Finland's long journey
Patrik Oksanen
When Finland becomes a member of NATO, it has taken the last step towards full sovereignty vis-à-vis Moscow. This security policy journey has taken over 100 years.
The Stock Exchange on November 12, 2021. So he arrived when everyone else was gathered in the Stock Exchange Hall, wearing a frock coat adorned with the Order of Seraphim and its light blue ribbon. The 73-year-old statesman made his entrance in the company of the crown princess couple. It was a Friday evening in November and the 225th formal gathering of the Royal Academy of Military Sciences had just begun.
The celebratory speaker was the President of Finland, Sauli Niinistö, who traveled to Stockholm despite a severe cold. He joked that at least it wasn't covid, although it was noticeable that the disease plagued the performance of the holiday speech. But staying at home was not on the map, the speech was too important. Just defying the disease was a signal in itself. Maybe there weren't that many of us who understood its historical significance because the message was in the fine print.
That Niinistö prioritized the Stockholm trip was partly due to a shared history. When the Royal Academy of Military Sciences was founded in 1796, Sweden and Finland were one kingdom, and in the speech Niinistö mentioned that many of the founders were born in Finland. Like Otto Carl von Fieandt, who became famous as a cartographer, who, however, should not be confused with his double cousin Otto Henrik who is described in Runeberg 's Fänriks Ståls sägner . The founders experienced the Russian war of aggression in 1808–1809 and the subsequent collapse of the empire when the eastern half of the empire was lost to the Russian Empire.
"Lenin's regime recognized Finland's independence, but it was only a tactical move. For Lenin, Finland was a pawn.”
It is the same empire that cast its shadows over Niinistö's speech this November evening. Behind the scenes, Russia had already hinted at the claims that were made public a few months later. Sweden and Finland would not be allowed to choose their own security policy, it would be dictated by Moscow.
The speech in front of uniforms, tailcoats and party dresses in the Stock Exchange Hall was filled with signals. Niinistö recalled that he had warned before the People and Defense National Conference in 2014, something that the Swedish neighbor did not take to heart. And now he warned again: “The time to wake up to insight is not over. Various alarm bells continue to ring, louder and louder.”
The shared destiny, collaborations and history with Sweden were expressed in the speech. It was a worried Niinistö who pointed to the heyday of dangerous geopolitics. He raised Finland's four pillars on which national security rests; the national defense, international partnerships, the relationship with Russia and the international order, “just as real pillars, they must form a coherent whole. If one of the pillars weakens and cannot be repaired, the others must be able to carry more of the weight.” In practice, one pillar had already fallen completely and another was swaying; the relationship with a Russia that did its best to overthrow the international order.
What Niinistö knew, but which was not widely known, was that Russia had become increasingly intractable before the final of the Swedish OSCE chairmanship.
Three weeks later, during the welcome dinner in Stockholm, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared demands for a new security order based on the Kremlin's interests with the right to say no to other countries' security policy choices. In practice, Lavrov now wanted to smash three of Niinistö's four pillars. These demands were made public by Putin in a speech on December 17.
Finland would not be allowed to choose its international collaborations, nor Sweden for that matter.
To understand the Finnish reaction to the Russian demands, we need to go back in history. Like the Peace of Nöteborg in 1323, when the border between Sweden and Novgorod was drawn after a 30-year war. But we can go back half a millennium and go to the days of the cousins von Fieandt and the peace of Fredrikshamn in 1809. Then Sweden got its current borders and Finland became a self-governing part of the Russian Empire with Swedish laws maintained.
"The pattern dating back to 1899 has been a tug-of-war between Finnish aspirations for sovereignty and the Russian Empire."
The 19th century became the birth of Finnish national identity, but the spirit of the times also nourished Russian nationalism. The Troubled Years, as they are called in Finnish history, began in 1899 with the February Manifesto which limited the decision-making power of the Diet, which violated the Finnish constitution. The hard-line Nikolay Bobrikov sat as governor-general. In 1901, the Finnish national army was disbanded and Finnish conscripts would instead be called into Russian units. Finland reacted with both passive and active resistance.
The resistance was met with increased repression and Bobrikov was given dictatorial power. In June 1904, the student Eugen Schauman took matters into his own hands and shot Bobrikov in the Helsinki senate house and then committed suicide.
At the same time, Russia had ended up at war with Japan. The war went badly and a wave of revolution swept over Russia, causing the Tsar to back down. The Lantdagen regained its powers and responded with a democratic reform that saw Finland introduce the right to vote for women as early as 1906. In the 1907 election, 19 women were elected to the Lantdagen, the world's first female parliamentarians.
But Finland only got a break. Russification took off in 1908. Two years later, the tsarist government had effectively revoked Finland's autonomy again. World War I led to the tsar calling for complete Russification, which increased resistance in Finland. The war went badly for Russia and the tsar was deposed in the February Revolution of 1917. The Provisional Government repealed the laws restricting Finland's autonomy. It meant that there was a parliamentary legitimate power when Lenin carried out the October Revolution in Petrograd. A week later, the Landtag declared itself the holder of the highest state power in Finland. The declaration of independence followed on 6 December.
