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 book explores how small states adjust their military strategies in response to external shocks. Using primary sources from four Nordic countries, (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden), this volume explores how small states have adjusted their military strategies in response to external shocks of the 21st century. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Russian interventions in Georgia and Ukraine, and the rise of the Islamic State have all forced the Nordic states to adopt new strategies. While the responses have not been uniform, their differing relations to the EU and NATO have not prevented these countries from behaving similarly in military affairs. Limitations in military capacity has led all four countries to pursue strategies that include cooperation with more resourceful partners. It is necessary for them to cooperate with others to protect and promote their national interests. Moreover, the Nordic cosmopolitan outlook expresses milieu-shaping ambitions that we generally would not expect small states to pursue against a potential great power aggressor. This book will be of much interest to students of military strategy, defense studies, security studies, and international relations.

Overskrifter: Starting point for doctrine: The geostrategic position of Finland; Reconstruction of the defence forces in the postwar period; Neutrality policy and the development of total national defence; territorial defence as the basis for doctrine; Conclussions and assessment.

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.

Claude Chabrol's second film follows the fortunes of two cousins: Charles, a hard-working student who has arrived in Paris from his small hometown; and Paul, the dedicated hedonist who puts him up. Despite their differences in temperament, the two young men strike up a close friendship, until an attractive woman comes between them.