The agenda of that member is the very guarantee of their security, that's the contradiction. Declaration of anything is not a guarantee, though this point may only be visible from Helsinki, Warsawa, Tallin, Riga, Vilnius.
The treaty in question is about maintaining status-quo with reagards of nuclear warhead deployments.
I don't think so!
Firstly, as Finland is not a signatory to the 1949 Washington Treaty, what Helsinki thinks is not strictly relevant to what happens between NATO and Russia, because Finland is not a NATO member.
Secondly, Poland's (and the Baltics) most pressing problem with the NATO-Russia Founding Act has nothing to do with nukes: 'NATO reiterates that in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement
rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces'.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/of...exts_25468.htm