Given the recognised qualities of the Finnish politico-military establishment and its intimate cooperation with NATO and NATO partners, “plugging” into these aspects should be straightforward.
INTEROPERABILITY. As stated above, Finnish defence already enjoys a high degree of interoperability with NATO forces in general, and with those of its Scandinavian members more particularly. For instance, Finland is one of the very few non-NATO countries to be part of the Link 16 data exchange system between combat systems, such as its F-18 aircraft. With the exception of air surveillance and control, where there is substantial leeway for improvement, Finland is probably reaching the limit when it comes to generating increased interoperability with NATO (and therefore by ricochet with the EU) without being a full member of the Alliance. Entering NATO’s full-spectrum planning process under the Defence Policy and Planning Committee (DPPC) will not be possible outside of full membership. The same applies to the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), part of the enhanced NATO Response Force (NRF). The VJTF is optimised for Article 5 tasks.
FINNISH DEFENCE POSTURE. The current changes being mooted in Finland in terms of the rapid activation of reservists and the more flexible use thereof are fully in line with the short-warning time threats which NATO aims to deter and, if need be, to defend against.
If Russia were to substantially increase the forces arrayed in proximity to Finland (see Chapter III, section 2), Finland may have to review its dispositions, for instance with further increases in readiness. It does not have the option of adopting the equivalent of Norway’s “Finnmark policy”, . For a power advancing from the East, Finnmark was a strategic dead end during the last World War and during the Cold War and remains so, unlike Finland whose territory opens access to the whole Baltic basin. Finland as a member of NATO could draw on allied solidarity to buttress Finland’s defence in the form of prepositioned materiel and the more or less sustained presence of allied forces, with a view to reducing the risk of Russian miscalculation.
REGIONAL DEFENCE. Finland’s territorial defence does not lend itself readily to out-of-the-country military intervention. As stated above, the importance of territorial defence for Finland implies that expeditionary capabilities should not be developed to the point of making territorial defence unsustainable, and thus put the Baltic basin at risk. However,
