What Finland Brings to NATO: Manpower, Firepower, and Arctic Reach

It was the exact outcome Vladimir Putin had been hoping to prevent. When the Russian autocrat announced his full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, one of his stated goals was to halt the eastward expansion of NATO — to ensure that no other European countries would ever again seek shelter beneath the alliance’s nuclear umbrella. Instead, his unprovoked war achieved the exact opposite.

On April 4, 2023, NATO officially welcomed Finland as its 31st member. With the handing over of documents and raising of the Finnish flag, the Kremlin suddenly found itself with an extra 1,300 km of NATO territory on its border — the alliance’s largest physical expansion since 2004. Endless articles have since been written about Putin’s grand strategic failure.

Yet it is not just thanks to geography that Finland’s accession has been such a failure for Moscow. It is also thanks to Helsinki fielding one of the best militaries in Europe. Despite having a population of just 5.54 million, Finland’s army is hi-tech, experienced, and capable of quickly calling up over 250,000 troops.

From Neutrality to NATO: How the Invasion of Ukraine Transformed Finnish Public Opinion

On the eve of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a small number of polling companies turned their attention to Moscow’s northwest neighbor to see what Finns thought of NATO membership. By then, Finland had been a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace initiative for 28 years. For 27 of those years, Helsinki had also been part of the Alliance’s Planning and Review Process.

NATO and Finland worked so closely together that the Nordic country was often described as being “as close to NATO as a country can be without being an actual member.” Yet, in those weeks before Putin unleashed his war, it seemed that joining the Alliance was a step Helsinki would never take. Polls showed NATO accession to be deeply unpopular, supported by barely a third of the population.

In many ways, this was not a surprise. Decades of polling had never shown a majority in favor. At that point, it looked like Finland would continue charting its neutral course for decades to come.

And then came February 24, 2022, and everything changed. Images of missiles raining down on Kyiv did not just transform politics in Ukraine and the NATO Alliance. In Helsinki, too, the unprovoked Russian assault turned everything on its head.

When polling companies checked back in March, they found support for Finland joining NATO had leapt to 60 percent. By May, more than three quarters of the population were clamoring for shelter beneath the nuclear umbrella. When Finland’s parliament voted on accession, only eight out of 200 members rejected the bill.

All major parties now support Helsinki’s place in the alliance, along with over 80 percent of voters. The answer to how Putin’s failed war of aggression so completely galvanized public opinion lies in Finland’s tortured history. For nearly 110 years — starting in 1809 — Finland suffered the same fate that befell so many regions in the 19th century.

It was colonized, in this case by the Russian Empire. While other parts of the empire experienced strict Russification, the Grand Duchy of Finland was always allowed a degree of autonomy, maintaining its own senate. Still, that does not mean things were rosy.

When the Russian Empire collapsed in 1917, the Finns were among those nationalities that headed for the exit.

The Winter War Legacy and Decades of Finlandization

Modern Finland’s foundational story is the Winter War. In 1939, the USSR invaded Finland hoping to crush Finnish independence, only for Finland to turn what should have been a Soviet cakewalk into a catastrophe. Although Helsinki was ultimately defeated, the Finns inflicted so many casualties that Stalin was forced to settle for taking a slice of territory and letting Finland remain independent.

When the two sides fought another war later in WWII, the outcome was mostly the same. In this way, Finland managed to guarantee it would not become another Soviet colony. Sadly, it also would not manage to be truly independent.

The Cold War term for what happened next was “Finlandization.” Based on a 1948 treaty with the USSR, it forced Finland to swear to strict neutrality, reject ever joining NATO, and allow the Soviets final say in much of the nation’s foreign policy. It was a halfway house between freedom and colonization — not quite a return to the Grand Duchy of Finland days, but hardly independence as most would understand it.

That is how things more or less remained until the collapse of the USSR. For the Finnish government, the post-Cold War era was the first time since WWII that they had tasted full sovereignty. Almost as if to celebrate, they joined the EU in 1995.

Despite this general westward shift, they never joined NATO. Partly, this was to avoid angering Russia. Partly, it was because Helsinki felt it did not need the added protection.

Strong defense cooperation with its neighbor Sweden meant Finland could field one of the most hi-tech militaries on the continent. And, besides, this was the post-Cold War era — the idea of a large European state attacking a smaller neighbor was supposedly a thing of the past. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine made it clear to Finns that another Winter War was a realistic possibility.

And, this time, Helsinki did not want to be holding off the Russian bear alone.