Lenin's regime recognized Finland's independence, but it was only a tactical move. For Lenin, Finland was a pawn. In December 1917, it was about making it more difficult for the whites to rally against the new Bolshevik regime. Unleashing the outer edges of the empire was a way to weaken the whites. But Lenin envisioned a red Finland in the arms of the Soviet Union and pushed for a revolution, which led to the Finnish Civil War. Another name is the War of Independence, because the outcome in the event of a red victory would probably have been accession to the Soviet Union.
Unlike other Baltic countries that liberated after World War I, Finland retained its independence when Stalin restored the Russian Empire through the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Finland held out during the Winter War and made it through the dangerous truce into the Continuation War and then by the smallest possible margin out of it without being crushed by either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Only three European capitals of belligerent nations survived occupation: London, Moscow and Helsinki. Finland had preserved its independence through heroic resistance, but was forced to adapt to a stronger neighbor through delicate maneuvering. First during the years of danger when occupation threatened 1944–48 and then during the years with the Friendship, Cooperation and Assistance Pact from 1948. The VSB pact circumscribes Finnish sovereignty in a similar way as Putin now demanded. The word Finlandization was born in West Germany during the Cold War, a pejorative term for a smaller country adapting to a larger neighbor.
"In Finland, the attack came as a shock wave into the collective memory of the Finnish people; it brought to mind the Winter War of 1939.”
When the opportunity arose, Finland moved west. After Stalin's death, Finland joined the Nordic Council. Then it took three decades for the next major thaw. When the Soviet Union finally fell, Finland rushed to catch up with Sweden's EU application. Sweden and Finland could become EU members at the same time in 1995 and Finland quickly joined the euro.
The pattern dating back to 1899 has been a tug-of-war between Finnish aspirations for sovereignty and the Russian Empire. At times, Finland has been pushed back, but various types of external events have caused Finland to step away from the Ukasians' binding yoke.
The word ukas originally comes from the Tsar's orders. It is a strong signal word in Finnish politics. It is no coincidence that the word was used in President Niinistö's New Year's speech in 2022: "The excuses that Russia presented to the United States and NATO in December apply to Europe. They are in conflict with the European security order. Spheres of interest do not belong in the 2020s.”
Italet Niinistö stated that the EU is a party that must not be satisfied with the role of a technical coordinator of sanctions. At the same time, the Finnish analysis was crystal clear, the EU is not a substitute for NATO membership. For a long time, Niinistö tried in vain to push for a strengthening of the EU's military dimension with the ulterior motive that the EU relies on NATO. Lisbon Treaty's 42.7 has no resources, no planning or idea of implementation like NATO's Article 5.
And more importantly, confidence that EU cooperation would be enough to get military help is too low. So there was only NATO left. A membership that Finland has approached through partnerships, collaborations with the USA but also as a bridge builder between the EU and NATO through the European Hybrid Center in Helsinki.
Finland's Prime Minister Sanna Marin is the president's opposite in many respects. He is a coalition party (moderate), she is a social democrat. He is old, she is young, yes at this time the world's youngest prime minister at 37 years old. He is a man in his 40s, she is a woman marked by a world after the fall of the wall.
But it also means that Sanna Marin has an easier time coming to terms with old truths in the social democratic party. She is also prime minister in a government where the coalition partners belong to parties that have been more or less immovable on the NATO issue, apart from the Social Democrats themselves, also the Greens, the Center Party and the Left Alliance. Only the small Swedish People's Party is a NATO supporter in the government.
But at the same time, the NATO option was central in Finnish security policy. It has been used as a bear scare, if the bear gets too close, we apply for NATO membership. A backup exit in case Niinistö's pillar with Russia were to collapse. Prime Minister Sanna Marin's New Year's speech was not only about maintaining freedom of choice, but also about realizing it:
"We also maintain the possibility of applying for membership
in NATO. We should protect and realize this freedom of choice,
as it concerns the right of each country to decide on its own security solutions. It forms the basis of European security according to OSCE principles. We have shown that we have learned from the past.”
Marin has been central in the process of anchoring the NATO question in the government. Along the way, she ran over old social democrats from an older generation; as former presidents and former foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja, who sits as vice-chairman of the foreign affairs committee.
To understand Sanna Marin's significance, we can go back to the legendary Finnish diplomat Max Jakobson (1923–2013), who has depicted Finland's diplomatic and political history in several books.
Jakobson himself stated, inopportunely, but far-sightedly, in his Financial Statements (2004) that NATO membership is preferable for preventive purposes in case Russia will once again demand obedience from its neighbors. But he also lists the opponents' arguments against NATO membership. Several heavy social democrats say no. President Tarja Halonen considered that Russia is not a threat. The former president Mauno Koivisto believed that NATO membership would destroy the relationship with Russia, which has nevertheless been a good neighbor on the whole, even though Koivisto himself says in the book The Russian Idea that the Kremlin's weakness is temporary and that it is a country of the plains that seeks to subjugate neighbors themselves. And Erkki Tuomioja believes that pacifism is a relevant ideology for planning security policy.
