind. Apparently getting to Russia was a priority.
Has Finland imposed any restrictions to prevent children or neo-Nazis from receiving weapons sent to Ukraine? Restrictions similar to those previously imposed by two NATO countries after apparent considerable intelligence work. Apparently not.
Finland had just agreed to buy five dozen modern fighter jets from NATO’s leading superpower. Hardly an MP, especially on the side of the government, was able to avoid the group of U.S. military lobbyists who attacked them before the deal was signed. One can suspect all these pro-NATO visitors who could join the government’s willingness to now start joining.
Do we really want to interfere with the arms shipments that could fall into the hands of neo-Nazis – and apparently even child fighters – in a war that apparently began with pro-NATO horrors and secret diplomatic movements? Just one example of the global intrigues and lawlessness of NATO’s leading power and other members that Assange and Snowden’s revelations revealed.
All indications are that Ukraine’s problems are largely due to the intrigues of the United States and its NATO allies, which are based on the doctrine of unrestricted enlargement. And in many other places, in addition to which they have attacked and bombed at a costly human cost – such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya to name a few. Such unprecedented and widespread attacks laid the groundwork for a new era of military violations of the UN Charter. Putin made clear notes at the time.
Is this the kind of league that Finland wants to participate in for security reasons? Especially now that Russia has responded militarily to NATO enlargement and neo-Nazism – even if these reasons seem rather exaggerated?
Does the continuation of humanitarian aid and committed peace diplomacy – which seems to be in short supply at the moment – not offer a better way? Defending peace has always required courage, but quite different from ringing a saber.
Is this uncertain and risky choice to enjoy NATO really better than seventy years of peace and security, based on a policy of non-alignment and peace-building, during which Finns have prospered and gained worldwide respect?
Ahti Tolvanen
Secretary General, Finnish Foreign Scholars Forum ry
Retired lecturer in social sciences from the University of Helsinki
Former reporter at Thomson Reuters
This is the opinion view “View”. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Helsinki Times. This column is not factually verified, and HT is not responsible for any inaccurate or misleading statements in this article.