Russia has made threats with nuclear weapons part of its warfare in Ukraine.
No sharp answers have been heard from NATO regarding Russia’s nuclear weapons development, even though Russia’s speeches are dangerous.
– We have not seen significant changes in Russia’s nuclear weapons power that would cause the need to change our nuclear weapons performance, says NATO’s head of nuclear weapons policy Jessica Cox.
Still, threats cannot be dismissed with a shrug. It is serious and worrying.
– We have to be ready for the worst. We can’t say that these are just baseless threats and don’t need to be taken seriously, Cox estimates.
He visited Helsinki last week at the Helsinki Security Forum.
Researcher at the Foreign Policy Institute Jyri Lavikainen explains why NATO’s comments have been so moderate. There are two reasons. First, NATO seeks to avoid playing into Russia’s pocket. Second, NATO has already reacted, hidden from the public.
Lavikainen says that the United States and NATO understand that the goal of Russia’s nuclear rhetoric is to scare the general public. If NATO joins this game, it will help Russia in this goal.
– NATO doesn’t need to brag about its goals. NATO’s goal is to communicate directly to the Russian leadership, and that conversation does not have to be held in public.
NATO wants to stay away from war and emphasizes that it is different from Russia, says the research director Hanna Ojanen from the University of Tampere.
– It does not want to directly respond to Russia, but nevertheless let it be known that it can always respond if it comes to that.
In recent weeks, there has been speculation whether Russia is preparing or possibly has already conducted nuclear tests on the island of Novaya Zemlya in the north. A nuclear test could be one of Russia’s ways to provoke and show that it is serious.
Despite this, NATO’s public response is that there are no significant changes so far.
A return to the settings of the Cold War
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year made nuclear weapons a reality for young people born after the Cold War. For others, the discomfort of past decades has returned.
But the Cold War started to return already in 2014, when Russia occupied Crimea and started fighting in eastern Ukraine.
It was noticed in the West at that time that it is time to turn the course back to NATO’s original tasks, to defend the alliance. At the same time, NATO returned nuclear weapons to its plans, which are called strategic concepts, Lavikainen says.
According to NATO Cox, Russia has continued to develop its nuclear weapons during the war. It also tries to keep the West away from helping Ukraine.
– Putin’s message is that they have all the means at their disposal. These are very serious threats, says Cox.
NATO is modernizing its nuclear weapons
How has NATO prepared, in Cox’s words, for the “worst”, in practice, for Russia actually using a nuclear weapon? By checking that its nuclear deterrent is adequate. The last lock in NATO’s deterrence is nuclear weapons.
The United States, Great Britain and France have nuclear weapons from NATO countries.
The largest holder of weapons, the United States, has begun to update its nuclear arsenal with several modernization programs. For example, the new generation stealth fighters may carry nuclear weapons in the future.
US weapons are sprinkled in some European countries, the names of which have not been officially disclosed. According to several sources, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey have the weapons, and Greece has the capability to transport the weapons.
According to media sources, Poland has been interested in keeping US nuclear weapons.
NATO’s head of nuclear weapons, Jessica Cox, says there is no such thing to discuss now.
– We are not doing anything now to consider changes to where the weapons are placed in Europe.
Jyri Lavikainen of the Foreign Policy Institute also considers it unlikely that weapons would be transferred or other major changes would be made.
Most likely, the changes are that pilots are being trained or a base is being ordered, says Lavikainen.
– Deterrence can be ensured without placing weapons in a certain place.
Finland is learning nuclear deterrence
As a recent member of NATO, Finland is in a situation where it should form a view on nuclear weapons.
There is no need to rush here, but officials are waiting for guidelines from politicians in the coming months.
According to US sources, Finland does not seem to have great passions for getting weapons. Core competence is also scarce in Finland. More knowledge is acquired in a hurry.
Researcher Jyri Lavikainen estimates that Finland applied to NATO because of nuclear weapons. He believes that politicians have analyzed that Russia might not have attacked Ukraine if Ukraine had been a member of NATO.
– After all, Finland has joined NATO without self-imposed restrictions. That doesn’t mean we’re doing everything possible. But Finland leaves the possibilities open to maximize its maneuverability.
There are reasons for Lavikainen’s interpretation. When Finland’s political leadership considered joining NATO, nuclear weapons were part of this whole. Ultimately, joint defense and deterrence relies on the use of nuclear weapons.
Tampere University’s Hanna Ojanen sees it differently. According to him, Finland’s open approach to nuclear weapons policy may mean that Finland does not want to take a position at this stage and at least not criticize the nuclear weapons thinking of the United States.
The central basis of Finland’s foreign policy before NATO membership was disarmament and arms control.
– When we talk about what Finland has to offer to NATO in particular, at some point it may come to the point that Finland has knowledge in this matter, Ojanen suggests.
The transfer of nuclear weapons would be a common solution
Finland has started its path in nuclear weapons policy by joining the groups dealing with the matter in NATO.
Minister of Defense Antti Häkkänen (co.) participates in the meetings of the nuclear weapons planning group. Officials sit at more practical tables.
Last year, NATO exercised among 14 countries in Belgium. A similar nuclear weapons exercise will take place this year as well. 15 countries participate in it, and the training takes place somewhere in southern Europe.
Finland does not say whether it intends to participate in the training. No, even if there are a variety of roles in the exercises, from transporting bombshells representing nuclear bombs to maintenance work and observation. In general, no country announces its participation.
Naton Cox welcomes Finland to the exercises. He does not comment further on the matter.
What if Poland or – hypothetically – Finland wanted to take nuclear weapons on their soil? This would require time-consuming and thorough consideration among all members.
– NATO does not dictate what should or should not be done.
In order to decide to place nuclear weapons somewhere, it should make sense for the whole community.
– Participation is a national responsibility, but it is also a big joint decision of the members, says Cox.
What thoughts does the story evoke? The topic can be discussed until Sunday, October 8 at 11 p.m.