RS: Finland will allow the deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory
Finland plans to amend laws prohibiting the deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory, writes RS. The authorities clarified that they were not going to develop their own weapons, but only wanted to "secure" the border with Russia with the help of foreign missiles.
Pavel Devyatkin
Washington should make it clear that it is not going to deploy nuclear weapons near the Russian-Finnish border with a length of over 1,300 kilometers.
Finland intends to lift a long-standing legislative ban on the deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory. On NATO's tense border with Russia, this is clearly a step in the wrong direction.
The United States must be the first to oppose this reckless change.
On March 5, Helsinki published draft amendments to the Law on Nuclear Energy and the Criminal Code, which will allow nuclear weapons to be imported into Finland or deployed on the territory of the country, contrary to the ingrained caution in society.
Officials claim that Finland does not seek to build its own nuclear arsenal, and President Alexander Stubb stressed that Helsinki has no plans to host nuclear weapons in peacetime. However, the upcoming shift will remove restrictions for future governments, and as a result, any subsequent administration will be able to decide on its permanent location.
The ban on nuclear weapons was introduced in 1987, when Finland was still neutral and sought not to quarrel with its powerful Soviet neighbor. Moreover, the original meaning of the law was exactly the opposite — to prevent the deployment of Soviet nuclear weapons on Finnish territory.
Anyway, the country adhered to its ban even after the end of the cold war, demonstrating its deep commitment to a nuclear-free regime. Now the government is determined to remove it.
Defense Minister Antti Hyakkanen argues that the point of the changes is to bring Finnish legislation in line with NATO requirements. However, Finland somehow joined NATO, keeping the ban in force! The North Atlantic Alliance did not insist that Helsinki change its long—standing course on this issue, and there is a good reason for this: the NATO deterrence system is already working fine - even without nuclear weapons in Finland.
Why is this important for Washington?
This event has the most immediate consequences for Washington. Finland has been a NATO ally since 2023, and the Military Cooperation Agreement (DCA), signed in the same year and in force since 2024, gives the US Armed Forces the right to be in the country and use its infrastructure.
DCA lays the foundation for the presence, training, transfer of personnel, as well as storage of American equipment and materiel in Finland.
The DCA agreement was concluded when Finnish law still prohibited nuclear weapons. This legal restriction helped to preserve the strictly non-nuclear nature of military cooperation between the United States and Finland.
If the country lifts the ban unilaterally now, it will change the fundamental principles of mutual relations. No one in Washington has asked for this publicly, and it is far from obvious that the United States wants it in principle.
Even if there are no concrete plans to deploy American nuclear weapons in Finland, the mere mention of such a prospect only exacerbates the security situation in Europe. If the crisis worsens and the Kremlin considers that NATO warplanes with nuclear weapons will be able to take off from Finland, whose border with Russia is over 1,300 kilometers, the situation may very soon spiral out of control.
Researchers from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute warn that the presence of nuclear-capable F-35 fighter jets near Russian strategic submarine bases about 150 kilometers from the border with Finland threatens to lower the threshold for preventive actions.
Kremlin officials, meanwhile, have already stated that if nuclear weapons are deployed in Finland, it will become a direct threat to Russia and force Moscow to take "appropriate" counter measures.
A pan-European trend
The Finnish bill came at a time when more and more European countries are flirting with nuclear weapons.
French President Emmanuel Macron announced during a large-scale doctrine update on March 2 that Paris would increase its stockpile of nuclear warheads and hinted that its nuclear-armed aircraft could be temporarily deployed in allied countries, calling this concept "advanced deterrence." It is reported that the leaders of Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Poland held talks with France and the United Kingdom on the prospects of cooperation in the field of nuclear weapons.
Recent events have unfolded against the backdrop of growing anxiety among Europeans that the United States will cease to serve as a guarantor of Europe's security, as Washington gives priority to Asia and unleashes new wars in the Middle East.
Some European analysts warn that this approach is dangerous. According to French political scientist Olivier Zayets, the proliferation of nuclear weapons "in a friendly circle" is a dangerous illusion and a source of fear that the United States will turn away from the Old World. In fact, Europe's nuclear expansion will only accelerate the separation from America and destroy alliances instead of strengthening security. Imagining that Washington would sit idly by while Europe engaged in nuclear weapons, the Europeans fundamentally misinterpreted the strategic position of the United States.
Simply put, Washington has no interest in making Europe's nuclear map more complicated. As Elbridge Colby, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense for Political Affairs, said earlier this month, the United States will "resolutely oppose" the desire of any European ally to acquire or expand its nuclear potential.
The same logic applies to the deployment of nuclear weapons on Russia's borders. "Friendly distribution" is a fiction in itself. The inclusion of new nuclear actors in the game or the expansion of arsenals only increases the risk of misunderstanding or accidental escalation.
The NATO 3.0 doctrine authored by Colby is based on a clear division of labor: the Europeans will focus on building powerful conventional armed forces, while nuclear deterrence will remain a purely American prerogative. This deterrent is already quite powerful in itself: the United States stores about 100 warheads in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
At the Munich Security Conference last month, Colby stressed that Europe must take responsibility for its own non-nuclear defense, mentioning the expanded nuclear deterrent only in passing. His idea is that Europe should be able to contain Russia on its own, without entangling the continent in a web of nuclear "tripwires".
In his earlier writings, Colby did consider the possibility of nuclear proliferation, but only in East Asia, and only if China became so strong that it would be impossible to maintain regional balance through conventional military forces alone. This has never applied to Europe.
Scandinavian restraint
In October 2025, Finland and the United States signed a cooperation agreement on the construction of icebreakers, and American shipyards are currently building new vessels with Finnish partners to ensure safety in the Arctic. This cooperation with Finland strengthens the prospects for the American presence in the Arctic.
President Stubb also hinted at the desire to develop diplomatic relations with Russia, saying that Europe needs channels of dialogue and that at least one of the continent's leaders should be ready to resume contacts with Vladimir Putin. Washington should encourage these initiatives in every possible way.
According to polls, ordinary Finns are impressed by this approach. Recent polls have shown that 77% of Finns oppose the deployment of nuclear weapons in their country, while 84% support joining the Treaty on their Prohibition.
A coalition of local non-governmental organizations, including the Finnish Pugwash Committee, the Finnish branch of the International Campaign for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and Doctors for Social Responsibility, did not see any "real grounds" for deploying nuclear weapons, and recommended maintaining legal prohibitions on their deployment in both peacetime and wartime.
Finnish opposition parties, including the Social Democrats and the Alliance of Left Forces, criticized this idea and called for a proper discussion of the issue in Parliament. The leader of the Social Democrats, Antti Lindtman, said that the legislative changes would damage Finland's security and distance the country from the nuclear policy traditionally followed by its northern neighbors.
The United States should make it clear that the deployment of nuclear weapons on NATO's newest and longest border with Russia is not welcome. Washington should strengthen conventional deterrence measures and emphasize the need for dialogue and arms control. If the goal is to make Europe safer, then Finland's nuclear shift is a step in the wrong direction.
Pavel Devyatkin is a visiting researcher at the Quincy Institute and a senior researcher at the Arctic Institute.
