Since the beginning of Russia's 2022 genocidal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the citizens of Finland have stood with the Ukrainian people. A relatively recent history of aggression by Moscow against Finland, which began with an unprompted invasion in 1939 and saw fighting continue through the 1940's, finally culminated with the peaceful arctic nation witnessing a loss of more than 10% of its territory being illegally annexed through unjust treaties, while hundreds of thousands of Finnish citizens became permanently displaced. Despite its then military non-alignment, with these wounds at the hands of the Russians still fresh in the psyches of generations of the nation's residents, the government of Finland reacted rapidly on February 24th, 2022 in both rallying Europe around the Ukrainian while also supplying vast amounts of both kinetic and humanitarian aid.
A top five donor country to the Ukrainian fight for liberty and liberation based on a percentage of GDP, Finland became part of the E.U. in 1995 and then shed decades of military non-alignment in 2023, when as a direct result of Moscow's actions, the country with a more than 1300 km shared border with Russia, became the second newest member state of NATO. Against the backdrop of its still fresh NATO membership, during the Alliance's recent 75th-anniversary summit in Washington D.C., Ukrinform sat down with His Excellency Mikko Hautala, Finland's Ambassador to the United States, for an exclusive interview.
Ambassador Hautala, a fluent Ukrainian speaker, holds a unique perspective on Ukraine's ongoing battle against the Kremlin's Criminal Cabal, having previously served as Finland's Ambassador to Russia until 2020 and a pre-Orange revolution diplomatic stint as part of Finland's Kyiv delegation between 1998 and 2001.
On Russian Imperialism:
"For Finland, the case for supporting Ukraine is clear and easy to understand. We've had several wars with Russia and faced Russian imperial aspirations before. Obviously, we understand that if one country is being threatened and under a threat of destruction, nobody's safe if we let that happen."
On War Fatigue:
"We don't have divisive domestic discussions in Finland about how much we can help and how long this will take. We have a clear national consensus that we must help Ukraine as long as it takes.
On Finland's Military Preparedness and Capacity:
"We always built our national defense with the assumption that we may have to fight alone. And we never, even after the Cold War, actually dismantled the system. That is why we suddenly have the most extensive artillery in Western Europe. We have more tanks than Germany. We manufacture more ammunition than most of the big countries in Europe. This was the consequence of the fact that we were not part of NATO. When the European countries tried to dump their old weapons in the early 90s, one country (Finland) was swimming against the tide.
We were never able to get the peace dividend after the Cold War, but as a consequence, we do have certain capabilities and stockpiles to help. And we have taken this seriously.
On Finland's Military Reservist System:
"It's a real-life matter for us being in reserve, and we take it seriously. Part of our big benefit from the reserve system is that families have a direct connection with the military. Also, the military gets the whole male generation, and many women voluntarily serve as well. This means the leaders can be selected from the total number of recruits, so we have a broader pool of talent, which is reflected in the quality of our officer corps."
On Military Op-Sec:
"We never publish what we give to Ukraine. For a simple reason: we don't want anybody to know what we are missing. We did it with very few cases right at the beginning but then we realized that it's going be a long-term battle."
On Finland's Influence in NATO:
"It’s important for Finland to ensure that we can defend our country and NATO's northern flank together with our allies, and be a meaningful part of the alliance to help Ukraine. Strengthening the defense industry is one of the key element in this. That will allow us to do this (continue to supply weapons to Ukraine) in a sustainable way in the long term, because just giving away your weapons without replacing them is not sustainable.
I think our voice is heard. I'll give you one example. We started this morning with the meeting in the Senate. There were roughly 20 senators from both parties. There was also the new UK Prime Minister, German Chancellor, NATO Secretary General, and the Finnish President and Swedish Prime Minister.