Conscription, Reserves, and a 280,000-Strong Wartime Army

Although Finland may have joined NATO hoping to deter Russian aggression, the alliance did not open the door out of charity. Those at NATO headquarters in Brussels knew they would be getting something special: a highly competent military with eye-watering manpower reserves. On paper, Finland’s Defense Forces seem small.

Around 19,000 troops are serving at any given time, with an extra 3,000 or so in the Border Guard. Given that both Ukraine and Russia currently have a million men under arms, this is a seriously tiny amount. But these are just Finland’s active duty personnel.

Were war to suddenly break out, Helsinki can scale up fast. At the end of the Cold War, most European armies that still used conscription abolished that model, switching instead to smaller armies made up of professional soldiers. But not Finland.

Every year, the military trains 22,000 conscripts. Constitutionally, every Finnish man aged between 18 and 60 must serve, while Finnish women can do so on a voluntary basis. That means Helsinki has a huge pool of potential fighters it can draw on.

In the event of a general mobilization, that small Finnish army would quickly balloon to 280,000 — with an additional 900,000 held in reserve. That is a larger army than Germany can field, and Germany has a population of 83 million. Finland’s entire population of 5.54 million could fit inside the Berlin metropolitan region.

The big difference between Finnish and Russian conscription is quality. On April 2, 2023, the UK MOD detailed how mobilized Russians are often too drunk to competently fight. Russia’s conscription model is inherently corrupt — funneling the poor into a nasty system that brutalizes them, while the rich and connected easily opt out.

By contrast, the Finnish system is equitable, and it places strict emphasis on lifelong rehearsals to maintain combat readiness. After an initial service of between six and 12 months — depending on role — citizens have to return for repeated refresher courses in the following years. This is augmented by those attached to local defense units, who meet much more frequently and train much more regularly.

The result is a force that is both capable and trained to a high level of readiness, yet also much larger than that of peer nations. Sweden, for example, has slightly more active personnel than Finland but a mere 31,000 reservists, despite having twice the population. Another thing the Finns have going for them is their willingness to fight.

Polls before and after Russia’s full-scale invasion have shown the number of Finns willing to fight and die for their country stands at over three quarters — one of the highest ratios in Europe. Some Finns are currently calling for the gender restrictions on conscription to be scrapped. After years hovering just below the NATO-advised annual defense spending level of 2 percent of GDP, Finland will mark its first year in the alliance by boosting spend to 2.2 percent, meaning new equipment and weapons systems to bring Helsinki up to NATO standard.

Artillery Dominance and a Cutting-Edge Equipment Arsenal

For such a small nation, Finland is already in possession of some seriously impressive kit. If one were handed full control of the armies of Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Poland, and ordered each of these nations to assemble all their artillery in one place, the result — according to the Wilson Center — would still be a smaller number of artillery than Helsinki alone can field. Overall, the Finnish army is known to have around 100 rocket launch systems, 700 howitzers, and 700 heavy mortars, for a total of 1,500.

That total includes M270 multiple launch rocket systems, which can fire high-precision missiles over long distances in rapid succession, as well as South Korea’s K9 armored howitzers. Looking at the other branches of the military reveals equally impressive missile systems. The air force fields JASSM air-to-surface cruise missiles, while the navy operates Israel’s Gabriel V low-altitude anti-ship missiles.

Much of this is thanks to a spending spree that defined much of the late 2010s and early 2020s — a spending spree that is still making its full impact felt. The air force is currently flying a fleet of F/A-18 Hornet jets. In 2021, Helsinki inked a deal to upgrade the lot of them.

Over the next seven years, the fleet will be phased out and replaced with 64 of Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Block 4s — a cutting-edge fighter jet. Back in 2014, the government upgraded its main battle tanks to German Leopard 2A6s, one of the best all-rounder tanks currently available. Overall, the spend has taken Finland’s fleet to 312 tanks and infantry fighting vehicles — enough to put Finnish forces on a par with major European armies like France.

The navy, likewise, is undergoing modernization, with four Pohjanmaa-class multi-role corvettes currently under construction. At the same time, an emphasis is being put on expanding Finland’s ability to conduct underwater warfare.

Baltic Security and Arctic Advantage: Why NATO Needed Finland

Finland’s naval and geographic position gets at a key reason why NATO wanted Finland onside, and why Russia desperately wanted to stop it happening. Two separate bodies of water that the Finns can operate in better than most other NATO members: the Baltic Sea and the Arctic Ocean. The Baltic Sea is a key area.

