# The Effects of Finland's Possible NATO Membership: An Assessment

The Effects
of Finland’s Possible
NATO Membership
An Assessment
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
​Contents
Layout:Innocorp Oy ● Printing: Lönnberg Oy ● APRIL 2016 978-952-281-314-5 ● 4/2016 THE EFFECTS IF FINLAND'S POSSIBLE NATO MEMBERSHIP: AN ASSESSMENT ● Poino 978-952-281-315-2 ● 4/2016 THE EFFECTS IF FINLAND'S POSSIBLE NATO MEMBERSHIP: AN ASSESSMENT ● Verkko-PDF
​Foreword
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland has commissioned this assessment of the effects of possible NATO membership, in connection with the preparation of the Government’s Report on Finnish Foreign and Security Policy. This is the first assessment of its kind conducted at the request of the Finnish government since 2007: during the intervening decade, major strategic changes have occurred at the global, European and regional levels.
We were not entrusted with voicing a preference for or against NATO membership. Nor were we requested to provide a pro-and-con balance-sheet type approach. Our task has been to provide an evaluation of the potential effects of membership, in the most clinical manner possible. This does not mean that all effects of membership would be equally straightforward: some, such as the treaty commitments integral to Atlantic Alliance membership, or the direct impact of belonging to NATO’s command structure are comparatively easy to describe. Others, such as the possible reactions of Russia to Finland’s entry into NATO or the consequences of possible Finnish membership for the corresponding debate in Sweden are necessarily more probabilistic in nature. The text of the assessment reflects these differences in the degrees of certainty.
​The report does not cover the consequences of possible NATO membership of Finland for the Åland Islands, which are an autonomous part of Finland. The relationship between the international agreements that cover the sui generis status of these islands and the undertakings implied in membership need to be examined further. This was not possible within the time allotted to us.
We wish to express our gratitude towards the numerous individuals who kindly devoted their time to us in a number of capitals: their informed analysis and practical understanding has been indispensable to our work. However, the views expressed in this assessment are entirely our own. A special word of thanks is in order vis-à-vis the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, which has provided us with all of the necessary means to conduct our work, without seeking to influence its content at any juncture.
Mats Bergquist, François Heisbourg, René Nyberg, Teija Tiilikainen
​EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
| 1. | LEGACY. Finland has come a long way since the wars, hot and cold, of the twentieth century. In the process, the country has learned to manage complexity in international relations and security affairs, combining a demonstrated will to defend itself and to find a modus vivendi and establish a stable relationship with Russia. As the benign strategic context of the post-Cold War era gives way to a harsher and less predictable dispensation, Finland needs to adapt yet again to changing circumstances. This assessment of the effects of possible NATO membership will fulfill its purpose if it contributes to that adaptation. |
| 2. | EUROPE. Finland is a Western country, a member of the broader family of like-minded democracies. In this regard, the post-Cold War era was a homecoming with EU membership in 1995. This European dimension is part and parcel of Finland’s new identity. As a result, Finland ceased to view itself as a non-aligned country once the EU treaties included military assistance clauses, with its legislation being reviewed accordingly, even while maintaining its policy of not joining military alliances. Given its full European integration, Finland shares the broader strategic concerns of its EU partners, along with the rising challenges to both East and South of the continent. However, the EU does not possess the institutions and capabilities to deal with the full range of these strategic concerns by itself. Finland remains deeply aware that there is no solution to the specific strategic dilemma posed by its unpredictable neighbour, which requires continuous management. Nor is it prudent to assume that a common European security and defence policy (CSDP) capable of doing so will emerge in the foreseeable future. The same applies mutatis mutandis to regional cooperation, which is both absolutely necessary but clearly not sufficient given ongoing security challenges. |
| 3. | CONVERGENCE. Finland has developed a policy of engagement with all partners and organisations contributing each in their own way to security in Europe, notably the OSCE, Nordic cooperation, the EU and NATO. Finland, like Sweden, is nearly as close to the Atlantic Alliance as it is possible to be for a non-member state, reaching a plateau. This convergence at military and diplomatic levels has in turn led to a considera​ble degree of interoperability between Finland and NATO. The practical difficulties that would have to be resolved were Finland to join NATO are quite limited. This is due both to Finland’s democratic credentials, and to the perception that Finland is a militarily serious country underpinned by the reality of its territorial defence. Finland’s Bündnisfähigkeit, its practical readiness to be a full member of NATO, is correspondingly high. From the NATO perspective, Finnish accession would be technically straightforward and – in all likelihood – acceptable to member states. |
| 4. | TOGETHERNESS. Finland and Sweden constitute a common strategic space and have compelling reasons to make the same fundamental choices as to their future security and defence, whether on the basis of the current policy of convergence with NATO, short of membership, or with a view to joining the Atlantic Alliance. As Western and European democracies, they share the same Nordic and Baltic space, and they face the same strategic challenges and uncertainties in that region. This strategic reality applies notably to the security of the Baltic States. Throughout Finland’s history as an independent state, strategic decisions taken by one of the two countries have had immediate and decisive consequences for the other. By working together, Finland and Sweden can have greater influence inside or outside of NATO, as was the case in their decision to join the EU more than twenty years ago. Conversely, divergent choices in Finland and Sweden would produce new difficulties. Finland would be more exposed and vulnerable than it currently is if Sweden alone were to join NATO. This would also create a serious challenge for Stockholm, the return of the 'Finland question', which had waned with Helsinki’s ability to stabilise its relationship with the USSR and move into Western structures during the Cold War. Finland joining NATO with Sweden staying out would create a strategically awkward situation, leaving Finland as a strategic outpost without territorial continuity with NATO. |
| 5. | RUSSIA. Finland, as a member of the EU and as a Western democracy, shares with its partners a broad array of strategic concerns, calling for solidarity and common action. However, geography gives particular importance to Russia, with which Finland shares a 1340 kilometre-long border. As an unsatisfied power, Russia has made unpredictability a strategic and tactical virtue, underpinned by an impressive degree of political and military agility. Russia has adopted a revisionist stand towards ​the norms and principles governing the European order. It regards the Atlantic Alliance as an adversary and considers any NATO enlargement as a threat to its national security. Hence, Russia will attempt to thwart any move by Finland or Sweden to join NATO. The historical record of previous NATO enlargements, despite the fact that Finland is not viewed by Russia in the same light as Ukraine or Georgia, indicate that political and economic reactions may be strong, even harsh, notably during the transition phase. Even while stopping short of the use of force, specific counter-measures would be difficult to predict. |
| 6. | DECISION-MAKING. Finland’s accession to NATO – if such were the country’s choice – would involve intricate diplomatic and political processes not least since accession would probably take place in a more charged international atmosphere than previous enlargements. Externally, there would be every reason to shorten the transition period between the membership application and admission into NATO, since this would be the time of maximum antagonism by Russia. However, even if a 'fast-track' accession process could be agreed upon by the members of NATO, it would run counter to the probable need to manage two membership processes in parallel in Finland and Sweden. These processes may involve referenda, with uncertain outcomes, which could lead to split decisions and their ensuing consequences. A possible fast track should not be allowed to interfere with the full democratic due process which such a weighty decision calls for. Indeed, an in-depth and possibly lengthy public debate has virtues of its own, if this portentous issue is not to fall prey to the froth of short-term and superficial discussion. |
THE LEGACY OF HISTORY:
Each country’s strategic choices are shaped not only by its geography and its geopolitical environment, but also by its historical experience. What has worked or failed in the past in terms of collective security and defence, or indeed its absence, informs future options. This also applies to Finland, even if its experience has been exceptional in many regards.
After the strategic offensive by the Red Army in June–July 1944 failed to break the Finnish defences, Stalin opted for a political solution to force Finland out of the war. The Armistice of September 1944 required the rapid demobilisation of the army of 550,000 men plus 200,000 women with a population of less than four million at the time. Finland was also required to open its airports and naval facilities to the Allied (exclusively Soviet) Forces and to drive 200 000 German troops from Northern Finland. With the presence of an Allied (essentially Soviet) Control Commission in the country and the leasing to the Soviet Union of the naval base of Porkkala, just 30 km west of Helsinki, Finland was at its weakest and most vulnerable. But with Stalin’s mind concentrated on securing victory and reaching Berlin, the option to launch a new attack in order to occupy Finland was no more.
The ratification of the Peace Treaty of Paris in September 1947 marked a turning point and saw the Control Commission leave. A Friendship Treaty (Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance) imposed on Finland in April 1948 defined the relationship with the Soviet Union for decades to come. Finland never considered the treaty to be a military pact. It did not establish a framework of permanent foreign policy consultations and narrowed the Finnish military obligations to repel an attack in cooperation with the Soviet Union “by Germany or powers allied to Germany through Finnish territory”. The treaty was renewed in 1955, as a precondition for the return of the Porkkala base, and several times thereafter. Only after becoming a Member of the United Nations in December 1955, and the evacuation of the Soviet base in January 1956, could Finland embark on pursuing a policy of neutrality. The preamble to the Friendship Treaty notes “Finland’s desire to remain outside the conflicting interests of the Great ​Powers”. Moscow never truly accepted Finnish neutrality and regarded the Friendship Treaty as the basis of its relations with Finland.
With early elections in March 1945 – while the Allies were still allied and unanimous in their support of free elections – Finland secured its political institutions and parliamentary democracy. The reorganised Security Police (1949) focused successfully on counterespionage. The last train carrying war reparations crossed the border in September 1952, a month after the closing ceremony of the Helsinki Summer Olympics. The unbroken military tradition and universal conscription allowed the Defence Forces to continue training a reserve force focused on territorial defence. Participating in UN Peacekeeping operations since 1956 has provided the Defence Forces with military contacts and experience. In order to prevent provocations, a border zone of three to five kilometres was established. The Border Guards remained a military organisation under the Ministry of the Interior in peacetime. The first major procurements from the Soviet Union, Sweden and the United Kingdom forced Finland to define basic rules of conduct. No military instructors from the seller country were accepted on Finnish soil. Instead, Finnish officers were sent abroad for training. Since the late 1950s, Finnish officers have studied at military colleges in France, Britain, Sweden and subsequently the United States (1964) and the Soviet Union (1971). By reinterpreting stipulations through diplomacy, the Defence Forces were able to cope with the military restrictions imposed by the Paris Peace Treaty.
Accomplished diplomacy was required to stabilise Finland’s position with Stalin’s successors. The superior Finnish social and economic system played a decisive role. Although Finland had to tread a fine line politically, its market economy was able to turn the regulated bilateral trade with the Soviet Union to its favour. Becoming an associate member of the European Free Trade Association in 1961 and concluding a free trade agreement with the European Economic Community in 1972 were milestones in cementing Finland as a Western country and society. The regulated bilateral trade that required the licensing of exports to the Soviet Union also provided the instrument to indirectly adhere to COCOM (Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls) export restrictions, which again was the prerequisite for acquiring Western technology and equipment for the Defence Forces.
The build-up of the Defence Forces was a long and protracted low-key process eschewing the expression “armed neutrality”. The first jet fighter planes, Folland Gnats, were bought from Britain in 1958, to be later replaced by Soviet MiGs and Swedish Drakens. Only with a shift of the Finnish defence focus to ​the North after the mid-1960s did the Finnish defence posture acquire a stabilising regional role in Northern Europe, thus extending territorial defence over the entire country. The move to the North was accompanied by a deliberate policy of not building East-West roads in Finnish Lapland.
Unlike Sweden, which secretly enjoyed military guarantees from the US, Finland pursued a cautious policy towards the West. Despite intensive diplomatic contacts with leading NATO members, Finland did not establish official contacts with NATO before the end of the Cold War. The same characterised military co-operation with Sweden. Despite military diplomacy, including visits by top commanders and personal relations, intensive military co-operation between Finland and Sweden is a recent phenomenon. The mere existence of Sweden was of immense significance for post-war Finland as a neighbour, trade partner and a social model.
By unilaterally declaring the military clauses of the Paris Peace Treaty null and void in September 1990, the Finnish Government lifted the last restrictions on its sovereignty. Although the stipulations of the Peace Treaty had not prevented Finland from developing its defence forces, the restrictions were a liability and a reminder of an existing droit de regard. The abrogation of the Friendship Treaty in 1992 lifted the stigma that had cast a long shadow and restricted Finland’s freedom of action. Joining the European Union in 1995 marked the end of neutrality and the beginning of a policy of military non-alignment. The expression non-aligned was dropped in 2007 and calibrated as “no membership in military alliances”.
The restoration of independence of the Baltic States in 1990 brought about a fundamental change to the geopolitical situation around the Baltic Sea. Control of the Southern shore of the Gulf of Finland and the Eastern shore of the Baltic Sea reverted to the Baltic States.
