Fortress Finland: Nordic deterrence against Russia
Finland’s NATO membership transforms security dynamics on the alliance’s northeastern flank.
In a nutshell
- Russia is pushing Nordic and Baltic states toward closer cooperation
- A credible deterrence is emerging in NATO’s northeast
- Finland leverages history, mobilization and alliance integration
- For comprehensive insights, tune into our AI-powered podcast here
Security sources in both Finland and Norway have begun voicing increasing concern about a major Russian military buildup in the areas that border NATO’s northern flank. Such cautions come after several national intelligence services have issued warnings that Russia, even before its war against Ukraine has concluded, may be getting ready for war with NATO. Some argue that this could happen within three to five years.
Countries close to Russia are responding by investing heavily in securing their borders and in rebuilding their defense forces. Poland stands out as the most vociferous among the countries calling for a robust military response to Russian aggression. In the north, the Nordic countries have joined with their Baltic neighbors in formulating similar programs for a military buildup that includes ever-closer cooperation with Ukraine.
A key country within this latter group is Finland, which has a 1,340 kilometer-long border with Russia, making it by far the most exposed of all NATO member states. It also has formative historical experience of what it means to be at war with Russia. The Winter War that began with a Soviet invasion on November 30, 1939, was an epic struggle – it was only heroic Finnish defense that saved the country from sharing the fate of its Baltic neighbors to the south.
The evolution of Finland’s current posture
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Finland stood out from other European countries by refusing to lower its guard. It maintained conscription and a policy of stockpiling to ensure it would remain prepared for a deterioration in the security situation. As tensions between Russia and NATO have intensified, Finland has been able to respond accordingly.
Its frontier with Russia has been closed to all cross-border traffic indefinitely. Works are underway to fortify that border, and the government has made it clear that in a crisis it will act with great determination. In response to Russia’s policy of weaponizing migration, Finland even amended its constitution to allow border guards to reject asylum seekers at the Russian border without individual assessment.
Pushing Finland to join NATO may well turn out to have been one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s greatest strategic blunders. By failing to roll back the alliance’s influence in what the Kremlin claims to be a Russian “sphere of privileged interest,” he has ensured that on Russia’s northern flank, NATO now stands stronger than ever.
During the Cold War, neutral Finland had a peculiar relationship with the Soviet Union. In 1948, the countries signed the Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, which remained in force until 1992. The pact entailed restrictions on Finnish military forces, including a total ban on submarines, as well as constraints on foreign and security policy. Finland was both prohibited from joining “hostile alliances” and required to be ready to defend its territory from being used for an attack on the Soviet Union.
Over the years, the Finns took strong exception to the derogatory way in which many Western security experts talked about this arrangement as “Finlandization,” arguing that given the circumstances, the country deserved respect for having preserved its independence and a still substantial latitude for foreign policy. When the Soviet Union collapsed, such claims were vindicated. Finlandization was proven to have ensured impressive economic growth, consolidation of a stable democratic system and a readiness to defend against the Russian neighbor.
In the post-Cold War era, Finland began orienting more firmly toward the West. In 1995 it became a member of the European Union at the same time as Austria and Sweden. Like those two other countries, it still refrained from joining NATO. For Moscow, this meant continued assurance that the Baltic Sea region would remain a gray zone, an arena where Russian pressure could be applied with some considerable results.
In 2004, NATO expanded to include the three Baltic states and four other countries from Central and Eastern Europe. With that enlargement, the deterrent effect of the alliance hinged on its ability to defend even the most exposed of the new member states bordering Russia. Many observers expressed concerns about the credibility of NATO’s core Article 5 on common defense.
If Russia were to execute a probing incursion into Estonia, a NATO expeditionary force would have had to run the gauntlet past the heavily fortified Kaliningrad exclave. Russian planners could be expected to believe that faced with such a choice, leading NATO member states would prefer to negotiate – in effect admitting that Article 5 does not hold.
Finnish territory has since been transformed into a formidable bastion on the alliance’s northern flank.
That assessment, however, rested on Sweden and Finland remaining neutral. But following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, both opted to join the alliance. With both countries as members, Swedish territory can now be used to transit heavy forces for deployment in the Baltic theater and American cruise missiles can fly across the country against targets inside Russia. With Finland as a member, NATO forces are very close indeed to critical Russian military infrastructure.
Finnish territory has since been transformed into a formidable bastion on the alliance’s northern flank. When still neutral, the country had the strongest artillery force in Europe and was able to swiftly mobilize an army of 280,000 service members. Including reservists, that number could be brought to 870,000. Today, the government has decided to raise the bar, so it can muster an army of 1 million highly motivated Finns to defend their country. With a population of only 5.6 million, this is an impressive feat.
Together with Estonia to the south, Finland controls Russian passage through the Gulf of Finland. Shore batteries of anti-ship missiles on both sides ensure that no Russian naval ships may pass unhindered. Together with the air forces of the other Nordic countries, it would have little problem achieving critical air superiority. And like Sweden and Norway, its land forces have ample experience in Arctic warfare. President Alexander Stubb has also shown great skill in cooperating with United States President Donald Trump to ensure that in a time of need, U.S. support would be what Mr. Trump calls “robust.”
