ABDI (MTS) - defmin.fi · abdi bulletins and reports november, 2017 finns˜opinios on foreing and...

THE ADVISORY BOARD FOR DEFENCE INFORMATION

Bulletins and reports

November, 2017

1/20

17

FINNS`OPINIOS ON FOREING AND SECURITY POLICY, NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY

ABDI (MTS)

Ministry of Defence, Helsinki 2017

Finns̀ opinios on foreing and security policy, national defence and securityThe Advisory Board for Defence Information (ABDI)

ABDI Bulletins and reports November, 2017

Ministry of Defence

ISBN print: 978-951-25-2968-1

ISBN PDF: 978-951-25-2969-8

Layout: Government Administration Unit, Publications

Text in English Katri Suvanto, Government Administration Department

Helsinki 2017

3


FOREWORD

A survey commissioned by the Advisory Board for Defence Information (ABDI) ex-plored the opinions of Finnish people on Finnish foreign and security policy and on defence policy. The survey also included questions on factors relating to safety and citizens’ sense of security pertaining to developments concerning the next five years, on factors giving rise to concern as well as on confidence over the future of the European Union and Finland. Altogether 20 questions were asked, two of which for the first time.

Commissioned by the ABDI, the survey was carried out by market research compa-ny Taloustutkimus Oy. The study was done as a part of omnibus research carried out in the form of personal interviews. A total of 1,001 individuals were interviewed. The target group of the study comprised the entire population between the ages of 15 and 79, with the exception of the Åland Islands. The sample was formed by quota sampling in which the target group’s quotas were the distribution of age, gender, province and municipality. The interviews were conducted at 87 localities, 52 of which were cities and the remaining 35 other municipality types. The sample was weighted to match the target group. The weighted N values correspond to the pop-ulation aged 15 to 79 in thousands (SVT 31.12.2016).

The interviews were conducted from 22 September to 10 October, 2017. The error of margin is ± three point two (3.2) percentage points.

When interpreting background variables related to party affiliation, it must be tak-en into account that the margin of error regarding the large parties is smaller, which enables the collection of more reliable information on them compared to smaller parties whose supporters are numerically fewer in the sample.

4

ABDI BULLETINS AND REPORTS NOVEMBER, 2017

The following question was asked: ‘Which party would you vote for, if parliamen-tary elections were held now?’ Of all of the respondents, 67 per cent (673 persons) revealed their party affiliation, while 33 per cent (328) declined to do so. In 2016 the respective numbers were 65 per cent and 35 per cent.

The report comprises a text section with illustrating figures that also present the time sequence of the previously asked questions. These illustrations were prepared by Taloustutkimus Oy. Some of the questions represent a continuous sequence since 1964. The questions were drawn up by the research branch and work branch of the ABDI. The research branch compiled the report for the work branch.

The data from this survey, like the previous surveys, are stored in the Finnish Social Science Data Archive at the University of Tampere (www.fsd.uta.fi).

The ABDI’s survey reports are available in Finnish, Swedish and English on the AB-DI’s home page (www.defmin.fi/mts).

In Sweden, the ‘Myndighet för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap’ (MSB) conducts similar surveys. The most recent report was published in January, 2017. It can be accessed here: https://www.msb.se/Sok/?query=opinionsunders%c3%b6knin-gen+2017

Also in Norway, the ‘Folk og Forsvar’ conducts annual surveys on security and de-fence policy; their most recent report was published in September, 2017. It can be accessed here: http://www.folkogforsvar.no/meningsmalinger/meningsmalin-ger-2017.

The survey reports published by the ABDI are in the public domain. When referring to them, reference must be made stating that the data come from a survey con-ducted by the ABDI.

http://www.defmin.fi/mts

https://www.msb.se/Sok/?query=opinionsunders%c3%b6kningen+2017

https://www.msb.se/Sok/?query=opinionsunders%c3%b6kningen+2017

http://www.folkogforsvar.no/meningsmalinger/meningsmalinger-2017

http://www.folkogforsvar.no/meningsmalinger/meningsmalinger-2017

Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Confidence in the management of foreign policy has increased ................................................................... 9

Why do respondents think that Finnish foreign policy is well managed? ..................................................... 9

Why do respondents think that Finnish foreign policy is poorly managed? ................................................. 10

Support for military non-alignment has remained unchanged ....................................................................... 10

Support for membership in NATO has slightly fallen ......................................................................................... 11

Confidence in Finland’s future ................................................................................................................................... 12

Over half of the respondents hold that their confidence in the EU is unchanged ....................................... 13

The UN and the EU are believed to contribute positively to Finland’s security ............................................ 14

Finland’s defence policy is widely believed to be well managed..................................................................... 15

General conscription enjoys strong support ........................................................................................................ 15

Conscription is seen as the basis for Finland’s defence system ....................................................................... 18

Support for increasing defence appropriations and keeping the current level ......................................... 19

The will to defend the nation remains unchanged ............................................................................................ 19

Independence is the most important reason for defending Finland by military means ........................... 22

The will to defend the nation is strong at the personal level ........................................................................... 22

Support for Finland’s military cooperation ............................................................................................................ 23

Compared to men, women envisage the future as more insecure ................................................................... 23

The global refugee situation and international terrorism cause the greatest concern.............................. 24

Preparedness for different threats............................................................................................................................ 25

Preparedness for acts of terrorism against Finland is seen as the key issue ................................................. 26

Figures 1 - 45 .............................................................................................................................. 27

The Research Branch of ABDI in 2015–2019 .......................................................................................................... 72

7


IntroductionCitizens of the 100-year-old Finland have confidence that foreign and defence policy will be well managed, and they want to defend their country, continue to support general conscription, and support defence cooperation and military non-alignment. They are most concerned about the world’s refugee situation, international terror-ism and climate change. Future is perceived as fairly insecure. Defence cooperation with the Nordic countries and the EU and Finland`s membership in the European Union is believed to improve Finland’s security.

Confidence in the management of foreign policy has grown

Three out of four find that Finland’s foreign policy is well managed. When asked why they think that Finnish foreign policy is well managed the most commonly re-ceived answer is that good relations are maintained to all countries, and the neigh-bouring countries and Russia in particular were mentioned. Finland’s calm, dispas-sionate approach towards getting things done and working with others was also appreciated. Respondents commended the activities of the President.

Those who thought that Finland’s foreign policy has been poorly managed most of-ten justified their view with immigration, refugee and asylum issues and the Euro-pean Union’s measures.

The will to defend the country is unchanged - independence is the most important reason for defending Finland by military means

Seven out of ten or 72 per cent think that Finns should defend themselves by mili-tary means in all situations even if the outcome seemed uncertain

8

ABDI BULLETINS AND REPORTS NOVEMBER, 2017 FINNS`OPINIOS ON FOREING AND SECURITY POLICY, NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY

Finland’s independence was given as the most important factor for willingness to defend the country.

General conscription enjoys strong support

Eight out of ten or 81 per cent support the current conscription system in Finland. Nine per cent are in favour of abolishing general conscription and instituting pro-fessional armed forces.

Conscription is seen as the basis for Finland’s defence system

Two out of three support the current conscription system as Finland’s defence solu-tion. Sixteen per cent of the respondents are in favour of gender-equal conscription for men and women alike.

Support for military non-alignment has remained unchanged

Six out of ten support Finland’s military non-alignment. This question has been asked in the ABDI surveys since 1996 and support for military non-alignment has varied from 79% (in 2001) to 54% (in 2015).

Support for membership in NATO has slightly fallen

Slightly over one in five, 22%, replied in the affirmative to the question, ‘Should Fin-land seek membership in NATO?’ A year ago one in four or 25% supported member-ship in NATO. The support for membership in NATO has varied from 30% (in 2014) to 18% (in 2012) in the ABDI surveys.

9


Confidence in the management of foreign policy has increased

Three out of four or 73 per cent of the respondents consider that Finland’s foreign policy is well managed (70% in 2016); 73 percent (72%) of men and 72 per cent (68%) of women. Younger people are more critical than older age groups. Of those younger than 24 years of age, 57 per cent (61%) think that foreign policy is well managed; of the 25 to 34 years of age, 63 per cent (64%); of the 35 to 49 years of age, 78 per cent (63%); and of those older than 50 years of age, 80 per cent (78%) were of this opinion.

