In Johan Ludvig Runeberg’s _The Tales of Ensign Staal_, Finland’s national epic about the 1808-09 war between Sweden (of which Finland was then part) and Russia, a hapless young man named

Sven Dufva informs his father he’s joining the army. To the surprise of his father and everyone else, Dufva proceeds to become a brave soldier on whom his regiment learns to rely in battle.

These days, Finland—which shares an 800-mile border with Russia—has collectively proved itself such a brave soldier that NATO is expected to receive its membership application with open

arms. As Prime Minister Sanna Marin announced this week, Finland will decide whether to apply within weeks. The announcement is an ironic twist on 20th-century history. After World War II,

by civil society—while at the same time managing to maintain dialogue with Moscow. Finland now seems ready to abandon its famed neutrality once and for all, a move that would put real NATO

forces on Russia’s northwestern border. This arrangement, which non-Finns often (to Finns’ annoyance) call “Finlandization,” was seen in Moscow as an acceptable compromise. These days,

Russian President Vladimir Putin—long paranoid about phantom NATO encroachment on his southeastern border—seems to want such an arrangement for Ukraine, but his aggression there has prompted

a dramatic shift in Helsinki. Finland now seems ready to abandon its famed neutrality once and for all, a move that would put real NATO forces on Russia’s northwestern border. On April 13,

members of the Finnish parliament received a national security report that launched their deliberations about whether Finland should apply for NATO membership. Many of them, though, had

already made up their minds. Indeed, 112 of the 200 members of parliament responded to a new poll by Finland’s national broadcaster, Yleisradio, known as YLE. Of them, 71 said they’d support

a Finnish NATO membership bid; only six said they would not. On the same day, Marin announced—at a press conference in Stockholm with Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson—that Finland

would decide “within weeks” whether to submit an application. In various NATO capitals, meanwhile, governments have already signaled they’d welcome Finland to the alliance. And what’s not

to like about the prospective applicant? It has rock-solid democratic and good-governance credentials. Moreover, the Finns bring crucial military capabilities to the table—especially when it

comes to intelligence. ------------------------- Declarations regarding Finland’s value to NATO are, in fact, becoming so common that it’s taken as a fact that Helsinki would, on balance,

be a military asset to the alliance despite NATO having to defend an 800-mile border with Russia. But even though virtually every NATO member state seems excited by the prospect of Finnish

entry into the alliance, what Finland would bring to the table does matter. “Our greatest asset is that from the earliest days of us looking at NATO membership decades ago we knew that we’d

take part in keeping this part of Europe safe,” said retired Adm. Juhani Kaskeala, Finland’s chief of defense until 2009. “We knew that we’d be contributors rather than consumers of security

in Europe.” Until now, Finland has been a contributor of security in Europe by guarding its border with Russia—and as a NATO member it would put this colossal capability at the alliance’s

disposal. “The greatest benefit we’d bring to NATO is really that we’d take care of the border with Russia,” Kaskeala said. “I don’t want to brag, but our military capabilities should

definitely be taken seriously.” Finland would bring to the alliance its military intelligence expertise—the accumulation of 105 years of watching and interpreting the mighty country next

door. On the surface of it, it might sound as if Kaskeala is bragging. The Finnish Defence Forces employ a relatively modest 12,000 personnel, and Finland spends only around 2 percent of GDP

on defense. The country’s strong border guard, though, doesn’t count as part of those figures (and unlike many other countries, Finland doesn’t count military pensions as defense spending).

Even more importantly, the 12,000 official forces are backed up by conscripts; some three-quarters of all Finnish men complete their military service. (Men with physical or mental ailments

preventing them to do military service are exempt, as are the small number of Finns who are conscientious objectors.) Upon completing their military service, all conscripts except those who

join the active-duty military become reservists. “The Finnish Army remains pretty exceptional in Europe,” Finnish defense analyst Stefan Forss noted. “We train large cohorts of conscripts

each year, and what they’re expected to master is the defense against a major Russian attack. That has been the focus of their training even during the past few decades, when virtually every

other country switched to crisis management using small units. At our defense college, the general staff officers are still trained to lead brigades and corps.” As for the conscripts,

thanks especially to training that has in recent years undergone a major transformation to enhance soldier motivation, most ex-conscripts willingly do their part for the country’s security

as reservists. In a survey from last December, before Russia’s intention to invade Ukraine was clear, 73 percent of Finns surveyed supported maintaining military service, while only 7

percent advocated fully professional armed forces. Such citizen involvement in national security—and popular support of it—would be an asset to NATO. Another considerable skill that Finland

would bring to the alliance is its military intelligence, the accumulation of 105 years of watching and interpreting the mighty country next door. I asked retired Maj. Gen. Pekka Toveri, in

charge of Finland’s military intelligence until 2020, to name other Finnish strengths. “Our army is big for a country our size, with massive artillery and strong armor, but naturally this is

not a very deployable force,” he said. “Parts of the army can be used in our areas near Finland, as we have shown in different NATO exercises.” Indeed, Finland and Sweden regularly exercise

with their NATO neighbor Norway, which has further increased the two nonmembers’ integration. “We have excellent aerial surveillance, which we plug into NATO when asked, for example during

Cold Response 2022,” Kaskeala noted, referring to a recent joint exercise. “And there are exercises in the far north on an almost weekly basis, involving Finland, Sweden, and Norway, and

each time we plug the system in. It would be easy to do it permanently.” Among Finland’s other highlights: excellent combat aircraft and the national defense course. The latter is a highly

prestigious three-week residential course in which standout performers from all sectors of society are taught the tenets of the country’s national security. The result: leaders across

society who know about national security and, crucially, know one another. As countries try to stave off hostile activities, having top corporate managers who understand national security

and their respective organizations’ role in it is indispensable. Imagine how Mark Zuckerberg might alter his view on Facebook’s role in society if he had the chance to attend such a course.

Indeed, imagine how NATO member states could involve the private sector in helping to keep their countries safe simply by teaching rising managers about national security. Sweden, if it too

decides to join NATO, would bring strengths including a navy that is playing a crucial role in the Baltic Sea. In fact, Sweden’s navy is not just comparatively large but also has

submarine-hunting experience that would serve NATO well. (Remember the 2014 hunt?) But while Finland has boldly raised its head above the parapet, Sweden’s governing Social Democrats have

merely announced they’ll conduct a “security review,” though it’s obvious even to NATO-skeptical Social Democrats that it would be foolish for Sweden to remain outside the alliance on its

own. In _The Tales of Ensign Staal_, Dufva is given the kamikaze-like assignment of defending a bridge against advancing Russians. Heroically, he takes them on. “Soon the enemy found his

attack obliterated / The Russian troop turned around and slowly withdrew,” Runeberg writes. As Finland approaches the NATO door, the obvious question is: Can its population be expected to

support its armed forces’ bravery not just at home but in faraway NATO member states as well? That’s the question the country’s parliamentarians will have to answer. In the near and

not-so-near future, though, crises are more likely to arise at its own border and on its own roads and bridges. Finland needs NATO at very same moment NATO needs it.