Finland is fully capable of defending itself against a Russian attack without immediate U.S. aid. Self-reliance is the core of the “Finnish Model,” a defence strategy integrating high military readiness with comprehensive civilian preparedness. Finland maintains a system of universal conscription, capable of mobilising a massive reserve force of 280,000. For decades, European security relied on U.S. guarantees and NATO’s Article 5, but shifting American priorities have forced Europe to recalculate its independent capabilities. As the credibility of the American commitment wanes, NATO’s European states should look toward the “Finnish Model.” Europe must stop being a consumer of security and start becoming a producer of it.
The Finnish Model
To understand Finland’s geography is to understand its history and identity. While the Cold War divided Europe between two competing powers, Finland occupied a neutral buffer position alongside a neutral Sweden. Proximity to Russia has long been a security concern for Finland, complicating its alignment with other Scandinavian countries. While its neighbours sought security through Western alliances, Finland chose to strike a balance: avoid provoking the Soviet Union while bolstering deterrence. Having lived with Russian aggression, Finland has never enjoyed the luxury of demilitarising. Finland has refined and developed its unique security model. However, after Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, Finland decided to join NATO. This move is described as a shift from soft security (diplomacy and cooperation) to hard security (military deterrence).
Finland is a small country, yet it maintains a total military force of nearly one million and can mobilise 280,000 soldiers within weeks. It possesses the largest artillery force in Western Europe, a capability bolstered by a rapid modernisation of its aerial fleet. It recently purchased 64 F-35 aircraft, replacing the aging F-18 Hornets that have served as its primary defence aircraft since the mid-1990s. However, as President Stubb mentions, Finland’s defence posture relies heavily on civilian preparedness. Finland maintains shelters for 4.4 million Finns, along with adequate security supplies with food, energy, electricity and other resources that may fall short in times of crisis.
Escaping the Dependency Trap
Extensive U.S. contribution to NATO renders Europe dependent on the whims of the U.S. president. U.S. foreign policy erraticism exposed the insecurity of this arrangement, leading to debates about Europe’s capacity to respond effectively to strategic threats. While the U.S. still has 80.000 soldiers present in Europe and still heavily invests in the alliance, Trump’s Greenland ambitions were a significant wake-up call for European leaders. Given the strategic anxiety of Trump’s trustworthiness, the Finnish model is an optimal solution for European NATO allies. By building a military that is NATO-compatible yet self-reliant, Finland has achieved what several European states lack: strategic autonomy within a collective framework.
Critics argue that militarising Europe risks encouraging every state to build a fortress around itself, leading to a more fragmented Europe. Finland does not want to fight alone, but it is capable of defending itself if necessary. This approach offers a more realistic way of preparing for a crisis. Possessing the capability to protect one’s own sovereignty and territorial integrity ultimately strengthens, rather than undermines, the unity of the alliance.
The New Standard
Finland’s military commitments are clear. While NATO states long aimed to commit 2% of their national GDP to defence spending, Allies agreed at the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague to work towards investing 5% of GDP annually in defence, security and resilience by 2035. Finland’s defence posture adapts to an increasingly turbulent, multipolar world where military capability, civil preparedness and societal resilience are inseparable. Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen argues, “When the Cold War came to an end, there was much talk about the so-called End of History, but Finland did not allow itself to fall into complacency.” Though sobering to acknowledge that war and conflict may always be possible, persistent awareness is necessary to safeguard peace and stave off war.
Written by Éléonore Celina Hånde
Recommend Further Reading