Like Sweden and Norway, its land forces have ample experience in Arctic warfare.
Perhaps most importantly, Finland has become home to a forward NATO land force. The recently accepted doctrine of Enhanced Forward Presence led to the formation of eight multinational battle groups, known as Forward Land Forces, that are now stationed in countries along the alliance’s eastern border. This year Finland will become host to one such unit, comprising 4,000 to 5,000 troops stationed near the Russian border. Even Italy has recently pledged to contribute troops for this force.
The most important feature of this development is that neighboring Sweden will act as a “framework nation,” assuming command of the battlegroup. This may help finally heal long-standing wounds in Swedish-Finnish relations that date back to World War II, when Sweden refused to come to the aid of its neighbor when it was attacked by Soviet forces. It is true that Swedish volunteers were allowed to enlist with Swedish-speaking units in the Finnish army, where many fought with distinction, but Stockholm’s decision still left bitter memories.
During the Cold War, many Finns also resented that the Swedish policy of neutrality not only rested on a belief that a Soviet attack westward would be absorbed and defeated by Finland, before it reached Sweden. In addition, it had the effect of depriving Finnish defenders of essential back support, as Swedish territory could not be used to transit supplies or reinforcements. That is now history, which hopefully may be both forgiven and forgotten. The deepening alliance between the two countries now constitutes the mainstay of Nordic defense, and thus of the defense of NATO’s northern flank.
How Nordic countries learned to work together
A line was drawn after the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, when Finland acted swiftly to join the Western alliance. With characteristic foresight, the Finnish parliament had already prepared the ground by voting in favor of a “NATO option,” to be exercised in a time of crisis. As Ukraine was fighting for its survival, Finland exercised that option and was swiftly accepted as a member. Having long been known as NATO’s “Friend Number One,” it was generally accepted that winning membership would be a mere formality.
Sweden was a different matter. When Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin announced that Finland was about to file an application for membership, Swedish Prime Minister Margareta Andersson responded that Swedish membership in NATO would serve to seriously destabilize the security situation in the Baltic region. As this was an argument straight out of the Russian playbook, it was ill-received in Finland. The Swedish government, however, quickly realized its misstep and made a swift about-face, announcing it would seek membership together with Finland.
Read more by Professor of Russian Studies Stefan Hedlund
- The future of the Russian Navy
- Iceland redraws the map of Arctic security
- Baltic security: Keeping an eye on the Kremlin
By the time Sweden joined Finland in NATO, the countries had already embarked on a path of joint defense operations. The move entails close cooperation between the two air forces, providing a firm foundation for what will probably result in a Nordic Air Command that includes Norwegian and Danish participation. Nordic countries’ support for Ukraine has fortified their resolve to act together. Moreover, they have finally overcome disagreements that had hindered plans for joint procurement and production of military hardware.
For Finland, this means it no longer needs to fear being left alone to face Russian aggression. For the other Nordic countries, it means that deployment together with Finland will result in greater deterrence. The concern looking forward is whether having a robust military defense will be enough to deter Russian aggression, or if Moscow will still be willing to launch a war it cannot win.
Scenarios
Credibility is a hard game to play; false steps or reckless political comments can quickly erase what has been painstakingly built. How to credibly deter Russia must be viewed as the key question. Onward developments can play out according to three scenarios.
Most likely: Nordics continue armament and cooperation to deter Russia
The first and most likely scenario is a version of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt’s classic admonition to “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” This is President Stubb’s policy; he urges calm and caution in relation to Russia, while investing heavily in preparation to join with allies in staving off potential Russian threats. Given the size of the stick that Finland may wield, and its steadily tightening cooperation with the other Nordics, it has grounds to feel it is in control of the situation. Helsinki may also expect that Russia may be deterred from attacking NATO in the north due to the courageous fighting spirit of the Finns, which has been amply demonstrated in the past.
Less likely: Finland becomes more outwardly confrontational to Russia
A second and much less likely scenario is Helsinki moving to a policy of taking steps and making bold statements to convince Russia that an attack would indeed be swiftly met with brutal counterforce, perhaps even preemptively. This is the policy of tiny Estonia, which cannot afford the luxury of hoping that NATO will come to its rescue after a Russian attack. It has been quite vocal in demanding that NATO act with greater resolve to counter probing Russian “hybrid warfare,” and it has warned that in case of Russian preparations for an attack it will not hesitate to strike first. What makes this less likely is that other NATO members have responded negatively to what is now being referred to as an “Estonianization” of the security dialogue.
Least likely: Nordics must go it alone against Russia
There is of course also a third scenario, where NATO credibility collapses as countries that are more distant from Russia decide to opt for a hands-off approach, or the alliance crumbles due to insurmountable political divergence among members. Although this would bring seriously bad news for Ukraine, countries in the north will remain steadfast in their joint determination to stand their own ground, and Finland will be the fortress that ensures Nordic credibility.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
