|
|
I have tried to crack the code myself, but I have not really been able to decide who are the more inclined towards NATO membership, those who talk about 'possibility' or those who talk about 'alternative'. Many people have decided perhaps that 'alternative' is the one that goes further, but I cannot tell. I find myself somewhat estranged from the word 'alternative' for describing our relationship with NATO. In my view, it gives the false impression that NATO membership would replace our own defence and all the developments described in this report. Military alliance does not mean that somebody else is going to come and take care of things on our behalf. Finland would need to have a strong defence capability in all situations even under NATO membership. On the other hand, the 'possibility' of NATO membership is precisely equivalent to the dictionary definition of the term.
|