Turvallisuuspolitiikkaa; Jean Monnet-yhteisössä 17.3.2017 jakamani ohjelma

Kuten on laajasti tiedossa, osallistuin ainoana suomalaisena kutsusta Eurooppa-neuvoston joulukuussa 2012 tekemään Euroopan tulevaisuustyötä koskevaan aloitteeseen. Komissio kohdisti työn Jean Monnet-yhteisölle. Sen toteuttivat yhteisön opettaja- ja tutkijakunnat. Teoksen e-version olen jakanut laajalti Suomessa alkaen Tasavallan Presidentistä ja pääministeristä. Akateeminen tutkimusmaailma on myös jakelulistalla. Media on saanut sen myös kattavasti eri puolilla Suomea.

Teoksen koko nimi on "The Future of Europe. The Reform of The Eurozone and the Deepening of Political Union", Lissabon 2017. Oma, poikkitieteelliseksi merkitty artikkelini sijaitsee sivulla 337. Tämän lisäksi olen jakanut mahdollisimman laajasti tässä olevan muistion luontoisen ohjelmapaperini.

Teoksen e-version olen tallentanut Kansallisarkiston kirjastoon, joten se on nyt kaikkien kiinnostuneiden saatavilla sieltä ja myös Helsingin yliopiston kirjaston kautta. 

Jaan Lissabonissa 17.3.2017 jakamani turvallisuupoliittisen ohjelmani sellaisenaan päivittämättä sitä. Tekstiä ja tapahtunutta kehitystä vertailemalla on mahdollista havaita muutokset. Erityisen tyytyväinen olen tiedustelulakeihin sekä maanomistusolojen sopeuttamiseen turvallisuuspoliittisen kehyksen vaatimukseen.

Mitä sotilaallisiin liittokuntiin tulee, karsastan EU:n sisällä tapahtuvia erillisiä liittoyksiköitä.  Tämä ei tarkoita Ruotsin suhteen muuta kuin mielestäni EU:n tulee yhtenä yksikkönä kehittää puolustuspolitiikkaa yhteistyössä Naton kanssa. EU ja Nato yhdessä tarjoavat merkittävästi "leveämpiä hartioita" myös puolustuspolitiikalle kuin sinänsä erinomaisen Suomi-Ruotsi yhteistyön poliittisen kehyksen muodollistaminen sotilasliitoksi.

Olkoon tämä blogi kontribuutioni turvallisuuspoliittisen keskusteluun tänä vaalien keväänä 2019.


Jukka Seppinen






Free for publishing in Lisbon on 17th March 2017                                            FINAL VERSION


2017 Lisbon Jean Monnet Colloquium on

     the Future of the European Union


Vision for Strengthening and Developing the Northern Flank of the EU

By Jukka Seppinen

Doctor of Political Sciences, Master of Law

                                                          University of Helsinki

                                            Jean Monnet Community



I would like to concretize some key elements for the Northern part of the EU in order to strengthen the EU in this important region. I’ll concentrate myself on the Defense and Infrastructural Matters.


Making of Finland a real Regional Leading Military Power

Shortly of Sweden


Successful diplomacy and a good military capacity go together, hand in hand. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many tendencies in the West to slow down the military structure came very strongly in the political agenda. In the North, this was seen heaviest in Sweden. The country gave up her army based on the national obligation. After Russia started her aggressive Foreign Policy since 2008 and a new 2012 on and annexed Crimea in 2014 and participated to the war in Eastern Ukraine, the Swedish politicians had to wake up. But the ground army was already gone. Sweden tries now to get back her military position which was so useful to her politically during WWW II and the Cold War.


The strong points of the Sweden’s military capacity are now in the Air and the Naval Forces. Ground forces still lack manpower and weaponry. It will take years before Sweden can have her military capacity back.

Sweden is clearly more advanced than Finland in the matters of the Military and Civil Intelligence. Finland is just seeking to give to the Authorities same kind of mandates as especially the Swedish signal intelligence FRA already has enjoyed since long time as well as to enlarge the mandates of the civil one.


Shortly of Intelligence


Politically, it has been difficult to strengthen in Finland the resources of our Civil Intelligence Authorities (Suojelupoliisi, later Supo, founded in 1949) during the Cold War Era and even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It still is a police organization. The main threat was the Soviet Union (SU) itself and Communism. The KGB could penetrate to the politico-administrative structures and to the main political parties in a way which did block largely all possibilities to strengthen the resources at the Parliament to counter the KGB and minimize its power position inside Finland.

