An expert glimpsed a situation where NATO would not necessarily come to Finland’s aid – Politicians are completely knocked out – 2024-03-05 05:06:21

The northern part of Finland, as an almost uninhabited area, would be the most suitable destination for Russia to test NATO, speculates a military analyst from the Royal Danish Defense Academy Anders Puck Nielsen again in a recent interview with Jyllands-Posten.

– Would the NATO countries be willing to take the risk of the third world war in order to take back a few hundred square kilometers of relatively deserted land in Lapland? He asks.

Special assistant to the Minister of Defense Antti Häkkänen (Kok). Ville Sipiläinen says that “all kinds of statements” have been presented recently, and the Minister of Defense does not need to comment on all of them.

– Of course, anything can potentially be such a place, says Sipiläinen.

– Every square centimeter must be defended together. If it is not defended, it practically destroys the whole idea of ​​NATO.

Russia has emptied its garrisons

Russia is “up to the ears” committed to Ukraine, reminds parliamentarian and former commander of the Defense Forces Jarmo Lindberg (kok).

– These are quite hypothetical [pohdintoja]. When you look at the situation behind Finland’s eastern border, Russia has emptied its ground forces garrisons, of which there are two brigades in the north. It would be challenging for Russia to do anything with these capabilities of the ground forces, when the capabilities are significantly much smaller than before the war. The Kola Peninsula has a northern fleet and air power capabilities, but they are not the kind to take anything over.

According to Lindberg, the question is therefore far-fetched in the short term and “strongly speculative” in the long term.

– If the war in Ukraine ever ends and Russia, which has boosted its military industry and economy, is able to restore those capabilities, the question will arise whether the reorganized military district of Leningrad will have such capabilities that there could be a risk of preparing for measures.

– NATO has had a principle in American English terms not an inch. In other words, not an inch of NATO territory will be given up. It would be particularly bad policy and would take away the credibility of the alliance’s common defense if it were announced that different countries have inferior territories.

The former commander of the Defense Forces, Jarmo Lindberg, was elected as an MP of the coalition in the 2023 parliamentary elections. Petteri Paalasmaa

“It’s bad”

Jukka Kopra (kok), chairman of the defense committee and vice-chairman of the Finnish delegation to the NATO Parliamentary General Assembly, says that the starting point is that NATO defends the national borders of the military alliance, and it will not be compromised in any way.

– The border holds, period. The security of Northern Finland is not compromised either, and even though it is sparsely populated, the defense there is in order. Yes, it will be bad if someone tries to come there by force.

– If a NATO country is attacked, and NATO does not defend itself, it destroys NATO’s credibility everywhere else in one fell swoop.

Kopra also trusts that the United States, which implements a long-term foreign policy, will continue to be a responsible contractual partner regardless of the outcome of the November presidential election. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s harsh NATO speeches have raised concerns about the alliance’s unity.

– The DCA, or defense cooperation agreement, underlines that [Yhdysvallat] is ready to defend the borders by force.

Kopra rarely considers living in itself a risk either.

– It’s not a risk from the point of view of defense, but from the point of view of the country’s development, it would otherwise be good if the entire country were inhabited and all areas would develop more or less evenly. Other strategic problems can arise from inequality.

Lindberg and Kopra are currently in Bruges, Belgium, at a meeting of the foreign affairs and defense committees of the EU countries.

It would mean the end of NATO

Puck Nielsen has speculated about it before. The former intelligence chief of the General Staff, MP Pekka Toveri (Kok) commented on Puck Nielsen’s speeches in Iltalehti in February. He believes that Russia’s eyes are more on the Baltics than on Northern Finland.

– Russia can take over the area and state that they are only protecting the Russian population from genocide. So what do you say in Lapland? “We came here to protect Finnish reindeer”? There aren’t terribly many Russians living in the direction of Lapland, Toveri says.

– In Lapland, Russia might be able to occupy some of the Finnish territory, which is almost empty of population. It would be extremely easy for NATO to concentrate power there, use long-range fire and destroy those forces from there, while the civilian population would not have to be worried about.

Comrade does not think it is likely that the NATO countries would fail to respond to even a small attack on the territory of a member state, because that would practically mean the end of the entire alliance.

– After that, no one could trust that NATO would come to the rescue. The defense alliance can only lose credibility once.