NEWS ANALYSIS: Defence policy traditionalists begin their counteroffensive

Finland’s Defence Forces reform divides opinions also among the military experts

print this

By Kari Huhta
     
      Alarm bells are ringing among the military researchers.
      “For small non-aligned countries such as Finland, the geopolitical changes in the nearby areas create a deepening state of uncertainty”, warns a report published on Tuesday of last week on the military-political development in Russia and its effects on Finland.
     
So, what has happened then? Well, in the immediate past, nothing very much.
      The report published by the Strategy Department of Finland’s National Defence College sums up information about the defence policies and military readiness of Russia and the West from the past several years.
      The mentioned “state of uncertainty” refers for example to the concerns felt in Eastern Europe after the war between Russia and Georgia three years ago.
      In Finland, on the other hand, a lot has happened and the “state of uncertainty” has deepened.
      The report is published in the middle of the squabble over how Finland’s Defence Forces should be renewed.
      The writers’ view is clear: “A strong reserve signals the country’s willingness to defend its sovereignty”.
      The defence reform’s single large thigh-bone of contention deals with the need to reduce the armed forces’ wartime strength from its present 350,000 soldiers.
     
The report does not set a target for the size of the reserve.
      At the publication event of the report, one of its writers, Brigadier-General Lauri Kiianlinna, said: “So what if the size of the reserve exceeds 300,000 men? There is no need to start reducing it.”
      Kiianlinna pointed out that in the Winter War one soldier - marksman Simo Häyhä (1905-2002) - killed 600 enemy fighters. (A more commonly cited figure is 542, but it is still a fearsome number - he was dubbed "the White Death" by the Red Army.)
      In the figure of the sniper Häyhä is crystallised the difference in the Finnish defence debate between the views of the traditionalists and the supporters of reform.
     
The economic impact of downsizing the reserve is insignificant.
      Even now for part of the reserve there is nothing to put in their hands but old assault rifles. Hardly any money is being spent on them.
      This perhaps 100,000-strong reserve can be seen either as Häyhä-type heroes, or as cannon fodder for the huge destructive force of modern warfare.
      Even though the difference between the two interpretations is dramatic, in practice the Defence Forces reform dispute boils down to differences of emphasis.
      For example, the number of those suggesting the abolishment of compulsory military service altogether is marginal, a couple of per cent.
     
The consequences of the diferences in emphasis will become economically more significant when the debate shifts to closures of garrisons and military facilities and possible staff dismissals.
      Even before the decision to cut defence costs was made, choices were to be faced between modernisation and maintaining some of the old structures.
      The renewal mentality is clearly winning both within the Defence Forces and the government.
      The traditionalists form a large minority that has its supporters both among the ranking officers and in Parliament. The fresh report backs their view.
     
What brings clarity to the debate is the fact that while assessing Finland’s defence needs, Russia’s military-political development is also being openly discussed.
      Other traditional security policy threats Finland does not face, but there are a number of alternative conclusions that can be drawn on offer.
     
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 22.9.2011


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Finnish experts see changes in Russian defence policy (21.9.2011)

KARI HUHTA / Helsingin Sanomat
kari.huhta@hs.fi