Differences in the assessment of risk and military threats in the early 2000s led to diametrically different defence orientations in Finland and Sweden. Finland, a traditional force contributor to the UN since the beginning of blue-helmet operations in 1956 (UNEF Sinai), intensified its participation in NATO and EU operations, which provide additional training and even combat experience for the reserve force. But unlike Sweden, which placed a premium on developing an expeditionary capability forsaking territorial defence and suspending conscription from 2009 onwards, Finland neither gave up territorial defence nor contemplated abandoning conscription. Nor were the Border Guards turned into a police force.
THE CHANGING STRATEGIC
Since the drafting of the last assessment on the effects of possible NATO membership for Finland close to ten years ago, the strategic environment has undergone wrenching change. The post-Cold War era which began around 1990 has, in effect, been replaced by a multipolar dispensation which has yet to receive a name but some of whose main characteristics can be summarised as follows:
* The shift away from an order in which the United States was the sole superpower – indeed, some called it a ‘hyperpower’ – and in which the West, broadly speaking, tended to set the rules of international conduct.
* The rise of China as a potential peer competitor of the US, and the advent of East Asia as the main and most dynamic hub of a global economy in which the European Union has been underperforming.
* The emergence of attempts, notably via the BRICS nations, to set international rules outside of the Western nexus and, in the case of Russia, to revise the legal bases of the post-Cold War order in Europe.
* The limits of the ability of military power, mainly but not only Western, to secure decisive and desirable results in a broader Middle East in the throes of deep, sustained and often violent change.
These broad changes impose new constraints on America’s strategic reach, notably in Europe, and have thrown up new challenges for the European Union. This general “hardening” of the strategic context has specific implications for Finland and its security and defence choices.
​1. Russia as a dynamic and unsatisfied power
Russia is not the Soviet Union, although old habits die hard. The Russian default of 1998 led to spectacular growth and a surprisingly quick recovery boosted by the rapid rise in the oil price. Following the Norwegian example, the windfall was channelled into Sovereign Wealth Funds. Optimism and the spirit of reform came to an abrupt halt with the expropriation of Russia’s largest oil company, Yukos, in 2003. It demonstrated arbitrariness and the lack of property rights in a country ruled by man, not by law. Subsequent tightening of the control of the political system and the media brought about fundamental changes to a society that had experienced an unprecedented period of individual and political liberty since the implosion of the Soviet Union. Russian political institutions remain weak and, unlike China or indeed the USSR, it has neither a system of succession nor a procedure to renew its leadership.
The essence of modernisation, structural reforms of the economy and the social system, were postponed and neglected. After a decade of unprecedented growth that saw a historic rise in living standards, Russia encountered the financial crisis in 2008 unprepared. With the help of the accumulated reserves, companies and banks were bailed out and the subsequent rise in the oil price stabilised the economy for a while, but no reforms were initiated. After the collapse of the oil price in 2014, Russia could not repeat the bail-outs of 2008–09 without risking depleting its reserves. The Government is clueless in the face of a continuing downslide. Without growth and investments, stabilising the rouble and securing the reserves will not suffice. It will eventually lead to budget sequestration with dire social consequences, which will ultimately affect military expenditure as well.
The implosion of the Soviet Union saw the territory directly controlled from Moscow shrink to pre-Petrine borders. Slavic and Orthodox lands from North Kazakhstan to Belarus and Ukraine became part of independent states.
The partnership with the West declined in stages until the war in Ukraine resulted in a sharp deterioration in relations. The abrogation of the ABM Treaty by the United States in 2001 alerted Russia to the need to safeguard its second strike capability as the foundation of its status as the other nuclear superpower. The war in Georgia in 2008 demonstrated Russia’s willingness to engage in wars beyond its borders. But the poor performance of the Russian Armed Forces during the war in Georgia also revealed that Russia’s military did not possess the required capabilities to support Moscow’s for​eign and security policy. The subsequent reforms turned the Russian military around, as shown in the war in Ukraine starting in 2014 and in the large-scale projection of air power to Syria in late 2015.
The war in Ukraine and especially the annexation of Crimea is a transgression without precedent in Europe since the end of World War II. The violation of the fundamental principle of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act that borders can only be changed through negotiations was resented by the EU and the US as political revisionism. The West closed ranks and imposed sanctions on Russia. Russia miscalculated the mood in Ukraine, and misread the reactions in the European Union (not least in Germany) and the United States. In turning to its single largest trading partner, China, Russia also misjudged the pragmatism of Beijing. China’s economy remains deeply involved with the American banking system and cannot circumvent financial sanctions imposed by Washington. The collapse of the oil price coupled with financial sanctions has weakened the Russian economy significantly and increased isolation. Through its air power and special forces in Syria, Russia has re-emerged as a key player in the Middle East and been partly able to break the isolation through direct negotiations with the United States.
In a political and military corollary to the war in Ukraine, Russia stepped up its manoeuvres and resumed flight patrols at levels not seen since the Cold War. Snap exercises and aggressive flight patterns plus suspected incursions of submarines into Swedish waters, combined with unprecedented hostile talk about nuclear weapons, startled the West and especially Russia’s neighbours. Despite the fact that the Russian nuclear doctrine, last updated in December 2015, has not changed in its fundaments since its initial formulation in 1993, provocative talk at high official levels about nuclear weapons and their demonstrative inclusion in major exercises and air patrolling, alerted the Western public. This is enhanced by Russia’s capacity for action and ability to take decisions quickly. It is a policy of ambiguity, even taking pride in a decision-making process as inscrutable and unpredictable as possible. The ability to make strategic decisions quickly and to implement them militarily and politically with great speed and agility sets Russia apart from the tsarist Empire or the USSR.
The strategic challenge for NATO remains its ability to reinforce the defence of the Baltic States. Russia’s strong air defence in vital hubs like Kaliningrad (as also deployed in Crimea) has created a state of affairs characterised by Russia’s Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities in the Baltic region ​(and in the Black Sea). These force NATO to consider prepositioning heavy materiel and increase the need for more persistent deployments of fighting units in the Baltic States. A premium is also placed on NATO’s ability to provide reinforcements to the Baltic States, either via Poland’s narrow (112 kilometre-wide) Suwalki corridor running between Kaliningrad and Belarus, or by circumventing Kaliningrad, possibly via Sweden and Finland.
Along with the access to and defence of St. Petersburg, the “Northern Capital”, the Russian threat perception in the Northwest is primarily centred on protecting tous azimuts its nuclear deterrent and the Northern fleet on the coast of Murmansk, including the shipyards of Arkhangelsk and the missile launch centre in Plesetsk. Air defence is concentrated against a transpolar threat. The Russian sea denial capability reaches far south into the Norwegian Sea. Land protection is the task of the new Arctic brigade being formed in Alakurtti, south of Murmansk and close to the Finnish border.
For Russia, the loss of a strategic buffer after the Baltic States joined NATO has been remedied by a build-up of a strong denial capability (A2/AD) around Kaliningrad, while the new-found agility of its armed forces compensates for reductions in the force structure, along with the new emphasis placed on nuclear weapons.
The return of nuclear weapons to the European theatre has caught the West by surprise. In a world where non-proliferation replaced nuclear disarmament, the sudden re-discovery that nuclear weapons could be brandished for political or strategic gain, and possibly even be used, came as a shock. Russia has systematically upgraded its nuclear triad, as has the United States. The same applies to the nuclear deterrents of Britain and France. But the rest of Europe, especially Germany, but also Finland and Sweden, has all but forgotten about nuclear strategy and its intricacies. The Russian investment in its nuclear deterrent remains its only claim to superpower status. Nuclear weapons are nevertheless weapons and reminding the United States and NATO about its nuclear potential is part of Russia’s deterrence in the war in Ukraine. In the annexation of Crimea, Russia ostensibly made the point that any territory passing under direct Russian control would ipso facto benefit from the extension of Russia’s nuclear umbrella. Russia attaches particular importance to short-range nuclear weapons, both as battlefield weapons countervailing conventional imbalances and as tools for exerting psychological and political pressure, as evidenced in a number of exercises in the Western Military District, sometimes in conjunction with Belarus.
​The security and future of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania is of vital significance for Finland and Sweden. The Baltic States have experienced unprecedented growth in economic and human contacts over the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea during their twenty-five years of freedom and regained independence, plus subsequent membership of the European Union and NATO. In joining the eurozone, the Baltic States submitted proof of their economic proficiency. It is of strategic significance for Finland and Sweden that the Southern coast of the Gulf of Finland and the Eastern coast of the Baltic Sea remain free.
The war in Ukraine and Russia’s aggressive posture have unsettled the Baltic States. The deeply felt insecurity has stirred the debate in Finland and Sweden, too. NATO membership has not been debated with such seriousness in the two countries since the end of the Cold War. The likelihood that Russia would test NATO Article 5 in the Baltic States remains low, as this would trigger a response from the Alliance. Despite its proven ability to use military force and the prowess of its special operations forces and the capability to project power, Russian resources are stretched. The number of fighting forces remains limited. However, Russia’s new-found strategic and military agility maximises the utility of these forces. As a consequence, NATO has taken a set of measures to reassure its most exposed members and to constrain Russia’s dynamic conduct, which also imposes on Russia’s neighbours a requirement for higher degrees of military readiness. Furthermore, the lack of strategic depth of the Baltic States and the great difficulty in providing timely reinforcements as a result of Kaliningrad’s A2AD capability mean that NATO could be forced to resort to the threat of nuclear escalation in the event of an attack against the Baltic States – as was largely the case for the defence of West Berlin during the Cold War. Such a situation is inherently dangerous.
Russia has also acquired the ability to combine ambiguous or hybrid operations with the use of military means. It is therefore in both Finnish and Swedish interests that the security of the Baltic States is enhanced through adequate military means. In the light of the changed Russian posture and military activity, Sweden is re-building its territorial defence. The Finnish defence posture remains a policy of deterrence by denial. The unprecedented undertaking to jointly deepen Finnish and Swedish defence efforts is another result of the changed military environment.
Russia has fourteen contiguous neighbours and remains the country with the longest land border in the world. Russia’s border with Fin​land and Norway has been the most stable and well managed of all. The Fenno-Soviet/Russian border regime has functioned flawlessly since the end of the 1950s and the numbers crossing it remain high. To the great surprise of Norway and Finland, in the autumn of 2015 Russia suddenly allowed third country nationals without proper visas to cross over, first to Norway and, as of December 2015, to Finland at two northern checkpoints. This called into question the long-established border regime while exacerbating the refugee problem. The sudden changes in the border regime look like yet another hybrid tool to convey messages. These ceased as suddenly as they began in late February 2016. A Russian-Finnish bilateral agreement was reached on 22 March 2016 to restrict, as an interim solution, the use of the two northern checkpoints to Finnish and Russian/Belarussian citizens only.
2. From non-alignment towards collective security frameworks
The end of the Cold War strengthened aspirations for a system of cooperative security. The CSCE was turned into an Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1994 with a joint value basis enshrined in the Paris Charter (1990). A comprehensive concept of security was embodied in the permanent institutions established for the organisation, such as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the High Commissioner on National Minorities. These were meant to have some independent leeway in this strictly consensus-bound system. The OSCE was supposed to make security in Europe a common issue by preventing conflicts and establishing a permanent dialogue on issues of common interest. Its joint value basis aimed to consolidate respect for democracy and human rights in the post-Soviet states.
The vision for cooperative security, however, faded away along with the strengthened Russian assertiveness and power politics. Russia currently challenges the legitimacy of the post-Cold War international order, the governance of which (including the OSCE and the Council of Europe) it perceives as embodiments of Western hegemony. The model of international order promoted by Russia – and reflected, for instance, in the proposal by the then President Dmitry Medvedev for a new Euro-Atlantic treaty system from 2008 – is based on the balance of power between the main actors consolidating their right to spheres of interest.
​The Russian approach culminating in a violation of the basic norms and principles of the OSCE through the annexation of Crimea and military action in Eastern Ukraine has hampered the full-scale functioning of the organisation and challenged its future role. Added to this, the political development of Russia has led to a questioning of the concept of comprehensive security enshrined in the OSCE’s key values and principles and, in particular, its human dimension.
Reflecting the general weakening of cooperative security in Europe, the arms control regime has also started to fall apart. As a result of this development, all three pillars of European arms control – the Treaty on Conventional Arms in Europe (CFE Treaty), the Vienna Document on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures (VD 2011) and the Open Skies Treaty have either become outdated or been abandoned. Even though Finland and Sweden do not take part in the CFE Treaty, they have still been working actively within the framework of the Vienna Document. The inactivation of this system of norms and confidence-building measures has increased distrust.
