In the candidates’ first exam, the top candidates’ foreign and security policy line was uniform, writes ‘s NATO special reporter Maria Stenroos.
Maria Stenroos
The first exam of the presidential elections held in four months was heard today in Kouvola.
The foreign policy line of the leading candidates is quite uniform at this stage, both regarding participation in NATO tasks and the money needed for defense. Of those who participated in Kouvola’s exam, only those seeking candidacy Paavo Väyrynen the view deviates to some extent from the mainstream.
Väyrynen, for example, would use the defense budget only to defend his own country and proposes an immediate ceasefire and peace negotiations in the war in Ukraine. The other candidates highlight their strong support for Ukraine and want to guarantee the resources necessary for Finland’s defense.
In the exam, the candidates were asked about their view of the state of the world and the gloomy assessment presented by the president.
President Sauli Niinistö spoke a couple of weeks ago in public about the threat of nuclear war. If the war escalated, even nuclear weapons could be used, and that would be the end, Niinistö warned. He repeated the same over the weekend to The New York Times in the interview.
The presidential candidates are not in the same position of responsibility bearer as the president.
The candidates consider escalation possible in principle. Mika Aaltola reminded that the nuclear powers are indirectly opposed. Pekka Haavisto reminded that the situation in Russia is unstable and asked if we would like the nuclear weapon button to be, for example, a person who attempted a rebellion, the deceased Yevgeny Prigozhin in the hands of such a person.
Although the threat is possible, based on the speeches of the candidates, it is not very likely from them. In the exam Olli Rehn, Jussi Halla-aho and Alexander Stubb translated their answer into a solution proposal: in order to avoid the expansion of the war, the West must support Ukraine quickly and strongly.
The differences between the leading candidates cannot be found in the broad lines of foreign policy. Everyone is strongly behind NATO and ready to spend the money needed for defense.
When we start talking about values in the next exams, we start to find differences.