Of the supporters of the Centre Party, 91 per cent (85% in 2016) think that Finnish foreign policy is well managed; 87 per cent (83%) of the Coalition Party; 82 per cent (71%) of the Green Party; 75 per cent (75%) of the Social Democratic Party (SDP); 71 per cent (69%) of the Left Alliance; and 50 per cent of the Finns Party supporters (42%) agree.

One out of five or 20 per cent of the respondents consider that Finland’s foreign policy is poorly managed (24% in 2016); 22 percent (24%) of men and 18 per cent (24%) of women agree. This opinion is shared as follows: of those younger than 25 years of age, 29% (26%); of the 25 to 34 years of age, 25% (29%); of the 35 to 49 years of age, 19% (32%); and of those older than 50 years of age, 16% (18%).

Of the supporters of the Finns Party, 42 percent (52% in 2016) think that Finnish for-eign policy is poorly managed as do 28 percent (27%) of the supporters of the Left Alliance; 23 percent (25%) of the SDP; 11 percent (17%) of the Coalition Party; eight percent (25%) of the Green Party; and 3 percent (10%) of the Centre Party support-ers agree. (Figures 1 and 2)

Why do respondents think that Finnish foreign policy is well managed?

Each respondent argued his or her viewpoint with a maximum of three factors. Of those who regarded foreign policy as well managed, 598 persons gave reasons for their opinions; the total number of reasons was 1080.

There was, on the whole, satisfaction with the way Finland’s foreign policy has been managed. Good relations are maintained to all countries, and the neighbouring countries and Russia in particular were mentioned. Finland’s calm, dispassionate ap-proach towards getting things done and working with others was also appreciated.

10


Especially the President was praised for the good management of foreign policy; 187 comments. The Minister for Foreign Affairs received 40 favourable comments. Good relations with the neighbouring countries and other countries; 72 comments Good relations with Russia 74 comments. It was also pointed out that Finland is not involved in a war or a conflict and Finland has not been attacked; 68 comments. Fifty-five respondents commented on the following: Finland’s calm and diplomatic way to deal with matters, Finland continues to be aligned with its chosen policy and is cooperative.

Why do respondents think that Finnish foreign policy is poorly managed?

Each respondent argued his or her viewpoint with a maximum of three factors. Of those respondents who regarded foreign policy as poorly managed, 145 persons gave reasons for their opinions; the total number of reasons was 266. Immigration, refugee and asylum issues received 40 comments. There were also views that Fin-land’s immigration policy has been too strict. Finland’s membership in the EU and the EU policies received 25 comments.

There were 17 comments according to which the poorly managed foreign policy is caused by Finland’s lack of clear and active own policy. Nineteen comments were directed at the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Favouring too much the USA and the West; favouring too much Russia, both views received about 10 comments

General discontent with decision making also explained the view on poorly run for-eign policy. Other reasons included terrorism, economic and trade policies, climate policy, social policy and agricultural policy.

Support for military non-alignment has remained unchanged

Should Finland continue the policy of military non-alignment or seek membership in a military alliance? More than half of the respondents, 58% (578 % in 2016) support Finland’s military non-alignment; 59% (57%) of men and 58% (58%) of women. Those aged under 25 years of age hold more critical views; 49% (50%) support military non-alignment while in other age groups the support is 60% (51%, 63% and 60%).

11


Of the Finns Party supporters, 70% (74% in 2016) are in favour of military non-align-ment as are 69% (56% and 67%) of the supporters of the Centre Party and of the SDP; 68% (66%) of the Left Alliance; 52% (60%) of the Green Party; and 37% (35%) of the Coalition Party supporters agree.

This question has been asked in the ABDI surveys since 1996 and support for mili-tary non-alignment has varied from 79% (in 2001) to 54% (in 2015).

Twenty-nine percent (31% in 2016) of the respondents support membership in a military alliance; 32% (36%) of men and 27% (26%) of women. Thirty-five percent (31%) of the under 25 years of age share this view; 29% (29% and 30%) of those over 35 years of age; and 25% (36%) of the 25 to 34 years of age agree. Fifty-two percent (60%) of the Coalition Party supporters; 31% (29%) of the Green Party sup-porters; 29% (32%) of the Left Alliance; 26% (27%) of the SDP; 24% (19%) of the Finns Party; and 19% (30%) of the Centre Party supporters agree.

The support for military alliance has varied from 34% (in 2004 and 2014) to 16% (in 2001) in the ABDI surveys.

Twelve percent (12% in 2016) have no opinion; 16% (16%) of women and 9% (7%) of men. (Figures 3 and 4)

Support for membership in NATO has slightly fallen

Twenty-two per cent (25% in 2016) of the respondents answered in the affirmative to the question ‘Should, in your opinion, Finland seek NATO membership?’; twen-ty-six percent (30%) of men and 18% (20%) of women. The most critical age group is the 25 to 34-year-old; 13% (27%) replied in the affirmative.

Of the Coalition Party supporters, 44% (53% in 2016) support membership in NATO as do 26% (24%) of the Green Party supporters; 20% (29%) of the Centre Party; 16% (23%) of the Left Alliance; 15% (16%) of the SDP; and 10% (25%) of the Finns Party supporters agree.

The support for membership in NATO has varied from 30% (in 2014) to 18% (in 2012) in the ABDI surveys.

12


Sixty-two percent of the respondents hold a negative view on seeking membership in NATO (61% in 2016); 63% (62%) of men and 61% (60%) of women share this view. Eighty-one percent (75%) of the Left Alliance supporters think this way, as do 73% (77%) of the SDP supporters; 72% (73%) of the Finns Party; 70% (57%) of the Centre Party; 49% (62%) of the Green Party; and 41% (33%) of the Coalition Party support-ers agree.

Seventeen percent (14% in 2016) have no opinion; 22% (20%) of women and 12% (8%) of men. (Figures 5 and 6)

Confidence in Finland’s future

This year the following was asked as a new question: How is your confidence in Finland’s future; has your confidence grown stronger, become weaker or has it re-mained unchanged?

Two out of three or 65 percent says that their confidence in Finland’s future has re-mained unchanged; 67% of men and 64% of women.

Seventy-seven percent of the supporters of the SDP think this way; 71% of those of the Green Party; 68% of the Centre Party; 65% of the Left Alliance; 64% of the Coali-tion Party; and 60% of the Finns Party.

One out of four or 25% have weakened confidence in Finland’s future; 30% of wom-en and 20% of men. Of those younger than 25 years of age, 24% have this opinion; of the 25 to 34 years of age, 36%; of the 35 to 49 years of age, 22%; and of those old-er than 50 years of age, 23%.

Thirty-eight percent of the Finns Party supporters think this, as do 35% of the sup-porters of the Left Alliance; 21% of the Green Party; 17% of the Centre Party; and 15% of the supporters of the Coalition Party and of the SDP.

Nine out of every hundred respondents think that their confidence in Finland’s fu-ture has grown stronger; 12% of men and 5% of women share this view. Nineteen percent of the supporters of the Coalition Party take this view, as do 15% of the Centre Party; 8% of the Green Party and of the SDP; 1% of the Finns Party; and none of the supporters of the Left Alliance. (Figure 7)

13


Over half of the respondents hold that their confidence in the EU is unchangedThe question, ‘How is your confidence in the future of the European Union; has your confidence grown stronger, become weaker or has it remained unchanged?’ was asked for the third time. Over one half, 58% (45% in 2016) of the respondents have retained their confidence in the future of the European Union; 39% of men and 51% of women. Of those younger than 25 years of age, 70% (56 %) feel this way; of the 35 to 49 years of age, 59% (46%); of those older than 50 years of age, 55% (40 %); and of the 25 to 34 years of age, 53% (46%) share this view.

Sixty-four per cent (43% in 2016) of the supporters of the SDP think this way; 62% of the Centre Party and of the Left Alliance (48% and 37% respectively); 61% (46%) of the Green Party; 58% (50%) of the Coalition Party; and 45% (29%) of the Finns Party supporters agree.

Slightly more than a third, 37% (52% in 2016) of the respondents feel that their con-fidence in the future of the European Union has weakened; 38% (57%) of men and 37% (47%) of women. Forty-three percent (52%) of the 25 to 34 years of age share this view, as do 39% (52%) of those over 35 years of age; and 22% (35%) of those younger than 25 years of age.

Fifty-three per cent (69% in 2016) of the supporters of the Finns Party think this way; 38% (45%) of the Centre Party; 37% (63%) of the Left Alliance; 34% (56%) of the SDP; and 33% (46% and 53% respectively) of the supporters of the Coalition Party and of the Green Party agree.

