After just eleven months of applying for NATO accession, Finland became a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the world’s largest and most powerful military alliance—as much the symbol of Western unity and lasting peace through shared deterrence as of overseas interventionism and American hegemony. For Finland, becoming the 31st member state of NATO officially today, April 4th, means not only that its security is now tied to the West’s and that it will never have to face any possible aggression coming from Russia alone, but also that a period of its history dedicated to military neutrality—the path of ‘Finlandization’—has now been irrevocably left behind.
In this historic moment, it’s worth taking some time to reflect on Finland’s remarkable journey, from the beginning to the end of Finlandization. Finnish neutrality, after all, was regarded as one of the most deeply embedded parts of the country’s identity—its passing, therefore, heralds the dawn of a different age not only for Finland, but perhaps the world.
Seven Decades of Finlandization
Finland’s military neutrality has been a cornerstone of its foreign policy for decades, a policy that has successfully ensured the country’s security and independence. Finland has managed to maintain its neutrality despite its geographical location in a volatile region, having had to share a border with the Soviet Union and, subsequently, Russia. Because of this, the country’s neutrality has been widely praised and respected by the international community, making it a role model for many nations.
The roots of Finland’s neutrality date back to the end of World War II, during which the country fought two wars against the Soviet Union, the Winter War (1939-1940) and the Continuation War (1941-1944). In the end, the small Nordic nation managed to retain its independence and sovereignty against its giant neighbor, but not without having to sacrifice tens of thousands on the battlefield and cede valuable territory to the Soviets as the price of peace.
Following the end of the war, Finland found itself in a precarious position. The country had to navigate the new world order and find a way to ensure its security without aligning itself with any of the superpowers. The Finnish government and then-President Juho Kusti Paasikivi decided that the best way to achieve this was through a policy of military neutrality. This policy was later enshrined in the Finnish Constitution, which stated that
Finland shall not join any military alliance or accept the obligations of collective defence, but shall participate in efforts to maintain peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
Although it was the sensible and celebrated choice, Finnish neutrality was undoubtedly also a geopolitical necessity. The term ’Finlandization’ itself emerged during the 1960s not to describe a voluntary path but the influence of the Soviet Union on Finland’s foreign policy doctrines, essentially forcing the smaller neighbor to adopt neutrality instead of opting for a foreign security umbrella. As such, the term was considered pejorative for some time, although recent decades have softened its edge, making it somewhat synonymous with the general success of the policy.
Despite its neutrality, Finland has always maintained a strong and capable army, making the Finnish Defense Forces one of the largest and best-equipped militaries in Europe, complete with a long history of conscription. Finland’s military capabilities are primarily focused on defending its own territory, and the country has a strong tradition of guerrilla warfare integrated into its defense doctrine.
What’s more, despite not joining NATO directly, Finland has long been partnered up with the Atlantic alliance in various other forms. For instance, Finland did join the Western forces’ wider cooperation format, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) in 1994, which was originally created as a sort of lobby for the NATO-aspirants of Eastern Europe, helping them prepare for eventual accession. Later, it became one of the six countries known as the ‘Enhanced Opportunity Partners,’ under which it committed to adopting NATO’s equipment standards and interoperability requirements, to participate in joint exercises, and to make “significant contributions” to NATO operations and missions, as it did in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq in the past.
For the better part of the past two decades, therefore, Finland was already a NATO member state, in all but name. And while NATO’s famous Article 5—requiring all members to come to the aid of one, if attacked—would not apply for Finland in case of a Russian invasion, the country had such a close relationship with the alliance that it would have simply been unimaginable that most members wouldn’t rise to defend Finland if needed.
Changing Public Opinion
As early as during the Cold War, there were several voices in Finland that argued for the country to join NATO, mainly driven by concerns about the Soviet Union’s military capabilities and its territorial ambitions, but the majority consistently supported neutrality as the ultimate guarantor of Finland’s security.
The first significant push for NATO membership came in the early 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Union’s demise, many believed that the security environment in Europe had changed, and Finland needed to reassess its foreign policy and align itself with the West. Although Russia was no longer seen as an immediate threat to an accession process, it remained a long-term challenge that Finland could more easily tackle from within Western structures.
However, even then, these calls for NATO membership were not widely supported in Finland. The country had a long tradition of neutrality, and many believed that NATO membership would compromise Finland’s independence and sovereignty while unnecessarily increasing tensions with Russia.
In 1994—the same year Finland joined the Partnership for Peace—the Finnish Parliament conducted a vote on whether to apply for NATO membership. The vote resulted in a narrow defeat for the pro-NATO camp, with 94 members of Parliament voting against the application and 60 in favor, effectively putting an end to the debate on NATO membership in Finland for the time being.
Several polls conducted during this period also showed that the majority of Finns were firmly against NATO membership as well. Polls from 1995-1997 continuously reported that around four in five Finnish people rejected the idea, while the share of those who supported NATO membership barely reached double digits, although public opinion began to shift slowly in the early 2000s.
