Finnish view on the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine
On April 7th, INCIPE held a meeting under the title Finnish view on the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, where Finland’s perception in relation to the invasion of Ukraine was discussed. This activity involved the participation of Mika Aaltola, Director of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA). The gathering was hosted by the Secretary General of INCIPE and Ambassador of Spain, Manuel Alabart; and moderated by Vicente Garrido, Director of INCIPE and chairman of the event.
When the invasion of Ukraine took place, some questions begun to arise about Russia, its objectives and Russian power over the international order. In the first place, as Mika Aaltola asserts, Russia does not have the status of a global superpower China or the United States enjoy. Instead of this, Russia is more of a regional power. This is the reason why the power transition theory and the application of this theory by Russia has been on the spotlight lately. The country is using the force as an instrument to show its power on the European stage and change the international order to a multipolar world.
It is not the first time that a country has attempted a power transition, since it usually happens once or twice every century. In addition, the recent invasion of Ukraine is just a sign that the worst is yet to come, due to the fact that Russia’s intention to change the international order began in 2008 already. This war, considered as a mere reactive operation, was relatively short and successful from the Russian perspective. However, six years later, the invasion of Crimea occurred. This invasion was based on proactive principles since it was a reaction to the political change that was taking place in Ukraine at the time.
For these reasons, the beginning of the war in Ukraine on February 24th is highly significant if seen from multiple perspectives. Before the invasion took place, Russia put forward a list of demands that included the need for the country to have a say in its neighboring countries’ matters related to security and defense, including Sweden and Finland, as well as a reverse of NATO position on the eastern flank, among others. These demands aimed to revert the security order that was established in Helsinki in 1975, and institutionalized at the end of the Cold War. From the Finnish perspective, these aspects were the central thrive for Finland to change its attitude towards joining NATO. As stated by the director of FIIA, “what happens in Ukraine does not stay in Ukraine”.
Dealing with an autocratic country like Russia it is not a simple task and Finland is aware of it. The Finlandisation model forced the country to be neutral. However, the events of 2008 marked a tipping point in Finno-Russian relations, and causing a further deterioration when invading Crimea. Because of this, Finland has approved and accepted the sanctions imposed by the European Union. Based on experience, the Finnish country highlights the containment of Russia as a key element when war is being used as a mean of doing policy.
To conclude, two options in relation to defense lurk in Finland’s and Sweden’s future: to become a member of NATO or to establish a Sweden-Finland defense alliance with security guarantees that would represent a halfway solution between the NATO adhesion and the current situation. The sense of collective defense, adds Mr. Aaltola, has always been present in the country; “national defense is collective defense in Europe given our geographical position so, why not belong to a collective defense alliance?”
Judit Anidjar
INCIPE