Three percent (2% in 2016) are of the opinion that confidence in the European Un-ion has grown stronger. (Figure 8)

14


The UN and the EU are believed to contribute positively to Finland’s securityA number of actors are listed and respondents are asked about their impact on Finland’s security. These include: UN, EU, OSCE, NATO, the United States, China and Russia.

Sixty-one percent (61% in 2016) of the respondents regard the UN as having a pos-itive impact on Finland’s security; 60% (58%) think this way regarding the EU; 44% (38%) regarding the OSCE.

Twenty-five percent (25% in 2016) regard NATO as having a negative impact on Fin-land’s security while 24% (26%) regard its impact as positive. Just under a third or 30% (24%) of the respondents see NATO’s impact as both positive and negative.

Thirty-five percent (28% in 2016) of the respondents see the impact of the United States as both positive and negative while 22% (19%) see it as negative and 16% (21%) see it as positive.

As to Russia, 37% (50% in 2016) see its impact as negative; 31% (24%) see its impact as both positive and negative while 14% (6%) see its impact as positive.

Less than one half of the respondents, 44% (55% in 2016) think that China has no impact on Finland’s security. Thirteen percent (8%) see China’s impact as positive. One out of five or 22% (17%) sees its impact as both positive and negative while 11% (10%) sees its impact as negative. (Figures 9 and 10)

Defence cooperation with the Nordic countries and the EU is believed to improve Finland’s security

The question lists eight different factors which the respondents assess, based on whether they believe that they improve or weaken the security of Finland and the Finnish people or have no effect at all. Factors that are believed to improve security:

Finland’s participation in Nordic defence cooperation, 83% (79% in 2016);

Finland’s participation in the EU’s common defence, 70% (62% in 2016);

Finland’s membership in the European Union, 62% (54% in 2016);

15


Finland’s increasing international economic interaction, 52% (48% in 2016);

Finland’s participation in international crisis management duties, 51% (46% in 2016);

Finland’s military non-alignment, 46% (45% in 2016);

Finland’s possible NATO membership, 29% (32% in 2016);

The increasing share of foreign ownership in the Finnish economy, 8% (7% in 2016)

(Figures 11, 12, 13 and 14)

Finland’s defence policy is widely believed to be well managed

Four out of five, 79% (79% in 2016), consider that Finland’s defence policy is well managed; 81% (76%) of women and 79% (81%) of men hold this view. Of the sup-porters of the Coalition Party, 90 per cent (82% in 2016) think that Finnish defence policy is well managed; 87 per cent (87%) of the Centre Party; 83 per cent (81%) of the Green Party; 79 per cent (78%) of the SDP; and 76 per cent of the Finns Party and Left Alliance supporters (78% and 79% respectively) agree.

Thirteen per cent (16% in 2016) of the respondents consider that Finland’s defence policy is poorly managed; 16% (16%) of men and 10% (15 %) of women. This view is shared by twenty-one per cent of the Finns Party and Left Alliance supporters (23% and 14% respectively); 17% (22%) of the SDP; 9% (17%) of the Coalition Party; eight per cent (14%) of the Green Party; and 6% (5%) of the Centre Party supporters agree. (Figures 15 and 16)

General conscription enjoys strong support

Eight out of ten or 81% (79% in 2016) support the current conscription system in Finland; 81% (80 %) of men and 80% (79 %) of women. The highest support for this comes from those older than 50 years of age, 88% (90%); of those younger than 25 years of age, 77% (76 %) support the current conscription system; 76% (68%) of the 35 to 49 years of age; and of the 25 to 34 years of age 71% (69%) agree.

16


Ninety-seven per cent (92% in 2016) of the supporters of the Centre Party support the current conscription system; 84% (76% and 74% respectively) of the supporters of the Coalition Party and of the Finns Party; 77% (89%) of the SDP; and 67% (59% and 67% respectively) of the supporters of the Green Party and of the Left Alliance agree.

To reduce selectively the number of those receiving military training is supported by 9% (11% in 2016) of the respondents; 10% of men and 11% of women. Of the SDP supporters 17% (7%) agree, as do 16% (22%) of the supporters of the Left Alli-ance; 13% (19%) of the supporters of the Green Party; 8% (16%) of the Coalition Par-ty; 7% (11%) of the Finns Party; and 2% (2%) of the supporters of the Centre Party share this view.

Nine per cent (9% in 2016) of the respondents would discontinue general conscrip-tion altogether and institute fully professional armed forces; 8% (10%) of men and 9% (8%) of women agree. Four percent (3%) of those over 50 years of age share this view; 12% (13%) of those under 25; and 14% (11% and 16%) of those 25 to 49 years of agree. Eighteen percent (19%) of the Green Party supporters are in favour of this model; 16% (10%) of the Left Alliance; 8% (7% and 15% respectively) of the Coali-tion Party and of the Finns Party; and 6% (4%) of the supporters of the SDP agree while none of the supporters of the Centre Party do (0%). (Figures 17 and 18)

Figure 18A, support for the current system among men and women in 2003-2017.

Figure 18B, support for the current system among young people under the age of 25 and among the 25 to 34 years of age in 2003-2017.

17


Figure 18A ja 18B. General conscription

50

60

70

80

90

100

"Based on a general, compulsory military service for men, Finnish military defence provides military training for as many of the same age group as possible, thus producing a large reserve personnel. Should the current system be retained or should we change over to a selective conscript service where only a part of the same age group receives military training? Or should we change over to a professional army?"

Figure 18A. Retain the current system

%

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 18B. Retain the current system

%

Autumn 2003

Autumn 2004

Autumn 2005

Autumn 2006

Autumn 2007

Autumn 2008

Autumn 2009

Autumn 2010

Autumn 2011

Autumn 2012

Autumn 2013

Autumn 2014

Autumn 2015

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017

Whole population Women Men

Autumn 2003

Autumn 2004

Autumn 2005

Autumn 2006

Autumn 2007

Autumn 2008

Autumn 2009

Autumn 2010

Autumn 2011

Autumn 2012

Autumn 2013

Autumn 2014

Autumn 2015

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017

Whole population Under 25 years 25-34 years

18


Conscription is seen as the basis for Finland’s defence system

The ABDI asked last year, for the first time, what Finland’s defence system should be based on; the alternatives are as follows: 1) a present-kind of system where men are subject to general conscription and women can serve on a voluntary basis; 2) gen-eral conscription for men and women alike; 3) voluntary military service for men and women, and 4) fully professional armed forces.

Two thirds or 65% (69% in 2016) support the current conscription system in Fin-land; 63% (69%) of men and 66% (68%) of women. Of those over 50 years of age, 70% (75%) think this way; of the 35 to 49 years of age 65% (68%); of those younger than 25 years of age 57% (65%); and of the 25 to 34 years of age 56% (55%) agree. Eighty-seven percent (83%) of the supporters of the Centre Party; 73 % (78%) of the Coalition Party; 68% (65%) of the Finns Party; 61% (79%) of the SDP; 55% (56%) of the Left Alliance; and 41% (47%) of the supporters of the Green Party share this view.

Sixteen percent (11% in 2016) of the respondents support general conscription for men and women alike; 18% (11%) of men and 15% (11%) of women. Twenty-eight percent (14%) of the supporters of the Green Party; 17% (18%) of the Left Alliance; 16% (9%) of the Coalition Party; 15% (12%) of the SDP; 14% (8%) of the Finns Party; and 8% (7%) of the Centre Party supporters agree.

Eleven percent (14% in 2016) of the respondents are in favour of general conscrip-tion for men and women alike; 10% (13%) of men and 11% (15%) of women. Of the Green Party supporters 22% (28%) think this way and 17% (6%) of the SDP support-ers agree; 12% (21%) of the Left Alliance; 6% (8%) of the Coalition Party; 5% (14%) of the Finns Party; and 2% (6%) of the Centre Party supporters agree.

Seven percent (6% in 2017) support fully professional armed forces; 8% (6%) of men and 7% (6%) of women. (Figure 19)

19


Support for increasing defence appropriations and keeping the current level Nearly half, 47%, of the respondents think that defence appropriations should be increased (47% in 2016); 51% (53%) of men and 44% (40%) of women. Older age groups are more favourable towards increasing defence appropriations than younger ones. Of those over 50 years of age, 51% (56%) support an increase as do 48% (43%) of the 35 to 49 years of age; 38% (37%) of the 25 to 34 years of age; and 42% (38%) of those under 25 years of age share this view.