Supo had, however, to acknowledge already in 1979 that she cannot stop the penetration especially of the Political Section of the KGB or to fully control it in Finland. Political activities to give considerably more money to Supo were easily regarded by the KGB as an anti-Soviet attitude. During the era of Finlandization, an anti-Soviet labelled person became marginalized, which meant weakening of one’s (political) position in the society. The Finlandization phenomenon was really a dangerous one to the western type of Finnish society. But as a sign of passive resistance, the majority of the Parliament was not willing to get rid of Supo.

It is worth to mention that the Finnish Supo could stay with her small (a little over 200 persons) staff firm during the whole Finlandization period during SU’s time. For instance, the Finnish Foreign Ministry formed then largely part of the KGB network. Of 400 carrier diplomates there were about 100 persons more or less connected to the network of the KGB and the Stasi. The Finlandization process touched the Supo only lightly in the leading surface. In the British SIS, for instance, Finland was considered in Europe as one of the “most comfortable countries to the KGB”. There were two other countries in that list.

I have proposed common Intelligence Authority to the European union, on the institutional level.


            Finland military and actual basic lines


Finland did preserve her deep rooted traditional every man’s army during the Finlandization era and the relatively short idealistic post-Soviet period. The old KGB-officers took in Russia revenge and power in Kremlin from the year 1999 on. During leftwing socialist president Tarja Halonen’s time (2000-2012), however, there were in Finland trends to weaken the military position of the country.


Finland did diminish by 100 000 men her wartime military troops down to 230 000. Already now this has been partly corrected. The new number of wartime soldiers is fixed to 280 000. The other heavily criticized decision was the abolition of person mines following the Ottawa agreement. Russia did not sign this agreement, but Finland has destroyed her mines. However, replacing system is being developed. The common land border with Russia is of 1 340 km long.


As I think, the ideal number for the Finnish war time army is 330 000 men and voluntary women. Finland has in fact, a large reserve. In 2015 the Army send a letter to every member of its reserve. The Army send 900 000 letters evoking the wartime positions of each recipient. By 2017, 75 % of the male population born in 1998, gets a military education. The voluntary female participation reaches this year up to 800 soldiers.


For time being, the key area just now relies on the ground forces. The Finnish Army is working on the quick response capacity to any military threat. The Army is getting a better possibility to counter any military action anywhere in the country which is related to the possible existence in Finland of so called Russian “green men”.


The Finnish lawmakers made after the collapse of the SU a clear mistake when liberating the ownership of real estates not only to the citizens of the EU- and Efta- members but to every one, including then Russians. There is no reciprocity in this matter with Russia. It was a one-sided concession. A security problem for Finland has been the consequence. Russians became the principal foreign owners of real estates in Finland. A concentration of Russian owned estates is clearly noticed around military installation or alongside important waterways, and so on. The Military Authorities have been already forced to counter this development in Finland. Better not to believe explanations of purely innocent purposes to get summer cottages in the nice and calm Finnish countryside.


Replacing 62 active Hornet-fighters with new ones


Finland did renew soon after the collapse of the SU her Air Force capacity. The key results were 64 American made Hornet-fighters. To-day, 62 fighters are left. The solution then was a really working one and politically mature. The fleet is being modernized now with effective and new air to surface capacity. The life-span of the fleet reaches now up to the year 2030.  

To-day the politico-military situation is different. It is time to change the old Hornets to a new generation fighter fleet. Finland has chosen five different manufacturers, two Americans, one French, one Swedish and one European. The American models are F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or F-35, French Rafale, European Eurofighter Typhoon and Swedish JAS 39 Gripen. These efficient war machines are in the final. The new planes should be fully operative ones by 2030.

I have proposed publicly that Finland should promote European Defence industry and command 40 Rafale’s and 40 Eurofighters, meaning an increase by 18 planes. It is extremely important to the Defense of the country to hold in a crisis the control of the air and to support the strong Finnish ground forces in their actions. One of the key elements is – of course – to find out sufficient financing possibilities.

The Finnish defense budget covers to-day 1.4 % of the GNP. It should reach 2 % soon, following the Nato’s aim. To increase the number of fighters gives more deterrence impact to a possible aggressor not to take any hostile action against Finland.


       Naval Forces


As a geographically Northern and remote European Baltic Sea country, Finland holds a position very important concerning the Defense of the Central European EU-countries. When having a good capacity to keep an aggressor out of her borders, Finland helps especially many Baltic area and central European EU-countries as well NATO-countries (especially non-allied Sweden) to hold their geographical integrity intact. Finland is a first-front country. Once Finland lost, the aggressor could increase dramatically military pressure on the rest of the EU and the NATO.

Finland is renewing her Naval Forces, as well. It is question of four vessels. In my mind, that is not enough. Finland has no submarines. Just to mention, Sweden has five modern ones.

