Their press release marks a historic turning point. The President and Prime Minister of Finland said they were in favor this Thursday, May 12, of joining NATO “without delay”. The candidacy should be formalized on Sunday, May 15. Public opinion and the political class agree to put an end to the country’s military neutrality, in the context of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, with which Finland shares 1340 km of borders. Alexander Stubb, former Prime Minister of Finland (2014-2015), believes that this membership will be beneficial both for the military organization and its future Nordic member, soon to be joined in this process by Sweden. Maintenance.
L’Express: Isn’t Finland putting itself in danger by launching its NATO membership?
Alexander Stubb: I do not believe. Europe is cut in two now and this situation will last. With on the one hand a revisionist, aggressive, authoritarian Russia, and on the other hand, about forty European countries, democratic, which support freedoms and defend human rights and international cooperation. It’s the right time for her. The Russians are busy at another frontier. If there is a risk, it concerns hybrid attacks, in particular cyber, for which Finland is well prepared.
You have been defending this membership for a long time…
Yes, for 30 years. But public opinion was not in favor of it: half of Finns were against it and only 20% were for it. This has been reversed since February 24, with the invasion of Ukraine. The latest polls even give 76% for membership and 12% against and I am convinced that this will go beyond 80% with the position taken by the President and the Prime Minister. Without this war, Finland and Sweden would not have embarked on an accession process.
What benefits will this membership bring to your country?
This will improve European security, especially in the Baltic Sea. Finland will benefit from one of the most powerful military devices in the air, at sea and on land. It’s win-win. Finland has one of the largest European armies with 900,000 reservists, including 280,000 who can be mobilized immediately. It is also one of the most sophisticated on the continent, with a fleet of around 60 F-18 fighter jets and an order for 64 F-35s. We have a sophisticated anti-missile system, fully compatible with NATO, with which we have conducted numerous joint exercises and missions abroad – Kosovo, Afghanistan.
What particular expertise can Finland bring to NATO?
It has been very well prepared for cyberattacks since the one against Estonia in 2007. The Finnish team has moreover won, at the end of April, an exercise simulating a cyberattack, where NATO countries, including the United States, were located.
In what way were Finland and Sweden no longer, in practice, the militarily neutral countries that they officially are?
Finland ended its neutrality when it joined the European Union in 1995. This neutrality was a necessity and not an ideology, as in Sweden. The Finns have always had in their history the ability to change very quickly, depending on the circumstances. They declared their independence in 1917, at the time of the Bolshevik revolution. In the 1940s, they accepted a very difficult peace, with the loss of territory, including the towns where my grandparents and my father were born. Helsinki applied for membership of the European Union immediately after the dissolution of the USSR. And, now, does the same with NATO, after three months of conflict in Ukraine.
Finland experienced several wars against Russia during the 20th century. What lessons did she learn from it?
Our population remains very well prepared: military service is compulsory for men and the reserve participates in regular exercises. Our security is based on two essential points. First, geography: we will always be next to Russia. Second, the story: it’s about making the right decisions at the right time, like military neutrality after the Second World War and joining NATO now.
There are two additional approaches. The first is idealistic: we want to cooperate with a Russia that is a democratic, open, economically strong country. The second is realistic: we must remain on our guard with Russia, especially since Putin only understands the balance of power. That’s why Finland bought F-18s from the United States in the 1990s. It wasn’t to protect us from Stockholm. At the moment, the realistic approach dominates.
–>
Interview by Clément Daniez