Finland should have joined NATO earlier, says military history expert Emil Kastehelmi.
Kastehelmi, who studies social sciences in Turku, says that NATO should have been joined earlier.
– NATO is a clear military reference framework and a comprehensive security solution for Finland. When you follow the situation in Ukraine and think about the possibility that things would have gone differently there, this trip and the security situation could have become significantly more dangerous for Finland.
The position of Finland and the Finns changed quickly after Russia invaded Ukraine.
– Finland’s NATO process has been reactive, i.e. action was taken when the events started to roll over. I would have hoped for a more proactive view from our decision-makers. In Finland’s security situation, there was a gap for NATO to leave, which fortunately has now been filled.
Finland’s membership is already improving Sweden’s security situation
According to Kastehelmi, Finland would have been in the same position as Ukraine is now, if the attack had targeted Finland.
– Without NATO, Finland would be like an island in a conflict situation. If this option were realized, we would certainly have received material aid like Ukraine, but we would still be alone. The most important feature of NATO is that it is a military buffer against which Russia does not want to attack by conventional means, for example by launching a ground attack.
– When steel rolls across the border, tough military security is needed, which Finland now gets as a NATO member, sums up Kastehelmi.
According to Kastehelmi, Finland’s membership will significantly improve Sweden’s security situation, even though Sweden is not yet a member of NATO.
– Finland’s membership improves Sweden’s security position quite concretely. It is very difficult to see that Russia would have the resources to militarily disrupt Sweden as well. I believe that Sweden’s membership will be realized in a peaceful operating environment.