Finland Seconds France, Threatening To Send Troops To Fight Russia In Ukraine

In its last war with Russia 80+ years ago, the Finnish Army beat and humiliated the Russians before agreeing to a ceasefire. 

Much better armed, with a far wealthier economy - and a long border with Russia, Finland now presents a more significant threat to the Russians. As does nuclear-armed France. That both are willing to publicly discuss possible intervention if Russia shows signs of winning in Ukraine reveals that Europe is now fully awake to the threat that Putin's Russia poses to Europe. JL 

Matt Berg and Eric Bazail-Eimil report in Politico:

Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen’s remark comes a day after French President Emmanuel Macron stood by his refusal to rule out sending troops to Ukraine. Valtonen’s remark was about a longer-term, hypothetical choice. But her reasoning shows that, as the war drags on, European countries who could face immediate danger from an emboldened Moscow may be willing to consider the option more seriously. As one of NATO’s two newest faces, Finland has spent more than 0.6 percent of GDP for Ukraine - the U.S. has earmarked about 0.3% for Kyiv and surpassed the alliance’s 2% GDP spending target.Western countries, including the United States, shouldn’t be entirely opposed to the idea of sending troops to Ukraine if conditions there worsen, Finnish Foreign Minister ELINA VALTONEN told NatSec Daily.

 

“It’s important that we not rule everything out for the long term, because we never know how serious the situation becomes,” Valtonen said in an interview this morning. “But the Finnish position is clear: We are not right now sending any troops and not willing to discuss that.”

 

Valtonen’s remark comes a day after French President EMMANUEL MACRON stood by his refusal to rule out sending troops to Ukraine, which has caused a rift with the U.S. and European leaders who staunchly oppose the potential move. Washington also isn’t so hot about the idea.  Finland appeared closed off to the idea only a few weeks ago. After meeting with Macron during a summit of European leaders in late February, then-Finnish President SAULI NIINISTÖ said “there was a widely shared perception that there would be no military presence” — meaning no deployment of Western soldiers to Kyiv. He added, “this was also Finland’s position.”

 

Russian President VLADIMIR PUTIN has been clear that he’d consider such troops coming to Ukraine’s defense a significant escalation — and could raise the risk of starting nuclear war with the West. But Ukraine’s soldiers have been struggling to fend off invading soldiers in recent weeks, and a lack of troops is among Kyiv’s main concerns.

 

Valtonen’s remark was about a longer-term, hypothetical choice. But her reasoning shows that, as the war drags on, European countries who could face immediate danger from an emboldened Moscow may be willing to consider the option more seriously.

 

A pair of former U.S. ambassadors to NATO told NatSec Daily they agree with the idea that the U.S. and other countries should be open to sending troops. Keeping it on the table — even if Washington never wants to deploy soldiers there — would signal to Putin that the West fully backs Ukraine.

 

“Given where we are, and given the stakes of the conflict, rethinking assumptions is a good thing,” said IVO DAALDER, who served in the post during the Obama administration. “But the way to do that is behind closed doors, building consensus through persuasion and diplomacy, perhaps with the aim of getting agreement by the NATO Summit on who and what steps they might take.”

 

KURT VOLKER, who was in the post during the last Bush administration, said he was very concerned with the response to Macron’s suggestion from the U.S. and Germany, which was “sharply critical and sent exactly the wrong message to Putin: that he can do what he wants.”

 

The Biden administration is adamant U.S. troops won’t go.“I can just speak for this sovereign nation and this commander in chief and he’s made it clear that we will not put U.S. boots on the ground,” National Security Council spokesperson JOHN KIRBY said from the White House podium today.Kirby told reporters that the U.S. hasn’t urged other countries to stop talking about sending troops to Ukraine, and that the administration wouldn’t oppose other nations sending their forces to help Kyiv fight.

 

“Those are sovereign decisions,” he said.What’s most important right now, Valtonen said, is that Ukraine’s backers continue to send assistance. As one of NATO’s two newest faces, Finland has been doing its part: It has spent more than 0.6 percent of GDP for Ukraine — the U.S. has earmarked about 0.3 percent for Kyiv — and surpassed the alliance’s 2 percent GDP spending target.

 

“Many European countries could do so much more,” Valtonen said.And with Ukraine assistance stalled in Congress, Washington’s reputation on the world stage is at stake: “If the man or woman on the street feel that the U.S. basically doesn’t care so much anymore about these values, then of course, it might have an impact,” she said.