Of the Centre Party and Coalition Party supporters, 60% (47% and 64% in 2016) are in favour of an increase; 55% (59%) of the Finns Party; 41% (53%) of the SDP; 32% (28%) of the Green Party; and 28% (33%) of the Left Alliance supporters agree.

Forty percent (41% in 2016) are in favour of keeping defence appropriations on the current level; 41% (45%) of women and 38% (36%) of men.

Of the Left Alliance supporters, 53% (45%) think they should be kept on the current level, as do 48% (46%) of the Green Party supporters; 42% (43%) of the SDP; 37% (48%) of the Centre Party; 35% (26%) of the Finns Party; and 34% (30%) of the Coali-tion Party supporters agree.

Eight percent (9% in 2016) support cutting defence appropriations; 9% (9%) of men and 7% (8%) of women. Of the Left Alliance supporters 17% (18%) think this way, as do 13% (3% and 22%) of the SDP and Green Party supporters; 6% (15%) of the Finns Party; 5% (5%) of the Coalition Party; and 3% (1%) of the Centre Party supporters agree. (Figures 20 and 21)

The will to defend the nation remains unchanged

Seven out of ten or 72% think that Finns should defend themselves by military means in all situations even if the outcome seemed uncertain (71% in 2016). Seven-ty-nine percent of men (79%) and 66% of women (64%) share this view.

Eighty-two percent (84% in 2016) of the Finns Party supporters answered in the af-firmative as did 80% (81%) of the Coalition Party supporters; 73% (79%) of the Cen-tre Party; 68% (77%) of the SDP; 67% (68%) of the Left Alliance; and 65% (52%) of the Green Party supporters agree.

20


One in five, 22% (21% in 2016) think that Finns should not defend themselves with military means in all situations; 25% (25%) of women and 19% (16%) of men. Younger age groups answer in the negative more often than older age groups. Of those younger than 25 years of age, 29% (27%) answered in the negative as did 28% (31%) of the 25 to 34 years of age; 23% (19%) of the 35 to 49 years of age; and 17% (16%) of those older than 50 years of age.

Of the Green Party supporters, 28% (39% in 2016) answer in the negative as do 25% (16%) of the SDP supporters; 24% (15% and 24%) of the Centre Party and Left Alli-ance; 18% (14%) of the Coalition Party; and 15% (9%) of the Finns Party supporters agree. (Figures 22 and 23)

Figure 23A, the will to defend the country among men and women in 2003-2017.

Figure 23B, the will to defend the country for the youngest age group in 2003-2017.

21


Figure 23A ja 23 B. The will to defend the nation

50

60

70

80

90

100

"If Finland were attacked, should Finns, in your opinion, take up arms to defend themselves in all situations, even if the outcome seemed uncertain?"

Figure 23A. Yes -answers%

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 23B. Yes -answers%

Autumn 2003

Autumn 2004

Autumn 2005

Autumn 2006

Autumn 2007

Autumn 2008

Autumn 2009

Autumn 2010

Autumn 2011

Autumn 2012

Autumn 2013

Autumn 2014

Autumn 2015

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017

Whole population Women Men

Whole population Under 25 years 25-34 years

Autumn 2003

Autumn 2004

Autumn 2005

Autumn 2006

Autumn 2007

Autumn 2008

Autumn 2009

Autumn 2010

Autumn 2011

Autumn 2012

Autumn 2013

Autumn 2014

Autumn 2015

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017

22


Independence is the most important reason for defending Finland by military meansIn the 2017 survey the ABDI asked half of the respondents to give reasons, in their own words, why Finland should be defended with military means. The other half chose reasons from given alternatives. The list included territorial integrity, Finn-ish democracy, Finnish education and welfare system, Finnishness, Finland’s inde-pendence, equality, freedom of religion, no reason The respondent was allowed to choose no more than three the most important reasons.

Finland’s independence was given as the most important factor for willingness to defend the country (83%); number two was territorial integrity (60%) and number three was Finnish democracy (43%). These were followed by Finnish education and welfare system, and equality (both 25%), Finnishness (22%), freedom of religion (12%), and no reason (1%).

The previous time for polling the question was in 2007. As there were more alterna-tives in 2007 the results are not directly comparable. It can be noted, however, that the reasons given this year and ten years ago are highly similar. (Figure 24)

The most important reasons, given in own words, were Finland’s independence (216), own country, home (127), Finnish democracy, freedom, equality (72).

A total of 417 respondents answered, in their own words, why Finland should be de-fended with military means in all situations even if the outcome looked uncertain.

The will to defend the nation is strong at the personal level

Eighty-seven percent (87% in January 2016) answer in the affirmative to the ques-tion, ‘Would you be ready to take part in national defence duties to the best of your abilities and skills?’ Ninety percent % of men (91%) and 84% of women (83%) agree.

Ninety-four percent (88% in January 2016) of the Green Party supporters answered in the affirmative as did 93% (93%) of the Finns Party supporters; 92% (93%) of the Coalition Party; 88% (84%) of the SDP; 83% (89%) of the Centre Party; and 75% (79%) of the Left Alliance supporters agree.

23


Ten percent (11% in January 2016) of the respondents answer in the negative to the question; 13% (14%) of women and 8% (8%) of men.

Of the Left Alliance supporters, 23% (19% in January 2016) answer in the negative, as do 15% (8%) of the Centre Party supporters; 10% (15%) of the SDP; 7% (6%) of the Finns Party; 6% (7%) of the Coalition Party; and 4% (11%) of the Green Party supporters agree. (Figures 25 and 26)

Support for Finland’s military cooperation

The question about Finland’s military cooperation with the Nordic countries, the EU and NATO has been asked in the ABDI surveys since 2012 while the question about cooperation with Sweden was included in 2014, and Finland’s military coop-eration with the United States in 2016.

Ninety-four percent (94% in 2016) of the respondents take a positive view both on military cooperation with Sweden and on military cooperation with all the Nordic countries.

Eighty-nine percent take a positive view on military cooperation in the European Union (87% in 2016). Sixty-one percent (60%) of the respondents take a positive view on military cooperation with NATO while 32% (33%) are opposed to it.

Fifty-nine percent (64% in 2016) of the respondents take a positive view on military cooperation with the United States while slightly more than a third, 35% (30%), are opposed to it. (Figures 27-32)

Compared to men, women envisage the future as more insecure

Six out of ten, 60% (59% in 2016) believe that Finland and Finns will live in a more insecure world for the next five years; sixty-eight percent of women (66 %) and 52% of men (53%) feel this way.

One out of four or 25% (27% in 2016) see no difference to the present situation; 29% (29%) of men and 20% (24%) of women think this way.

24


Fourteen percent (13% in 2016) of the respondents believe in a more secure future; 18% (17%) of men and 10% (10%) of women. (Figures 33 and 34)

The global refugee situation and international terrorism cause the greatest concern

Since 2004 the ABDI has asked whether a number of phenomena and factors pose much, some, little or no concern at all about the future. This year the list includes 19 different factors, two of which are new: development in the European Union and development in the United States.

These factors pose much or some concern:

The world’s refugee situation 83% (85% in 2016);

International terrorism 81% (75% in 2016);

Climate change 75% (71% in 2016);

Politically extremist movements 72% (74% in 2016);

The employment situation in Finland 71% (84% in 2016);

Racism 69% (70% in 2016);

Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 68% (64% in 2016);

Social inequality in Finland 67% (69% in 2016);

Economic outlook in Europe 65% (75% in 2016);

Religious extremist movements 64% (62% in 2016);

The situation in Syria 64% (73% in 2016);

Security situation in the Baltic Sea area 64% (66% in 2016);

Development in the United States 63% (Included for the first time);

Threats, in other words cyber threats against information networks 63% (60%)

Development in Russia 62% (72% in 2016);

The number of asylum seekers in Finland 62% (61% in 2016);

The growing numbers of migrants in Finland 61% (61% in 2016);

Development in the European Union 61% (61% in 2016) (Included for the first time);

The situation in Turkey 49% (57% in 2016);

The situation in Ukraine 43% (59% in 2016);

(Figures 35-39)

25


Preparedness for different threatsThe ABDI asked ten years ago, for the first time, about preparing for different threats. The current list includes 12 different threats and the respondents assess the level of preparedness; the percentage indicates how well Finland is prepared for a specific threat:

Contagious diseases, epidemics, well prepared for, 84% (84% in 2016).

Disasters and major accidents, well prepared for, 80% (80% in 2016).