On a European NATO map dated before Finland joined, one might notice an obvious weak point: the three tiny Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Squashed up against Russia, Belarus, and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, the Baltic states are joined to the rest of NATO only by a 65 km strip of Poland’s northeast. When the Ukraine War first broke out, there were fears that Putin’s next move might be to attack that region and cut the Baltics off from resupply.

With Finland onboard, it becomes possible for NATO to resupply via water. Tallinn is only 70 km away from Helsinki across the waves — a short gap which could also help the Alliance cut off St. Petersburg, denying Russia access to the Baltic Sea.

Up in the Arctic Ocean, it is a different story but likewise an important one. While Finland does not have an Arctic coastline — its very north is cut off from the waters by Norway — the nation happens to be very good at designing and building icebreakers. This is important because icebreakers are an area where Russia currently has a massive advantage.

Moscow owns around 40 of them, meaning the chilly, ice-filled Arctic Ocean is the Kremlin’s domain. Finland adds another 9 to NATO’s fleet, but also the know-how and ability to manufacture more — a potentially vital skill as the planet warms and the Northern Sea Route becomes ever more crucial.

Spending Gaps, Russian Threats, and the Kola Peninsula Problem

Finland’s post-Cold War military spending has not always been generous. There have been two significant dips when funding dropped to barely 1 percent of GDP: first in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and second at the height of the Eurozone Crisis. In both cases, spend subsequently recovered, but those cuts left deep scars.

From 2012 to 2015, austerity forced the closure of multiple military bases — closures that now look like potential gaps in a defensive line against Russian attack. A 2022 article by War on the Rocks highlighted these closures as significant issues should a war break out, alongside Finland’s lack of a large defense-industrial base. While Finland does produce some world-class military equipment, most of the work is done by small businesses — great during peacetime, but a potential issue should conflict break out and the army require replacement kit as fast as possible.

A far greater danger likely comes from across the eastern border. With Finland now in NATO, all of Vladimir Putin’s most paranoid nightmares have suddenly come true. To understand exactly how Putin sees Finland in NATO, one need only look at a story told by President Sauli Niinistö.

In a meeting with the Russian autocrat in 2016, Putin warned him: “When we look across the border now, we see a Finn on the other side. If Finland joins NATO, we will see an enemy.” The reasons for this are not just Putin’s obsession with stopping NATO expansion.

They are also strategic. NATO now almost totally surrounding the Baltic Sea means the exclave of Kaliningrad could be cut off. The bigger strategic fear, though, is likely the Kola Peninsula.

Directly bordering Finland’s east, the peninsula is where Russia stations its Northern Fleet. With attack submarines and missile-bearing surface vessels, this is the fleet intended to destroy American supply ships in the event of a full-blown Russia-NATO conflict. More importantly, the Northern Fleet also maintains Russia’s nuclear-armed submarines — the exact ones responsible for the nation’s second-strike capabilities.

Already, the Kremlin has announced plans to boost troop numbers on the Finnish border and in the nearby Republic of Karelia. But with Moscow unlikely to have spare troops it can free up from the Ukraine quagmire, Russia may well turn to hybrid warfare techniques. One feature of the Ukraine War has been Putin’s repeated nuclear threats.

Should NATO start to station personnel and equipment in Finland, these threats might get directed at Helsinki. At the same time, so-called gray zone tactics might become the norm: hacking, disinformation campaigns, election meddling. Finns still have bitter memories of 2015, when Russian authorities suddenly sent 30,000 illegal immigrants across their border — a tactic Belarus would famously recycle in 2021 against Poland.

Comprehensive Security: Finland’s Total Defense Doctrine

The Finnish plans for how to take on Russia in a future land war are perhaps the most interesting aspect of the country’s defense posture. Perhaps the strangest feature of the Ukraine War is how unprepared either side was for conflict. The Ukrainians only started making serious preparations in the last weeks, so afraid was the government of provoking Putin.

Given all that, it is a remarkable testament to Ukrainian will and courage that their army held the invaders off. But Helsinki has not placed all its hopes in a similar coming together of society. Rather, the Finns are gambling on extensive preparations to bring them victory.

Known as “comprehensive security,” the plan requires the entire nation to effectively be ready for war to erupt at a moment’s notice. That means a government body known as the National Emergency Supply Agency constantly maintaining six-month stockpiles of food and fuel. It means all pharmacies and doctors working under a legal requirement to stockpile up to 10 months’ worth of medicines.

It even means architects and builders getting in on the act. Anyone who wants to construct a building above a certain size must include a bomb shelter. Meanwhile, the owners of underground civilian structures like car parks and swimming pools must have plans to quickly convert them into public shelters and evacuation centers.

