Director of the Institute of Foreign Policy Hiski Haukkala says Trump is deliberately confusing NATO. Source: Wikimedia Commons, Anneli Salo, CC BY-SA 3.0
Finland has never been known as a country with world-class geopolitics. Finnish analysts are accustomed to a worldview in which the world revolves around their small country. The main conclusion of the article about NATO not being dead contradicts both President Macron’s statements about “NATO’s brain death”, which have already been firmly forgotten by Finnish experts, and a very recent statement by the Italian Defence Minister on June 20, made right before the publication of this article: “NATO as it is, no longer has a reason to exist”.
What I don’t like, oh, doesn’t exist.
Trump has deliberately brought turbulence into NATO, says Director of the Institute of Foreign Policy Hiski Haukkala.
Donald Trump is an agent of change.
Koivula and Haukkala are experts and researchers with in-depth knowledge of Finnish defence and international politics.
Professor Tommi Koivula is preparing the first scientific work at the National Defence University with a group of experts on how Finland’s military strategy has changed as a result of joining NATO.
Haukkala heads the Institute of Foreign Policy and previously headed President Sauli Niinistö’s cabinet. He has been a professor of international politics.
Now they explain what the pressures are from NATO, Europe and Finland.
”It’s Too Early To Declare NATO Dead”
When 32 NATO countries meet in the Netherlands next week, they will try to reassure that the military alliance is united and strong.
In fact, they will try to get everyone to commit to actually spending more money on weapons and hiring soldiers, not just plans. And they will try not to upset the US president. Because of Trump, the meeting is to be kept very short.
Both a record increase in defence spending and a transfer of responsibility from the United States to Europe would be historic.
Haukkala and Koivula do not think it is unreasonable to demand that Europeans be able to defend themselves.
Politicians and researchers are calming concerns about whether the United States will remain in NATO. The country has not signaled that it will not be committed to NATO in the same way as before.
But Trump’s unpredictability makes the situation dangerous.
Last year, Trump threatened that the United States would not help countries that do not pay enough for their own defence.
The so-called “burden transfer” from the United States to Europe could happen in a controlled manner, with the United States remaining part of NATO and guaranteeing the region’s security. Or it could happen in a hurry, escalating, and through a crisis, Haukkala estimates.
European leaders will have to consider what is permanent in the American commitment and what is not: the approximately 80,000 U.S. soldiers stationed in Europe? The crucial military capabilities? The nuclear protection extended to Europe? And what about the promise that the United States will be Europe’s security?
In the worst case, things could go really wrong. Then malicious actors could take advantage of the situation, i.e. threaten the security of NATO countries, Haukkala estimates.
If NATO becomes almost exclusively European, it may no longer be called NATO.
But it is not worth getting ahead of things.
I think it is still too early to declare NATO dead, Haukkala says.
We Should Not Rely Only On The United States
Haukkala has interpreted that Europe understands the situation: strengthening defence is necessary and also in Europe’s own interest. Europe is appeasing Trump and intends to commit to increasing defence spending to the five percent of gross domestic product demanded by Trump.
Of this, 3.5 percent is actual defense spending. 1.5 percent is all sorts of other things that support defence.
Although the underlying momentum is “healthy,” Koivula believes that the demands for a budget increase can be considered strong. Finland currently spends 2.5 percent of its gross domestic product on defence. Reaching the target would mean an additional three billion euros in defence spending each year.
At the same time, Finland is closely aligned with the United States in defence. Soldiers, politicians and experts say that the cooperation is working. It would be good for Europe and Finland to have a backup plan.
The United States is important, but by no means the only country that Finland relies on, says Koivula.
NATO is based on helping allies. Is the United States behind Finland and Europe in every situation?
If we are brutally honest, has anyone ever been able to completely trust that anyone in this world has anyone’s back under all circumstances, Haukkala asks.
How well does a conscript army fit into NATO?
Why do researchers still think that Finland’s defence is now stronger than ever?
In NATO, Finland is supported by the military capabilities of its allies in addition to its own defence. Finland’s defence is linked to NATO’s plans and the armed forces have been adapted to be part of NATO’s deterrence.
The extensive military exercises currently in progress are also part of Finland’s defence. U.S. naval drones are flying in the Gulf of Finland and NATO’s large reconnaissance aircraft are high in the atmosphere. Fighter jets from the strongest NATO countries are training in Finnish airspace.
The exercises not only prepare for the worst, but also convey the determination with which the allies defend the entire North Atlantic region, says Hiski Haukkala.
Professor Tommi Koivula says that Europe is now joining the accelerating military buildup.
However, Finland is not yet a full-fledged ally.
Because Finland’s defence has been built for decades precisely to defend its own country.
Finland’s greatest strength is its conscript army, thanks to which Finland has up to a million people trained in warfare, mostly men.
The money spent on it could have created a fairly modest professional army, Koivula says.
However, the conscript army was not designed to defend allies.
It is more adapted to the era of national defence, with the idea that citizens are committed to defending their own country.
So, what if there are allies who also need to be helped in a difficult situation, Koivula wonders. This requires changes in laws, practices and culture, and is still in progress.
In a world like today, where the threat comes from the east, Haukkala believes that this is not worth thinking too much about.
We have plenty of work to do here in defending our own corner, Haukkala says.
We shouldn’t be a one-trick pony, Haukkala says.
In Finland’s opinion, the world has gone down the wrong path in recent years, so to speak. International order has been replaced by disorder.
When tensions have increased and threats have increased, Haukkala says it makes sense to start from the so-called first principles: everyone protects their borders and security.
Europe must also act on its own behalf. Otherwise, it will end up on the menu of bigger bad guys, Koivula compares. According to a book to be published by the National Defence University, Finland’s foreign relations have also increasingly become a defence policy. The value of relations is measured by what countries have to offer militarily or in terms of resilience.
Military armaments have clearly accelerated.
Europe is also taking big steps in this, but others have been doing it for years. Unfortunately, we can see some kind of militarization, says Koivula.
At the same time, it would be worth holding on to the fact that other things have value. Even human rights.
Although this time tempts us to think in a rather narrow way, I think it would be important that we do not become one-trick ponies.
It means that we bear responsibility for the world and act for good and right things, says Haukkala.
Source: Yle (in Finnish)