Various environmental threats (floods, oil spills, transport of hazardous sub-stances), well prepared for, 79% (80% in 2016).

Armed attack, well prepared for, 76% (70% in 2016).

The availability of energy, well prepared for, 72% (65% in 2016).

Climate change, well prepared for, 61% (57% in 2016); poorly prepared for, 34% (38%).

Political pressure from abroad, well prepared for, 55% (52% in 2016); poorly prepared for, 33% (39%).

Terrorism, well prepared for, 53% (59% in 2016); poorly prepared for, 45% (37%).

Cyber threats against information networks, well prepared for, 50% (51%) in 2016). Poorly prepared for, 42% (42%).

Economic pressure from abroad, well prepared for, 49% (44% in 2016); poorly prepared for, 38% (46%).

International crime, well prepared for, 49% (51% in 2016); poorly prepared for, 46% (45%).

Economic crises, well prepared for, 42% (34% in 2016); poorly prepared for, 52% (61%).

(Figures 41, 42 and 43)

26


Preparedness for acts of terrorism against Finland is seen as the key issue

The question lists ten different threat scenarios for which Finland should primari-ly prepare for, according to the respondents, in the next decade. The respondents chose threat scenarios which they regarded as the most important, the second most important and the third most important.

The comments

A terrorist act against Finland (54%)

Growth in international crime (42%)

The deep, global crisis faced by the international economy’s (32%)

Environmental catastrophe caused by global warming (29%)

Causing damage to data transmission system with the aim to paralyse society (29%)

A regional crisis near Finland, caused by social problems or an environmental catastrophe (25%)

An armed conflict in Finland’s neighbourhood (24%)

Nuclear catastrophe in Finland or in its neighbourhood (22%)

An armed attack against Finland (17%)

Russia's military measures against Finland (17%)

(Figures 44 and 45)

27


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

9

413

577

12

88

10

7

8

69

10

79

11

213

16550

19

64

6860

52567168

596869

58

68

636266

646662

70477170777154

7

104

141245

876

10

5

884

768

5822

1012

16

1518

26201612

201512

19

17

171816

181515

2318

197

2420

4

34

3534

523

6

3

633

444

11134145

Figure 1. The conduct of Finnish foreign policy

"In your opinion, how well or how poorly has Finnish foreign policy been conducted in recent years?"

%

Other partiesLeft Alliance

Green LeagueSocial Democratic P.

Coalition PartyThe Finns

Centre Party

East Finland/Oulu/LaplandWest Finland

South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €

Salaried emp./Self-emp./Management

Working class

UniversityPost-secondary

Lower education

50-79 years35-49 years25-34 years

Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Extremelywell

Fairlywell

Cannotsay

Fairlypoorly

Extremelypoorly

28


7370637073757680817984818284867987898189858877727173877873736279677585909193959493938786848585878696958790

76554555453542463462547686146456977643343368

1067772155

20243225232119151616131413141114107

139

109

1621202213182124331423188554425476698672485

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Figure 2. The conduct of Finnish foreign policy

"In your opinion, how well or how poorly has Finnish foreign policy been conducted in recent years?"

In the year 1964In the year 1969In the year 1970In the year 1971In the year 1972In the year 1973In the year 1974In the year 1975In the year 1978In the year 1979In the year 1980In the year 1981In the year 1982In the year 1983In the year 1984

January 1986December 1986

In the year 1987In the year 1988In the year 1989

May 1990November 1990In the year 1991In the year 1992In the year 1993In the year 1994

June 1995November 1995In the year 1996In the year 1997

October 1998June 1999

November 1999July 2000

December 2000Spring 2001

Autumn 2001Autumn 2002Autumn 2003Autumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Well Cannot say Poorly

29


58

5859

49606060

615657

57

53665757

556260

69703769526857

12

169

16151111

111513

11

1311128

111215

126

126

172

23

29

2732

35252929

282930

32

34233034

342625

19245226312921

Figure 3. Military alignment or non-alignment

"In your opinion, should Finland remain militarily non-aligned or should Finland aim to ally itself militarily?"

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %




Centre Party


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Remainnon-aligned

Cannotsay

Aim toally itself

30


5857545867686967615869675861657079686671687460646769

121212887

1068

113795

1185

1098

118

11108

11

2931333425252127313127263234242216212520211829272520

Figure 4. Military alignment or non-alignment

"In your opinion, should Finland remain militarily non-aligned or should Finland aim to ally itself militarily?"

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

In the year 1996In the year 1997

July 1998October 1998

June 1999November 1999

July 2000December 2000

Spring 2001Autumn 2001Autumn 2002Autumn 2003Autumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Remainnon-aligned

Cannotsay

Aim toally itself

31


Figure 5. Nato membership

"In your opinion, should Finland seek membership in Nato?"

22

1826

21132324

202025

18

27

131927

261820

20104415261615

17

2212

21181914

162017

24

18

131614

181617

10181612254

22

62

6163

59695862

646059

58

55

746559

566764

70724173498163

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %




Centre Party


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Yes Cannot say No

32


Figure 6. Nato membership

"In your opinion, should Finland seek membership in Nato?"

22252730211820252828262628

171415101010107

10125

109

62615860707170686260696563

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Yes Cannot say No

33


Figure 7. Con�dence in Finland's future

"Describe the con�dence you feel about Finland's future. Has it increased, decreased or remained the same?"

9

512

101197

89

10

4

13

64

12

1167

151

198809

65

6467

65526869

646169

64

61

656270

627163

68606477716552

1

11

0111

120

2

1

100

013

0110000

25

3020

24362223

272820

30

24

283318

262327

17381515213539

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %




Centre Party


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

StrengthenedRemainedthe same

Cannotsay

Weakened

34


Figure 8. Con�dence in the future of the European Union

"What kind of con�dence do you have in the future of the European Union? In the last two years, has your con�dence been strengthened, weakened or has it remained the same?"

32

8

12

1

5845

53

3752

39

3

24

4324

244

1

6

414

422

0192614

58

5858

70535955

565960

56

58

566160

565959

62455864616256

1

21

4002

220

2

1

211

022

0100102

37

3738

22433939

403436

41

35

393735

393736

38533334333738

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Autumn 2005

Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Strengthened Remainedthe same

Cannotsay Weakened




Centre Party


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

35


Figure 9. The impact of various factors on Finland's security

"How do you assess the impact of the following factors on Finland's security?"

61604424161413

23162613211344

53

18855

10

371

25223711

9131130353122

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

ChinaRussia

USANatoOSCE

The EUThe UN

Positivee�ect

Noe�ect

Cannotsay

Negativee�ect

Both positiveand negativee�ects

36


Figure 10. The impact of various factors on Finland's security

"How do you assess the impact of the following factors on Finland's security?"

616164777072

605857696059

443846555046

242621282323

162114257

11

1469

164

11

1387

1069

232722151820

162115131315

263325242429

131926211622

212633323533

131520191819

445554545150

542221

332221

181711101010

875663

553433

554532

10106875

311111

757465

122232

252521223228

221917112223

375028274034

111011111414

97

11597

131319122020

111116101314

302428222223

352833283331

312440333534

221722182223

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2016Autumn 2017ChinaAutumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2016Autumn 2017RussiaAutumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2016Autumn 2017USAAutumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2016Autumn 2017NatoAutumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2016Autumn 2017OSCEAutumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2016Autumn 2017The EUAutumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2016Autumn 2017The UN

Positivee�ect

Noe�ect

Cannotsay

Negativee�ect

Both positiveand negativee�ects

37


Figure 11. Factors a�ecting security

"How do you assess the following phenomena and factors? How do they a�ect the security of Finland and Finns?"

