NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (NATO ACT) recently took to Twitter to highlight Finland’s significant contributions to the alliance following the country’s recent accession.

In the tweet, NATO ACT spoke of Finland’s “impressive wartime strength of 280K military personnel,” along with its “strong artillery capabilities, a modern fighter jet fleet, and powerful mine hunting capabilities at sea.”

The message from NATO is clear: Finland’s integration into NATO strengthens the alliance.

Finland’s military, the Finnish Defence Forces (FDF), is a key player in this enhancement. The FDF consists of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, with the Finnish Border Guard integrating with these forces during wartime.

One of the standout features of Finland’s defence forces is its universal male conscription policy. This requires all able-bodied men to serve between 165 and 347 days, ensuring that the country can call upon a well-trained reserve force capable of mobilizing up to 280,000 personnel in times of need. This reserve force is essential to Finland, and it focuses on using the country’s heavily forested terrain and numerous lakes to wear down potential aggressors.

Financially, Finland backs its defence ambitions with a substantial budget. In 2022, the country allocated approximately €5.8 billion to defence. This investment supports one of the largest artillery capabilities in Europe, with 700 howitzers, 700 heavy mortars, and 100 multiple rocket launchers. Finland is also modernising its air force; the current 62 F/A-18 combat aircraft fleet will be replaced by 64 advanced F-35 fighters starting in 2026, as part of the HX Fighter Project.

Finland’s commitment to its defence is reflected in the population’s strong will to protect their homeland. According to a recent study, 83% of Finns are ready to defend their country against a superior enemy, one of the highest rates in Europe. Finland’s forces are well-regarded internationally, with many volunteers participating in UN, NATO, and EU missions worldwide.

It’s good they’re on our side.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

71 COMMENTS

  1. Finland brings to NATO its biggest asset which is the God of War.
    For those not familiar with this term, in 1944 Joseph Stalin said in a speech that “artillery was the god of war”.

    • Turns out the Russians aren’t really capable of anything other, sitting in a field and lobbing various shells while using turtle tanks and human waves to cross no man’s land. Pretty much the way we use to fight in 1916.

      Nice that mad Vlad and his Orcs have taken the country back so far.

      Stalin would be mortified, think about all those five years plans he wasted.

      Vlad is on par with Nicholas the Second.

  2. The tweet, and by extension the article is surface level. Finland’s military system has not been tested for 80 years so I would be cautious of how much value one should put in an ‘unknown quantity’.

    Far more tangible is that Finland is Europe’s leading producer of 155mm artillery ammunition, and at a lower cost than western competitors. A fact of significant importance for the alliance in general and Ukraine in particular for obvious reasons.

        • They still have a very good capacity to manufacture 155mm ammunition and they are not jokers at making things so it will be decent quality.

          They must have something to fire it out of…..or else why have the factory?

    • Your caution about an ‘unknown quantity’ may be reasonable but the speed of joining NATO by Finland evidences that people familiar with Finnish capabilities were content and recognised their combat readiness.

      For context, many Finnish families remember the effects of the Civil War, the Winter War and the Continuation War both in territory and blood and treasure. It’s personal when relatives are remembered in a family and community context.

      The 3+%GDP defence spending is another clue that Finns are serious about their defence. Building Regulations that include NBC bunkers in every new building, another. Familiarity with BMP/T-72 and transition to Leopard 2A6 , another.

      There’s quite a lot of evidence that the Finns should not be taken lightly..

  3. No doubt someone one will be along soon to tell us how we need to spend all our money on artillery and start conscription as well so that we can defend Whitby from the Russian horde crossing the North Sea 😀

          • That is true, an essentially very different beast and most definitely not a replacement for…as it’s an addition it’s unlikely to appear.

          • You would would assume so..but if you look at some of the brigade combat teams in 1st division, it could be useful…7th light mechanised brigade, 4th light brigade and 16 brigade…it could add lethality beyond the 105mm. There was a very good article I read on lethality differences between 81mm, 105mm and 120mm and it’s very significant….but its not a particularly mobile bit of kit..and sustained fire is difficult..( crew fatigue )

            The advantage the 81mm is its man portability ( sort of ) and rate of fire due to lower crew fatigue…but I read another article that made it clear rate of fire for the 81mm is most beneficial if your opponent cannot really do counter battery fire…so it was profoundly useful in Afghanistan..but when your fighting a peer, you really want lethality in less rounds….maybe a mounted option for the lighter air deployable brigades, The M326 mortar stowage system would be brilliant..the Ukrainians have proven its concept….the whole thing towed by a light vehicle of any type..20 second deployments and they would cost around 15k -20k each.…

          • Yes, 4 RA in 7 LMBCT is one of my 1 Division bugbears. I’d like a mechanized formation to have greater firepower than some towed LG.
            The other bugbear is the entire 4 Bde, without regular CS CSS units beyond the Light Cavalry.
            Will be interesting to see if there is any uplift after the review is published.
            I predict, nothing.