In 1995, a referendum was held in Finland on whether to join the European Union, seen by many as a proxy vote on NATO membership, believing that becoming a member of the EU (and thus leaving at least part of neutrality behind for the sake of the joint European defense mechanism) would substitute for NATO in the long run, making Atlantic integration less likely. The referendum resulted in a clear victory for the pro-EU camp, with 57% of Finns voting in favor of joining the EU.
Following a gradual decline of anti-NATO sentiments in the polls, the Russian invasion of Georgia once again made Finns wary of joining NATO, and the support for neutrality increased from 52% to 70% by 2011. The annexation of Crimea, however, induced a more mixed response, leading to renewed calls for Finland to join NATO, even though the majority of Finns continued to support the country’s policy of military neutrality.
Everything changed in 2022. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine had the opposite effect than that of the Georgian War, flipping public opinion overnight. While just a month prior to the invasion, NATO membership was still rejected by a majority of 43%; by late February, only 28% opposed the accession and 53% were in favour. Public support for NATO membership continued to steadily rise over the past year, reaching 82% by the one-year anniversary of the invasion, while rejection plummeted to just 8%—prompting the Finnish government to declare that a “NATO referendum is no longer necessary.”
Welcome to the Club
Ever since Finland officially applied for NATO membership on 18 May 2022, and subsequently signed the accession protocol on July 5th, Finland—along with Sweden—began its quest to get all existing members to ratify the accession as soon as possible. By the end of September, 28 out of 30 had granted permission to join, leaving only Turkey and Hungary on the fence, who would then ratify it in late March, six months later.
The rest, as they say, is history, but one that only truly began today, with the raising of the Finnish flag at NATO’s Brussels headquarters. Finland now not only belongs to the West culturally and politically, but as an integral part of our collective defense structure and strategic framework, as a symbol of Western unity in the face of Russian aggression. For Finland, this historical moment also means that it was able to finally step out of the shadows of Russia, as Finlandization no longer guarantees peace.
“At times like this, friends and allies are more important than ever,” said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the joint press conference with President Sauli Niinistö, “and Finland now has the strongest friends and allies in the world.”
From Neutrality to NATO: How Finlandization Ends Today
Finnish Foreign Affairs Minister Pekka Haavisto reacts during the North Atlantic Council (NAC) Ministers of Foreign Affairs meeting at the NATO headquarters in Brussels on April 4, 2023.
Photo: Kenzo TRIBOUILLARD / AFP
After just eleven months of applying for NATO accession, Finland became a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the world’s largest and most powerful military alliance—as much the symbol of Western unity and lasting peace through shared deterrence as of overseas interventionism and American hegemony. For Finland, becoming the 31st member state of NATO officially today, April 4th, means not only that its security is now tied to the West’s and that it will never have to face any possible aggression coming from Russia alone, but also that a period of its history dedicated to military neutrality—the path of ‘Finlandization’—has now been irrevocably left behind.
In this historic moment, it’s worth taking some time to reflect on Finland’s remarkable journey, from the beginning to the end of Finlandization. Finnish neutrality, after all, was regarded as one of the most deeply embedded parts of the country’s identity—its passing, therefore, heralds the dawn of a different age not only for Finland, but perhaps the world.
Seven Decades of Finlandization
Finland’s military neutrality has been a cornerstone of its foreign policy for decades, a policy that has successfully ensured the country’s security and independence. Finland has managed to maintain its neutrality despite its geographical location in a volatile region, having had to share a border with the Soviet Union and, subsequently, Russia. Because of this, the country’s neutrality has been widely praised and respected by the international community, making it a role model for many nations.
The roots of Finland’s neutrality date back to the end of World War II, during which the country fought two wars against the Soviet Union, the Winter War (1939-1940) and the Continuation War (1941-1944). In the end, the small Nordic nation managed to retain its independence and sovereignty against its giant neighbor, but not without having to sacrifice tens of thousands on the battlefield and cede valuable territory to the Soviets as the price of peace.
Following the end of the war, Finland found itself in a precarious position. The country had to navigate the new world order and find a way to ensure its security without aligning itself with any of the superpowers. The Finnish government and then-President Juho Kusti Paasikivi decided that the best way to achieve this was through a policy of military neutrality. This policy was later enshrined in the Finnish Constitution, which stated that
Although it was the sensible and celebrated choice, Finnish neutrality was undoubtedly also a geopolitical necessity. The term ’Finlandization’ itself emerged during the 1960s not to describe a voluntary path but the influence of the Soviet Union on Finland’s foreign policy doctrines, essentially forcing the smaller neighbor to adopt neutrality instead of opting for a foreign security umbrella. As such, the term was considered pejorative for some time, although recent decades have softened its edge, making it somewhat synonymous with the general success of the policy.
