Interview | Finnish Ambassador Kimmo Lähdevirta on NATO, Russia and Countries That Have Their Way

Finland was the first country to join NATO after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. But while the West has been vocal about the Russian invasion, it has largely condoned Israel’s recent violence on the Palestinians.

The Wire’s Ashutosh Bhardwaj spoke to Finland’s Ambassador to India, Kimmo Lähdevirta, about a range of issues, including the challenge Russia poses to Europe and the possible impact of a Republican occupying the White House later this year.

The conversation took place at the Finland Embassy in Delhi. Excerpts are as follows.

Finland was the first country to join NATO after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. How do you review the decision a year after joining NATO?

I should start with history. Finland was a part of Russia until 1917 for about 100 years since 1809. Before that we had had several wars with Russia as part of the Swedish kingdom. During the time when we were part of Russia, there were both good times and bad times. Good times, because we had significant improvements in infrastructure, education, economy; the society as a whole had many positive experiences. But towards the end of that period, the turn of the century, we had a period of Russification. They started to enforce laws in Finland that were in effect in other parts of Russia. That was not something the Finns liked and led to the independence movement gaining ground. Thus, Finland became independent in 1917. Then in 1939 Russia attacked us based on the agreement that they had made with the Nazi Germany. But they were repelled. We were able to repel them in the war known as the Winter War. In 1941 Finland joined the war as a co-warrior with Nazi Germany to gain back some of the territories that we had lost in 1939. 

After the World War II we maintained and developed good relations with Soviet Union. There were better times and more difficult times, but I think overall the situation was fairly good. As a neutral country, both politically and militarily, we were able to secure important deals both with Western Europe and also with the Soviet bloc. We wanted to maintain good relations with Russia.

We became members of EFTA [European Free Trade Agreement] and then in 1995 became a member of the EU, but we did not feel that it would be necessary for Finland to seek membership in NATO, as, for example, the Baltic countries and countries in Eastern Central Europe did in the early 2000s.

We felt that our membership could perhaps somehow destabilise the north [northern Europe]. And we felt that there was no need for us to do that (join NATO) because we felt that we could defend ourselves, if need be. We had maintained a strong national defence all along. We have, for example, continued with conscription which many European countries have abolished [after the 1990s], seeing it unnecessary, as they mostly concentrated on crisis management operations.

But we felt that being a neighbouring country of Russia and having a fairly large land area compared to our population, that was the only way we could safeguard our independence and security, if need be.

Then in 2008 when Russia had a war with Georgia, and after 2014 when the war in Ukraine began, the situation started to deteriorate. Still, all along those years until 2022 when Russia launched its attack, a full-scale invasion against Ukraine, the support for NATO membership in Finland had remained in about 20% or so. But when Russia launched its invasion, that changed the situation completely. Immediately after the attack in 2022 there was an opinion poll where some 65% of the population suddenly supported NATO membership.

Our leadership had already become wary of Russia’s actions in late 2021, when Russia circulated a paper saying that NATO should not enlarge anymore and so on. It would have closed for us the possibility to seek membership in NATO, if we deem it necessary. That was the so-called NATO option that we had had in our security policy since early 2000s.

All along the years we had emphasised, that as an independent nation, and as a member of the EU, we have the right to choose the kind of security policy we deem necessary. We had considered that military non-alliance, or being militarily non-allied would be fine. But after the Russian attack on Ukraine in 2022, it became evident that Russia still sees a full-scale war in Europe as an option to attain their goals. And that changed the circumstances radically. 

We were very happy that all along there was strong support for our membership. We were a little bit unhappy that the process with Sweden took a year longer. But we are now very pleased that both Finland and Sweden are part of NATO. We can really combine our efforts to defend our territories. And we are also very pleased how NATO forces have started to exercise in Finland. We feel we are secure now. 

Russia always says that the eastward expansion of NATO has engendered its anxieties. And now when two non-allied countries, Sweden and Finland, have joined NATO, does this lend credence to Russia’s argument?

What is puzzling to us is the Russian narrative that NATO seeks to expand or the US pushes NATO expansion. It’s actually Russia’s own actions that have forced European countries to seek membership in NATO. I think there’s no way – if one looks at the facts objectively – to come to another conclusion.

It is also strange how Russia has built this bubble around themselves. It’s a very skewed narrative. I think that’s total rubbish. Nobody pushed us. It was us ourselves who wanted to join NATO. It is our right to choose our security policy. 