          • Yes you would imagine that 7th light mech BCT would be better served by something more than towed light guns…maybe when RCH155 is delivered to 3rd division, they could get what they really need which is a wheeled strategically mobile 155mm self propelled gun…after all it would be a crying shame to waste the archers and they would sit well in 7th BCT.

          • I really wouldn’t want to be a para manpacking a 120mm mortar…

            It’s also a lot easier to set up and embed a 81mm mortar than a 120mm (remember crew fatigue is a thing when setting up and moving as well).

          • Indeed it’s probably not a thing for the airborne infantry or air assault infantry battalions in 16 air assault to hump around 120mm mortars by hand, but maybe a way to add more firepower at brigade level ? 16 air assaults fires were seriously cut to the bone and could do with a bit of strengthening in some way.

          • When 4.2″ mortar was in UK service they were towed by a Loyd Carrier. The US 120mm mortar are mounted in M113

          • Hi Simon the US also have it mounted on striker as well as a trailer based system that deploys the mortar using the M326 mortar stowage system…the trailer based system is I believe used by national guard and airmobile forces.

          • The problem is that as long as you want 2 and 3 Para to actually Parachute you need their supporting mortars to be man portable, not trailer based.
            If we’re switching from Parachuting to Airmobile then there’s an argument to be had about underslung loads with Chinooks, but if guys are jumping out of aircraft they need organic fire support when they’re on the ground to arrive the same way.

          • good point, it seem it is going to be quite diffcault to bolster the fire power of 16th Air Assault. I seem to remember them being issued with a lot more anti tank missiles ( TOW maybe ?) at one point

          • Yes they do, use the M120A1 towed when it’s appropriate..they have a bit of a different set up to the British army in that battalion mortar platoons can have a number of different options…they can deploy with 120mm, 81mm or 60mm depending on the mission. Infact they have annual competitions between mortar teams using all three mortar types…at present SOF are testing a new 120 mortar system that can be slung from the back of a light utility vehicle.

            The 101st airborne, were on exercise in Latvia in 2023 and deployed 120mm mortars…in support of the exercise.

          • Also worth noting that the 101st operates in an Air Assault, not Airborne role. I think only the 82nd operates anything conventional in the actual parachute drop role.

            Edit: Like RGR and R. Irish operate as Air Assault Infantry while 2 and 3 Para still maintain the jump capability.

          • Could a 120mm be carried by a Supacat type light vehicle that 1RI and the RGR’s FS Coys could conceivably be equipped with for air landing operations?

          • I imagine so. Air Landing, or Helicopter Assault makes life easier since you can transport vehicles.

          • Yes that is what the US airborne units are looking at now, essentially it can be instantly deployed of the back of a light utility vehicle..essentially turning the towed 120mm into a shoot and scoot platform..it’s called SLING, it’s essentially a complete 120mm mortar laying system, including fire control computer and ammo storage that bolts onto the back of any random 4×4.

          • Indeed, you could see it working for the two air assault infantry battalions as organic fire support and or with the 7th for brigade level fires.

          • OK. Thanks for the info. I saw Dern’s response. I can understand airmobile troops having heavy mortars but not airborne (para) troops.

          • True, we probably cannot afford US profligacy, where they can pick which of 3 mortar sizes they deploy with depending on how they are deploying. But they could put 120mm mortars as part of 7th parachute regiment Royal horse artillery,( a 120mm mortar is profoundly more destructive than a 105mm..) and it could be organic with the air assaults and strike battalions ( not all the infantry in 16 brigade jump out of aircraft).

    • One can laugh but certainly prior to Ukraine many in Russia would have seen Finland and Norway as a weak flank for NATO and certainly the only place they might consider they have potential naval advantage. Deluded or not it’s not impossible to imagine that Norway could have been taken if NATO indecision and ill preparedness had been as bad as it actually arguably looks from here looking back and Russia had as much competence as we granted them. And had that happened amongst all the other strategic changes then part of the British isles would be closer to enemy territory than it is to mainland Britain. Oh and had Norway voted to join the Russian Empire in a fake poll Putin is so good at then it would certainly have pushed for the return the Shetlands which unlike the perceived reality by treaty only belongs to Scotland until the original marriage dowry was paid.

