What does Finland’s and Sweden’s NATO membership mean for future alliance innovation?
On 18 May, both Finland and Sweden officially applied for membership in NATO – a distinctly historic decision. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led the two countries, long engaged in their military non-aligned positions, to completely re-evaluate their position and future security. But what does their potential membership mean for the Alliance and the future of NATO’s defense innovations?
None of the countries is foreign to NATO. Both have been involved in a wide range of collaborative initiatives with the Alliance and shared common values and goals. With significant increases in defense spending, active military and defense industries, each country brings something unique to the table.
Finland shares a border with Russia that extends over 1,300 kilometers. For a non-nuclear-weapon country, this means that it must maintain up-to-date conventional forces to ensure a credible deterrent. In fact, Finland’s artillery is one of the largest in Europe second largest land forces.
Finland has replaced artillery equipment since 2014 as part of Operational artillery program. This will ensure a modernization of the forces, extend their life cycle to the 2050s, add 200 Leopard tanks and infantry vehicles. Sweden, on the other hand, is proud of its highest-ranking air force, backed by the Gripen 39 fighter aircraft and its expert fleet. Their submarine flotilla would significantly strengthen the Alliance’s presence in the Baltic Sea and the Arctic.
A particularly interesting asset is Finnish national defense course, which is dedicated to leaders from different spheres of society. They are taught about different parts of the country’s national security, which helps them understand Finland’s needs and in turn guide decisions. A similar exercise at NATO level would certainly increase the Allies’ performance and their cooperation with the private sector.
Defense industries
In terms of innovation potential and research and development (R&D), the two countries’ defense industries serve as strong assets for their NATO candidacy. The industries are specialized and highly operational and provide national resources with efficient technology and equipment. As the industry largely consists of small and medium-sized companies, Finland and Sweden can give NATO lessons on effective cooperation between smaller companies and the public sector. The industries are not only profitable but internationally competitive and export large parts of high-quality products with a long life cycle. Their goal of being self-sufficient in defense and security is reflected in their significant investments in research and development. In addition, the equipment and technologies are often manufactured according to the specific operational needs of each country. For example, the Swedish submarines are specifically adapted to the Baltic Sea, taking into account its various salt deposits, or archipelagos.
As GLOBSEC’s recently published report on NATO achievements and innovations suggests that NATO can escape the growing geo-economic burden by making profitable investments in defense industries and innovative technologies. Both Arctic countries are known for prioritizing innovative and sustainable solutions, which are crucial for preserving the Arctic region and its climate. The performance and profitability of these industries also depend on the successful use of civil technology in their respective military productions.
As the report recommends, it is a much-needed policy for the Alliance to establish close links with the private sector and then base defense innovations on this cooperation. As Finland and Sweden already operate within these guidelines, they are undoubtedly valuable for NATO’s future innovation. By bringing modern military, efficient defense industry, experienced know-how and production based on military needs and military end users, the two Nordic countries can drive NATO’s defense innovation to the forefront.
In line with increased defense spending in several NATO Member States, this enlargement could place greater emphasis on defining NATO’s innovation needs and help shape a more resilient innovation ecosystem.