the development of russian military policy and finland

54 · The Development of Russian Military Policy and Finland
The mention of an ability to give and receive military aid is also a way to make
public the secret basic pillar of the country’s defence policy during the Cold
War; her extensive co-operation with the United States and NATO. 201
While pondering the mutual solidarity declaration, the different defence solutions
of Finland, Sweden and the other Nordic countries have been an obstacle
to finding a binding security guarantee between them. The Finnish position
has been that separate Nordic security guarantees are not trustworthy as
such. Norway and Denmark, which enjoy NATO’s security guarantees, cannot
unilaterally add to NATO’s burden by making promises which eventually
may be left to the bigger NATO countries to carry. A very unfavourable situation
for Finland would be one in which the Nordic countries would be left
alone with their mutual solidarity commitments in a conflict between the great
powers, as has sometimes happened in history. 202 These political problems
would not arise if all Nordic countries were NATO members.
For small militarily non-aligned states like Finland, current changes in her
neighbourhood create a condition of deepening insecurity. The Finnish white
paper (Finnish Security and Defence Policy 2009) stated that “strong grounds
exist for considering Finland’s membership of NATO”. 203 No security guarantees,
whether provided by organizations or states are, however, comprehensive
but being left alone also has its risks. In the light of history, agreements
have often been interpreted in a way that the interpreter considers beneficial
from his own point of view.
The basic security-political positions in the Nordic countries have been static
for a long time. Some significant movement can, however, be noted as a result
of geopolitical developments and fiscal austerity in Europe and the USA.
These provide strong incentives for the Nordic countries to deepen their defence
co-operation. It is still premature to consider binding security guarantees
in one or another form, but there is a clear understanding that creating common
capabilities will serve the Nordic interest. 204 Recent examples of military
intervention or crisis management suggest that ‘coalitions of the willing’ are often
201 Holmström, 2011. Sweden’s role as NATO’s unofficial 17 th member during the Cold
War was one of the cornerstones of Swedish defence policy. The co-operation with the
United States and NATO assumed the form of quite detailed plans to receive and give
help, but due to Sweden’s neutrality this had to be kept strictly secret – especially from the
Swedish people.
202 Koivula & Forss, 2012, pp. 147–173.
203 Prime Minister’s Office, 2012, p.75. The government white paper released on 21
December 2012 says that Finland preserves the possibility to apply for NATO membership.
204 This was articulated in an op-ed article in Helsingin Sanomat by the Swedish, Finnish and
Norwegian Chiefs of Defence in September 2012. See Göranson, Puheloinen and Sunde,
2012. See also STRATFOR, 1 November 2012, Finland, Sweden: A Step Toward Greater Nordic
Security Cooperation.