      Yes maybe fanciful and humorous to imagine now but prior to Finland and Sweden joining and had Russia actually got its military act together, not out of the realms of possibility, especially if a Trump run Govt decided to desert NATO and leave Europe to defend itself deciding what made America Great the first time was taking advantage of a devastating European war and its aftermath. The Ukraine war has probably prevented any real possibility of that overall scenario, but before it I suspect Russian strategy probably considered it as a very achievable goal at the right point in time perhaps after a 3 week capitulation of Ukraine no Finland and Sweden in NATO at that point, the occupation of Gotland their analysts often discussed back then and a potential 2 year when Russia could contemplate building up its oil financed military strength with a frightened stiff unprepared Europe in opposition.

      Interesting documentary in the style of Rise of the Nazis no doubt to be made about that down the line methinks.

      • I think there is certainly no doubt that the Russians are so incapable at any basic military task that they didn’t realise just how useless they were. I’m not sure how they ever thought they were going to invade any one when they lack the basic logistics to move 40 miles from a rail head.

        All they do is lie about their capabilities, this is nothing new, they have being lying about their capability for several hundred years which is why they loose so many wars.

        The difference this time is that they lied so much that they believed their own lies.

        • I think they have always pretended to believed their own lies, it’s one of the big issues faced by totalitarian authoritarian systems…where failing is “not allowed” and comes with profound consequences everyone pretends they have not failed….which is fine and everyone can play pretending until it’s actually comes to an existential event…..the cure for this is that the totalitarian system starts meaningfully hunting people playing “pretend” and shooting them or putting them in prison. As this type of “lets pretend corruption is endemic in totalitarian systems you know a totalitarian regime is up to no good when it starts a cycle of hunting out and punishing the “let’s pretend” type corruption….I think possibly as you say Putin just started believing and did not bother doing his punish the “let’s pretend” culture before starting the war…now I’d you look at Xi in china, he has seriously started his anti corruption campaign..which is a red flag.

        • You say that, but for all their ineptitude the Russians are still a threat. Despite all their issues, the Russians are still grinding down the ZSU and slowly nibbling away at the Donbass lines, and despite their horrendous casualties they are outlasting Western goldfish attention spans, and while we dodged a bullet with Oswald Mosley in the UK, his big brother Trump returning to the white house is still a very dangerous possibility.

          So while yes the Russians suffer from croneyism, and a lot of ineptitute is programmed into their army, they aren’t cartoon characters.

          • I don’t know how much of a threat Trump really is to NATO.

            I wonder how many orders for US kit within NATO would disappear if they left? Can’t imagine the likes of LM, Boeing etc being too pleased about it.

          • He’s been blocked by law to use an executive order to get the US out of NATO so on that front, he’s stuck.

            The Ukraine issue is the one that I’m more worried about.

            There was an interesting switch in their polling when Biden dropped and Harris took over. She seems to be maintaining a lead over Trump, neither of them have favourable approval ratings. Will be interesting to see what happens come November.

          • If elected, he could choose to do as de Gaulle did and pull out of the integrated military command structure (whilst still being a member on paper.)

          • Trump is becoming less likely to be elected.
            Even if he is, then remember that his anti-NATO rhetoric when in office last time soon got dialled down when reality hit.

          • I think they’ve ended up in a similar situation to the Trump / Clinton election, not sure either really has sweeping support (looking at polling data).

            Will be interesting to see if anything happens to throw support at either one between now and Nov 7th.

    • “83% of Finns are ready to defend their country” is a level of engagement in national defence that Germany or UK could only dream of. Why does this matter? Because the politicians believe there are no votes in defence spending.

      That Finns remember their last three wars, don’t trust the terrorist state, and have a 850km border with it are bound to concentrate some focus on defence.

      Since UK has no such context advantages the education of its people in history and geopolitics seems decades overdue, in other words, the peace dividend delusion must be discounted.

      • I think the rushan FSB has been covertly-disrupting the UK and others for decades. For example, likely covertly-funding CND, Socialist Workers Party, etc.
        Also using Merkel and the other ex-DDR politicians embedded in Germany to confuse and distract the West. For example, making their independence from rushan oil dwindle on the vine and actively and unnecessarily closing their nuclear power plants. I’m sure there are numerous, covert, long-standing, hybrid-warfare actions being pursued by the FSB of which we are not aware.

        • Post WW2, my grandfather was sent to Berlin to the reconstruction commission (could be wrong about that name), and spent some years working there. Not a coincidence as he served on Churchills’ Intelligence Staff during hostilities, and spoke German and Russian.

          So while they were known as KGB in those days, we probably did take them seriously back then, and seem to have dropped the ball at some point.