83

70

62

52

51

46

29

8

13

20

25

37

36

30

17

37

3

5

2

5

3

9

12

6

1

6

11

6

9

16

42

49

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Increase of foreign ownershipin Finland's economy

Finland’s possible membership in Nato

Finland’s militarynon-alignment

The participationof Finnish troops in

crisis-management tasks

Finland’s economiccooperation increases

internationally

Finland’s membership in the EU

Finland participates in the commondefence of the EU

Finland's participation in Nordicdefence cooperation

Increasessecurity

Has noe�ect

Cannotsay

Lessenssecurity

38



Figure 12. Factors a�ecting security (I)

837974757466

7062566153495269616469555954

62545054474553715863604956

131619202127

2024262531323122232322282130

2533353742413422342933353336

344333

57645554663443

22322222331221

124224

68

12101114124

1076

131613

11111179

12105566

139

11

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

52Autumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Finland’s membership in the EU

Autumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Finland participates in the commondefence of the EU

Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Finland's participation in Nordicdefence cooperation

Increasessecurity

Has noe�ect

Cannotsay

Lessenssecurity

39



Figure 13. Factors a�ecting security (II)

5248454539363952404948433837

5146404135161722212325262420

46453842353841413842454243

3739404046484037453741424447

3640414449534640424645483946

3030343145393433353034383643

55565655674464

34443456574352

97665786674563

6799

101016

6977

111213

910141113273132332426243232

1618232215171720212217151515

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

40Autumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Finland’s military non-alignmentAutumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

The participation of Finnish troops in crisis-management tasks*Autumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Finland’s economic cooperation increases internationally

Increasessecurity

Has noe�ect

Cannotsay

Lessenssecurity

*) 2004-2012 The participation of Finnish troops in crisismanagement tasks in war zones

40



Figure 14. Factors a�ecting security (III)

29

32

3537

32

24

2835

34

3437

31

36

37

8

7

77

5

89

5

8

1411

17

21

1820

31

31

2932

27

2323

30

27

24

37

4542

34

38

3637

35

33

3841

12

12

1110

6

8

107

8

105

8

6

4

6

75

5

4

55

5

6

35

42

36

3633

30

37

3327

32

3335

31

31

34

49

41

4654

53

5149

56

53

4543

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Increase of foreign ownership in Finland's economy


Finland’s possible membership in Nato

Increasessecurity

Has noe�ect

Cannotsay

Lessenssecurity

41


Figure 15. The conduct of defence policy in Finland

"In your opinion, how well or how poorly has Finland’s defence policy been conducted in recent years?"

10

714

5105

15

1299

6

10

121310

128

11

1210171358

14

69

7465

73646971

667472

69

72

627074

677369

75667366786870

7

95

151064

867

10

6

1154

678

6324

1034

12

1014

714199

121013

14

11

131111

141011

5219

178

198

1

02

0112

110

1

1

301

110

1000024

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %




Centre Party


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Extremelywell

Fairlywell

Cannotsay

Fairlypoorly

Extremelypoorly

42


Figure 16. The conduct of defence policy in Finland

"In your opinion, how well or how poorly has Finland’s defence policy been conducted in recent years?"

10764457

1010788

14

69726865656874667573757563

7655657545244

12141923221911181013141017

1222230111122

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Extremelywell

Fairlywell

Cannotsay

Fairlypoorly

Extremelypoorly

43


Figure 17. General conscription

81

8081

77717688

877774

84

74

767981

768188

81

75

97848477676769

9

99

101110

8

41115

5

11

1568

1011

5

10

9

278

17131614

1

21

1411

131

1

3

111

113

1

2

1000215

9

98

121414

4

81010

10

12

81410

1375

8

14

0886

181613

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %




Centre Party

Hasn't done the military service

Has done/does the military service


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Retain thecurrent system

Reduce selectivelythe number of thosereceiving military training

Cannotsay

Abolish general conscriptionand change over to aprofessional army

"Based on a general, compulsory military service for men, Finnish military defence provides military training for as many of the same age group as possible, thus producing a large reserve personnel. Should the current system be retained or should we change over to a selective conscript service where only a part of the same age group receives military training? Or should we change over to a professional army?"

44


Figure 18. General conscription

"Based on a general, compulsory military service for men, Finnish military defence provides military training for as many of the same age group as possible, thus producing a large reserve personnel. Should the current system be retained or should we change over to a selective conscript service where only a part of the same age groupreceives military training? Or should we change over to a professional army?"

817975756872636372747371787779807976

911131120172627161517191315119

1313

112212211111102213

99

101211999

111099878877

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Spring 2001Autumn 2001Autumn 2002Autumn 2003Autumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Retain thecurrent system

Reduce selectivelythe number of thosereceiving military training

Cannotsay

Abolish general conscriptionand change over to aprofessional army

45


Figure 19. Finland's defence system

"In your view, should Finland's defence system be based on... "

6569

1611

1114

76

11

0 20 40 60 80 100

65

6663

57566570

696459

65

58

576863

576675

65

60

87687361415560

16

1518

20181317

161518

16

19

181119

201612

17

15

8141615281716

11

1110

161412

7

71314

9

10

1812

9

1311

7

11

13

256

17221212

7

78

71110

4

768

8

12

678

1064

6

11

112

568

1611

1

11

0111

121

2

0

121

112

1

1

2000101

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

%




Centre Party

Hasn't done the military service

Has done/does the military service


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population


The current system with general conscription for menand voluntary military service for women

General conscription for both men and women

Voluntary military service for both men and women

A professional army Cannot say

46


12

1213

68

1514

141210

14

10

111214

141112

111318129

137

35

3238

36303337

354032

33

34

313136

314134

49424229231532

40

4138

38463540

403741

42

41

394739

403742

37353442485339

5

83

12853

565

6

5

444

376

0324715

6

65

66

103

33

11

3

7

1154

934

251

12111110

2

14

2322

322

2

3

413

322

1141267

Figure 20. Defence appropriations

"What is your opinion on funds allocated to the Defence Forces?"

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %




Centre Party


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Raisedsigni�cantly

Raisedsomewhat

Remain atpresent level

Cannotsay

Decreasedsomewhat

Decreasedsigni�cantly

47


Figure 21. Defence appropriations

"What is your opinion on funds allocated to the Defence Forces?"

474747563233273431273339443138293136444634262635292434313027141517333329263129263236333332324137384142423646564617

404142365152504550594947455953575652444449595250555850524851525843465047505049574948514849484243384141444842333855

54434333324123122232533333225232224456545335575

10127858437

12

8976

1412191817121412887

11101097

111218121415151517193124382012201813161315121214141312101211998889

16

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

In the year 1964In the year 1969In the year 1970In the year 1971In the year 1972In the year 1973In the year 1974In the year 1975In the year 1978In the year 1979In the year 1980In the year 1981In the year 1982In the year 1983In the year 1984In the year 1985December 1986

January 1986In the year 1987

April 1988December 1988

In the year 1989In the year 1990

April 1991October 1991

In the year 1992April 1993

October 1993May 1994

October 1994June 1995

November 1995In the year 1996In the year 1997


November 1999December 2000

Spring 2001Autumn 2001Autumn 2002Autumn 2003Autumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010

Spring 2011Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Should be raised Remain at present level Cannot say Should be decreased

48


Figure 22. The will to defend the nation


0 20 40 60 80 100 %

72

6679

66667376

746972

74

75

676677

727075

81

66

73828068656763

6

102

5647

764

7

3

873

577

1

8

3317783

22

2519

29282317

192524

18

21

252620

232318

18

26

24151825282434Other parties

Left AllianceGreen League

Social Democratic P.Coalition Party

The FinnsCentre Party

Hasn't done themilitary service

Has done/does themilitary service


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Yes Cannot say No

49


Figure 23. The will to defend the nation


7271787671767674747277777780737879817575777676798077757770757467617368674342

6855456646435266547756455767577

1311688

127

2221161925191820222219201718221716141818181820151517191625191920282124254551

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

42In the year 1970In the year 1971In the year 1982In the year 1986In the year 1987In the year 1988In the year 1989In the year 1990

April 1991October 1991


Autumn 1995Autumn 1996Autumn 1997


June 1999November 1999December 2000

Autumn 2001Autumn 2002Autumn 2003Autumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Yes Cannot say No

50


Figure 24. Why should Finland be defended

"Which of the following reasons are, in your view, so important that they justify armed defence of Finland, if necessary? Please state three the most important reasons"

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

8383

6074

4338

25

2515

2236

123

11

10

Autumn 2017 Autumn 2007

*) 2007 Finnish independence and sovereignty**) 2007 Religion

Some other reason

No reason

Freedom of religion**

Finnishness

Equality

Finnish education systemand welfare system

Finnish democracy

Territorial integrity

Finland's independence*

51


Figure 25. The will to defend the country (personal level)

"If Finland is attacked, would you personally be ready to take part in national defence tasks according to your competences and skills?"

87

8490

87899184

829191

89

91

839089

888587

92

87

839392889475

3

32

5123

332

3

3

242

243

2

3

2022224

10

138

810

713

1566

9

7

1568

101110

6

10

1576

104

2314

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

82Other partiesLeft Alliance



Centre Party

Hasn't done themilitary service

Has done/does themilitary service


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Yes Cannot say No

52


Figure 26. The will to defend the country (personal level)

Yes Cannot say No

"If Finland is attacked, would you personally be ready to take part in national defence tasks according to your competences and skills?"