As a consequence of a deepening distrust between Russia and the West (and with it the weakened legitimacy of the structures of cooperative security), political confrontation and military tension have increased. With the growing risk of military accidents and the escalation of military activities, the security of countries such as Finland located in the immediate vicinity of Russian strategic regions is becoming vulnerable.
Cooperative security. NATO’s transformation in the 1990s broadened its tasks from collective defence to crisis management and cooperation with third countries. In this context, NATO changed its threat conceptions and engaged in a special relationship with Russia. The Partnership for Peace (PfP) concept was launched in 1994 as a platform between NATO and non-member states to adjust cooperation to the very different starting levels of partner countries in terms of military capabilities. Finland joined at its creation and has also been a full ab initio participant in the PfP’s planning and review process (PARP) from 1995 onwards.
Since the early years of cooperative security, 12 partners have become full members of NATO and currently the organisation’s more than 40 partners cover regions from North Africa and the Middle East to Asia. In the organisation’s 13-year-long operation in Afghanistan, which was the largest and longest NATO operation ever, 22 partner countries took part.
​NATO’s enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe was a demanding political task which put its relationship with Russia to the test. Although the Russian leadership was never pleased with the continuing presence of NATO in the post-Cold War Europe – not to speak of its enlargement – Moscow’s reactions were political in nature, and did not lead to a strategic crisis or economic countermeasures. This was true for both the 1999 enlargement (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary) and even for the 2004 ‘Big Bang’ (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia). Although the Russian leadership used harsh language and threatened to impose sanctions if NATO expansion were to include the Baltic States, their accession did not cause any major worsening of their relationship with Russia.
However, Russia drew the line at Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO. Although US efforts to force the issue of membership at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest met with European resistance, which put the issue on indefinite hold, Russia was determined to use all means to remove the option from the table completely.
This was in contrast to Russia’s prior conduct. Indeed, NATO concluded a PfP agreement with Russia in 1994 and Russia also participated in the NATO-led IFOR and SFOR operations in Bosnia in 1995, and subsequently in Kosovo as part of KFOR in 1999–2000. To conciliate Russia with respect to NATO enlargement, the two parties raised their relationship to a new level through a specific Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security concluded in 1997. It established a permanent joint council with a coordination and consultation mechanism between Russia and NATO without, however, granting Russia a right to veto NATO decisions. The functioning of the permanent joint council was briefly suspended in spring 1999 due to disagreements over the Kosovo war but was resumed a couple of months later. The positive relations between the parties culminated in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks against the US in 2001, when the scope of cooperation was furthermore enlarged and a new NATO-Russia council was established to provide Russia with a more equal status in its cooperation with NATO (“at 29”). Russia duly served as a major logistical supply line for NATO-led forces in Afghanistan.
The full range of activities created in the framework of the NATO-Russia council did not, however, prevent the continued presence of NATO as part of Russia’s “enemy picture” (Feindbild), even in its successive post-Cold War military doctrines (1993, 2000, 2010, 2015). The Russian war against Geor​gia in 2008 led to the suspension of all political and military cooperation among the parties in this framework until the “reset” of US-Russian relations in 2009. After the annexation of Crimea (2014), cooperation was suspended – and remains so.
NATO’s decision to focus back on collective defence (Article 5 tasks) was a direct consequence of the Russian take-over of Crimea and operation in the Donbass. In its Wales summit of 2014 the organisation adopted a new Readiness Action Plan to strengthen its collective defence. The plan included a continuous military presence that went well beyond air policing, established on a rotational basis in the eastern parts of the Alliance in the Baltics and subsequently Iceland, introduced from 2004 onwards. A very high readiness joint task force (VJTF) deployable within a few days was established. These initiatives together with an enlarged exercise programme were meant to consolidate NATO’s deterrence.
NATO’s renewed emphasis on Article 5 tasks has created the perception in Finland of a growing distinction between its members and partners, as the latter do not have equal access to activities taking place in the framework of Article 5, such as contingency planning and force planning.
To balance the consequences of a reinforced focus on Article 5 tasks, NATO offered strengthened forms of cooperation for its partners on the initiative of Finland and Sweden. The Enhanced Opportunities Partners (EOP) programme deepens NATO’s cooperation with its most interoperable partners, including Finland and Sweden. The programme created by the 2014 NATO summit provides better possibilities for these partners to take part in NATO’s exercises and operations and strengthens their political dialogue with the Atlantic Alliance. In addition to this, better access to information and deepened cooperation in cyber defence have been among the Finnish priorities.
On issues relating more specifically to the Baltic Sea region, “28 (NATO) + 2 (Finland & Sweden)” meetings are also held.
Finland’s ever closer NATO partnership. After the initial years of domestic controversies, Finland’s partnership with NATO has become a legitimate part of its security policy. This is commonly understood to be a policy of increasing cooperation with NATO without full membership. The ​stated policy remains not to forsake the possibility to apply for membership. The political significance of the NATO partnership has been further strengthened due to the growing tension in Northern Europe and the slow progress of the EU’s common security and defence policy.
As a part of Finland’s security policy, the NATO partnership clearly has a political and military function. The military part revolves around enhancing interoperability with NATO forces, where significant steps have been taken since 1995 when Finland began to participate in the PfP’s Planning and Review Process (PARP). Finland has chosen a broad range of partnership goals and they currently cover the whole development programme of the Finnish Defence Forces. Interoperability created in NATO’s framework also supports military cooperation in the EU and NORDEFCO frameworks. According to NATO’s assessments, Finland currently reaches an overall high level of interoperability.
Interoperability is tested in practice in those military exercises that are open to partner countries as well as in NATO-led crisis management operations, which have formed the political core of Finland’s partnership. To signal this, on occasion Finland’s contribution to NATO-led operations reached a numerically higher level than its contribution to other multilateral operations. This activity started along with NATO’s IFOR and SFOR operations in Bosnia, where Finland sent a construction battalion from 1996 onwards. To be able to do this, Finland’s legislation on international peace-keeping, however, had to undergo a number of principled changes as it did not allow participation in operations led by actors other than the UN and OSCE. Further, the mandate for the use of force in international operations had to be extended in this context. The Finnish contribution to the initial KFOR operation in Kosovo in 1999 reached some 800 soldiers whereas in ISAF, Afghanistan, its role remained at the company level. Another major step with the partnership was taken through participation in NATO’s Response Force (NRF), which has contained units from all the military branches and joint exercises.
The future of the PfP programme has been unclear ever since the major group of partners joined NATO. The most recent developments indicate NATO’s willingness to provide its most advanced partners with a special status which, to some extent, blurs the distinction between members and partners.
Irrespective of this, the Atlantic Alliance makes it clear that the organisation’s security guarantees apply to members only. Full access to collec​tive defence planning, decision-making and military structures can only be reached via full membership. This leads to the main paradox of the NATO partnership, namely that in the worst case it can be seen in the eyes of external actors to strengthen an ever-closer association with NATO without, however, supplying the deterrence provided by Article 5.
Finland, in effect, belongs today to the inner circle of the NATO partnership. With the exception of air surveillance and control (see Chapter III below), Finland is close to the limit of what a non-member can achieve with NATO. In the event of NATO membership, Finland’s territorial defence would be coherent with the Article 5 defence of the country.
The relationship between the EU and NATO. During the last few years a number of issues have pushed the relationship between the EU and NATO towards complementarity instead of rivalry. The way the political and military relationship between these two organisations is arranged is of crucial importance for Finland as it is a member of one but not of the other.
A change in the US view on the EU common security and defence policy (CSDP) has paved the way for complementarity being pursued between the EU and NATO. Since its inception in 1999 and notwithstanding its lack of progress in recent years, the CSDP has been perceived as an important framework for a stronger European military contribution to the transatlantic relationship. Although existing political and economic conditions preclude any large-scale functional overlap between the two organisations, the EU has been able to enter into fields such as the mutual defence and solidarity clauses. The fact remains, at least in the short and medium term, that the military structures and preparedness that exist in NATO will not be built within the EU.
Finland’s (and Sweden’s) possible membership of NATO would increase the overlap of membership between the EU’s and NATO’s respective membership But this would not significantly change the existing relationship between NATO and the EU. The situation would change basically only if a stable modus vivendi were established between NATO and the EU in terms of the exchange of classified information. Lack of agreement on this issue impairs even the most basic and pragmatic cooperation between NATO and the CSDP as envisioned in the 1999 ‘Berlin Plus’ agreement. Any pro​gress here is, in turn, dependent on the resolution of the Cyprus question, which in turn is inextricably linked with Turkey-EU relations: Turkey, as a member of NATO, has been withholding the effective implementation of the ‘Berlin Plus’ agreement.
The EU as an uncertain collective security and defence framework. The EU, however, is moving on with its common defence and security policy, which will be seen to complement and support the other fields of cooperation within the EU. This currently takes place within three major political processes, which will affect the EU’s position in the overall European security policy architecture, and its relationship with NATO accordingly.
The first is the ongoing drafting of the EU Global Strategy for the Union’s foreign and security policy, which may be followed this time by a set of action plans and possible White Papers that will ensure a better transformation of the strategic guidelines into joint preparedness and capabilities in security and defence policy. If the process reaches its goal, the EU’s key security political needs should be supported with more focused planning and capabilities.
The second process of significant political importance relates to the construction of a European defence technological and industrial base. This is a Commission-driven project which aims to enhance the competitiveness of the European defence industry among other things through the extension of the single market to defence, and by establishing a funding instrument for defence- related research in the EU budget above and beyond the existing European Security Research Programme (ESRP). If it comes to fruition, this project could strengthen the ties between European defence policy and the Union’s general economic and industrial policies, and foster a more coordinated view among the member states about the needs in terms of defence capabilities.
The third process relates to the specification of the commitments for mutual assistance within the EU which have gained more relevance due to the changing political environment and a set of more multifaceted threats. The provisions of the solidarity clause (TEU, Art. 222), which includes the use of the EU’s instruments in the case of terrorist attacks or natural/manmade catastrophes, have already been complemented with rules concerning its implementation. The mutual defence clause (TEU, Art. 42.7), which directly relates to cases of armed aggression, has gained more political impor​tance since its implementation in the context of the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.
Despite the importance of the ongoing processes, the EU will, for an indefinite period of time, remain far from NATO in terms of its hard security capacities. The strengthened military tension in Europe stresses this relationship further. The Union’s command structure is tiny in comparison with NATO and its key foci in terms of planning and capabilities lie in tasks other than collective defence. With a significant number of EU members also being members of NATO, the Union’s role has been to attempt to advance European security through its comprehensive political and economic tools, rather than by operating primarily with military instruments.
In this respect, the EU’s mutual defence clause (TEU, Art. 42.7) has a different character, as it deals with hard security and obligates all EU members to defend an EU country in the event of armed aggression. The firm obligation is softened by its character as an obligation between the member states. As defence of a member state in such a situation is not conferred to the EU (as distinct from the solidarity clause, TEU, Art. 222) but to the partner states, the clause does not give rise to joint systems of planning and command. Any arrangements on aid and assistance will in these conditions remain on a bilateral basis between the targeted country and the others. The activation of the clause at the request of France after the terrorist attacks in November 2015, however, is likely to make it a living part of the EU and to lower the threshold for its use.
All in all, irrespective of their largely overlapping memberships and military resources, NATO and the EU will remain separate actors in the field of European hard security. Existing structures and cooperation allow the EU, and its member states, to respond to a wide range of low-intensity conflicts without NATO. When it comes to major military conflicts of a traditional or non-traditional character, it is still NATO with its military and political assets that would be the prime mover, and whose credibility would immediately be at stake in an Article 5 contingency.
On the other hand, it is equally unthinkable that the EU mutual defence clause would not become activated in a major European conflict. The main result of its activation together with NATO’s defence clause would concern the involvement of the EU’s six non-NATO countries (in particular Finland and Sweden) in the conflict. Their participation would require ​a political decision taken by them and, in principle, would take place outside NATO structures on a bilateral basis. It is obvious that experiences gained from NATO partnership activities would be relevant in organising their contribution. It is, however, NATO’s contingency planning and command structure that would play the leading role: by definition, non-members of NATO will not have been part of the corresponding planning preparations.
One further observation concerning the relationship between the EU and NATO concerns the way in which they are perceived by external actors such as Russia. Even as its attitude towards NATO became harsher over the years, Russia’s perception of the EU’s role as an actor in security and defence policy remained nonchalant. The situation, however, changed fundamentally during the run-up to the confrontation in Ukraine. Since then, the roles of NATO and the EU are hardly distinguishable as a part of the Russian enemy picture. In Russia’s December 2015 National Security Strategy, NATO and the EU are presented as companion parts of the West, with NATO and the United States at the forefront. Russia sees EU membership (or even associate status with the EU) as leading inexorably to NATO membership: it is this view which informed Russia’s policy in Ukraine from 2013 onwards.
