Based on the author's doctoral dissertation at Oxford, this study examines with a historical perspective the national defence strategy of Finland 1944-1989. The author explores Finland's dilemma with respect to its geographic position and the Cold War politics between the US and the USSR.

The armed forces of Europe have undergone a dramatic transformation since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Handbook of European Defence Policies and Armed Forces provides the first comprehensive analysis of national security and defence policies, strategies, doctrines, capabilities, and military operations, as well as the alliances and partnerships of European armed forces in response to the security challenges Europe has faced since the end of the cold war. A truly cross-European comparison of the evolution of national defence policies and armed forces remains a notable blind spot in the existing literature. The Handbook of European Defence Policies and Armed Forces aims to fill this gap with fifty-one contributions on European defence and international security from around the world. The six parts focus on: country-based assessments of the evolution of the national defence policies of Europe's major, medium, and lesser powers since the end of the cold war; the alliances and security partnerships developed by European states to cooperate in the provision of national security; the security challenges faced by European states and their armed forces, ranging from interstate through intra-state and transnational; the national security strategies and doctrines developed in response to these challenges; the military capabilities, and the underlying defence and technological industrial base, brought to bear to support national strategies and doctrines; and, finally, the national or multilateral military operations by European armed forces. The contributions to The Handbook collectively demonstrate the fruitfulness of giving analytical precedence back to the comparative study of national defence policies and armed forces across Europe.

Alarmed by the Ukraine crisis and Russia's military activity in the Baltic Sea region, Finland and Sweden are currently engaged in an intensive debate about their national security. Faced with a changing threat scenario, there is growing doubt in both countries about their current defence capabilities. Questions are also being asked about the security policy course pursued since the end of the Cold War, with calls for higher military spending and NATO accession being the reflex response. However, corresponding initiatives would need to be embedded in a comprehensive and coherent security and defence strategy. Various options for cooperation exist at bilateral, regional and European level and could comprise key elements of this strategy.

When Finland joined the European Union (EU) in 1995, it completed a fundamental transformation of its security policy. Until the end of the Cold War, Finland's position in Europe derived from its treaty with the Soviet Union which imposed neutrality upon it and debarred Finland from any security cooperation with Scandinavia, Western Europe, and the United States. The end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union allowed Finland to move towards European integration through the EU while preserving its own independent defense posture. Other reasons for moving towards the EU stemmed from Finland's new economic vulnerability to trends in the European economy, and its determination that current security challenges no longer included the Cold War threat of military invasion. Rather, current dangers involved the risk of a collapse of Russia's social or political infrastructure which could then confront Helsinki with challenges that it could not meet alone. Therefore, Finland needed to find ways of associating with other states to meet those nonmilitary challenges and, at the same time, terminate its erstwhile political isolation by participating in European integration. It chose the EU over the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) because the expansion of NATO to its border would have alarmed Moscow and because Helsinki viewed the threats to Europe as being essentially nonmilitary, and thus outside NATO's mandate or purview. Also, as Finland emerged from the Cold War, it found itself exposed to severe economic dislocations, if not crises, that forced integration upon both it and Sweden (whose international economic lead Finland had to follow). But, by opting for EU and European integration, Finland stimulated fears at home that it was abandoning its reliance on self-defense and chasing what might prove to be an elusive form of indirect political guarantees in future crises. Other domestic groups worried that Finland might be drawn into European crises of others' making where it had no say in decisionmaking since it was outside the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). As a result, the decision to join the EU forced a major domestic debate which was won in 1994 by supporters of membership, and which also led to publication of a White Paper on Finnish security in 1995. The Finnish Government published the 1995 White Paper to educate Finnish elites and masses as to the purposes behind Finland's policy and in order to give it a formal public statement. The White Paper retains Finland's commitment to independent defense. It also reflects Finland's support for a strengthened EU/WEU capability for crisis management, peace operations, and for dealing with the challenges posed by Russia's current crisis. The White Paper lists the threats that could engage Finland due to Russia's crisis. These threats pertain mainly to the possible breakdown of socio-political order in Russia, the consequences of which would rapidly spread towardsFinland and the Baltic states while overwhelming those states' ability to confront those challenges. The White Paper both reaffirmed and carried forward the policy perspectives that had developed in 1992-1994 as Finland prepared for accession to the EU. It also reflected Finnish policymakers' belief that EU membership opened the way to overcome Finland's prior political isolation and even attain indirect security guarantees. At the same time, Finland preserved its independent defense capability.