          Since the work of GCHQ and Military Intelligence obviously remains secret, we will never know how much effort has been made, how much shared, and what results achieved.

          I remember 40 years back seeing the German anti-nuclear power lobby and thinking how strange that a country famous for its contribution to engineering, chemistry, and physics wasn’t making progress with it.
          Obviously without any hydrocarbon reserves you need alternatives…

          Looking at the results of European energy dependence on RF hydrocarbons, it would seem like incredible luck for the terrorist state to have achieved that without deliberate FSB kompromat effort.

          Thus, despite not having specific evidence, the concept “follow the money” proves that they have been effective.

      • You have to remember that before the MOD decided to spend half a billion pounds essentially recycling 1970s radar technology they had aready spent 50 million on working up a modern AESA radar based on either an APG-81 radar or ELM2052…..either of which would have provided a modern highly effective AEW platform that could have lasted for a couple of decades……instead they decided to save a bit and sacrificed the CBG having decent AEW and pissing money away a decade later as they need to find money for a replacement….

    • We certainly need to spend some money on tube artillery – we have 14 Archers and a handful of 30-year old unmodernised AS-90s as our 155mm ‘arsenal’. Our 105mm Light Guns are even older (1970s era).

      We don’t want conscription but General Sanders proposed training a citizen army (who would be ready for conscription if that was ever required) to augment both our tiny regular and reserve army.

      I hope you are reassured to take the threat from Russia to the NATO area so lightly

      • I actually don’t hate the idea of a voluntary system where you can sign up to receive basic military training and be “on the books” in case of something happening.

        Could revive the TA name as it would be a different commitment level to reservists.

        Maybe hold an annual training event to keep skills up to date?

        Could form them into county regiments.

          • I was building off the thought of what a Finnish system might look like in the UK. Pretty much just a fun thought experiment.

            But, it would provide a pool of people that would have had at least basic military training, if there was ever a need to call more up. Means they’d need less time spent on them when they were brought in so you’d be able to spool up these “TA” pools faster than John Smith off the street.

          • Again, why though?
            The Finnish system is predicated on a threat being right on their border, to that end, being able to rapidly expand their armed forces without having to worry about operational or strategic mobility is important.

            Let’s look at the UK system by comparison. The British Army has, realistically, about 8 Brigades worth of units. 2 Armoured Infantry, 1 Deep Strike, 2 Light Mech, 1 Air Assault, and 2 Reserve. Of those 8, 3 can’t be deployed at all due to lack of enabling assets (4 Light Mech, and the two Reserve Brigades), and 1 DSB can only really deploy as part of a formed division. Any unit we call up, in order to be useful, needs to have the ability to deploy and sustain itself hundreds of miles from the UK. We can’t do that with our entire regular force, let alone the reserves, let alone a hypothetical call up off the street.

            Calling John Smith off the street quickly is important when you’re in Lappeenranta and the border is 30 miles away, it’s much less important when you’re in Luton and the border is 900 miles away, especially if you have 2 brigades worth of reservists waiting with their thumbs inserted because they already don’t have enough trucks, artillery pieces, 4×4’s, etc to leave the UK.
            “Okay so what it’s just a fun idea and it couldn’t hurt.”
            Except it could. Training people for call up costs money and time. Money and time that isn’t being invested into other areas. For example: How many RLC regiments could be funded if the money and effort that was put into having a “call up force” was just invested into making the regular forces better? Enough to make 4 Brigade ready to go out the door? Probably.

          • Have you mistaken me for some policy maker that is about to make this a reality? Last I checked, I was a regular bod that took an idea in someone else’s comment and had a bit of a thought experiment.

            I know that have issues with our ability to deploy as it is, I’m not suggesting that some head shed at the MoD looks and this then runs with it.

            I’d rather the money were spent on other things for the Army and deal with some of the pretty woeful shortages that you’ve mentioned. There are some pretty glaring issues across the board, they’re pointed out here often enough.

            Hope you’re having a nice day.

          • If you’re going to float an idea, then be ready for someone to challenge it. Seems like a pretty simple concept.

          • Hi Aaron.
            I appreciate it is just a what if.
            I recall the saying, professionals study logistics.
            What Dern is saying is, give the regulars the CSS they lack before spending that money on a reserve that is not combat effective as it is.
            While it’s good to have reserves, forming new formations in the condition our current LI ones are in still gives LI deployed with no supports.
            19 Bde if we sent them as is would be a liability.
            The reserve RLC and RAMC units, I think,…. have more value, giving depth to existing formations, if enough people report.
            And even that, I’m uncertain as I’m not an army guy with access to their true state.
            Thinking back, your suggestion of these units forming an embryo if the army needed rapid expansion we have had before.
            2,4,5 Divisions, re 2010, and all regional formations, also had that task.
            Still does not make them useable deployable all arms formations, which is what we lack.
            Cheers.