Considerations of the EU as a security and defence framework remain in a state of flux. Uncertainty about the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU, the stresses placed on the Schengen regime, the difficulties in securing a resolution to the Cyprus problem, and the redefinition of EU-Turkey relations are all at play at the time of writing, and each one can have a significant effect on the future of the EU as a security and defence actor. The fact remains that EU membership and its implications in the field of security and defence have led, after due political deliberation, to the end of non-alignment as Finland’s policy of choice in 2007.
Finland’s policy within the CSDP. Security policy considerations played a key role in Finland’s decision to join the EU, and to do so with no legal or de facto opt-outs. Therefore, a functional and credible CSDP has always been of the utmost importance to the country. Finland has been in favour of deepening the CSDP, while putting the emphasis on concrete issues such as the development of common capabilities and better use of the Union’s comprehensive toolbox and civil-military cooperation. Finland has contributed to most EU-led ​civil and military operations. It also provides troops to the roster of EU Battle Groups. These have not been used since their creation in 2006, however.
The EU’s mutual defence clause (TEU, Art. 42.7) has had important consequences for Finland’s policies and legislation. The adoption of the clause led to the abandonment of non-alignment as Finland’s security policy. The corresponding legislative changes are currently being discussed, which would provide the legal framework for the reception and provision of international assistance, above and beyond the current legislation on crisis management and its provisions concerning the enlarged use of force. The mutual defence clause has been the driving force for these changes but their scope is of a much broader nature, since they also apply to non-EU contingencies as long as they are in conformity with the principles of the UN Charter. They would be of direct relevance to Finland’s Bündnisfähigkeit, its ability to play its full role as an ally, if the country were to join NATO.
Nordic cooperation in security and defence policy: how much can it achieve? Nordic defence cooperation has had a pragmatic image since the Cold War. Differing positions towards the EU and NATO create obvious constraints for deeper security and defence policy cooperation between the Nordic states. Cooperation, therefore, has focused on crisis management, training and exercises, and armaments cooperation.
The Finnish and Swedish partnerships with NATO, and the Norwegian engagement in the EU’s crisis management policy, have provided larger frameworks for Nordic defence cooperation and platforms for the use of joint Nordic capabilities.
A couple of recent efforts have been made that go beyond the pragmatic character of cooperation, however. First came the so-called Swedish solidarity declaration of 2009. Confirming its commitment to the EU’s military assistance and solidarity clauses, Sweden extended its scope to the two Nordic states (Iceland and Norway) outside the EU. Later on, a similar declaration between the Nordic states was adopted in a ministerial meeting in 2011, focusing on cybersecurity, terrorist attacks and natural or manmade disasters. This Nordic Declaration stated that the intensified cooperation would be undertaken wholly in line with each country’s security and defence policy, and would complement existing European and Euro-Atlantic cooperation.
​The latter part of the declaration again serves as a reminder of the natural limits of defence cooperation between the Nordic states. Joint preparedness or planning to fully implement the solidarity clause in a collective defence setting will be hindered as long as the Nordic states have different positions with respect to NATO.
Finland and Sweden have deepened defence cooperation. Differences in the political climate of the two countries, including the issue of possible NATO membership, has not impaired this cooperation. In the Nordic context, the difference in status between NATO members (Denmark, Iceland and Norway) and non-NATO members (Finland and Sweden) has not in itself prevented deepening of cooperation, and the same could apply if Sweden and Finland made a different choice with regard to NATO membership. But there are clear limits further down the road: a true collective defence alliance between the two countries – including integrated capabilities and a mutual defence clause with joint structures and planning – would force them to adopt an identical position towards NATO membership as long as the bilateral union were in force.
* ↑ As well as Australia, Georgia and Jordan.
* ↑ Cf. Government programme, spring 2015.
* ↑ 22 out of 28 EU members belong to NATO and vice versa. The non-NATO countries of the EU are Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden.
«NATO Membership» is not as straightforward a proposition as it may appear at first blush. Historically, legally and practically, the Alliance came about in two distinct parts. First came the North Atlantic Treaty, signed on 4 April 1949 by the twelve founding members, which entered into force on 24 August of that year. Since then, sixteen additional states have signed and ratified the Treaty. None of the parties to the Treaty has chosen to renounce it since it has been in existence.
The creation of a military organisation was not a treaty commitment, nor had it been planned for ab initio. The move from a legally-binding political association of nations to a broad-spectrum politico-military organisation came about as a result of the sharp rise in international tension caused by the Korean War (June 1950–July 1953). The decision to study the establishment of a centralised command structure was taken in September 1950, followed in December by the designation of General Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). The basic military structures for the Alliance in Europe and the political decision-making machinery, with the North Atlantic Council (NAC) at its centre, were in place by mid-1951, and the entity has been known since then as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
France chose, from 1966 to 2009, to withdraw from the military part of NATO for the most part, removing all of its forces from the integrated command structure, while remaining a party to the Treaty and represented on the NAC as well as in a number of technical bodies. As a budding nuclear power located in a crucial geographical position, France could retain this policy despite the reluctance of her NATO allies. This is not on offer to putative new members of NATO: membership means both becoming a party to the Treaty and a full participant in the organisation.
​Greece withdrew from NATO’s integrated military structure from 1974 to 1980, in the aftermath of the invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974 by fellow member state Turkey.
Another country, Spain, joined the Treaty and the political organs of NATO in 1982, but did not become a full participant in the command structure until 1999. However, a tight and long-standing bilateral military treaty with the US made this posture acceptable to NATO, while Spain’s geographical location made it an unlikely candidate for an armed attack from the outside. Finland’s geostrategic situation is different.
1. NATO’s basic purpose
THE TREATY. The basic Treaty commitment is clear: the parties “unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security” (preamble). These two goals are materialised in the corresponding operative Articles around which the others tend to revolve.
Article 5 states “that an armed attack against one…in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against…all”, adding that assistance to the attacked taken “individually and in concert with the other Parties” can include “the use of armed force”.
The wording is unambiguous in the ‘all for one, one for all’ aspect. It is less clear on the mandatory nature of the assistance proffered: the wording adopted was aimed at avoiding an isolationist reaction in the US Senate during the ratification debate. It can be argued that other treaty commitments are more straightforward, such as the 1954 Brussels Treaty between the Western European states (“…the Parties will…afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power”) or the more recent Lisbon Treaty of European Union, in Article 42.7: “If a Member State is the victim of an armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power”. Finland is naturally bound by this commitment, which sets a distinct precedent vis-à-vis its previous policies of neutrality and non-alignment.
What makes the Washington Treaty’s Article 5 uniquely powerful in comparison to the examples that have been cited is the United States’ membership of ​the organisation, along with its unrivalled military capabilities and superpower reach on the one hand, and the existence of the political and military decision-making structure and process embodied in NATO on the other. It is this combination which makes NATO profoundly different in the field of security and defence from the European Union, notwithstanding the fact that 22 EU members out of 28 are members of NATO (and vice versa).
It was noted in the previous assessment on the “Effects of Finland’s Possible NATO Membership” (21 December 2007) that “NATO’s original task, prevention of an attack from outside, is no longer as central…as it used to be. Within NATO, it is estimated that, in the next ten years at least, the Alliance will not face such a military threat which it would not be able to respond to”. This is no longer the case on both counts: Article 5 is back at the centre of the Alliance’s concerns, and new measures were taken at the NATO Summit in Wales (2014) or are under active consideration to enable the Alliance to credibly meet developing military threats, notably in the Baltic and on NATO’s Eastern border. The NATO Summit in Warsaw in July 2016 will develop these measures further.
On the initiative of European members of NATO, Article 5 was invoked in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks against the United States.
Article 4 may be less well known to the broader public but is of substantial practical consequence. “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened”: this instrument can thus be invoked by any member, and on occasion this is what happens in practice. Lithuania and Poland did so in 2014 in the face of Russian operations in Crimea, and Turkey has done so three times in recent years (in 2003 during the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq, in 2012 when a Turkish combat aircraft was shot down by Syria, and in 2015 during the siege of Kobane on the Turkish-Syrian border). In itself, Article 4 is fundamentally no different from other consultative instruments, in the UN or EU frameworks for instance. As it can represent a step on the ladder to Article 5, it has a quality of its own, however. This also helps explain why it is invoked relatively rarely: most member states usually understand that this instrument must not be abused.
THE ORGANISATION. If one strips away what NATO has in common with other treaty organisations relevant to Europe, four elements stand out.
​First, the existence of an integrated command structure, which gives the parties to the Treaty the authority to operate collectively in military terms with greater efficiency and promptness than would otherwise be the case, whether acting in the framework of Article 5 or not. This can be extended to include non-NATO members, as has been the case in Bosnia, Kosovo (with inter alia, Russian troops operating as part of NATO’s KFOR in 1999-2000) or Afghanistan (ISAF)). But this naturally does not readily apply to Article 5 contingencies, particularly those implying extremely short timelines such as NATO’s new VJTF (Very High Readiness Joint Task Force). By the same token, NATO’s key Defence Policy and Planning Committee (DPPC) is off limits to non-members.
Second, a NATO-specific infrastructure, including integrated air surveillance and air defence (notably NATO AWACS) and logistical networks. When France left the integrated command structure in 1966, it continued despite some caveats to be a full partner in the NATO air surveillance system and in the military pipeline organisation. These are highly integrated assets which imply an Article 5 commitment. They are essential to collective defence, whether as a part of deterrence or for the conduct of operations.
Third, despite their lack of prominence in post-Cold War NATO discourse, nuclear weapons remain an underpinning of NATO’s deterrence, with their ability to counter escalatory moves by a Russia which has in recent years placed increasing importance on its nuclear arsenal (see Chapter II). NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg issued a strong reminder on this score at the February 2016 Munich Security Conference.
This nuclear role includes the nuclear forces of Britain and France, which are considered to be “contributing to the overall strengthening of the Alliance” (Ottawa Declaration of NAC in ministerial session, 19 June 1974). Nuclear weapons also contribute to overall deterrence by ensuring strategic coupling between the United States and Europe: American air-delivered non-strategic nuclear weapons are stationed in five European countries, under so-called “double key” arrangements. These weapons (B61 bombs) are currently the object of a life-extension programme ensuring their long-term effectiveness. This programme (B61-12 LEP) is expected to come to a conclusion by 2021 at an overall cost of some $958 million to the American taxpayer.
US forces thus operate alongside European forces in Europe at all levels of the escalatory ladder.
​Fourth, and of everyday practical utility, NATO is the framework in which standards and norms are developed to enable the technical and procedural interoperability of Western forces at all levels of military activity, including those of a significant number of non-NATO partners. Without such interoperability, coalitions of the willing such as ISAF in Afghanistan would have been substantially more difficult to assemble and run. Full NATO membership is not a prerequisite for participation in this field, but it is the existence of NATO’s integrated command structure which makes it possible to produce this public good on a large scale and at all levels. Finland is already deeply engaged in a multifaceted policy conducive to interoperability, directly with and indeed within NATO (e.g. ISAF in Afghanistan) and with NATO members, or indirectly via cooperation with Sweden, itself an evidently bündnisfähig country. Indeed, there is a widespread sense in NATO that Finland is close to the limit that it can reach without being a full member.
In practice, the pace-setter of the production of standards will tend to be the Alliance’s most powerful member, the US, with some 70% of NATO’s overall defence spending. However, in a multilateral setting such as NATO, the US cannot purely and simply impose its technical and operational norms, in contrast to what tends to occur when the US operates a hub-and-spokes system as with its allies in Asia-Pacific (South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand…): they and other non-NATO partners, which have been engaged in a long-standing direct defence-industrial relationship with the US, can end up being cramped into American-first choices.
WHAT NATO IS NOT. As the previous lines suggest, NATO essentially owes its depth and credibility to full US engagement in every facet of its activities, but it is not a mere extension of US power. It is a rare anomaly in the history of international affairs: a largely sui generis multilateral defence alliance.
This is in keeping with its historical origin. The Washington Treaty was the consequence not of American pressure but of the British and French quest for security reassurance once Stalin’s USSR had decided to treat the Marshall Plan as a strategic challenge, with the creation of the Kominform in late 1947. The establishment of NATO as a military structure was the product of the overall Western fear of a new World War after the invasion of South Korea. The Western Europeans’ attempt to create a “European army” (The ​European Defence Community) as an integral part of NATO under SACEUR failed not because of non-existent US rejection, but because France refused to ratify the corresponding treaty in 1954.
