Finland and Nato

As stated in the Report on Finland’s Accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) adopted by the Government, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to a fundamental change in the security and operating environment of Finland and Europe. Jointly agreed international commitments and principles of European security did not prevent war in Europe.

By joining NATO, Finland would strengthen its own security in the changed operating environment. Through NATO membership, Finland would be part of NATO’s collective defence and, thus, would be covered by the security guarantees enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The deterrent effect of Finland’s defence would be considerably stronger than it is at present. As a member of NATO, Finland would also participate in making decisions on security policy issues that are of key importance to Finland.

Finland’s defence capability and resilience would strengthen NATO’s collective defence throughout the territory of the Alliance. Indeed, the threshold for using military force in the Baltic Sea region and Finland’s neighbouring areas would rise. By joining NATO, Finland would strengthen its own security in the changed operating environment.

The NATO member countries have to reach a unanimous decision before accession talks can start.

NATO member countries would have to ratify the Accession Protocol based on their national procedures. Different member countries have different ratification procedures and their duration varies from country to country. 

NATO’s decision-making procedure is based on consensus, i.e. unanimity. NATO does not vote or make majority decisions. Each member country participates in decision-making on an equal basis. When important national interests are involved, member countries can put NATO’s decision-making processes on hold.

Should Finland become a NATO member, it would continue to maintain and develop its own national defence capability as well as its bilateral and multilateral defence cooperation. Finland would continue to decide on the principles governing the implementation of its military national defence.

Being a NATO member country would not mean that general conscription would be discontinued. Possible membership would improve Finland’s military security of supply and the overall crisis preparedness of society.

Being a NATO member country would not have a bearing on how extensively Finland would take part in NATO’s crisis management operations.

If Finland were to become a NATO member country, Finland would be prepared to support other NATO member countries in a possible Article 5 situation. The expected level of Finland’s contribution to NATO’s collective defence would be discussed between Finland and NATO in connection with the accession talks.

Deployment of Finnish troops to NATO operations would always be decided at the national level. In addition, separate decisions would be made on Finland’s possible participation in NATO’s peacetime missions to support collective defence and deterrence .

Being a member country would not oblige Finland to accept nuclear weapons, NATO permanent bases or troops in its territory. For example, in the early stages of their membership, founding members Norway and Denmark imposed unilateral restrictions on their membership and have not permitted permanent troops, bases or nuclear weapons of the Alliance in their territory during peacetime.

It is difficult to give a precise answer to how long the accession process might take. After the accession talks are completed, the NATO member countries must ratify the Accession Protocol based on their national procedures. Different member countries have different ratification procedures and their duration varies from country to country. NATO’s accession process has lasted a year or more for acceding countries in the past.

It is important for a country interested in joining NATO to hold preliminary discussions with NATO member countries. Over the course of this spring, the Finnish state leadership has discussed the changes in the security environment with partners.

The annual additional cost of Finland’s possible NATO membership would be approximately 1–1.5 per cent of Finland’s current defence budget. At this point, this would mean around EUR 55 to 60 million a year.

NATO member countries have also jointly agreed on a target to spend at least two per cent of their GDP on defence expenditure, which would mean maintaining Finland’s defence budget at approximately the current level. 

NATO member countries retain their national right to self-determination, and decisions in NATO are taken by consensus.

As a full member, Finland would participate in NATO’s security policy consultations and in developing NATO’s role as a foreign and security policy actor, and would commit to the North Atlantic Alliance politically. The relations between NATO and Russia would also become a part of Finland’s relationship with Russia.

New member countries accede to the North Atlantic Treaty with full rights and obligations. The most significant effect for Finland, if it were to become a NATO member country, would be that Finland would be part of NATO’s collective defence and be covered by the security guarantees included in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. Finland’s defence would have a deterrent effect that would be considerably stronger than it is at present, as it would be based on the capabilities of the entire North Atlantic Alliance.

Finland has participated in NATO Partnership for Peace cooperation since 1994. The partnership has been deepened since then.

Finland also participates in NATO-led crisis management operations to promote stability and security. Being a NATO member country would not involve major changes in the level of Finland’s participation in NATO’s crisis management operations.