I was in central Europe last year. I learnt that several smaller nations when they joined NATO, their armies lost a part of their sovereignty. They were happy that they now felt secure from the Russian side, but at the same time, they also believed that they have bartered, compromised some of their independence. What is the situation in Finland?

Well, when we joined the EU, we already bartered some of our sovereignty in the political and economic sphere. The same goes with the NATO membership in the military field. But we have gained much more with both the EU membership and now with the NATO membership. The overall balance is very much on the positive side. 

You can still see some opposition within the Finnish society about the issue. I remember the great Finnish filmmaker Aki Kaurismaki was against his country joining NATO.

I think there are always different voices in a democratic society. And that’s how it should be. But as I mentioned, the opinion poll in 2022 said that 65% of the Finns were in support of NATO membership. Now, when we are members, the last poll was from November-December 2023, which says that about 82% of the Finns support NATO membership. The support has grown during these two years. 

Your president recently made a famous statement that China can end the Russian war in Ukraine with just one phone call. What does it mean? How do you read the statement?

Well, I don’t want to explain what the president says or thinks. But I think China does have a great influence on Russia because without the support from China, Russia would be in big trouble already, both militarily and economically. I think China’s views really are very important on this issue. 

How does the EU view China and Sino-Russian relations? 

For the EU, China is a partner, competitor and systemic level challenger. We are strategic partners, but we also have differing views. For Russia, China is an indispensable partner especially in the present situation. But I hope that China sees also the risks involved in its support for Russia, as it risks alienating some of its key partners and markets by doing so.

But Russia also has strong trade links with Europe, especially its gas exports to Europe. 

Well, especially earlier of course, (Russia exported) gas, raw materials and other goods to Europe. But it has all been diminishing. The reliance on Russian gas in many European countries has diminished significantly. For Finland, before the Ukraine war we had very good trade relations. We bought raw materials and we exported and imported all kinds of things. But since the war started, actually these were the Russians who cut the relations. Now, Finland doesn’t buy anymore electricity or gas from Russia. 

The relations have been severed economically, politically and otherwise. There’s only very limited cooperation nowadays, for example, in crime prevention and border issues.

How does it affect Finland? How does it affect Europe? 

Not that much. It is, of course, unfortunate. But I think it’s more unfortunate for the Russian side. 

Finland recently passed a legislation that prohibits the entry of asylum seekers of Russia…

I first want to make it clear that there are different categories related to migration. There is traditional migration, asylum seeking, and then there’s instrumentalised migration. The last one, instrumentalised migration, is the one that we are worried about. Russia has been using this against us, to sow discord in our society, but also in Europe more widely.

They have been transporting groups of people to the Finnish border and asking them to cross the border to the Finnish side.

This happened in a larger scale in 2015, and again in the last autumn. Because of that, we had to close the border for passenger traffic at the end of last year. The border has been closed since then. But we are a society that believes in the rule of law. And we felt that we had an important hole in our legislation to safeguard us against instrumentalised migration, where another country, in this case Russia, uses people to create a situation in Finland.

It’s a question of our national security. Also considering that Finnish border with Russia is an EU border, a NATO border against Russia, we don’t want our border to be used against EU or NATO. We had to find means to prevent Russia from using the situation.

And I emphasise that the responsibility for the situation lies solely with Russia. Russia actually is the one that brings these people, even from other countries to Russia, and then transports them to our border. 

There have been very close relationships in history, literature, and the arts between Finland and Russia, but your relationship with your bigger neighbour has deteriorated in the last few years.

As I said, we have had both good times and bad times, then worse times in our relations with Russia. We find this present situation very unfortunate. And I have to say that it’s solely because of Russia’s own actions. And we find the situation very unfortunate. We have wanted it to go other way, but unfortunately, we are in this situation. 

Finland lived through the Russian revolution, the era of Stalin and Brezhnev and the cold war. What has changed now with Putin’s regime?

I think it’s the real use of brute force. A full-scale military invasion – against international law – of a neighbouring country with the aim of conquering its territory. This is something that has not happened in recent times anywhere. It’s very different kind of conflict than many others in the world. Trying to take the territory of another country by military force is unthinkable. It’s something that we can’t accept. 

There is a greater possibility that the White House will see a change of the government. What do you expect from the Republicans, given their poor enthusiasm for the Ukraine war?