People in the U.S. are also seeking Finland’s advice on how to live with the pressure we get from Russia, how to deal with the Russian disinformation etc. Of course, we have many perspectives due to the concept of comprehensive security. In our case, if there is a war that directly concerns us, it means that it concerns everybody and everything. Therefore, we have a full-scale societal plan for this situation. And because we have been doing this for decades, it gives a unique insight. This is something that people—I heard it this morning at the Senate—are really looking for Finnish guidance on.
On a Lawless Russia:
"The concept of comprehensive security is also extremely relevant for Ukraine. Because Russia is not just a bigger country; they don't have political constraints, they don't have real elections, they don't have rules. So they have a certain advantage that we don't have. But it means that in a smaller country, like Ukraine is compared to Russia, you have to be able to really mobilize all the resources of society."
On Putin, Stalin, and Russian Attrition:
"When the war, the full-scale invasion began, I was one of the few in this town (Washington D.C.) to explain that this is going to go on for a long time. I said, it's hardly even the beginning; it's the beginning of the beginning. I still believe that Russia can continue for some time. And we don't see any signs of a fracture in Russian society.
Certainly, they are not keen on increasing the amount of mobilization, which probably indicates that there is a certain balance that needs to be maintained. But I think the calculus is that if they can keep grinding on in this way, because the resources are more substantial on their side, they will get there before the Russian public sentiment changes. I have never expected the public opinion to be the turning point on this issue.
Stalin had maximalist aims for Finland three times. He basically wanted to have all of Finland either occupied or under a political arrangement that would have given him a final say about our foreign policy. Each time, something came along that made it impossible for him to stay on that course, and he had to compromise. In all of those cases, Stalin was capable enough to know when to stop in the Winter War and the Continuation War of 1944. What we don't know about Putin is whether he can do this.
What I'm trying to say is that even Stalin, who was not known for being a nice guy, was able to compromise and stop when he saw elements that made it too costly to continue. So I think the most important element in stopping Putin, of course, has to be military, because if you don't have that stopping power of public opinion, without a stronger military force we're never going to get there with any kind of tolerable losses."
On NATO and Ukraine's Future Security:
"Of course, I can't speak on behalf of all the NATO countries. But in Finland, we do believe that whatever comes out of this war is that, not only Ukraine needs to survive and succeed, but we also need to make sure that we will not have the next war waiting for us.
So, there has to be a solution to ensure Ukraine not only survives but stays safe and intact. We don't want a return to the 1940s in Finland when there were three wars. We have to remove the opportunity for Russia to continue the conflict later on when they can pick a better date.
Honestly, it's very hard to think of any other permanent solution that would be equally credible than taking Ukraine into NATO. So this is how we see that. You have to win this war, plus you then have to make sure that you remove all the incentives from Russians to continue or restart the war later on when they once again have their weapons stockpile.
Frankly, my personal belief is that for the Russians, fundamentally as a society, to voluntarily end this war, you would require total political change; you would need a society that changes its historical interpretation of Ukraine, a society that re-thinks the role of Russia and the world.
Since we won't see anything like that in the foreseeable future, I think those guarantees, at the end of the day, must be more or less military because we can't rely on the idea that the Russians will become more moral. So it's a long way, but I think NATO membership is the only way to secure Ukraine."
On Red Lines and the Use of Weapons:
"We don't have those red lines in our case. But of course, every nation decides for itself. We have been critical from the beginning of this self-imposed limitation because, as we've now seen in Ukraine, it makes it more challenging to defend yourself. If you can hit specific targets but not the others, then it means that they will move the assets to those areas that cannot be hit.
It's tough to micromanage a war, and our interpretation is that as long as Ukraine is defending, and they are defending, obviously it's all according to international law. It's lawful act to protect, and it's also lawful act to hit military targets on the Russian side, so we don't see a legal problem or a political problem."
*The interview has been modified for length and clarity
Sergeant Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, Armed Forces of Ukraine
*The author's opinions do not necessarily reflect those of Ukrinform's editorial board
Title photo by Sarah Ashton-Cirillo of Finland’s Ambassador to the United States Mikko Hautala