The Finnish method is to do with rigorous forward planning what the Ukrainians did semi-spontaneously. And that extends not just to people but also businesses. If a business in some way supports critical infrastructure, it will almost certainly be called into regular meetings to go over its plan of action for conflict.

Telecoms companies need to have backup systems to keep civilian lines of communication open. Food distributors are made to plan how to keep people fed in wartime conditions. Media organizations and the church are also required to map out how they will keep people informed of events in a crisis.

NGOs must be ready to go at a moment’s notice. In many ways, this total defense policy is made possible by conscription, which ensures all members of the elite are on the same page regarding threats. The government runs National Defense courses for politicians, business leaders, and media figures every year — courses where they wargame how they and their industries would respond if word came that Russian tanks had crossed the border.

Combine this with cycles of military training, and it is easy to see how sparsely populated Finland could be a force to be reckoned with. Higher-level plans include mining the Baltic Sea and having combat aircraft take off on sorties from remote roads. What Finland brings to the alliance will not be equivalent to the superpower of the United States, or to the nuclear-armed militaries of France and Britain.

Nor will it bring the sheer amount of investment that Poland recently has. What it will bring, though, is a highly adept, well-armed, and well-trained army that punches way above its weight — an army backed by a society that is more prepared to defend itself than almost any other in Europe. Putin may have started his war hoping to halt NATO expansion.

With the accession of Finland, the dictator has only ensured he now has a more-than-capable opponent right on his doorstep.

Frequently Asked Questions

How did Russia’s invasion of Ukraine change Finnish public opinion on NATO?

On the eve of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, NATO membership was supported by barely a third of Finnish voters—a figure that had never reached a majority across decades of polling. When polling companies surveyed Finns in March 2022, support had already leapt to 60 percent, and by May more than three-quarters were in favour. When Finland’s parliament voted on accession, only 8 of 200 members rejected the bill. Finland officially joined NATO as its 31st member on April 4, 2023.

What military manpower can Finland bring to NATO?

Although Finland’s active duty force is around 19,000 troops, universal male conscription means Helsinki trains 22,000 conscripts every year and maintains a vast reserve pool. In the event of a general mobilisation, Finland’s army would quickly expand to 280,000 troops with an additional 900,000 held in reserve—a larger wartime army than Germany can field despite Germany having a population fifteen times larger. Polls consistently show over three-quarters of Finns willing to fight and die for their country, one of the highest ratios in Europe.

How does Finland’s artillery compare to other European NATO members?

Finland fields approximately 1,500 artillery systems in total, including M270 multiple launch rocket systems and South Korean K9 armoured howitzers. According to the Wilson Center, that total exceeds the combined artillery of Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Poland. The air force operates JASSM air-to-surface cruise missiles, and the navy uses Israel’s Gabriel V anti-ship missiles. Finland is also replacing its F/A-18 Hornet fleet with 64 Lockheed Martin F-35A Block 4 fighters under a 2021 deal.

Why is Finland’s geographic position strategically important to NATO?

Finland’s accession added 1,300 km of NATO border with Russia, the alliance’s largest physical expansion since 2004. Its position near Tallinn—just 70 km across the water—allows NATO to resupply the Baltic states by sea and could help the alliance cut off Russian access to St. Petersburg. In the Arctic, Finland adds 9 icebreakers and crucial shipbuilding expertise to NATO’s fleet, challenging Russia’s dominance in the region, where Moscow currently operates around 40 icebreakers.

What is Finland’s “comprehensive security” doctrine?

Comprehensive security is Finland’s whole-of-society defence approach that requires the entire nation to be ready for war at a moment’s notice. It includes the National Emergency Supply Agency maintaining six-month stockpiles of food and fuel, pharmacies required to stockpile up to ten months of medicines, building codes mandating bomb shelters in large structures, and businesses supporting critical infrastructure planning for wartime continuity. Politicians, business leaders, and media figures attend annual National Defense courses where they wargame responses to a Russian invasion.

Sources

1. https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/what-would-finland-bring-to-the-table-for-nato/
2. https://www.ft.com/content/c5e376f9-7351-40d3-b058-1873b2ef1924
3. https://warontherocks.com/2023/03/russia-wont-sit-idly-by-after-finland-and-sweden-join-nato/
4. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/finlands-contributions-nato-strengthening-alliances-nordic-and-arctic-fronts
5. https://www.voanews.com/a/how-finland-joining-boosts-nato-defenses-against-russia-/7031220.html
6. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a40642872/sweden-and-finland-joining-nato/
7. https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88096