In the post-Cold War era, strong British and French pressure was required to help convince the Clinton administration to accept the forceful intervention of NATO in Bosnia after the Srebrenica massacre. NATO’s war in Kosovo was the result of a joint US and Western European initiative. It was the Europeans not the Americans who took the lead in invoking Article 5 for the first time and in America’s favour after the attacks of 11 September 2001: the US preference was to use its Florida-based Central Command (CENTCOM) as the vehicle for the overthrow of the Taliban. ISAF became a NATO operation only 20 months after its creation in Afghanistan. US pressure did not succeed in securing NATO political endorsement of the planned invasion of Iraq, nor did it convince Turkey to allow the passage of US troops through its territory to Iraq. In the Libyan air campaign of 2011, France and the UK, not the US, were the prime movers once the operations had been handed over to NATO.
These and other examples tend to demonstrate that NATO is not a US “tool”; it often provides a vehicle to influence the US and it constrains rather than enhances US unilateralist inclinations.
US influence, as opposed to direct pressure, can and does have effects on national choices within NATO: during the years of NATO counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan, the Baltic States ratcheted back on their territorial defence to make way for expeditionary forces. Their border guards, initially built on the Finnish model, and with Finnish help, were turned into a police force. But this in itself does not make NATO America’s tool. It is also worth noting that forces from the Baltic States gained valuable combat experience in Afghanistan: this is arguably facilitating the re-building of a credible territorial defence in Estonia, for instance.
Sweden’s decision to dismantle its territorial defence a few years ago was taken independently of NATO.
Nor is NATO a war machine that can be activated as a result of pressures from within the organisation. With the exception of assets such as those described above (air defence, logistics…), NATO does not “own” its own troops. The NRF, in which Finland is a participant, is composed of troops belonging to the member states. Even the VJTF, which will ‘belong’ to ​SACEUR in military terms, will ultimately only be deployable at the rate of the slowest of the political authorisation processes of the countries involved. Indeed, this has been the case for previous forces assigned to SACEUR, such as the Cold War-era Allied Mobile Force (AMF): when SACEUR attempted to move its air component on his own initiative to protect Turkey during the 1991 Gulf War, countries whose aircraft and aircrew were part of the AMF withheld authorisation (Belgium and Germany).
If Article 5 is based on the principle of ‘all for one, one for all’, the same does not hold true for non-Article 5 combat operations: Greece did not participate in the Kosovo air campaign; fully half of NATO’s (and the EU’s) members, including major countries such as Germany and Poland, did not support the Libya campaign in 2011 and only nine out of 28 actually participated in the operations, in which a number of non-NATO countries (Sweden, United Arab Emirates, Qatar…) were also present.
In other words, NATO decision-making allows for substantial flexibility, as a somewhat paradoxical result of the rule of consensus. Since substantive decisions are not taken by a straight for-or-against vote (as is the case in the EU), those who don’t want to participate in a given non-Article 5 initiative simply opt out, without preventing others from moving forward. There are necessarily limits to this flexibility, but as the Libyan case indicates, they are very broad indeed.
2. Full membership options
For the purpose of this assessment, we have discarded the “Gaullist option” (membership with Article 5 but placed outside of NATO’s military force structure and defence planning machinery), for the reasons indicated above: it is not on offer. Any membership will be full membership.
However, this does not mean that there is only one way of being a full member with only one set of possible effects. Similarly, the effects of membership will vary as a function of the choices of other partners: a more or ​less joint entry by Finland and Sweden will not generate the same consequences as a stand-alone decision by either country to become a member. Several templates will therefore be mentioned here, while some of their specific effects will be explained in greater detail in Chapter IV.
FULL MEMBERSHIP FOR BOTH FINLAND AND SWEDEN. This will be our baseline for assessing effects but it has variations, since Finland would have the possibility of choosing between different postures. One option is to adhere to what is absolutely required to be a full member but nothing beyond that requirement: this would be akin to Norway’s self-imposed restrictions, with no nuclear weapons, no foreign bases, and “non provocative” defence of Finnmark, with limited allied military activity eastward of 24° East longitude. Another is to choose to add on other features to its membership, as is the case today for Poland and the Baltic States, for instance, which are requesting a permanent foreign NATO presence on their territory. In the case of Germany, the non-deployment of foreign forces and nuclear weapons on the territory of the former German Democratic Republic is based on the “2+4” treaty (1990), which set the terms of German reunification. Conversely, NATO’s decision not to proceed with such deployments on the territory of NATO’s post-Cold War members in Central Europe is of a political nature.
A special treaty regime also applies to the Norwegian Svalbard Islands: Article 9 of the Paris Treaty (1920) prohibits naval bases and fortifications and the use of the islands for warlike purposes. The treaty includes 41 parties, and has been ratified by the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, Germany and all of the Scandinavian states.
The Faroe Islands, an autonomous territory exercising home rule within the Kingdom of Denmark are part of NATO. The same applies to Greenland.
If Finland and Sweden were both to join NATO, their specific posture could differ, as is already the case for EU membership, with both countries in the EU but with Sweden outside of the single currency.
​FINLAND IN, SWEDEN OUT. Although this appears an unlikely option, it is not impossible. It would generate substantially different effects than the baseline scenario for both Finland and NATO. The conditions under which Article 5 would be implemented would be more complex for geographical reasons than in the joint membership hypothesis and would probably be less appealing for NATO in terms of facilitating the defence of the Baltic States.
FINLAND OUT, SWEDEN IN. Although this possibility lies outside of a strict interpretation of our Terms of Reference, it calls for some consideration given its degree of likelihood. It may also have some attractiveness viewed from a logistical and operational NATO perspective, despite the potential for adverse effects for Finland. The membership of Sweden would greatly facilitate the circumvention of Russian Anti-Access Area Denial (A2AD) assets in Kaliningrad threatening NATO forces en route to the Baltic States. Given the military geography of the region, Article 5 defence of Sweden would also represent little stress for NATO compared to other recent members, notwithstanding the dismantling of territorial defence. Sweden’s military and defence-industrial cooperation with the US since the late 1950s, its American defence guarantee, and its relationship with NATO during the Cold War would give its possible membership of NATO a natural quality in the eyes of many observers.
* ↑ It may be worth noting that before NATO was set up, the five founding states of the Western European Union (the UK, France and Benelux) had established a command structure, the Western Union Defence Organisation (WUDO), from 1948 to 1951 headed by Field Marshall Montgomery in Fontainebleau, which eventually became NATO’s SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe).
* ↑ A hub-and-spokes system refers to the US as a ‘hub’ with no apparent connections between the ‘spokes’, i.e. with the countries with which it has a bilateral alliance, which enhances the dominant role played by the US.
* ↑ An extreme case occurred at the end of the Kosovo campaign, a non-Article 5 contingency, in June 1999. British General Sir Michael Jackson, as commander of NATO’s Rapid Reaction Corps, refused to obey an order given by American General Wesley Clark acting as SACEUR, to prevent the reinforcement of the Russian force at Pristina air base. General Jackson reminded his superior that such a political decision had to be approved by his government; he allegedly added that “I’m not going to start the third world war for your sake”. Mike Jackson’s career did not suffer as a result; Wes Clark lost his job as SACEUR earlier than he expected.
* ↑ Neither of these territories is part of the EU, nor do they belong to the Schengen area.
THE EFFECTS OF FULL NATO
The effects of Finland’s possible membership will be dealt with on the basis of what mathematicians call: “the problem is considered to have been as resolved”, i.e. Finland has joined NATO, without prejudging whether this will, or should, happen. Therefore, we will avoid a balance-sheet type of presentation of liabilities and assets, of pros and cons. Conversely, some of the effects will be heavily scenario-dependent, notably in terms of the existence or absence of a more or less joint approach between Finland and Sweden.
Since NATO’s raison d’être is to provide collective defence, the defence and military effects will be examined first, followed by an assessment of the strategic and political consequences.
1. Getting from here to there
Before detailing these effects, it must be noted that the pace of possible accession can have effects of its own. Membership processes can be more or less prolonged, depending on the state of political decision-making in the accession country and on the view existing NATO countries have as to the desirability of, and its readiness for, full membership. The entry of post-communist states was relatively slow both because of the preference for grouped memberships (Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, in 1999; then the “Big Bang” of 2004 with seven entrants including the Baltic States) and the intrinsic difficulty of making these former Warsaw Pact countries NATO-compatible. But time was not of the essence during this strategically benign period. Nor are other post-communist states such as Albania, Croatia and currently Montenegro models for Finland in terms of meeting NATO standards.
The accession process that is possibly the most comparable to Finland or Sweden in terms of the internal political dynamics may be that of Spain. Not unlike Finland (and Sweden), the population of Spain was divided on ​the issue of membership, largely along party lines. Despite Spain’s joining the Atlantic Alliance in 1982, there was widespread disagreement and the implementation of its full participation was put on hold. The matter was put to a referendum in 1986, with 52.5% voting in favour, notwithstanding the backdrop of negative opinion polls. The pace of accession was clearly dictated by the political decision-making process not by technical obstacles. Time was not of the essence.
Finland is in a more exposed location and for legitimate political reasons a hypothetical accession process may be long. The transition period from the current security regime to possible NATO membership would have to be the object of careful diplomatic and political preparation (see section 4 below). The need for advance preparation by Finland with its Western partners in case of accession, notably in terms of handling possible Russian reactions, has been a recurrent theme in many of our meetings.
2. Defence and military implications for NATO
Finland’s possible membership of NATO has strategic and military consequences for NATO as well as for Finland. The effects for NATO will be examined first, since NATO’s response to a possible membership request by Finland will depend to a large extent on these effects. Furthermore, NATO’s ability to fulfil its treaty tasks vis-à-vis Finland as a member is of great potential importance for Finland.
COMMAND STRUCTURE. Unlike the situation during and after the Cold War, NATO’s command structure is no longer principally organised around territorial commands having responsibility for specific geographical areas. Its organisation is built along mainly functional lines, with operations (ACO, Allied Command Operations) in Mons (Belgium) under SACEUR on the one hand, and transformation based in Norfolk (Virginia) under ACT (Allied Command Transformation). Under ACO come land (LANDCOM, in Izmir, Turkey), air (AIRCOM, Ramstein, Germany), and maritime (MARCOM, Northwood, United Kingdom) commands and two joint forces commands (JFC) respectively in Brunssum (the Netherlands) and Naples (Italy). It is at this joint forces level that one can find a broad North-South division. Bringing Finland into this overall command structure should not pose significant difficulties for NATO, whether Finland joins alone or with Sweden as part of NATO’s North-East European theatre of operations.
​The experience of NATO’s newly created Force Integration Units (NFIUS) in the Baltic States and Poland may also be of relevance to Finland.
INFRASTRUCTURE. For NATO, the full integration of Finland’s air defence assets would be a substantial improvement on the current situation. Today, there is some transparency between NATO’s air situation and defence and Finland’s assets (notably the Air Situational Data Exchange, ASDE): this is necessary for air traffic management and safety reasons. However, the sharing of the regional air picture is partial in nature and incomplete in geographical scope when compared to what it would be in a full NATO framework. This applies both to air situation data in the airspace of Finland and its NATO or EU partners, as well as to the Russian airspace contiguous to Finland. The same remarks apply to Sweden’s limited sharing of air situation data with both NATO and Finland.
Technically and operationally, the integration of existing and planned NATO and Finnish air surveillance assets would be a straightforward task, with Finland joining NATO’s Air Command and Control System (ACCS). Finland has the corresponding technological know-how and experience of cooperation with industrial partners involved in ACCS.
It is unclear whether Finland (and/or Sweden) could acquire ACCS without full membership of NATO. However, it could presumably secure a level of interoperability with ACCS comparable to that of neutral Switzerland’s FLORAKO air surveillance and control system. In the meantime, Finland’s and Sweden’s ability to share a detailed picture of the air situation between themselves and with NATO partners remains limited.
Conversely, logistical infrastructure issues would be largely scenario-dependent. From NATO’s standpoint, a joint entry by Finland and Sweden (or indeed by Sweden alone) would be convenient in the sense that circumvention of Kaliningrad’s A2AD and support for the defence of the Baltic States would presumably transit via Sweden. The situation would be different were Finland to join alone: in that case, planning for the defence of the Baltic States would call on access to Finnish land, airspace and territorial waters.
FORCE POSTURE AND PLANNING. If one assumes that Russian force dispositions and activities remain more or less what they are today, Finland’s current and planned (see below) force posture should be militari​ly adequate from a NATO standpoint. Finland’s territorial defence is superior to that of the smaller Baltic States. This would be true whether Finland joins alone or with Sweden. Foreign military bases, let alone the stationing of nuclear weapons, would not be a prerequisite for the effective extension of NATO’s defence guarantee.
