Maria Stenroos
Nato Correspondent
Yle, Finnish Broadcasting Company
Finland
Maria.Stenroos@yle.fi
“If Putin called you to congratulate you on winning the presidential elections, would you answer the call?
This is a question sent from the audience to the two main candidates in February’s presidential elections in tv-broadcaster YLE’s final tv debate.
The winning candidate Alexander Stubb answered: “No, I wouldn’t answer.”
Over the last two years, Finland has made a huge turn in its foreign and security policy.
In one night, when Russia attacked Ukraine, the cornerstones of the Finnish foreign and security policy collapsed and had to be built again. Finland turned from a neutral, militarily non-allied country into a Nato member and a close partner of the United States.
The question and the answer to an imaginary call from the president of Russia is extremely interesting as it reflects the extent of how totally Finland’s rhetoric and attitude towards Russia have changed.
Before, Finland identified itself as part of the Western bloc but was careful not to irritate Russia. This came to an end when Finland asked for Nato membership in 2022 and joined the military alliance in 2023.
During the 2024 presidential election debates, there seemed to be a race between certain candidates, how hawkish their rhetoric on Russia could be and how militarist attitude Finland should take. There was demand for this from the voters.
It is not only the way of talking. The new era demands a lot: both practical military decisions and a massive political line drawing in security and defense.
One example of the new political debate and decision making is the nuclear policy: if Finland should change the legislation on nuclear energy to accept transiting nuclear weapons in the area.
The question of nuclear weapons is at the same time theoretical and very symbolic to the new thinking: if we have the nuclear deterrence of Nato, shouldn’t we be ready to host the weapons here on our territory temporarily?
Before, Finland had a common line with other Nordic countries of a non nuclear area.
Finland joined Nato because of the fear of aggression from Russia. The pace of joining was record-breaking. But once let in in the military alliance, what next? It was not discussed until recently, what the new status means in practice.
During the first months of Nato membership it was hard to define what the political will of Finland’s role in Nato was. In the Vilnius summit in July 2023, there was only the message of the need to get Sweden to Nato and keep the alliance united. There was no articulation of what Finland wanted from the alliance. That was only starting to be prepared behind the scenes.
Nato membership almost disappeared from the news the months after Vilnius. The topic was swiftly replaced by the new bilateral defense cooperation agreement ( DCA) made with the United States, praised by the politicians. In the public debate, DCA even seemed to be more concrete and important than Nato, although the agreement in reality is a technical consequence of the alliance.
Now, almost a year after the association, the first bigger line drawings are finally visible. Finland will participate in the peacetime posture of Nato air policing and maritime operations, in a moderate scale. In the command structure, Finland wants to be under Norfolk command together with the other Nordic countries. Finland is willing to host the nordic landforce command, to secure the Eastern border.
In Finland there still exists the myth of the Winter War, where Finland survived “alone”. In reality, during crises, Finland has always received help from other countries. Now, Finland studies how to make the defense plans together with other allies and how to have the identity of an allied state, which is not alone.
The public debate and political rhetoric on how we speak about Russia seems to have changed permanently. In the media and in politics, the discourse is straightforward.
Russia is named a totalitarian state with an evil leader, ready for cruel warfare.
During the first months of Russian aggression the Finns loved reading news on how bad tactics, morality, logistics and weapons the Russians had. The Ukrainians were heroic.
But the war continued and the dynamics on the frontline changed. Russia seemed to learn fighting and succeeded better. It was not scared of losses of lives of its own soldiers or civil victims. The tone in the public debate became more pessimistic: Ukraine could lose the war.
When the war in Ukraine one day is over, Russia will again shape up, rebuild its army and possibly still have an aggressive stance. The scenarios of Russia attacking Nato countries in some time frame are discussed. In Finland there is very little political questioning on the growing defense budget or new armament.
Though there are the new tough words in political and public rhetoric and though Finns now have both Nato and the DCA, the fear of Russia is still there.