It is no small overrun that Sanna Marin made of old notions.
Now came the time of waiting and test balloons. Waiting for what Russia's next move will be and in case they go for a major attack against Ukraine. As for test balloons, the most visible ones came from the Finnish Greens. It was the Member of Parliament and deputy party chairman Atte Harjanne who started the snowball rolling already on December 30 with a blog post on the topic: When will Finland's NATO membership become relevant if not now?
This was followed by speeches from De Gröna MEPs Alviina Alametsä and Ville Niinistö. Alametsä said she wants to join NATO, and Niinistö told us that he had changed his mind – going from red to yellow on NATO membership.
Ville Niinistö is the nephew of President Sauli Niinistö.
The Finnish Greens announced that they would decide on the NATO issue later in the spring. Finland's NATO train had now already left the station. It was just a question of how fast the journey took place, and how the speed would be controlled by the Kremlin's actions and openings in world politics.
On February 24, 2022, Russia launched its renewed attack on Ukraine. In Finland, the attack came as a shock wave into the collective memory of the Finnish people; it brought to mind the winter war of 1939. Blue and yellow flags were flying everywhere in Finland and the reactions to a repetition of history were strong. Popular support for NATO membership shot through the roof.
The week after the attack, my Finnish contacts began to worry about Stockholm's slow reactions. The importance that the NATO process must go hand in hand was emphasized. But the signal was also that Finland would not give up just because Sweden was unable to make a decision.
I myself was now so convinced that the issue was in practice completely clear that in a talk for the Swedish bourgeois youth associations, which the think tank Frivärld had arranged, I said that Sweden and Finland would apply for NATO membership shortly (I even dared to say within one month, even if it was overoptimistic) and the only thing that could stop it was if the bourgeoisie in Sweden did not give S the space to make the 180 degree turn that was needed.
In Maggie Strömberg and Torbjörn Nilsson's Stora Journalistprized SvD report about Sweden's path to NATO, it is claimed that it took eight weeks after the renewed attack for Sweden to fully understand.
The day after I spoke for the bourgeois youth unions in Stockholm, Magdalena Andersson and Peter Hultqvist traveled to Helsinki. In SvD 's report it is said that the Finnish signals were contradictory. And it would take until April 6–7 before the Swedish government agreed that only NATO applied to Finland.
The slowness of the realization in Stockholm and the difficulty of reading Finnish politics is another article, but the timelines do not add up with when Stockholm officially understood. Sweden should have understood earlier. I wasn't the only one who saw what happened.
At the end of March, Frivärld's Foreign Academy, consisting of young professionals aged 20–30, went on a study trip to Helsinki. On the program were ministers, members of parliament, political officials, diplomats, experts, journalists and historians. The person who had arranged the program was me, and there was no participant on the trip who on the way home had any other image than that the Finnish NATO train had left the station. A common reaction from the participants was that all the Finns you met during the days in Helsinki seemed to have been given the same talking points. The consensus was total.
The rest is history, so to speak. Sweden's Social Democrats finally swung in time to join Finland in the NATO application.
The Finnish NATO process has been skilfully led by the head of state, President Niinistö, in collaboration with Prime Minister Marin. Niinistö may at times have appeared slow and slow to a superficial observer, but in fact he has carried out a masterful statesmanship in the anchoring work. The whole of Finland has applied for NATO membership with a certainty that few could see happening in advance. The result of the anchoring work was expressed by the president himself in the 2023 New Year's speech. A speech that is yet another historical milestone:
"What we could only guess a year ago became a reality already in the spring. We applied for NATO membership after a quick but thorough process.
Russia's claim to a sphere of interest and then the attack on Ukraine. They undoubtedly touched every Finn. They led to a common spirit and conviction: we cannot continue on the same path as before. The people's strong opinion was reflected both in the cooperation between the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister and in the decisions of the Riksdag and the parties. Our decision was anchored on a broad front in Finnish society. This ensures that the decision stands firm, not only during the emotional storm at the beginning of the war, but also over election periods.”
With the speech, Niinistö also expressed Finland's strong determination to be active and take responsibility. Just as Finland strove to belong to the EU's inner core for security policy reasons, it will become a responsible NATO member. And support for Ukraine is cemented:
"One will unsolicitedly think of the Winter War when the Soviet Union assumed that its troops would reach Helsinki in two weeks. The leaders of an authoritarian country, Stalin and Putin, could not see the decisive factor. That individuals in a free country have will and conviction. And that a people acting together is an enormous force.”
There is no lasting peace in sight. The reason is that the Russian Empire has a different view of borders, war and power than the rest of Europe: "as long as there is a fundamental difference in the worldview, it is difficult to find credible and sustainable solutions to these issues".
A return to the Finnishization of olden times or a policy of escape is no longer possible. Finland's more than 100-year journey away from the shadow of the Russian Empire is about to finish in 2023. Much thanks to Sauli Niinistö, whom future historians of Finland will single out as one of the Republic's foremost presidents.
Patrik Oksanen
Journalist, writer and senior fellow at the think tank Frivärld.
Prkle!
