Finland’s application for NATO membership “give a golden argument” to the “Mr. Putin’s propaganda”reacts on Saturday May 14 on franceinfo Bertrand Badie, professor emeritus at Sciences Po and specialist in international relations. “There is probably a way of fault” in the approach of Finland and the Atlantic Alliance, since it feeds Moscow’s arguments, which “tries to explain senseless aggression, saying that Russia feels threatened, surrounded by NATO”, according to the specialist.
franceinfo: What do you think of Finland’s application to join NATO?
Bertrand Badie: This is a factor of complications much more than solutions, because Finland is already protected as a member of the European Union. It is hard to see Russia directly attacking a member of the European Union. Sweden and Finland also have a number of agreements, partnerships, with NATO.
“In terms of security, we are more in the symbol and the affirmation than in the substantive work.”
Bertrand Badie, professor emeritus at Sciences Poat franceinfo
Finland’s membership in NATO, and possibly that of Sweden, will fuel Mr. Putin’s propaganda. He tries to explain senseless aggression, saying that Russia feels threatened, surrounded by NATO.
So we agree with him?
We give him a golden argument! I think Mr. Putin should celebrate this argument offered to him. On the objective level, there is also a risk of singularly complicating the file, which we already know is horribly tormented. For two reasons. The first is that the basis of this whole affair lies in the inability since 1989 to define a security regime in Europe, which includes Russia. However, a NATO-based Europe is not the beginning of a response to this security regime.
“If Sweden and Finland join NATO, we will see a virtual overlap between the European Union and NATO.”
Bertrand Badieat franceinfo
And confusing the two cards constitutes an element of weakening of the image, of the identity, of the autonomy of the European Union in relation to NATO and the United States.
Beyond power cuts, Moscow is threatening Finland with a probable “military-technical” response. Like in Ukraine?
I don’t think military-technical relates to the Ukrainian case. Precisely, it is a way of making a difference and explaining that if there is a response, it will not be offensive as in the case of Ukraine, but a whole series of hassles, provocations, perhaps violations airspace, border incidents. And on the technical level, we think of what we are already seeing, that is to say the refusal to deliver the electricity that Finland needs. It is certain that we will witness a new source of tension. Do we really need this? I think Putin needs it, I don’t think the Europeans need it. And this is probably where there is a kind of fault.