The submarines were unfairly forbidden for Finland in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. Finland was NOT an ally of the Nazi-Germany, as all Big Power leaders Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Josif Stalin stated during the Tehran Summit on 1st of December 1943. After the war, Soviet Union and Finnish new left-wing Socialists and Communists in power forced our country against facts to that basket. Finland fought a bilateral war against aggressor in the East, the Soviet Union 1939–1940 and a Continuation War 1941–1944. Finland said NO to all proposals to promote the Nazi-goals in the battlefield.

I must underline even here that the presence of Wehrmacht in the Finnish Lapland 1941–1945 was a Nazi-German born operation in order to keep running the iron ore exports from Sweden´s excellent mine’s area in Kiruna and in Jällivaara. The main idea was to cut off the possible road for Red Army to move westwards and occupy the Northern part of Sweden. That was vital to the functioning of Nazi war machine in general. Nazi-Germany got even up to almost 70 % of the iron ore needed from Sweden.

Finland had, in real terms, no choice, but to let the Wehrmacht come in from occupied Norway. The Soviet Union was threatening Finland with a new war and attacked Finland the same day war broke out between Hitler and Stalin on 22th of June 1941. For Finland, to fight against two Big Military Powers at the same time was impossible; no way to survive that way!

I have proposed that Finland should get at least two to three submarines to strengthen her Naval Forces.


Military Alliance between Finland and Sweden?


There has been a longstanding discussion whether Finland and Sweden should form a full scale and binding Military Alliance. The discussion started already in the context of WWW II.

I am doubtful. My first choice is the Finnish full membership in the NATO with a strong own army. My view is not in principle dependent on what Sweden is going to do. Hopefully, we could become members at the same time. Finland could, anyhow, seek membership of the NATO without Sweden, as well, after domestic difficulties are won.

The Finnish Foreign Policy leadership 1982–2012, in the hands of social-democrat presidents Mauno Koivisto (in office 1982–1994), Martti Ahtisaari (1994–2000) and Tarja Halonen (2000–2012), was at least passive, even partly phlegmatic concerning the hard security core including a possible Finnish membership in the NATO. Their main idea has been that, on the basis of the former policy of so called friendship with the SU, political measures would be enough to ensure Finnish security needs against Russia.

I strongly do oppose this kind of thinking. I know concretely, that for the SU “good relations” meant full Russian control of the country, de facto slavery at the very end. I was during years in the 1970’s responsible concerning political relations with the SU in the Political Department of the Foreign Office of my country when the SU tried put the History of a Western Finland to an End. Personally, I heard the long-time KGB-resident and political ambassador of the Communist Party of the SU, Mr. Vladimir Stepanov, in March 1977, declare during official communiqué negotiations in the Ministry that: “It is now the End of the Neutrality of Finland”. Neutrality was then equal with western type of Finland. Stepanov’s acting was a clear declaration of a political war against Finland and against her Constitution. We survived of this dangerous crisis. The SU continued anyhow during President Mauno Koivisto’s time the same line without ideological goals. Slavery is slavery even without Communism. President Koivisto aligned Finland a new in a threatening way to the politics of the SU. He wrote to the Kremlin “Finnish national interests cannot ever go against the interests of the SU”. The collapse of the SU was really a real kick of luck to Finland, as well.

There must be other effective means to ensure the Western and free status of Finland than to wait for a collapse of Russia.  For Finns, a first-class reason to join the EU, was the lack of a really stable and effective security policy during the time of the SU. The positive attitude among Finns is increasing since the referendum in 1994. One poll late December 2016 say that even 79 % of Finns say yes to the EU.


De facto good relations with Russia are worth to work for through continuous dialogue, but backed by a strong military capacity in order to ensure a peaceful future. The anti-NATO attitude seems to be in Finland more or less as a dogmatic behavior to follow in all situation as the old Soviet time propaganda required. Finland is, anyhow, now little by little leaving this kind of thinking behind. But, Ms. Tarja Halonen, Former President of the country, has even recently been publicly proud of her ”tackling” out the Finnish membership of the NATO. She is still of the same opinion and obviously partly leads still in the background the Foreign Policy of the Social Democrats. Former president Martti Ahtisaari is nowadays publicly for Finnish NATO-membership but was passive (or not active enough) during his time in the office. Especially Ms. Tarja Halonen has had politically a clear pro-soviet past during the Soviet era.


Bilateral Military Network

Recently, new bilateral agreements in the field of Military co-operation are being created between Finland and some Western NATO-countries. Finland has recently signed practical military agreements without any guarantees with the U.S.A. and Great Britain. A similar agreement is obviously coming with Germany. I’ll wait similar development to happen with France, as well.

The UK has proposed to Finland to participate to the UK-led JEP-forces (Joint Expeditionary Force) with Baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. It seems to me that this proposal fits well to our politics. After Brexit, this will underline the necessity to keep UK in with the Defense of Europe, as well.