However, Russia may reinforce its forces in the former Leningrad Military District, notably in the Murmansk oblast and on the Karelian Isthmus, either in response to Finland and/or Sweden joining NATO, or independently of such an eventuality. Russia’s current deployment of an infantry brigade at the recently reactivated base of Alakurtti south of Murmansk demonstrates the importance Russia attaches to this particular military region, which remains a strategic nexus. This should not be overestimated however: according to the Estonian intelligence service’s most recent public report (March 2016), Russia can only field some 30 battalion-sized tactical groups in the whole of the Western Military District (from Kaliningrad to Vorkuta). Russia could also ramp up its military activities vis-à-vis Finland to levels equal or superior to those to which Sweden and NATO countries in the Baltic Sea and North Atlantic have been subjected in recent years, including simulated strategic bombing attacks on critical Swedish installations.
In NATO terms, an increased threat level vis-à-vis Finland as a NATO member would be substantially easier to handle if Sweden were also in. The ability to provide timely NATO support and reinforcements to Finland would enhance the deterrent capabilities of the Finnish force structure and limit the risks of Russian miscalculation.
Conversely, in such a contingency, a stand-alone Finnish membership could lead NATO to propose additional military measures such as the prepositioning of equipment packages along lines being implemented in the Baltics and a substantial rotational NATO presence in Finland. Such measures could also be called for in order to facilitate the defence of Estonia and the other Baltic States.
In the event of a conflict, NATO would also expect Finland to participate actively in the common defence, not least in the Baltic area: there would therefore be pressure on Finland to develop its beyond-the-borders capabilities. However, to NATO planners, Finland’s territorial defence as a tool for deterrence-by-denial would appear to be the most important direct military asset that Finland could provide for the common defence. To the ​extent that Finland attaches great value to its territorial defence, expeditionary military contributions should not be allowed to dimension Finland’s defence effort. Participation in coalition operations may be politically and symbolically important but should not constitute a defining factor in force planning terms. From the NATO perspective, the existence of Finland’s territorial defence as a member of NATO would cramp the military options of Russian force planners vis-à-vis the Baltic States.
However, a much more agile Russian decision and implementation capability will impose additional burdens in terms of response times on mobilisation-based territorial defence, whether or not Finland joins NATO.
NUCLEAR DIMENSION. In none of the membership options would there be any strategic or military reason for Finland to be invited to station nuclear weapons on its territory or to acquire dual-capable aircraft. Strategic coupling between the US and Europe does not require such measures. Indeed, for NATO, forward-basing such capabilities in Finland would be a factor of vulnerability as well as of escalation instability in the event of a “use-them or lose-them” situation.
3. Defence and military implications for Finland
From the NATO standpoint, Finland would fit readily into the NATO family in practical terms. Its military forces meet NATO standards, and its defence and strategic posture vis-à-vis Russia is consistent with NATO aims and policies. From Finland’s perspective, the same remark applies: NATO policy and requirements are generally congruent with the needs of Finnish defence policy.
DEFENCE PLANNING AND COMMAND STRUCTURE. As a member of NATO, Finland would be directly involved in NATO defence planning and in the command structure. This would represent a step-change vis-à-vis current military cooperation by Finland with NATO: Finland would be part of the overall benchmarking process between the members, and a measure of coherence could be established between Finnish defence preparations and the collective and individual preparations of NATO and its members. The Finnish military and civil servants would have their billets in the NATO command structure: if Finland decides to join, it will want to carefully target those postings that would be the most important in its eyes.
​Given the recognised qualities of the Finnish politico-military establishment and its intimate cooperation with NATO and NATO partners, “plugging” into these aspects should be straightforward.
INTEROPERABILITY. As stated above, Finnish defence already enjoys a high degree of interoperability with NATO forces in general, and with those of its Scandinavian members more particularly. For instance, Finland is one of the very few non-NATO countries to be part of the Link 16 data exchange system between combat systems, such as its F-18 aircraft. With the exception of air surveillance and control, where there is substantial leeway for improvement, Finland is probably reaching the limit when it comes to generating increased interoperability with NATO (and therefore by ricochet with the EU) without being a full member of the Alliance. Entering NATO’s full-spectrum planning process under the Defence Policy and Planning Committee (DPPC) will not be possible outside of full membership. The same applies to the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), part of the enhanced NATO Response Force (NRF). The VJTF is optimised for Article 5 tasks.
FINNISH DEFENCE POSTURE. The current changes being mooted in Finland in terms of the rapid activation of reservists and the more flexible use thereof are fully in line with the short-warning time threats which NATO aims to deter and, if need be, to defend against.
If Russia were to substantially increase the forces arrayed in proximity to Finland (see Chapter III, section 2), Finland may have to review its dispositions, for instance with further increases in readiness. It does not have the option of adopting the equivalent of Norway’s “Finnmark policy”, . For a power advancing from the East, Finnmark was a strategic dead end during the last World War and during the Cold War and remains so, unlike Finland whose territory opens access to the whole Baltic basin. Finland as a member of NATO could draw on allied solidarity to buttress Finland’s defence in the form of prepositioned materiel and the more or less sustained presence of allied forces, with a view to reducing the risk of Russian miscalculation.
REGIONAL DEFENCE. Finland’s territorial defence does not lend itself readily to out-of-the-country military intervention. As stated above, the importance of territorial defence for Finland implies that expeditionary capabilities should not be developed to the point of making territorial defence unsustainable, and thus put the Baltic basin at risk. However, ​Finland has already participated in military operations abroad, including in NATO and EU formats: with, in the past, up to 800 troops in KFOR Kosovo, a construction battalion in IFOR and SFOR Bosnia, and a company-sized commitment in the German sector of ISAF Afghanistan. No less importantly, it is also a force contributor to NATO’s Response Force (NRF), an excellent school for developing interoperability.
In the event that Article 5 entered into play in defence of the Baltic States, only the major powers could provide heavy military muscle: Finland’s contribution would in all cases be militarily limited. NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) may play an important role in case of an Article 5 crisis in the Baltic States. Finland as a possible NATO member could aim at providing a limited but cutting-edge contribution to that unit along with its existing participation in the NRF. The VJTF in totto is planned to encompass some 5,000 soldiers from the overall NATO family. Overall, however, NATO membership should not lead Finland to develop its expeditionary component substantially.
INFRASTRUCTURE. Finland’s defence infrastructure is close to NATO standards (see above) and could be plugged into integrated NATO without substantial difficulty if the basic mission is the defence of Finland. The most significant move would be the integration of Finland’s air surveillance and management networks with NATO’s Air Command and Control System (see chapter III, section 2).
If Sweden stays out of NATO, Finland would presumably be invited by NATO to also make its logistical infrastructure fit for use by NATO reinforcements to the Baltic States. The implications this would have from the Finnish standpoint would require a specific technical evaluation by Finland’s MoD in concert with NATO.
NUCLEAR ISSUES. The assessors assume that Finland-in-NATO would not request the deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory, nor that Finland would acquire combat aircraft on the basis of their ability to deliver nuclear weapons. However, Finland would have to decide whether it would join NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group. For the time being, this is the case for 27 out of 28 members (only nuclear-armed France withholds its participation). Belonging to the NPG provides participant states with information on NATO’s nuclear doctrine and planning but does not imply participation in nuclear missions per se. Even NATO countries such as Denmark, ​which objected publicly in the past to NATO nuclear policy, never ceased to be part of the NPG.
Members of NATO and of the NPG which do not have nuclear weapons on their territory are not expected to task their combat aircraft with nuclear strike missions. They can nonetheless play a part in the execution of such missions in the form of a fighter escort or the suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD), for instance. That is a matter of national choice, however.
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE. Since NATO is a collective defence organisation, Finland alone or with Sweden would have the opportunity of exploiting its competitive advantage and thus be able to punch above its weight in the Alliance. Three areas (but others may exist as well) come to mind:
* Intelligence on Russia’s eastern approaches, from the White Sea southwards. Collecting and processing intelligence is not strictly a NATO task, since intelligence is usually not traded in multilateral contexts, but it naturally serves the collective defence. As Finland moves from a primarily counter-espionage posture to a broader spectrum intelligence-gathering policy, the country’s geographical location and deep knowledge of the region will give it substantial additional leverage.
* Cyberdefence is another, already well-recognised area of Finnish expertise. Its ongoing participation in NATO’s Centre of Excellence in Tallinn sets a significant precedent in this regard.
* So-called “hybrid” or “ambiguous” warfare is another field in which Finland has particular expertise due to the traditional Finnish concept of comprehensive security, which aims to increase the resilience of the whole of society. Hybrid warfare has already been the object of cooperation with NATO partners. Since “little green men” and other “soldiers without insignia” would presumably not enjoy a permissive environment in Finland, it is unclear whether this is a promising area for Finland to exploit in general. It could, however, function as a convenient vehicle for intra-regional cooperation with the Baltic States or serve in a CSDP framework if the EU were to set up a Hybrid Warfare Centre.
​DEFENCE PROCUREMENT AND SECURITY OF SUPPLY. With the important exception of ACCS (see above), NATO is no longer involved in the procurement of major equipment programmes. Conversely, it plays an essential role in setting norms and standards for defence systems. Being fully part of that process would be an improvement on the current situation. Today, Finland has little choice other than to acquire systems incorporating specifications which it has played no part in defining: this applies in practice not only to systems purchased abroad but also to those produced by Finnish contractors. Given the quality but also the diversity of Finland’s defence industrial base, there should be little difficulty in exercising due influence. Finland’s policy of emphasising national control of acquisition choices may be somewhat easier to sustain in the multilateral NATO framework than in pursuing purely bilateral relations with the most powerful foreign suppliers, notably the US, as Sweden has done.
NATO also plays a significant role in terms of providing logistical support, through the NSPA (NATO Supply and Procurement Agency) in Luxembourg and other agencies involved in the security of supply, including NATO’s pipeline system. The recent Host Nation Support Memorandum of Understanding concluded by Finland should facilitate peacetime cooperation in this area, ahead of possible membership of the Organisation.
Finland places greater emphasis than most of NATO’s members on security of supply broadly conceived, notably in terms of sustaining economic activity in a crisis. There would be no reason for NATO membership to change that national policy, which has no downside for the Alliance.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS. NATO as such is a relatively low-cost organisation. Its annual infrastructure expenditure amounts to some EUR 5.2 bn. In view of Finland’s GDP as a proportion of NATO’s total, its share should be slightly in excess of 1%, meaning in practice less than EUR 55 million. These costs should rise in the near future given the currently unsatisfactory state of defence preparations in and towards the Baltic States. To this must be added the human resources cost of Finnish personnel working within the NATO framework in case of membership. NATO currently has an international staff of 1100, and 6700 military and civil servants in the command structure. Using the same ratio, this would represent about 80 people from Finland.
NATO’s benchmark for defence expenditure is set at 2% of GDP: out of 28 members, only four countries (including neighbouring Estonia) meet it, ​possibly joined by a fifth (Poland) in 2016. Finland’s defence budget of EUR 2.69 billion stands at 1.3% of a GDP of EUR 207 billion. However, according to our assessment, the figure rises to EUR 3.41 billion and 1.64% of GDP on the basis of NATO definitions. To close the gap, annual expenditure would have to increase by approximately EUR 730 million.
Preserving conscript-based territorial defence while increasing readiness and modernising the force structure (e.g. the upcoming combat aircraft and naval equipment purchases) will require an increase in spending, whether or not Finland joins NATO.
4. Finland and NATO: strategic and political implications of accession
In empirical terms, the membership (or non-membership) of NATO does not appear to have a major bearing on the ability of a small country to exercise diplomatic initiative on the global scene. Good offices, mediation or development policy are not variables which are tied to a country’s status in terms of collective defence. Norway has been no less dynamic and effective than Finland or Sweden in this respect.
The relationship between Finland and Russia is an asymmetric one and, whether as a part of Sweden or as an independent state, has been so for the past 300 years. This asymmetry has historically been managed through different strategies, co-operative relationships or even short-lived alliances with Russia (Sweden in the 1720s and during the final years of the Napoleonic Wars), alliances with other great powers to balance St. Petersburg/Moscow, or by adopting a neutral or non-aligned policy. Finland pursued a policy of neutrality from the 1950s onwards – and Sweden for much longer, since 1814 – and, after the demise of the Soviet Union and joining the EU, military non-alignment. Since 2007, Finland no longer uses the term non-alignment to describe its foreign policy, while Sweden still does. It is simply stated that Finland does not belong to any military alliance.
Unlike Sweden, however, Finland – just like Norway – has a broad bilateral agenda with Russia and a long land/sea border.
