In Defence of Democracy: Walking the Talk

According to security analyst Benjamin Tallis, a new, values-based approach to geopolitics is emerging from Eastern Europe: neo-idealism. Does this label fit Finland?

"I struggle a bit with the prefix 'neo'. Democracy and the rule of law have a long history as cherished values. What is new is that we are now starting to walk the talk. We’re more determined to defend these values, taking inspiration from the Ukrainians.

However, realpolitik is also on the rise. Sometimes, idealists and realists advocate the same policies, so it’s not easy to draw a line between them. But as far as I understand neo-idealism, I consider myself part of that school."

One important aspect of neo-idealism is that it rejects a world in which great powers impose their will on smaller states in their 'spheres of influence'. 

"If great power politics were all that mattered, for a small nation like Finland, it would mean that our values didn’t count. We would end up outsourcing our decision-making to more powerful countries. This is a cynical approach that should not go uncriticised. Of course, great powers have a bigger say in the current world, but we Finns should still speak out about the world we aspire to. We are responsible for our own decisions and for the values on which we base them.

Finnish president Alexander Stubb advocates 'values-based realism'. How do you assess that approach?

"It’s a convenient pairing of words. Depending on the situation, more emphasis can be put on values or on realpolitik. The concept is so flexible that it can hardly be called a guiding principle or strategy. But it’s a pretty accurate description of Finland’s foreign and security policy. We are vocal about our values, but we also need to cooperate with regimes that don’t share these values, especially since Trump’s re-election."

Was it wise for Stubb to play golf with Trump at Mar-a-Lago?

"I think so. It was probably a smart way to convey our views to Trump. But this kind of friendliness isn’t without its pitfalls. First, there must be no misunderstanding: we stand firmly to protect the sovereignty of European nations. That of Denmark, for example, which is threatened by Trump now that he wants to annex Greenland, not ruling out military force. The Finnish government should clearly communicate to European allies where we stand.

Second, we must be careful not to mislead people. Some Finnish politicians are reluctant to describe the situation in the US as it is. This creates the danger of underestimating the risks posed by the Trump regime. Some may be led to think that the current U.S. is an ally like any other, that it abides by treaties and agreements. When politicians put on a show, some people may actually believe it – and the politicians may start to believe in it themselves.

As a member of parliament, I don’t feel constrained from criticising the Trump administration – or any other government, for that matter. Being able to speak freely is a key element of liberal democracy. However, I have experienced some push-back from colleagues especially in the government parties when I said that the government should consider different scenarios for defence planning, including one under which the US is no longer committed to NATO. Some politicians prefer not to face up to that scenario."

What should we do if the US is no longer willing to come to the defence of its European allies?

"We must reinforce European deterrence, build a strong European pillar within NATO. Strengthening our military capabilities and our defence industry to the point where we are no longer reliant on the US will require a major effort. We should have started much earlier.

The trickiest part, of course, is nuclear deterrence. I’m all for nuclear disarmament, but the chances of that are slim with today’s Russia. We need an honest and analytical debate on the role that French and British nuclear weapons could play in defending European NATO. What are the options? Could these weapons form a European nuclear umbrella even if France and the UK keep the final say on their use? If so, what would Paris and London expect from their European partners in terms of burden sharing? After all, it’s not cheap to maintain a nuclear arsenal."

Ukraine is our first line of defence against Russian imperialism. Should our goal be to help the Ukrainians defeat Russia in Ukraine?

"It should have been our goal. We should have given much more military support to Ukraine before the 2022 full-scale invasion and immediately afterwards. Now it’s hard to foresee an outright victory for Ukraine. Even if we sent all our weapons to Ukraine, it would still face a shortage of military personnel. Realistically, the best we can probably achieve now is a stronger position for Ukraine at the negotiating table. This would still require massive arms deliveries, support for Ukraine’s defence industry, and tougher sanctions against Russia."

European boots on the ground could alleviate Ukraine’s military personnel problem. You have publicly put forward this option.

"Indeed, I said my country should be open to this. To free up Ukrainian military personnel, European troops could take over certain tasks, such as air defence, military training inside Ukraine, or the protection of its borders with Belarus and Transnistria – all without directly confronting Russian troops. If there were an international coalition willing to put boots on Ukrainian ground, even without a ceasefire, Finland would do the right thing by taking part. I’m quite frustrated that, in Finland and elsewhere, many politicians and parties refuse to even discuss this. If we say that we will do whatever it takes to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty, this option should be on the table."

All of Europe is trying to learn from Finland's comprehensive security model. What lessons would you want to convey?

"First of all, a cross-sectoral approach is needed. Not only all branches and levels of government but also the private sector must be part of a country’s security strategy, planning for different types of contingencies. Frequent training is also crucial, including tabletop exercises where emergency scenarios are simulated. Even in Finland, we should be practising more. During the Covid-19 pandemic, gaps in preparedness came to light. I worry that we are a bit complacent. Another lesson relates to crisis-proofing infrastructure. You need to go beyond efficiency and build in resilience. This takes time, so start now.

