The Finnish NATO ambassador reveals how Trump’s power income appears in NATO

Europe and Ukraine were again shocked when the United States announced on Monday that they would end the weapon aid against Russia for a defense warfare in Ukraine.

Kauppalehti asked the Finnish NATO ambassador to Finland Piritta from the outfitwhat does the situation look like at NATO’s headquarters now?

“The United States decided to interrupt military assistance temporarily,” Asunmaa recalls.

According to the White House, the interruption of the Ukraine weapon aid wants to ensure that the Ukrainian leadership is “committed to peace negotiations.

In Finnish, it is that Trump wants to force his Ukraine’s peace plan by tightening.

Ambassador Asunmaa emphasizes that in the midst of everything Trump, you need to see the surface deeper.

“Trump is driving two things: the other is fast peace in Ukraine, and at the moment it seems that at almost any price.”

“It was his election promise and he is doing everything in his way now,” Asunmaa says.

How do you feel as an ambassador when the United States tightens Ukraine to peace?

“We know that Trump’s administration is very transactional, this was already experienced in the first season.”

“Transatlantic relationships are still very important to us and now we have to learn how to work with such an administration,” the ambassador says.

Russian ally

How do the NATO ambassadors view that the President of the greatest NATO country is seeking peace by alliance with Russia, which is considered the greatest threat to the union in NATO?

“The United States is not allied with Russia. They have never questioned NATO’s strategic concept in which this (Russian threat) is very clearly said in July 2022. ”

“We start with the fact that there has been no change here,” Asunmaa says.

However, Trump has accused the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyiä dictator and does not want to let Ukraine a member of NATO. In addition, the United States has voted for Russia in the UN.

“It is clear that certain statements and certain measures are worrying,” Asunmaa admits.

However, he continues by stating that individual outputs do not necessarily represent US policy.

“We also have to see what the deeds will follow.”

At a common table

32 NATO embassies represent their member countries at NATO headquarters.

Has the atmosphere at the ambassadors’ table has changed since Trump’s power?

“We live in very unstable times. Of course it is reflected. ”

According to the living, it is not just about Trump, but just as Ukraine, Russia and what happens in the Middle East.

According to Kauppalehti, Trump’s outputs are being updated in the corridors of NATO’s headquarters, but at ambassadors’ meetings, the Trump Administration’s statements are not addressed as the United States sits at the same table.

Currently, the United States is represented by a diplomat at the NATO table because Trump has not yet sent NATO’s new ambassador.

According to Asunmaa, it is “very important to keep the United States committed to Europe’s security for Finland and all NATO countries.”

The United States withdraws

Another central political goal of Trump is, according to Ambassador Asunmaa, that he expects Europeans to take greater responsibility for his own safety.

“At the moment, first and foremost means raising defense expenditure,” he says.

Ambassador says that the new US Minister of Defense, Pete Hegsethsaid at the NATO Defense Ministry meeting in February that the United States assumes that within 10 to 15 years, European countries will bear the main responsibility for the conventional defense of NATO.

Does this mean that US nuclear weapons will still remain above Europe?

“Yes. This has not been questioned. ”

“In general, the United States has not given any statements that question their stay in NATO, or commit to NATO’s fifth Article (collective defense),” Asunmaa continues.

However, Trump has questioned the principle of collective defense in his campaign that the United States should not protect NATO countries from the Russian attack that do not pay the two percent proportion of defense expenditure required by the union.

Asunmaa does not comment on the Trump statement. Instead, he tells about a recent trend in which more and more NATO countries have reported significant increases to his defense budgets.

“Yes, Europe understands the need to take greater responsibility for its own defense,” Asunmaa says, and wants to continue that “it is not just about Trump, but that the security situation has changed very significantly.”

According to intelligence and expert reviews, Russia can challenge NATO with a direct clash in about five years.

The fact that the Russian army is now more dangerous is now more dangerous than in 2022, when a large -scale attack on Ukraine began.

The NATO ambassador does not want to speculate on the concretization of Russia’s threat.

“Of course, after the end of this Ukrainian war, Russia is again able to prepare and thus pose a greater threat to Europe’s security,” he says.

NATO’s future

Trump also wants a quick peace in Ukraine because the United States can transfer attention from Europe to China, which is the number one challenger in the US.

This is not just Trump’s policy, but for years of development that already began the president Barack Obaman At the time of the US focus, the focus of Europe began to move from Europe to an indopacifical region.

“Europe’s importance to US security has decreased,” says Asunmaa.

Therefore, European NATO countries must spend more money on European defense.

Trump has called for Member States to raise the money spent on defense to 5 % in relation to GDP.

However, a realistic estimate in Europe is that the percentage could be 3-5 % of GDP.

According to Asunmaa, official discussions on percentages are not yet held in NATO. The final decision will be locked up next summer at the Hague’s NATO summit.

Is the level of 3 % enough to strengthen European defense to work without the United States if needed?

“Probably if we get to 3-3.5 %, it’s really a step in the right direction.”

However, Asunmaa reminds us that the percentages alone do not tell you how credible the defense is.

“Much more important is what that money gets: European countries must be able to produce performance and get troops,” says NATO Ambassador.

Although the European NATO countries have considerable capabilities, the US Army is responsible for the implementation of the most demanding scenarios in Europe and the key capabilities required to defend the mainland in the war.

Fresh Bruegel– and As-In institutions Report According to Europe, Europe should invest approximately EUR 250 billion a year to meet Russia’s military threat if the US leaves Europe.

This would mean raising European defense expenditure from the current 2 % to 3.5-4 % of GDP.

Investments could mobilize 300,000 new soldiers to compensate for US retreat.

The residence reminds him that he is not a military expert, but notes that this report is only the first estimate.

“I think there are different ways to investigate this here.”

“Of course, when Europeans take responsibility, different performance is needed when troops are not sent over the Atlantic,” Asunmaa says.

Although NATO’s weathering is already in public, the Finnish NATO ambassador believes that the collective defense of Europe will also be built on a 75-year-old union in the coming years.

“I am convinced that NATO will exist in four years and the United States will be involved, but NATO has a very strong European pillar,” Asunmaa says.