Finland’s – and Sweden’s – future relations with NATO, which have developed markedly not least since the end of the Cold War, can for the ​foreseeable future be contained schematically in four scenarios (see section 2 above):
* Both Finland and Sweden stay outside the Alliance
* Finnish Alleingang: only Finland joins NATO
* Swedish Alleingang: only Sweden joins NATO
* Both countries join NATO
REGIONAL CONSEQUENCES. In the following, the three latter scenarios will be discussed assuming that neither the incumbent Finnish nor Swedish governments, barring some very dramatic occurrence in our neighbourhood, will act before the general elections in 2018 (Sweden) and 2019 (Finland) respectively.
Both countries have developed their relations with NATO in recent years. It is often argued that Finland and Sweden through membership of the Partnership for Peace Programme of 1994 and its Enhanced Opportunities Programme (EOP) follow-up of 2014 for all practical purposes are already members of the Alliance and seen as such by the outside world. The Host Nation Support agreement that both countries signed at the NATO Summit in Wales in 2014 is already in force in Finland and will go before the Swedish Riksdag this spring. It could reinforce the assumption that Finland, and Sweden, would in all likelihood be part of a military conflict in the common strategic area of the Baltic Sea region by virtue of EU and bilateral commitments, and Western solidarity more broadly.
Nevertheless, the political discussion that centres on the issue of application for NATO membership demonstrates that the application itself has highly symbolic content politically. There is, of course, a distinction between a close co-operative relationship with NATO, such as the ones Finland and Sweden enjoy, and actual membership, whereby one signs up for the Article 5 guarantees. A co-operative relationship, however close, does not in itself provide guarantees. Furthermore, membership, once in place, is more or less irreversible. No NATO country has ever seriously discussed leaving the Alliance. France left the organisation and the integrated command structure in 1966 but stayed in the Alliance and rejoined in 2009. A co-operative relationship could, in contrast, be terminated in parts or, which is unlikely, in its entirety or just lose its significance.
​An application should be seen as portending a major geopolitical change on the European map. Given the territorial size of Finland and Sweden, this would, in territorial terms, imply the single widest enlargement undertaken since Turkey and Greece joined in 1952. The direct border between NATO and Russia would increase by a factor of two and make the Baltic Sea, with the exception of the innermost part of the Gulf of Finland and the Kaliningrad exclave, a “NATO sea”. After all, it is already an “EU sea”. It will thus constitute a considerable change of the territorial composition of the Alliance. The comparison with Turkey and Greece goes further: Finland, Sweden, and Norway are also “flank countries”.
Finnish membership of NATO would evidently strengthen Finland’s immediate security as it would be included in the Article 5 guarantees, and strengthen the deterrence of any potential attack against the country. Membership would probably also lead to a serious crisis with Russia, for an undefined period of time. While tension would mount, open conflict would not necessarily ensue as Russia would be aware that any transgression would engage the whole Alliance.
Since joining NATO, successive Norwegian governments have attempted to combine deterrence with reassurance. Norway promised not to station nuclear weapons or foreign troops on its soil in peacetime, nor to hold military exercises in the Finnmark region. Similar unilateral self-imposed restrictions could be adopted by Finland (and/or Sweden), but presumably excluding a Finnmark-type regime for any portion of Finland’s territory. Interestingly enough, such restrictions do not seem to have been discussed when Turkey joined, even though that country had a long direct border with the Soviet Union.
If Finland chose to apply for NATO membership, it would constitute a significant political defeat for Moscow. Russian efforts to convey repeated warning signals against joining in past years would have failed. It may be considered paradoxical that Russia is trying to prevent Finnish and/or Swedish membership of the Alliance by intimidation rather than reassurance. This, however, seems to conform to past Russian and Soviet practices and political culture. Moscow’s argument is that whatever it does is in response to aggressive NATO moves.
ON THE ACCESSION PROCEDURE. It should be noted that the pace of possible accession can have effects of its own. Membership processes can be more or less prolonged depending on the state of decision-making in an applicant country and the views existing NATO countries have as to the ​desirability of, or readiness for, full membership. A Finnish application in the foreseeable future would, apart from doubling NATO’s direct border with Russia, probably take place in a charged international situation. As the domestic political process in Finland would require several months, approval by Parliament and, possibly, a referendum campaign, the country could be exposed to strong pressure from Russia. If Sweden were to apply simultaneously, the whole application process would be protracted, since a referendum in that country is, in the view of the Swedish establishment, a natural element of the accession process. How this would play out in Finland is uncertain. Public opinion will be an important part of the accession process.
Referendum processes always run into the problem of how to phrase the question, since this will inevitably influence the outcome. In the case of EU accession, the agreement reached was put to referenda in both Finland and Sweden. In Sweden, as in Denmark, a referendum also took place on whether or not to join the EMU.
A possible Finnish decision to apply for NATO membership would be taken by the President on the basis of a motion proposed by the Government. Before this takes place, the Government would present a report to the Parliament, and the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee would be continuously informed about the process and the negotiations. If the outcome of negotiations were decided to be put to a referendum, a specific law would need to be stipulated accordingly. After the referendum, the Parliament would have to approve the agreement on Finland’s accession, whereafter the President would take the final decision on membership.
The Swedish constitution, for its part, provides for both decisive and consultative referenda, the former only in relation to constitutional issues. However, in practice, the difference between the two forms is not that significant, as even a consultative referendum is seen as decisive. If and when there is a broad consensus that Sweden should apply for membership of NATO, it may well be a condition for Social Democratic support that an enabling referendum be held on whether to apply or not. This is widely seen as the politically central point in an accession process. In Sweden, foregoing an enabling referendum in favour of the Finnish model may lead to accusations that the Government is trying to prejudice ​the outcome of the political process by applying without a clear political mandate.
FAST TRACK? Given this background, the issue of a possible fast-track procedure would in all likelihood be discussed, whereby Article 5 commitments would be declared to operate even before Finland (and Sweden) had become full members. This would be the first time such a procedure would be used by NATO. The high degree of overall interoperability between NATO and Finland and Sweden would make this technically a straightforward option. The downside to this approach is, of course, that if there were a “no” in a referendum (as there was on the single currency in Sweden), the Alliance would be bound by the Treaty to rescind the previous decision, with the ensuing very negative consequences. The incumbent government could be accused of deserting the operating grand strategy, only to be forced to change it back once again. A publicised fast-track procedure could, in practice, and paradoxically, galvanise the membership opponents as they could claim that the Alliance was trying to prejudice the outcome of a democratic process. A fast-track procedure, while obviously important from a security standpoint, would be fraught with internal political complications.
NEIGHBOURS. No doubt, the Baltic States would view Finnish membership and extending the NATO-Russia border as contributing to shifting the tension between them and Russia to the north. Finnish accession could, as it were, entail sharing the burden of tension along a much longer NATO-Russia frontier. They would no longer, with Norway and Poland, be the only frontline states. Should Sweden also apply, this would in practical terms greatly increase the strategic depth of Baltic defence and transform the Nordic/Baltic area into a common strategic space. This would facilitate further military integration between the Baltic States and the new member(s). Defending these republics today is a logistical challenge of the first order.
What reactions could be expected from within the Alliance, should Finland and Sweden apply? Some member states on the southern tier might feel that attention could shift from their concerns to the North. Conversely, some may fear that Finland – with regard to its long border with Russia and history of trying to find a modus vivendi with its great power neighbour – would hamper efforts to oppose Moscow more robustly. Others may feel that if Finnish/Swedish membership does lead to increased tension in Europe, then the Alliance is creating more problems than it will solve; hence, they could believe that it might be better to leave things as they are. ​Others could hesitate to take on Article 5 guarantees for a country with such an exposed geographical position as that of Finland: this argument is sometimes heard in the case of a possible Finnish Alleingang. However, the reality within the Alliance is one of a low degree of apprehension vis-à-vis potential membership by Finland and Sweden: acceptability of membership is high, even if views are not as clearly set on its desirability. As indicated in our meetings, however, a Swedish Alleingang, despite its operational advantages, is seen as problematic politically and strategically, as it would isolate Finland. In the case of Finland, the combination of military seriousness along with a proven track record of managing its “Russian agenda” is an asset even if each of its components can draw reservations of the sort indicated a few lines earlier.
Both countries are seen as fully-fledged Western powers with an proven track record as members of the EU and partners of NATO. Within the Alliance, they would be less contentious than the post-Cold War eastward expansion of NATO.
Under the prevailing political and strategic circumstances, we foresee a low probability of NATO deciding to close the door on further enlargement, but it has to be mentioned if only because of its potentially severe consequences for Finland (and Sweden). Furthermore, something of the sort has happened to the EU’s own enlargement process, which has slowed down dramatically in recent years, with no clear prospect of early enlargement to the candidate states of the Western Balkans. If a door-closing (Torschluss) policy took place in NATO, Finland would no longer be able to use the possibility –as well as the reality – of NATO membership as a tool to master the inescapable geopolitical dilemma posed by its unpredictable neighbour. Finland’s range of available policy options would be reduced. There is no push in NATO today for a Torschluss but this could change over time if America’s commitments in Asia were to lead the US to decrease its engagement in Europe.
As a flank country, Finland can also draw some lessons from the experience of Turkey, which had a long common border with the Soviet Union (Georgian, Armenian, Azerbaijan SSRs) and was admitted into NATO in 1952 during the Korean War – namely in a very tense international situation – and which covered about the same expanse of territory as Finland and Sweden, around 800,000 square km. However, there are several differences between the two cases. Given Russia’s historical claims on control of the Turkish Straits, there was a strong consensus in Turkey about the ​wish to become a member of the Alliance. Several of the founding members saw Turkey as a part of the Middle East, possibly entailing diverting resources from the North or Central front. However, strong commitment in the Korean War (with the distinguished participation of a full combat brigade) and NATO’s first SACEUR, General Eisenhower, were the two factors behind the decision to let Turkey in. It is interesting to note that the USSR, which had attempted in 1946 to secure rights over the control of the Straits, did not react with any particular vigour vis-à-vis Turkey’s (and Greece’s) entry into NATO.
Apart from its political ramifications, a Finnish application would focus attention on the importance of several geographical areas in Russia, namely St. Petersburg on the one hand, and Murmansk and Arkhangelsk on the other.
The former region has always been sensitive, ever since it was founded in 1703, and has contributed to several wars between first Sweden and then Finland and Russia. Today, the area is Russia’s second major economic engine, the closest major region to the borders of NATO. The distance from the Finnish border to St. Petersburg is less than 200 km.
The other region of Russia where NATO proximity would be seen as particularly sensitive is the Kola Peninsula, still the only home to Russian second strike capabilities in the form of nuclear submarines, with Murmansk located less than 200 km from the Finnish border. While the Murmansk area was no less important during the Cold War, it remains central to Russian claims to nuclear superpower status. Nuclear weapons again play a very visible role in Russian defence strategy and policy. Even if Finland were to follow Norwegian self-imposed restrictions when it comes to stationing nuclear weapons and foreign forces on its territory, Russia could seek to increase its forces in the North to protect the Murmansk and Arkhangelsk regions and their land communications with the rest of Russia (see Chapter II). As discussed above, this could in turn generate discussions about a NATO presence in Finland, which could collide with unilateral Finnish undertakings of the Norwegian model.
The argument could be made that since Russia has been living with NATO proximity to Murmansk for rather a long time, it could do so also with Finland in the Alliance. But from the Russian standpoint, there may be a dif​ference between the two cases. Nuclear submarines based in Kola and the growing economic importance of the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean are issues which appeared on the scene well after the founding of the Alliance.. Finnish membership could be interpreted as a move closer to the Kola Peninsula by the Alliance.
While Finnish territory would be important in any conflict around the Baltic Sea, Russia’s strategic problems would be compounded if Sweden were to apply for membership as well. If NATO could use both Finnish and Swedish territory without restriction in such a conflict, the prospects for the Alliance to manage hostilities between Russia and one or two Baltic States would improve considerably. The extent to which Finnish and Swedish membership would change the strategic importance of the adjacent military regions in Russian eyes, as compared with other regions, is difficult to measure as it in all likelihood is connected with the general state of affairs between Russia and its adversaries, and possible conflicts elsewhere. But it is a reasonable assumption that more resources would be devoted to the Northwest.
ON RUSSIA’S POTENTIAL RESPONSE. Russia is not at ease with itself and the world. During the last fifteen years, Russia has turned into a unsatisfied power, questioning post-Cold War arrangements in Europe and even the norms and principles of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and the Paris Charter of 1990. Russia considers itself disadvantaged by the state of affairs in Europe. The view that Russia is not just another European state is largely shared by the Russian elite. This sets Russia apart and leads to a revisionist stand demanding a renegotiation of European security structures and even demanding the recognition of spheres of special interest, in other words a veto over developments that impinge on Russia’s interests. Due to historical experience, this would be unpalatable for Finland. In particular, the enlargement of NATO is seen as a threat, driven by the United States, and aimed at bringing American military bases and forces closer to Russian borders to contain Russia.