It is worth to mention the common annual military exercises with Sweden, USA and many other NATO-countries.


Shaking the geopolitics in favor of Finland and the EU


Finland’s vulnerabilities are to be found in her geographical position next to Russia. One part is to be found in the language isolation which has given place to the propaganda. Only Finnish speaking population hasn’t had in earlier days many possibilities to compare given information to foreign ones.

There is now light in the horizon. The political geography can be changed peacefully, besides by military deterrence, by infrastructural means in favor of Finland and the EU. The Baltic Rail will connect the Baltic States soon to the main railroad system of the EU. There is now under study the possibility to connect Finland to that network through a railroad tunnel from Tallinn to Helsinki. The length is about 80 km.

I am strongly in favor of this tunnel. It must be constructed to the basic bedrock, not in tubes on the bottom. It would otherwise be easily destroyed in a crisis by military means of an enemy, or through terrorist attacks.

As in Finland the railroads still are of old 19th Century Russian type, there is a modernization work to do of the entire Finnish railroad system to a European style. First, there should be constructed a new railroad up to the Arctic Ocean preferably in Norway to the city of Kirkkoniemi (Kirkenes). The Norwegian Government seems to back this idea.

From Kirkkoniemi there would be a maritime way through the North-East corridor to Japan, China and so forth. This road is about three weeks quicker than the old used ways through the Suez Canal.

Some Finnish politicians who, from the times of the dangerous Finlandization period, prefer the new railroad to be constructed through Lapland to Murmansk in Russia. I strongly oppose that and warn of this kind of thinking. The whole operational meaning of all this would be in danger, if we let Russians decide whether trains go or not up to the most Northern High Seas, the Arctic Ocean. Russian veto on logistics would probably destroy the whole concept of Arctic Dimension.


And, finally I have a dream


As a long-time vision focused on Russia and East-West relations, I see a world where the political situation prevailing in Europe and elsewhere would concentrate on global issues which will take into account the common basic elements to the mankind to survive on this marvelous planet. There would be a prosperous and strong Federal State of Europe, based on the best common values of our western hemisphere. Obviously, the mankind cannot get rid of a power game and competition. Let it be so, but without any threat of a total self-destruction. 

My dream goes on: Russia has abandoned her imperialistic basic feelings, thinking and manners. She remains as a Slavic civilization separated from the Western one. Russia understands by herself and all alone that she has an internal need and obligation to develop her own country, large like a continent. The need to conquest always new areas is absurd and cannot sweep out internal difficulties. A conquest is just a job of common thieves and creates no respect. It leads only to wars and destruction. Anyhow, there must be a legitimate possibility to change borders but through peaceful negotiations.

A positive case: Construction becomes in Russia one day a rule instead of the idea that destruction (war) is a normal mean of politics. The West gives no advices how to develop the Russian society, if not asked. The West has ceased to give one sided concessions to Russia. Concessions are considered in Kremlin as signs of weakness. They just accelerate Russians to fulfil the idea of expanding. A dialogue is anyhow needed with Russia. As far as I can imagine, a balance of power is needed with Russia. The one-sided structure of Russian economy is a danger; the superiority of western technical and consuming industry alters easily the Russian pride. 

Finally, the end of the coal, the oil and the land gaz era is nearing us all and changing radically the Russian reality and the world-wide energy policies. Russia is nowadays dependent of this polluting natural resource which is so dangerous to our common climate. Little by little Russia starts gaining respect from the world. Fear and threatening give no genuine respect. But it takes time, and the way is long. To avoid wars with Russia without concessions must be kept in mind clearly for a long time to come. That’s why soft and hard power are needed for that purpose.

Perhaps the realistic short time approach is: For time being, at least during the Putin era, to prepare for war is now the best peace work. The high points of Putin command may be just coming. Mr. Putin becomes elder and might be willing to close his era as a strong leader (with a try to) by having Stalin-type military victories. The era of the Soviet Union is still too close. Communistic Russia dreamed of a world communistic order. These instincts do live even to-day in the Kremlin, only the package is a little bit different, backed by a relatively small national economy compared to the size of her population.

There is one additional feature with the inside oriented national economies and protectionism which worries me. National wartime-economies tend to have as little as possible dependencies with the outside world. That is one reason why I am for the open global free trade commerce. One other key question is that small export-oriented countries, like Finland, are vulnerable if a protectionism really makes commerce difficult.

Piditkö tästä kirjoituksesta? Näytä se!


Yksi käyttäjä suosittelee tätä kirjoitusta. - Näytä suosittelija

Toimituksen poiminnat

Tämän blogin suosituimmat kirjoitukset