          • Hi DM,

            Admittedly probably got out of bed on the wrong side yesterday, so apologies to Dern really.

            Absolutely a lot more work to be done before anything like this could be looked at with a view to actually doing it.

            I would say that you could train this “TA” reserve idea to fill CS or CSS jobs but, you aren’t going to be able to give people the experience they’d need in order to do it. So you could only really use them as LI or potentially more at-home logistics support to enable more of the units from the UK to be able to deploy over-seas?

            The only other potential for making these more useful is to have people marked out in these fantasy formations with specific professions that they already work in with their civilian job. Nurses, mechanics, building trades and logisticians like myself for example. They could then be moved away into more specific tasks as needed. Makes it all a bit more messy though.

          • I’m aware much of our reserve RAMC capability is formed from real NHS staff, and the minimal railway capability from Network Rail staff.
            Hmmm, enabling more UK based units to deploy overseas….easier said than done mate given my knowledge of army MoD set up and how it’s all structured.

          • Ah okay, I knew about the RAMC but didn’t know about Network Rail, makes sense though.

            The only units I could envisage it freeing up would be logistics units potentially? Moving kit from storage to wherever it was needed to be to be deployed. Even then, that would need additional specialised training to be done.

          • Apologies if I have asked this before but why is light role infantry deemed to be non-deployable?
            Are they stuck with just domestic tasks in the UK then? I had not realised that.

  4. With Finland and Sweden both in NATO the capability, opportunity and risk have increased. The risk is a longer border for NATO to defend. The capabilities to the Scandanavia region is that now Norway/Sweden and Finland could be seen as a single combined military force no longer being able to be taken out one by one.

    Yet, NATO itself seems to be still operating along the 1980s concept of a straight up fist fight on the Luneburg heide. Now there is the possiblity that there might be two neutral countries in the way of NATO getting to grips with Russia if Russia attacked Finland, Belarus and Ukraine.

    Possibly it is time to rethink and give nations within NATO dedicated tasks so these nations can prepare their armed forces for the task. As an example, in a few years Poland will have a land army that will be modern, well equipped and in numbers to give any enemy something to think about. However, they will be a bit light in fast combat aircraft. So this is where possibly a US airwing could come in handy. Germany and France for example could be the additional heavy support in land/air force for Poland.

    Another example would be that the main task of Britain and Norway possibly with the Canadians is to stop long range bombers and the Russian surface/sub fleet breaking into the Norwegian Sea/ Atlantic. Britain should also have the task of reinforcing the Scania countries with land and air power.

    So now you have countries with tasks to equip for, say at the 2% of GDP, if a country wants to spend say 3% the extra can be for capabilities not required for the tasks allocated or for commitments outside NATO tasking.

    However some tasks are more expensive than others, for example for Poland to build a land army of 1500 MBTs 1000 SP Artillery, 1,000 MRLs etc will not cost the same as the requirements of Norway and Britain to protect the Norwegian Seas and the Atlantic. It’s simple ships cost more than tanks. So a part of a nations NATO 2% budget should go to other nations that have the higher cost in equipment procurement if that nation so requests. However, countries such as the UK, France and the US I imagine would not ask to dip into a NATO percurement fund as these nations need the flexibility of military use. Nations such as Norway that would incure a large cost to fulfil its tasking would be a logical nation to make use of such funds. It also does not mean that NATO nations should subsidise things such as CVNs or SSBNs as that is a national choice and not a NATO requirement.

    • Totally agree and this is how it should be done.

      British are better suited in the Nordic and Baltic countries with their land forces than some others.
      Most should focus in Poland and south from that, Scandinavia-Baltic is an austere theater even if the nations are very developed.

      Not only talking about the weather, lot of water, sea, lakes, rivers and marsh of different variety.
      Thick forests and undergrowth with rocky terrain.

      These channel the movement and limit the forces that can deploy.
      This is battlegroup country, the fighting is violent when it starts at close ranges, fastest in every category wins.

  5. They left out the LRPF capabilities, multiple systems with large and expanding stockpiles.

    40x M270A2 with GLMRS ER and PrSM.
    4x Pohjanmaa class, 4x Hamina class with Gabriel V
    64x F-35 with JASSM-ER and NSM.

    Finnish IADS is also one of the best in the world with a large quantity of sensors and systems.
    Now adding David Sling as a theater level system.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here