Petteri Orpo answered the question about joint debt: “This was the only model”

How was Finland among the 24 EU countries accepting a joint debt to support Ukraine, even though it was originally agreed that the frozen funds of the Russian central bank would be used to support Ukraine? To this question, the parliament’s large committee responsible for EU affairs and the foreign affairs committee wanted the prime minister From Petteri Orpo (cook) the answer on Monday.

He was an orphan Saara-Sofia Sirénin (kok) led by a large committee and Johannen Koskinen (sd) at the hearing of the foreign affairs committee in the parliament on Monday morning.

Last week, on the night before Friday, 24 EU countries decided on a joint debt of 90 billion euros to support Ukraine in 2026-2027. The current EU budget is used as a guarantee for the loan to be withdrawn from the market. Three EU countries, namely Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, did not participate in the joint debt to support Ukraine.

“This was the only model that got Ukraine the money”

The EU countries’ decision on a joint debt, instead of using the frozen funds of the Russian central bank as a war compensation loan, has been criticized. Among other things, the chairman of the center of the opposition party Antti Kaikkonen demanded on Monday in an interview with Uuen Suomen an explanation from the government as to why the matter was acted on differently than the parliament had been told in advance.

What is the government’s explanation?

“This was the only model to get the money for Ukraine. There is no need to explain it to Kaikkonen or others, Ukraine needed the money. On the other hand, this combined the joint debt against the EU budget, but the frozen funds remain as a backboard,” Orpo replied to the media.

“At night, at the time of the decision, I was in contact with the chairman of the large committee,” Orpo said.

Orpo and the chairman of the large committee Saara-Sofia Sirén (co-chair) had stated that the decision was in line with Finland’s positions. It has already been stated in the government program that Finland is open to various financing solutions for Ukraine.

“It was concluded that two options have been prepared: a joint debt and a war reparation loan. However, joint debt was not considered likely because of its unanimity requirement, and therefore a war reparation loan, a solution we like, was pushed for. It would have been correct to use Russian funds to compensate for the damage they caused, and not European money,” Orpo said.

According to Orpo, the mandate was

According to Orpo, we can be satisfied with the decision, even if Europe does not get style points for decision-making.

The opposition has criticized that Orpo did not have the parliament’s mandate to decide on Finland’s participation in the collective debt. According to Orpo, he had a mandate.

“I made sure of it at night by calling the chairman of the grand committee.”

According to Orpo, last week’s meeting was a historic meeting and contained unforeseen twists and turns. According to Orpo, the most important thing for Finland, Europe and Ukraine was that the meeting resulted in a decision to support Ukraine.

“We achieved that and that was Finland’s goal one. If that solution had not been reached, Ukraine would not be negotiating peace but surrender. This is such significant funding that Ukraine can strengthen its defense and defend its country,” Orpo said.

The orbans can

According to Orpo, the content of the decision only partly corresponded to what was sought. On the day of the meeting, Thursday, even in the afternoon, there was a perception that the EU countries were negotiating specifically about the war reparations loan. 24 countries were strongly behind the war reparations loan.

“Then Belgium brought a proposal with the commission that clearly had problems. Among other things, it contained a word that means unlimited sharing of risks, which, of course, in Finland’s speech it was stated that it is not possible. At that stage, there was still an understanding that the war reparations loan could be completed because it is behind the qualified majority.”

According to Orpo, the joint debt of the EU budget as a guarantee was not first discussed at the meeting, because the Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán had unequivocally expressed that he would not accept any kind of financial solution for Ukraine and the collective debt required unanimity.

Frozen funds as a tailboard

According to Orpo, then a proposal was brought to the table by some member countries to make a hybrid model, which the president of the European Council took up.

The hybrid model therefore refers to joint debt that is taken over by the EU budget. In addition, it was confirmed that the frozen assets of the Russian Central Bank will remain frozen. They are behind the majority.

“At the same time, a backboard is created from the frozen funds. If Russia does not pay war reparations in time, they will be taken from the frozen funds. This is also called a reverse war reparations loan.”

Orpo admitted that the responsibilities are increasing

As recently as Friday, Orpo commented that Finland’s liabilities will not increase due to the joint debt decision. This view is shared by, among others, a researcher specializing in EU politics Antti Ronkainen recently criticized in an interview with Uuiden Suomen. According to Ronkainen, Finland’s responsibilities are of course growing.

Uusi Suomi asked Orpo about it on Monday.

“Well, yes, theoretically it grows through the fact that those debts are taken against the EU’s common budget. What is perhaps more accurately expressed is that Finland’s budget effects are very small. Theoretically, we are jointly responsible for the budget. The fact that Russia’s frozen funds act as a stern board acts as a guarantee for this solution.”

Purrak also criticized

Also the Minister of Finance Riikka Purra (ps) has criticized the EU countries’ decision on joint debt.

“The number one goal is to get strong funding for Ukraine to continue defending itself against Russia. I don’t consider it a big failure. I consider it a failure, which I think Purra means, that these frozen funds were not used in the first place,” Orpo said.

According to Orpo, it is by no means a good thing that Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were excluded from the decision. According to him, they were allowed to stay out with a joint decision. According to Orpo, the Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbánin the comments about who started the war are amazing.

Orpo said that some countries have an easier relationship with joint debt than others.

Koskinen wanted a wider consultation

Sirén, the chairman of the large committee, stated that fortunately there is a broad-based common view in Finland that supporting Ukraine is a priority. Even at the European Council meeting, the primary goal was to secure Ukraine’s financing.

“A war reparations loan would have been the best and fairest solution. The Government’s position has mentioned that Finland could also accept the use of the margin of maneuver. The Grand Committee has approved it,” said Sirén.

Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Johannes Koskinen According to (sd), it was essential in the mandate given by the parliament that joint debt was secondary. Originally, the joint debt would have required the unanimity of all EU countries.

“The experts of the EU Commission found a creative interpretation that the joint debt can be decided among the countries that participate in it. That’s why this solution was tolerable,” says Koskinen.

According to Koskinen, it would have been good if the parliament had known about the new options in advance. He would also have considered wider consultation with other parliamentary parties necessary.

“Quick legal work on frozen assets”

According to Koskinen, rapid legal development is needed to find international legal ways to get the funds frozen from Russia for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

“It appears that the same frozen funds are also handled in these peace talks by parties other than the European Union.”

According to Koskinen, it is important that international law develops the principle that the perpetrator of aggression pays.

“It is clear that war reparations would be the responsibility of the aggressor. But international law is not quite perfect, that is, with what mechanisms is it implemented. Belgium demanded compensation for secondary countermeasures from the common pocket. After all, such a thing is completely unaddressed in the EU, when Russia has caused damage to European companies during the war, whether some solution is developed to compensate them with joint responsibility,” Koskinen reflected.