November 1995In the year 1996In the year 1997

October 1998Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2017

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

878784858785848286

333335435

10111212101012149

53


Verypositive

Ratherpositive

Can notsay

Rathernegative

Verynegative

Figure 27. Military cooperation

"Finland conducts military cooperation with Sweden, other Nordic countries, Nato and the European Union. What is your view on cooperation?"


With the United States


With Nato


In the European Union


With all Nordic countries

Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

With Sweden60525552

555050484740

352923242116

16171717109

1415

34423942

394444464651

545861626363

454341393936

4549

2322

232222

443324

766567

76

3244

324435

68

11101216

222727303336

2524

0110

000011

111111

106

109

1211

106

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

54


Figure 28. Military cooperation with Sweden

"Finland conducts military cooperation with Sweden. What is your view on cooperation?"

60

6060

48536166

546367

53

70

526067

685554

56517858717072

34

3632

44423428

383528

40

24

433628

283839

40392141282325

2

22

2222

212

2

2

121

124

4000101

3

15

5324

513

5

3

324

343

0922173

0

01

0000

100

0

0

000

010

0200000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %




Centre Party


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Verypositive

Ratherpositive

Cannotsay

Rathernegative

Verynegative

55


Figure 29. Military cooperation with all Nordic countries

"Finland conducts military cooperation with all Nordic countries. What is your view on cooperation?"

55

5457

42475861

475866

41

69

504861

615054

54377449674671

39

4137

54453933

454129

54

26

454535

364340

41542548314525

2

22

2422

312

2

2

321

124

4120101

3

24

1314

403

3

2

253

243

1802292

0

00

0000

000

0

0

000

000

0000000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %




Centre Party


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Verypositive

Ratherpositive

Cannotsay

Rathernegative

Verynegative

56


Figure 30. Military cooperation in the European Union

"Finland conducts military cooperation with the European union. What is your view on cooperation?"

35

3238

33223440

273844

20

45

292940

442532

32145528451948

54

5950

61675945

575749

68

47

576451

476256

57644264516334

4

43

2533

522

5

3

432

146

6221132

6

58

363

10

1034

7

4

946

775

514083

1316

1

02

1101

111

0

1

111

121

1600020

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %




Centre Party


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Verypositive

Ratherpositive

Cannotsay

Rathernegative

Verynegative

57


Figure 31. Military cooperation with Nato

"Finland conducts military cooperation with Nato. What is your view on cooperation?"

16

1220

128

2019

141421

11

23

121121

201413

114

368

178

15

45

4247

49445239

375153

41

48

433650

415143

48455150543742

7

105

11866

965

10

6

793

58

10

9436534

22

2617

23311522

262414

26

18

283717

221826

24249

24183223

10

911

496

14

1467

12

6

1188

12108

8220

116

2017

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %




Centre Party


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Verypositive

Ratherpositive

Cannotsay

Rathernegative

Verynegative

58


Figure 32. Military cooperation with the United States

"Finland conducts military cooperation with the United States. What is your view on cooperation?"

14

1017

135

1516

131117

9

17

131017

151313

118

2913136

12

45

4347

43425442

384953

42

48

424049

444644

55484745513645

7

95

11647

795

9

5

743

678

7105614

25

2920

26332223

282520

26

24

253923

252424

21262324273622

10

911

8135

12

1466

14

6

1478

101011

6160

134

2216

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %




Centre Party


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

Verypositive

Ratherpositive

Cannotsay

Rathernegative

Verynegative

59


Figure 33. A more secure or more insecure future

14

1018

16221610

151016

9

16

211513

198

13

15101617191212

25

2029

26162428

232627

21

24

232525

213023

28152223261732

1

11

2012

201

1

0

111

121

0002020

60

6852

56635861

606457

68

59

555960

585963

57756258556856

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %




Centre Party


South Finland

Over 35 000 €25 000-35 000 €

Under 25 000 €


Working class


Lower education


Under 25 years

MenWomen

Whole population

SaferNo di�erenceto the present

Cannotsay

Lesssafe

"Considering the present world situation as a whole, do you believe that during the next �ve years Finland and Finns will live in a safer or in a less safe world compared to the present?"

60


Figure 34. A more secure or more insecure future

14131014202017272818242029173022263719262822221523181618151828291825

25272328363340303031293123402625242736473031264327213122282216222530

1111111112122123322224425577565457

60596556434642414049464746424251463342253943483944574653525451455238

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

May 1990October 1990


April 1992November 1992

April 1993November 1993


June 1995November 1995



Spring 2001Autumn 2002Autumn 2003Autumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

SaferNo di�erenceto the present

Cannotsay

Lesssafe

"Considering the present world situation as a whole, do you believe that during the next �ve years Finland and Finns will live in a safer or in a less safe world compared to the present?"

61


Figure 35. Factors causing concern among the citizens

46

43

31

37

28

31

32

26

9

29

22

18

27

21

27

25

31

11

13

8

37

38

44

35

43

38

36

41

56

35

42

46

36

42

35

37

30

41

36

35

0

0

0

2

0

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

3

1

2

0

3

4

4

14

16

18

20

25

22

25

24

26

27

26

26

26

29

26

29

27

35

36

40

2

2

7

5

4

7

6

8

7

7

7

8

8

6

11

8

11

10

11

13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Situation in Ukraine

Situation in Turkey

Development of theEuropean Union

Growth in the number ofimmigrants in Finland

Development in Russia

Number of asylumseekers in Finland

Threats, in other words cyberthreats against information

networks

Development in the United States

Security situation in theBaltic Sea area

Situation in Syria

Religious extremist movements

Economic outlook in Europe

Social inequality in Finland

Proliferation of weaponsof mass destruction

Racism

The employment situation in Finland

Politically extremist movements

Climate change (global warming)

International terrorism

The refugee situation in the world

A lot To someextent

Cannotsay A little Not

at all

"How would you assess the following phenomena and actors? To what extent do they make you worry about the future?"

62


Figure 36. Factors causing concern among the citizens (I)

4640

4335463224273237343951475050

3126302521211824373351323722

3735

3745

3840374238393533424138363536

4445423836383639394236414145

3539

01

01010001110010

01011000100000

22

1411

162014203024252317169

141111

1821202628273025151811221925

2019

23

24358976642242

778

1014141612772537

55

***) 2004-2015 Global warming

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Politically extremist movements


Climate change (global warming)***


International terrorismAutumn 2016Autumn 2017

The refugee situation in the world

A lot To someextent


at all


63


Figure 37. Factors causing concern among the citizens (II)


28434949423731303820

3131

3227343326293539252742353436

2627

9142624283538

43413837414344414345

3839

3637373535333432424037383842

4142

56615354535046

0100000110

11

22111101210110

13

2210010

25131011151521231527

2222

2527212329292422252618232321

2423

26181617161213

4332254548

78

67689885662343

86

7534334

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Economic outlook in EuropeAutumn 2016Autumn 2017

Social inequality in FinlandAutumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Proliferation of weapons of mass destructionAutumn 2016Autumn 2017

RacismAutumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

The employment situation in Finland

A lot To someextent


at all

64


Figure 38. Factors causing concern among the citizens (III)


29

25

37

26

22

35

33

18

17

18

19

27

21

18

19

21

13

18

20

22

23

24

27

20

37

35

37

33

36

42

38

39

33

28

46

47

36

42

42

43

42

37

36

39

38

42

45

35

41

34

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

3

4

1

2

2

3

3

3

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

1

0

0

27

26

22

24

26

19

21

32

36

26

24

26

29

28

26

26

35

30

31

29

25

24

26

29

20

7

10

8

11

7

6

5

14

14

8

8

8

6

9

9

9

12

13

9

9

9

5

11

10

8

**) 2008-2012 Cyber threats against information networks

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Autumn 2015

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017Number of asylum seekers in Finland

Autumn 2008

Autumn 2009

Autumn 2010

Autumn 2011

Autumn 2012

Autumn 2013

Autumn 2014

Autumn 2015

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017Threats, in other words cyber threats against information networks**

Autumn 2017Development in the United States

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017Security situation in the Baltic Sea area

Autumn 2012

Autumn 2014

Autumn 2015

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017Situation in Syria

Autumn 2014

Autumn 2015

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017Religious extremist movements

A lot To someextent


at all

65


Figure 39. Factors causing concern among the citizens (IV)


2527263210131110121620191320

3124351313171419171214171816

11

1317

8161528

3745434332363639364048383842

3037323029252432292729312828

41

3640

35434146

22122222321112

01011111210110

3

42

4331

2919231838313432352924313529

2728233232313028303236323236

35

3633

40293319

8766

1818171714137

11126

1110102526273020222821192120

10

118

13985

*) 2013 The number of immigrants in Finland

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Situation in UkraineAutumn 2016Autumn 2017

Situation in TurkeyAutumn 2017

Development of the European UnionAutumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Growth in the number of immigrants in Finland*Autumn 2004Autumn 2005Autumn 2006Autumn 2007Autumn 2008Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2011Autumn 2012Autumn 2013Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Development in Russia

A lot To someextent


at all

66


Figure 40. Preparedness for various threats

"How well do you think Finland has prepared for the following security threats?"