Russia shares a land border with fourteen states from North Korea to Norway. Its borders have historically been porous as there are few barriers. This partly explains the innate difficulty Russia has in dealing with its neighbours. Not a single conflict in the post-Soviet sphere has been settled. All remain simmering and are known as frozen conflicts, guaranteeing in most cases a degree of droit-de-regard for Moscow but concurrently hampering economic and human contacts with manifold consequences.
​Despite the fact that the Soviet Union never fully embraced the Finnish policy of neutrality, present-day Russia has never questioned Finland’s integration into Western structures. In general, Russia, like the USSR, remains sceptical vis-à-vis all grey zone arrangements including neutrality, non-alignment and so forth, particularly towards closer cooperation with NATO, which Russia today regards as its adversary. Any enlargement of NATO would be a political defeat for Moscow as it notes in the latest update of its National Security Strategy from December 2015. It states that further enlargement of NATO and the moving of its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders constitute a threat to Russian national security. In the event of Finnish membership, the long common border would only underscore the geopolitical change.
Continued cooperation with NATO, enhanced partnership and the right and possibility to apply for membership, as well as a deepening of military integration with Sweden plus intensive political and military-technical cooperation with the United States are all developments eyed closely by Moscow, but usually commented on below the government level. But a possible Finnish (and/or Swedish) membership of NATO would trigger a Russian response. The geopolitical change would be too major for Moscow to ignore. Fenno-Russian relations would take a beating and the political reaction would be harsh and probably also “personal”, as in the case of the downing of a Russian fighter plane by the Turkish Air Force during the Syrian conflict. The unexpected and unprovoked breach of the border regime in Northern Finland in late 2015 is an example of Russia’s propensity to create a problem, then leverage it and offer to manage it without necessarily solving it. Russian reactions could also include increased pressure on the borders with the Baltic States. An attempt to politically activate the ethnic Russians living in Finland may also be considered. During the accession process, the atmosphere would be poisoned and trade could be badly hit, along lines currently experienced in the Turkish-Russian dispute. As a backdrop to the domestic enlargement debate, the traditional Finnish bilateral agenda would be in a shambles, even if Norway’s ability as a NATO member to sustain a similar “Russian agenda” points to the reversibility of such a state of affairs.
More often than not, the Soviet Union’s and Russia’s track record towards successive NATO enlargements has followed a repetitive sequence: first, opposition, indeed sometimes strident opposition backed by political and economic pressure, then tacit acquiescence and eventually a return to ​the diplomatic and economic status quo ante once enlargement has taken place. Turkey (1952), the Federal Republic of Germany (1955), the extension of NATO to the territory of the former German Democratic Republic (1990), Poland (1999), and the Baltic States (2004) were the most salient episodes fitting into this pattern. Ukraine and Georgia have been the exceptions to this pattern, underscored by ostentatious and credibly backed red lines in a manner not present in other cases.
THE WILL TO DEFEND THE COUNTRY. The will to defend the country reflects historical identities and their role in security and defence policy. The Finnish will to defend the country has always been extremely high, reaching levels of around 80%. More or less the same level of each cohort completes military service. The assumption that NATO membership would weaken this will is just that, an assumption, although it is used in the Finnish debate.
It is difficult to see any direct linkage between NATO membership and the will to defend. Like now, the willingness is likely to depend on the method for formulating the division of responsibilities for defending the country by policies and in political debate. The starting point for NATO membership is national defence, which will be coordinated at the NATO level and supported by joint structures.
The high level of readiness to defend Finland has been well documented in polls conducted systematically for decades. It has not fluctuated to any great degree because of changes in the security political situation in Northern Europe. However, the recent developments in Russia and its aggressive posture are factors that influence this will to defend.
The most important explanation remains history, the legacy of having survived the war, and avoiding occupation. The unbroken military tradition perpetuated in the form of conscription, which covers almost eighty per cent of the male population, has in popular terms kept the tradition alive. Refresher training and the large number of reservists who have volunteered for service in the UN and other peacekeeping operations has further confirmed the image of the Defence Forces. Their ability to modernise ​and purchase cutting-edge equipment like the F-18 Hornet fighter aircraft has enhanced their credibility. Universal conscription also remains the sole recruitment avenue for the officer corps and the NCOs.
Increased military co-operation with Sweden generally remains popular. The same applies to peacekeeping operations. This is also the case for conscripts and reservists when it comes to manoeuvres with NATO troops. It is very difficult to extrapolate any trends as to how the will to defend would be affected by Finland’s possible NATO membership.
FINLAND AND SWEDEN: JOINTLY OR SEPARATELY? If Finland were to apply unilaterally with Sweden staying out for reasons of its own, Finland’s strategic situation would be rather exposed. It would then stand alone as a NATO strategic outpost, with its only land connection with the Alliance a largely uninhabited, mountainous and inaccessible border area with Norway in the far North. The prospect of the Alliance assisting Finland without the use of Swedish territory is hard to imagine. The presence of Russian naval forces in the Gulf of Finland, furthermore, could make the connections with the nearest NATO land territory in Estonia precarious.
A similar Swedish unilateral move could increase Finnish exposure to Russia. Such considerations were important to the Swedish government during the Cold War, when joining NATO was discarded as it could make Finland’s relations with the USSR even more complicated – with the ensuing multiple effects on Sweden. “Back to the future” is a concept that no Swedish government would countenance lightly. It would create a “Finland question” for Sweden that it does not have at present.
It would seem that while a common Finnish and Swedish application for membership would entail a considerable change in the political geography of Europe, with the ensuing risks of at least temporarily augmented tension between NATO and Russia, it is, in strategic terms, clearly preferable to either a Finnish or Swedish Alleingang. A Finnish unilateral approach to the Alliance would create serious logistical problems for NATO, magnifying the problems that the Baltic States present, since there would be no real ​territorial contiguity between the new member and the Alliance. A Swedish unilateral move could lead to a return to a Cold War scenario, whereby Finland would have to tread carefully to maintain a reasonable balance between Russia and the Alliance and rely upon Sweden to act as a bridge. This, in turn, would also involve serious diplomatic and other challenges for Stockholm.
A Finnish – and Swedish – application for membership of the Alliance is an issue of great strategic importance, not only for the possible applicant countries but also for the Alliance. It is, in essence, a question of grand strategy, which has to be considered thoroughly. Small nations do not often change their basic foreign policy guidelines. They are more dependent on continuity than great powers. Any change would also need a domestic consensus for it to gain legitimacy at home and abroad.
* ↑ A separate referendum was held in the Åland Islands a few weeks after the referendum in mainland Finland. Accession referenda also took place in Ireland (1972), Norway (1972, 1994), Denmark (1972), Austria (1994), and in 2003 in Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, as well as Croatia (2012).
* ↑ *Before General Eisenhower became a candidate in the November 1952 presidential elections.
* ↑ It is also worth noting the as-of-now moderate reaction towards Montenegro’s ongoing entry into NATO. Although Montenegro is out of Russian’s military reach and has little military importance of its own, strong emotional religious and political bonds have existed historically between Russia and Montenegro. Yet, in political and diplomatic terms, Russia’s political response has been muted. Nor has Montenegro, a favourite holiday spot for wealthy Russian, been the object of economic sanctions as yet.
​CONCLUSION
In closing, we wish to underscore the following points.
SEA CHANGE. First, a decision to join the Atlantic Alliance and its Article 5 collective defence commitment would represent a sea change, transforming Finland’s security policy overall, and its relationship with Russia in particular. Paradoxically, the deepest effects would not be in the sphere of military policy and dispositions: membership of NATO would not entail a marked departure from the long-standing Finnish choice in favour of a conscript-based territorial defence. The shift would be geopolitical and strategic in nature, as momentous, for example, as Sweden’s decision to become neutral some two centuries ago, or Poland joining NATO at the end of the nineties. These were decisions conceived for the long haul, which transformed the positioning of these states as political and strategic actors. In other words, the decision to join NATO would not be a mere incremental extension of Finland’s increasingly close partnership with NATO.
TIMING. Second, in the security of countries, the timing of decisions is of the essence. Nor should decisions be rushed. An accession process should be based on the dual understanding that it is a long-term commitment and that applying for membership could be difficult once a strategic storm has broken. Symmetrically, a decision to pursue the current policy of cooperation with NATO short of membership should be viewed in the same light. The possibility to apply for membership remains a tool to master the geopolitical dilemma posed by an unpredictable neighbour.
JOINT DECISION. Finally, we repeatedly received confirmation of the proposition that the effects of possible NATO membership would be considerably more benign for Finland if such a decision were made in a coordinated manner by Finland and Sweden, than if Finland joined alone. Similarly, a Swedish decision to join NATO and a Finnish decision not to join would leave Finland isolated and exposed.
​THE ASSESSORS
Mats Bergquist
Mats Bergquist is a former Swedish diplomat. He retired from the Swedish Foreign Service in 2005 after having served i.a as Ambassador in Tel Aviv, Helsinki and London. After his retirement Bergquist was Chancellor of Växjö University, Chairman of the Board of the Swedish Institute for International Affairs and member of the Board of the Swedish Academy of War Sciences. He is the author of six books and some 150 essays and articles, mostly on Swedish and international security issues. Mats Bergquist has a Ph.D degree from Lund University and was named docent (assistant professor) in political science at the same university in 1970.
François Heisbourg
François Heisbourg is chairman of the council of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. He is special advisor of the Paris-based Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique. His career has included positions in government, the defence industry and academia. He sat on a number of blue-ribbon bodies (most recently, the French Defence and national security White Paper, the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, the International Commission on the Balkans, the EU Commission’s group of personalities on security research and development). He has published extensively on defence and security issues and is a frequent contributor to both specialist and mainstream media on such matters.
René Nyberg
René Nyberg, (www.anselm.fi) is a former Finnish diplomat. He left the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs in 2008 after having served, i.a. as Ambassador in Vienna (the CSCE), Moscow and Berlin. He then became the CEO of the East Office of Finnish Industries (2008-13). Earlier he had served as an assistant secretary of the Parliamentary Defence Committee (PPK III) 1981.
François Heisbourg, Teija Tiilikainen, Mats Bergquist, René Nyberg. Photo: Irmeli Viinanen.
Teija Tiilikainen
Teija Tiilikainen is Director of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA). Before her nomination to this position in 2010 she was the Director of the Network of European Studies at the University of Helsinki (2003-2009). She has also served as Secretary of State at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland from 2007 to 2008. Teija Tiilikainen was a member of the Panel of Eminent Persons on European Security as a Common Project in 2015 led by Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger. She was also a member of the EU Commission’s group of personalities for CSDP-related research (2015-16) and a member of the European Convention in 2002-03. She has published extensively on issues related to European integration and security politics.
Finland’s participation in international operations 1956–
| AMIS | African Union’s Enhanced Mission to Sudan / Darfur |
| EUTM Somalia | European Union Training Mission Somalia |
| IFOR/SFOR | Implementation Force/Stabilisation Force |
| ISAF | International Security Assistance Force |
| KFOR | Kosovo Force |
| MINURCAT II | Second Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad |
| MINUSMA | Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali |
| OIR | Operation Inherent Resolve |
| OPCW/UN | Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons/United Nations Joint Mission |
| OSCE MTG | Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Mission to Georgia |
| OSGAP | Office of the Secretary-General in Afghanistan and Pakistan |
| RSM | Resolute Support mission |
| UNAMA | United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan |
| UNDOF | United Nations Disengagement Observer Force |
| UNEF I | First United Nations Emergency Force |
| UNEF II | Second United Nations Emergency Force |
| UNFICYP | United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus |
| UNGOMAP | United Nations Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan |
| UNHQ | United Nations Headquarters |
| UNIFIL | United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon |
| UNIIMOG | United Nations Iran–Iraq Military Observer Group |
| UNIKOM | United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission |
| UNISOM | United Nations Operation in Somalia |
| UNMEE | United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea |
| UNMIK | United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo |
| UNMIL | United Nations Mission in Liberia |
| UNMIS | United Nations Mission in Sudan |
| UNMOGIP | United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan |
| UNMOP | United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka |
| UNOGIL | United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon (UNOGIL) |
| UNPREDEP | United Nations Preventive Deployment Force |
| UNPROFOR | United Nations Protection Force |
| UNSMIS | United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria |
| UNTAES | United Nations Transitional Authority in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium |
| UNTAG | United Nations Transition Assistance Group |
| UNTSO | United Nations Truce Supervision Organization |