Despite its neutrality, Finland has always maintained a strong and capable army, making the Finnish Defense Forces one of the largest and best-equipped militaries in Europe, complete with a long history of conscription. Finland’s military capabilities are primarily focused on defending its own territory, and the country has a strong tradition of guerrilla warfare integrated into its defense doctrine.
What’s more, despite not joining NATO directly, Finland has long been partnered up with the Atlantic alliance in various other forms. For instance, Finland did join the Western forces’ wider cooperation format, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) in 1994, which was originally created as a sort of lobby for the NATO-aspirants of Eastern Europe, helping them prepare for eventual accession. Later, it became one of the six countries known as the ‘Enhanced Opportunity Partners,’ under which it committed to adopting NATO’s equipment standards and interoperability requirements, to participate in joint exercises, and to make “significant contributions” to NATO operations and missions, as it did in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq in the past.
For the better part of the past two decades, therefore, Finland was already a NATO member state, in all but name. And while NATO’s famous Article 5—requiring all members to come to the aid of one, if attacked—would not apply for Finland in case of a Russian invasion, the country had such a close relationship with the alliance that it would have simply been unimaginable that most members wouldn’t rise to defend Finland if needed.
Changing Public Opinion
As early as during the Cold War, there were several voices in Finland that argued for the country to join NATO, mainly driven by concerns about the Soviet Union’s military capabilities and its territorial ambitions, but the majority consistently supported neutrality as the ultimate guarantor of Finland’s security.
The first significant push for NATO membership came in the early 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Union’s demise, many believed that the security environment in Europe had changed, and Finland needed to reassess its foreign policy and align itself with the West. Although Russia was no longer seen as an immediate threat to an accession process, it remained a long-term challenge that Finland could more easily tackle from within Western structures.
However, even then, these calls for NATO membership were not widely supported in Finland. The country had a long tradition of neutrality, and many believed that NATO membership would compromise Finland’s independence and sovereignty while unnecessarily increasing tensions with Russia.
In 1994—the same year Finland joined the Partnership for Peace—the Finnish Parliament conducted a vote on whether to apply for NATO membership. The vote resulted in a narrow defeat for the pro-NATO camp, with 94 members of Parliament voting against the application and 60 in favor, effectively putting an end to the debate on NATO membership in Finland for the time being.
Several polls conducted during this period also showed that the majority of Finns were firmly against NATO membership as well. Polls from 1995-1997 continuously reported that around four in five Finnish people rejected the idea, while the share of those who supported NATO membership barely reached double digits, although public opinion began to shift slowly in the early 2000s.
In 1995, a referendum was held in Finland on whether to join the European Union, seen by many as a proxy vote on NATO membership, believing that becoming a member of the EU (and thus leaving at least part of neutrality behind for the sake of the joint European defense mechanism) would substitute for NATO in the long run, making Atlantic integration less likely. The referendum resulted in a clear victory for the pro-EU camp, with 57% of Finns voting in favor of joining the EU.
Following a gradual decline of anti-NATO sentiments in the polls, the Russian invasion of Georgia once again made Finns wary of joining NATO, and the support for neutrality increased from 52% to 70% by 2011. The annexation of Crimea, however, induced a more mixed response, leading to renewed calls for Finland to join NATO, even though the majority of Finns continued to support the country’s policy of military neutrality.
Everything changed in 2022. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine had the opposite effect than that of the Georgian War, flipping public opinion overnight. While just a month prior to the invasion, NATO membership was still rejected by a majority of 43%; by late February, only 28% opposed the accession and 53% were in favour. Public support for NATO membership continued to steadily rise over the past year, reaching 82% by the one-year anniversary of the invasion, while rejection plummeted to just 8%—prompting the Finnish government to declare that a “NATO referendum is no longer necessary.”
Welcome to the Club
Ever since Finland officially applied for NATO membership on 18 May 2022, and subsequently signed the accession protocol on July 5th, Finland—along with Sweden—began its quest to get all existing members to ratify the accession as soon as possible. By the end of September, 28 out of 30 had granted permission to join, leaving only Turkey and Hungary on the fence, who would then ratify it in late March, six months later.
The rest, as they say, is history, but one that only truly began today, with the raising of the Finnish flag at NATO’s Brussels headquarters. Finland now not only belongs to the West culturally and politically, but as an integral part of our collective defense structure and strategic framework, as a symbol of Western unity in the face of Russian aggression. For Finland, this historical moment also means that it was able to finally step out of the shadows of Russia, as Finlandization no longer guarantees peace.
“At times like this, friends and allies are more important than ever,” said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the joint press conference with President Sauli Niinistö, “and Finland now has the strongest friends and allies in the world.”
READ NEXT
Christian Heritage: Worthy of Celebration
No Whites, Please.
French Prime Minister François Bayrou: Portrait of an Eternal Centrist