26

12

18

8

8

7

4

5

6

2

5

1

58

68

61

68

64

54

51

48

44

47

44

41

3

4

4

5

5

5

12

3

7

12

5

6

11

14

16

17

21

30

29

33

33

35

37

45

2

2

1

2

1

4

4

12

9

3

9

7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Financial crisis

International crime

Foreign economic pressure

Cyber attacks oninformation networks

Terrorism

Foreign political pressure

Global warming

Availability of energy

Armed attack

Various environmental threats(�oods, oil spills, transport of

hazardous substances)

Major accidents

Various infectious diseases, epidemics

Verywell

Fairlywell

Cannotsay

Fairlybadly

Verybadly

67


Figure 41. Preparedness for various threats (I)


2628252318172422

121311108

111313

1815151266

1012

865559

1012

5856596060626564

6867696566606966

6165626462546555

6864585754616362

34232111

44342321

44322222

55564462

119

101418178

12

1413141823241518

1615172127342028

1724283035232021

22312311

23321212

11313424

22323313

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Autumn 2007Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2012Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Armed attack


Various environmental threats (�oods, oil spills, transport of hazardous substances)


Major accidents


Various infectious diseases, epidemics

Verywell

Fairlywell

Cannotsay

Fairlybadly

Verybadly

68


Figure 42. Preparedness for various threats (II)


85548

121413

76444547

44435558

5654456

10

6460615264686465

5451495141444542

5148444947484251

4853485344505146

55542322

55655433

129987

11139

35556684

2127263624161818

3034363445414042

2934373637323528

3329333342343236

13442122

44665676

45644443

128

1065544

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %


Terrorism


Foreign political pressureAutumn 2007Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2012Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Global warmingAutumn 2007Autumn 2009Autumn 2010Autumn 2012Autumn 2014Autumn 2015Autumn 2016Autumn 2017

Availability of energy

Verywell

Fairlywell

Cannotsay

Fairlybadly

Verybadly

69


Figure 43. Preparedness for various threats (III)


6

6

5

5

4

5

7

9

5

3

4

5

3

3

6

7

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

3

44

45

50

47

46

53

51

47

44

48

49

51

47

49

52

55

47

42

41

41

41

33

26

32

43

7

8

8

7

9

8

9

6

5

5

4

3

3

4

4

1

12

9

10

8

6

5

3

4

3

33

32

29

35

35

29

29

32

37

36

34

35

41

39

33

33

35

39

40

42

45

52

58

51

46

9

10

8

7

6

5

3

6

9

9

8

6

6

5

5

4

3

7

7

7

7

9

12

12

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Autumn 2012

Autumn 2014

Autumn 2015

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017Financial crisis

Autumn 2014

Autumn 2015

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017Foreign economic pressure

Autumn 2007

Autumn 2009

Autumn 2010

Autumn 2012

Autumn 2014

Autumn 2015

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017International crime

Autumn 2007

Autumn 2009

Autumn 2010

Autumn 2012

Autumn 2014

Autumn 2015

Autumn 2016

Autumn 2017Cyber attacks on information networks

Verywell

Fairlywell

Cannotsay

Fairlybadly

Verybadly

70


Figure 44. Threat scenarios

"In your view, what kind of threats should Finland in the �rst place prepare for in the next decade?"

27

11

11

12

6

5

7

5

8

6

1

2

16

17

12

7

12

8

9

7

4

6

0

11

13

9

10

11

13

9

9

5

6

0

54

42

32

29

29

25

24

22

17

17

1

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Cannot say

Something else

Russia's military measuresagainst Finland

Armed attack against Finland

Nuclear disaster in Finland or in itsneighbouring area

Armed con�ict in Finland'sneighbouring areas

Territorial crisis near Finland caused bysocial problems or a nuclear disaster

Damaging data transmission systemto paralyse society

Environmental catastrophe causedby global warming

Deep global crisis in the world economy

Increased organized crime

Terrorist act against Finland

The most signi�cant The second most signi�cant The third most signi�cant

71


Figure 45. Threat scenarios

"In your view, what kind of threats should Finland in the �rst place prepare for in the next decade?"

2724

111219

111716

122618

656

589

744

577

822

633

111

211

1635

171919

121914

71110

1277

89

13

945

71010

422

633

000

1167

131514

91310

101010

111112

131414

945

91010

534

633

010

541115

424752

324841

294637

292225

253136

241214

222727

1768

1789

111

211

2005 and 2009 response options were: The most probable, The second most probable, The third most probable

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %

Autumn 2005Autumn 2009Autumn 2017Cannot say

Autumn 2005Autumn 2009Autumn 2017Something else

Autumn 2005Autumn 2009Autumn 2017Russia's military

measures against Finland

Autumn 2005Autumn 2009Autumn 2017Armed attack against

Finland

Autumn 2005Autumn 2009Autumn 2017Nuclear disaster in Finland

or in its neighbouring area

Autumn 2005Autumn 2009Autumn 2017Armed con�ict in

Finland's neighbouring areas

Autumn 2005Autumn 2009Autumn 2017Territorial crisis near

Finland caused by social problems or a nuclear disaster

Autumn 2005Autumn 2009Autumn 2017Damaging data

transmission system to paralyse society

Autumn 2005Autumn 2009Autumn 2017Environmental

catastrophe caused by global warming

Autumn 2005Autumn 2009Autumn 2017Deep global crisis in the

world economy

Autumn 2005Autumn 2009Autumn 2017Increased organized crime

Autumn 2005Autumn 2009Autumn 2017Terrorist act

against Finland

The most signi�cant The second most signi�cant The third most signi�cant

72

ABDI BULLETINS AND REPORTS NOVEMBER, 2017

The Research Branch of ABDI in 2015–2019Chair Harriet Lonka, PhD

Deputy Chair Jan Koskimies, Parliamentary Secretary, until 29.9.2017

Unto Vesa, Researcher Emeritus, as of 23.10.2017

Members Soili Haverinen, Doctoral Student of Theology

Anna Jungner - Nordgren, Public Relations Secretary

Johanna Kelhu, Parliamentary Secretary, MSocSc

Mikko Kinnunen, Director of Unit

Marko Kivelä, Director, Public Relations and International Af-fairs Unit

Antti Koskela, Expert in Economic Affairs

Esko Kurvinen, CEO

Anni Lahtinen, Secretary General

Juha Mäenpää, Vocational Special Needs Teacher

Timo Perälä, Senior Inspector

Jussi Salonranta, Analyst

Jenna Simula, Parliamentary Assistant, BBA

Heli Viiri, Doctor of Agriculture and Forestry, Special Researcher

Branch-specific Teija Mankkinen, DSocSc, Head of Research and Development

Experts Teemu Tallberg, PhD, Professor of Military Sociology

Chairs of the ABDI Chair Sofia Vikman, MP

Deputy Chair Petteri Leino, Special Adviser to the Minister of Defence

Deputy Chair Markku Pakkanen, MP

Secretariat of the ABDI Heli Santala, Secretary General

Markus Kinkku, Assistant Secretary General

Advisory Board for Defence Information, ABDI (MTS in Finnish), is a permanent par-liamentary committee set up by the Government. Administratively it is in the Ministry of Defence.

ABDI conduct surveys on the opinions and attitudes of Finns regarding security policy and factors affecting them.

MTS

Ministry of DefenceBP 3100131 HELSINKI

www.defmin.fi/abdi

ABDI (MTS) - defmin.fi · abdi bulletins and reports november, 2017 finns˜opinios on foreing and...

Documents

Transcript of ABDI (MTS) - defmin.fi · abdi bulletins and reports november, 2017 finns˜opinios on foreing and...