The welfare state plays a crucial role in our security model, since it fosters mutual trust and common purpose. People must feel they belong to a society where everyone has a role, and no one is left behind. Then they will care not only about their own safety but also about that of their society. To be honest, Finland is facing challenges in this regard. We’ve seen a lot of cuts in social benefits and support systems. We need to ask ourselves whether, by doing this, we are dismantling a key part of our defence."

Finland is committed to the international rule of law. Yet it intends to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty that bans antipersonnel landmines. Is that a painful step for the Finnish Greens?

"Of course it is. Limiting the use of weapons that cause massive civilian casualties was a big step forward for human civilisation. But the problem with the Ottawa Treaty has always been that several key countries are not party to it. These include Russia, an increasingly unfriendly neighbour that could invade us anywhere along our 1,300-kilometre shared border. Landmines are an effective way to slow down the advance of an attacking force.

If it gets to the point where we have to deploy landmines in a war, we must be extremely careful. The most horrible killing and maiming of civilians occurs during or after chaotic, civil-war-like conflicts. If Finland uses landmines, it should do so… I don’t like the word 'responsibly', but in an orderly way. Still, we shouldn’t delude ourselves that the army can perfectly map the mines it plants in the fog of war. There will be some collateral damage. 

In the Finnish parliament, I have stated that, while I support our withdrawal from the treaty, we should be aware of the international repercussions of such a move. It’s an awkward step to take at a time when we need to fight for the hearts and minds of people all over the world, if only to get support for our sanctions against Russia. Finland’s decision to produce and stockpile landmines again will be difficult to understand for many citizens and governments in the Global South, especially in places where landmines from past conflicts still take a human toll. We need to argue our case clearly: we are doing this because it is essential to protect our democracy. We should also assist countries in the Global South with landmine clearance. That would be a form of damage control with respect to human lives, Finland’s reputation, and the international order."

Finland faces a similar dilemma regarding the instrumentalisation of migrants. Russia has been funnelling undocumented migrants to Finland in a form of hybrid warfare. Finland’s right-wing government has now closed the border crossing points on the land border with Russia. A new border security act empowers the government to turn down asylum applications. What is your opinion on that?

"This is another tricky issue. Once again, the threat is real. We must make sure our legal system isn’t used against us. But it bothers me that some politicians, both in parliament and in government, have jumped on this issue in order to break away from our country’s human rights obligations. My approach is the complete opposite. We should first assess the scale of the threat, analyse different scenarios and ways to prevent or mitigate them. 

Say we have a thousand asylum seekers at the border. What if we took them all in, processed their asylum requests, gave refugee status to those who were entitled to it, and tried to repatriate the others? It wouldn’t cause our society to collapse. The same applies to 10,000 asylum seekers, or even 100,000. I think we could have made our legal framework more watertight while leaving room for legitimate claims to asylum. With the new legislation, we risk having less control over our borders. If we activated this legislation, it could incentivise instrumentalised migrants to cross the border outside the border posts and try to avoid our authorities instead of contacting them. Such a scenario could lead to our resources being stretched."

Do you feel inhibited from debating this issue? A culture war over migration that pits Finns against each other might well play into the hands of Putin.

"No. In a democracy, one should be able to speak out. What worries me isn’t the debate itself, but the hate and agitation around the issue. I’ve received a lot of this when I criticised the new asylum law. It came from people who were mobilised by right-wing parties. They accused me of being unpatriotic or even an enemy of the state. One MP from the far-right Finns Party went so far as to suggest that I should be stripped of my military rank. Today, the controversy has subsided considerably, not least because our border hasn’t been tested to the extent that people feared."

As both a reserve captain in the Finnish Defence Forces and a climate scientist, do you think it is possible to reconcile geopolitical and ecological security?

"To some extent, they go hand in hand. Decarbonisation reduces our reliance on fossil fuels that are largely imported from problematic countries. So it’s not just a climate imperative; it also improves the global order and our hard security.

On the issue of economic growth, which looks more favourable through a geopolitical than an ecological lens, I’m trying to stall for time, as it were. For the moment, what we need for the green transition is a massive wave of investment. That is, economic activity. So I don’t think it’s very relevant right now to focus on the question whether economic growth is a good policy objective or not.

It’s clear that economic growth as it happens now will hit physical limits. Also, GDP growth is a poor indicator for wellbeing in a prosperous country like Finland. But if these considerations lead us to focus on degrowth or post-growth, this might hinder our ability to invest ourselves out of fossil fuels. We haven’t yet really tried to mobilise the market economy to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss; this needs to be done much more firmly. Then we will find out whether the equation holds, or if we should completely transform our economic thinking. Maybe it’s my years in parliament that have turned me into a pragmatic incrementalist, but I’m convinced that there is still plenty of room for evolution before we call for revolution."