Well, we shall see what happens in the elections. I think it’s best to wait until that. I don’t want to speculate with the election results, as I think it’s a serious matter for all the countries. From Finland’s point of view, we want to maintain good and close relations with the United States, whatever the situation is. And we believe that we have common interests in many things. 

But there are already some serious deliberations in Europe about the possible impact a Republican government may have on the global order, especially the Ukraine situation.

Yeah, of course. Things have to be considered. 

Can you please share some of these discussions?

I can’t, because I am not privy to those discussions. But this is just my own thinking that Europe should look at these things more seriously than it has done in the past. I think it is important that, for example, NATO’s European members spend on defense at least 2% of the GNP, what has been agreed a long time ago already. And most of the members are already doing so, but there are still some who don’t. The fundamental question is that Europe must pull its own weight. And this is something that we are advocating within NATO, and within the EU. The EU has done a lot already to help Ukraine in many ways. This is very important to continue and it should be increased, if needed. We feel that Ukraine must win this war.

So irrespective of the government that comes to power in the USA, Europe will continue to support Ukraine?

Yes.

And even if, suppose, the US doesn’t turn up, Europe will find its own ways and means to support Ukraine?

I certainly hope so. And I think there are efforts ongoing towards that goal. I am confident that we can do it if need be. But like I said, the US is a very important player here. And we certainly hope that it would also continue on the present course.

How do you see the changed scenario in the UK and in France? How does it affect Europe? 

Well, it’s still early stages in both countries. But somehow to me personally, it seems that in many ways, continuity is perhaps a better word than radical change. I’m fairly confident that things will continue to develop in a good way. Let’s see how they (in France) can now function in this new situation, which is really for them very new.

Is Europe now moving away or at least beginning to move away from the right-wing surge?

It’s difficult to say, but for example at the European Parliament, I think the more centrist parties have again found an agreement, and that gives good prospects for more consensual politics.

Given that right-wing governments in one part of the world nourish such politics in other parts, do you see a fresh surge of the right-wing politics in Europe if Donald Trump marks a return? 

Well, I’m not sure about that. I don’t quite believe in that. I think there are always many factors in play.

How does Europe see India’s response to the Russian invasion?

We hope that India would have been more pronounced in its condemnation of Russian aggression. But we, of course, do understand India’s position. We are not pushing India to do something. But we see that EU and India have many common interests. And I really hope that we could deepen and widen our relationship. And for that reason, Finland is very much in favour of a free trade agreement between EU and India.

How did you view India Prime Minister’s recent visit to Russia?

Well, I think that it’s not very fruitful to visit Mr Putin at this stage for any leader. We certainly are not doing that at this moment.

Coming to the other flashpoint on the planet, how do you see Israel’s war against Palestine, and Europe’s response to the crisis?

We have been quite vocal in condemning the violence in Middle East. First, we condemned Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel. But we have equally condemned Israel’s disproportionate use of violence and military means against Gaza strip and Palestinians. This is something that cannot be accepted. Finland supports the two-state model. We have done it consistently. And I also would say that EU as a whole does the same. There may be some differences in how to react to the actions of both parties, but the overall picture is very clear, that we support the two-state model and there must be an end to the horrible violence. And we want to do whatever we can to support the efforts to find a way for negotiations or ceasefire. 

If EU supports the two-state model, why has it not pressurised Israel into implementing it? And why has Israel been allowed to get away with its attacks?

I think it’s clear that there are limits to what this sort of international opinion can do if a country is very adamant about having its own way. We have seen it in several places.

There’s an unease about the West’s position on these two wars. While the West is vocal against the Russian invasion, it has mostly been condoning Israel’s acts. 

I don’t think so. I don’t agree with that. I think we have been equally vocal on both conflicts, really. But the means to find a solution may be different. And there may be different opinions in different countries about how to get to the end of the hostilities and how to go forward. 

The US has thrown its entire might behind Israel. 

Well, that has been the traditional position of the US But I think in Europe we are much more balanced in many ways. 

Coming to India, how do you see the Indian government after elections? Is there any change that you observed before and after the elections?

Well, of course the role of the parliament is more pronounced now. There is a clear and perhaps more vocal opposition now. And I think that’s a good for democracy. On the other hand, of course it’s still early stage for the new government. But it seems to me that most of the policies that the previous government had (employed) seemed to continue.