iscover
It may seem a long bow to pull that a smaller nation like Finland can teach Australia about national self-defence, but nothing could be further from the truth.
While there are certainly more stark comparisons to be made between nations, it’s hard to see any similarities between Australia and Finland.
One is arguably the largest island in the world, a sprawling landmass made up of tracts of vast desert, temperate coastlines, a tropical Top End, and one of the longest coastlines in the world.
The other is vastly smaller both in geographical size and population, much, much colder, and shares land borders with several nations, some of them rather … aggressive.
But it’s that last point that has given Finland a remarkable appreciation for self-defence, allowing it to punch far, far above its weight in terms of fighting mass. And it’s this appreciation that ASPI Senior Fellow and former deputy secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, Marc Ablong PSM, thinks Australia can learn a lot from.
By the numbers
Sure, having an aggressive and historically belligerent neighbour like Russia does remarkable things to focus one’s mind on defence, especially if a) they’ve tried an invasion before and b) they’re currently engaging in a brutal war of attrition on the same continent.
Australia has always relied upon our relative isolation and island moat as one of its key defensive elements, and we certainly don’t share a similarly tense situation with any of our neighbours, as Finland does, but that’s beside the point. The world is much smaller than it used to be, and force can subsequently be projected further, faster and easier than ever before. Australia’s isolation isn’t what it used to be, and there’s a very real threat of a kinetic conflict developing practically on our doorstep in the coming decade.
But before we get into what can be learnt from Finland’s national preparedness, let’s have a look at some statistics.
Finland has a population of 5.5 million compared to Australia’s almost 27 million. But Finland has a standing army of about 24,000, which isn’t that far from our own 28,000, which is already a bit of a discrepancy that should draw attention.
But things skew wildly in Finland’s favour when it comes to wartime numbers. In the event Finland feels threatened enough – and, most likely, if article four of the NATO charter is triggered – it can field something in the area of 280,000 troops once reserves are activated. That’s far more than the entire Australian Defence Force combined.
It’s a bit apples and oranges, though, thanks to the geographic demands of sharing a land border with a possible belligerent. For instance, the RAN and RAAF dwarf Finland’s equivalents. However, the point to be made here is how a nation that is so much smaller than ours can keep so much of its population ready, willing and able to serve if called upon.
The mighty Finns
Finland saw bitter fighting in both the Winter War of 1939–40 and the Continuation War of 1941–44. From this basis, it adopted both a studied neutrality between Russia and the West and a marked need to prepare to stand alone during any future conflict. It first developed a concept for total defence that could mobilise the whole of society if needed, which was more firmly codified into the country’s current Comprehensive Security Model, which was formalised in 2003.
The neutrality has not lasted – the Finns joined NATO in 2022 – but this has only strengthened the country’s commitment to defending itself and now, its neighbours.
“The CSM is anchored in two main principles: preparedness and foresight,” Ablong wrote in a paper titled Building national preparedness: A road map for Australia and what we should learn from Finland, published in May.
“National preparedness involves contingency planning, continuity management and regular training exercises to enable proactive responses to emerging crises. Foresight focuses on monitoring changes in the geopolitical environment, reviewing potential scenarios and learning from past crises.”
Finland provides proactive advice to its citizens on how to handle wartime conditions and emergencies and promotes the ideas of self-sufficiency and preparedness. There are educational programs and defence training on offer, alongside a program to inform the Finnish public of current national risks and how to respond to them.
Because of this investment in preparing its citizens for the worst, Finnish citizens have actively increased their own pace of participation and training since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Membership in shooting clubs has surged, and new shooting ranges have been established. In addition, the country has invested heavily in civil defence and in constructing shelters for the worst-case scenario.
The country also conducts a regular National Risk Assessment in accordance with the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. This assessment looks at anything that may disrupt Finland’s civil society and identifies specific threat scenarios.
“To address region-specific threats, regional risk assessments are conducted alongside the national assessment,” Ablong said.
“That ensures that both national and regional risks are identified, creating a cohesive risk-assessment system that informs national preparedness activities across different administrative levels.”
In short, Finland’s population is alert to the risks it may face in wartime and deeply invested in the country’s defence.
Lessons to be learnt
Given the wealth of knowledge and experience on offer from the Finns, Ablong suggests three areas of practical collaboration to uplift Australia’s own level of national preparedness.
The first step is establishing a government-to-government strategic dialogue between the two nations, addressing everything from defence and foreign affairs to resilience and intelligence. This would include a national preparedness exchange, discussions regarding cyber security and the protection of critical infrastructure, and a national disaster preparedness and response exchange involving Finland’s Ministry of the Interior and Australia’s Department of Home Affairs and National Emergency Management Agency.
Next, Ablong recommends standing up a Finland–Australia Hybrid Threat Resilience Forum to compare lessons learnt from each region, which would build into an annual Track 1.5 Australia–Finland Dialogue on Hybrid Threats and Responses. This would allow for comprehensive information as threats develop and responses are honed by both countries.
Finally, Australia should establish its own version of Finland’s National Defence Course, which offers annual educational programs designed to “promote cooperation between the national and regional authorities, senior industry leaders responsible for key tasks in emergency conditions, and communities”.
Ablong proposes that this course would be run by the Australian National University’s National Security College and ASPI itself, on behalf of the ADF. Participants and instructors from Finland’s defence course would be invited to form a delegation to engage with local counterparts in the creation of an Australian National Defence Course.
“The Republic of Finland is an excellent exemplar of what a nation can do to build and maintain national resilience and national preparedness against all hazards, including the risk of conflict and war,” Ablong said.
“Finland’s Comprehensive National Security model and ‘total defence’ strategy, which integrate civilian and military preparedness, offer valuable insights for strengthening Australia’s national preparedness framework.”
You can read the full paper here.