Builder of the future
The Army Academy builds the future of the Army. To build the future, it is good to understand the past. Understanding the past provides a foundation in which to ground the future. The future of land warfare is already on the desks of researchers, defence industry, and strategic planners. At the Army Academy we need to understand the direction of development to meet the future change.
Natural human tendency to wage war
Humanity has a long history of waging war, way before nation-states had even emerged. Some of the earliest signs of warfare are those found on traces of prehistoric human bones and skulls dating back to some 50,000 years as the cover feature of Tiedelehti, “Is the human being doomed to wage war?” (6/2026), pointed out.
At the Army Academy we need to understand the direction of development to meet the future change.
In Western countries, wars have been viewed for a fairly long time as an extension of politics by other means, in line with the theory initially formulated by Carl von Clausewitz. Each of us sees Clausewitz’s theory moving into practice while following the daily news. We often blame the wars on states, heads of state, or coalitions formed by states. In doing so, we easily forget that we humans have a strong tendency to wage war.
Let’s shelve the natural human tendency to wage war for a moment, and return to theme at this text’s closing.
History matters
My professor at the U.S. Army War College would often use the phrase ”history matters” while discussing war historic events as part of the development of warfare. We Finns did not appear out of thin air to the here and now, but rather our society has taken its own historic and unique route to the present. Our identity and roots as Finns rest deeper and date longer back in history than our independence does. We have inhabited this cold and rugged but beautiful remote corner here up North for a long time.
From this unique location we have seen the era of the Swedish empire with the battles of Great Northern War, as well as the shift of power from Sweden to Russia after the Battle of Poltava. We have lived as the Grand Duchy of Finland as a part of Russia. Through determined effort, we purposefully worked for the formalisation of Finnishness, our own language, currency, and culture, and were successful in decoupling from the Russian authority and gaining independence.
Training of military leaders became prominent during the early years of our independence
The first litmus test for the nation was the civil war fought at the early phase of our independence. Internal infighting within a nation is always marked by cruelty, and it tears apart rather than repairs.
As for warfare, Jaegers’ military superiority on the battlefield may be the most significant and lasting impression concerning the war per se. The first military training establishments set up immediately in the wake of the war, Vöyri and Vimpeli, as well as the first Reserve Officer Courses, speak volumes of leaders’ relevance on the battlefield.
Strong effect of Finland’s wars on military training, warfare, and soldiers’ identity
The wars fought during 1939-1945 have been of central importance in Finnish warfare. The Finnish Defence Forces succeeded in its training task both before and during the wars. The level of professionalism of Finnish soldiers was excellent especially in the battles fought in forest and wilderness environments. The legacy lives on to this day, and Finnish troops remain strong under demanding Finnish conditions.
However, the lessons learned stemming from the Winter War and Continuation War extend further. My own generation’s will to defend and my age group’s professional soldiers’ identity are heavily built upon the legacy of the veterans’ generation. The Memorial Cemeteries for the Fallen still remain meaningful pilgrimage sites for the collective intergenerational memory. The remembrance of the wars also underlines the importance of values as a part of soldiers’ professional competence. In military training, values are ever-present, and training is never conducted in a moral vacuum.
Effective military training in tense Europe
The Cold War period was marked by Finland’s challenging role at the crossroads of East and West. Europe was split in two, and the divide was exacerbated by arms race and an increase of nuclear weapons in Europe. During the Cold War, Finland’s defence policy was cautious. In the 1960s, we developed the basis for the territorial defence system, which can still be seen in our defence doctrine. In international co-operation we turned a new leaf back in 1956 when we joined the first UN-led peacekeeping operation in the Suez Canal zone. Subsequently, training relating to peacekeeping missions became an integral part of the Finnish Defence Forces’ activity during the Cold War era.
In the wake of the Cold War in the fall of 1993, I started my military career as a person liable for military service reporting to conscript service. At the time, Finland had plunged into deep recession, and it seemed as if just a moment ago my age group had watched the national tv broadcast how East Germans climbed the wall more massive than its size would suggest. The conscript training that I was provided at the Armoured Brigade was effective, and drilling set the pace of each training day. Although outdated by modern standards, training was still efficient and intensive. An excellent spirit prevailed among the troops. At the Armoured Brigade of the early 1990s, they did good national defence work, and we mustered out exuding a strong sense of combat arms pride of the armour. We were a good wartime force.
Military training in the European defence structures’ state of flux
The end of the Cold War drove the Commonwealth of Independent States – later Russia – built on the ruins of the Soviet Union, into a challenging situation relating to foreign and defence policy.
The former buffer states of the Soviet Union moved one at a time under the umbrella of NATO and the European Union for economic growth and security within the power structures of West. We Finns witnessed this shift that was significant on the European scale as a neutral state, enjoying the financial leeway sponsored by Nokia. We chose to sustain our general liability for military service unlike the European mainstream, which proved, in retrospect, to be an excellent decision.
Then surfaced the WTC strikes at the turn of the millennium and subsequent operations in Iraq and especially in Afghanistan that conditioned the security environment for the following two decades. We Finns took part in new demanding crisis management missions, and rolled out a host of warfare lessons learned into national training relating to the operation in Afghanistan.
Evolving battlefield
The war that expanded in Ukraine in 2022 bought back the focus of European nations and the United States of America on taking concrete actions for the security of Europe. Simultaneously, vulnerabilities were revealed in European approach to security.
The changing situation forced European nations to increase defence spending, and, on the other hand, greater unity emerged in Europe than in years. Following Finland’s accession to NATO, we Finns no longer viewed European security developments from our own cape Finland – we now participated, owned responsibility, and also succeeded.
Concurrently, a combat technical and military technological transition, which we had already anticipated, was fielded on the battlefield more swiftly than originally thought. Unmanned systems, their counter-measures, utilisation of the space domain in operations, as well as a host of other innovations had become a part of the battlefield.
Advancing technologies raise the question of whether traditional war waging methods remain. Many would be willing to discard the systems that have reigned on the battlefield for centuries. Although the war in Ukraine has shifted to emphasise new technologies and unmanned systems in particular, neither artillery pieces, tanks, personnel carriers, nor fighter jets have disappeared from the battlefield – rather it is noteworthy how the sales figures of armoured personnel carriers have been on the increase in Europe. Instead of zero-sum thinking on the host of technologies, we should consider how the operating principles of traditional weapon systems change, how they are protected to counter new systems’ threats, or what the technological trajectory is concerning artillery pieces, tanks, and fighter jets.
Shift poses challenges to military training establishments
From the viewpoint of the future of military training establishments, an important question emerges: How is military leadership going to change under the type of development described previously? The Knight of the Mannerheim Cross No. 119, long-range patrol leader Onni Määttänen would probably make an excellent military leader also on the future battlefield. My rationale behind this hypothesis is that his courage, natural leadership, and ability to adjust swiftly to changing situations were at an exceptional level. Understandably, he would not be familiar with the dynamics of the modern battlefield, or aware of the capability of the new weapon systems, or of the operating of the defence alliance. Yet he would probably be quick to learn.
Although the operating environment changes, leadership is still purposeful action that steers an organisation or a group of people towards common goals. Leadership will also in the future be about caring for subordinates, and supporting them in times of pressure. Leadership is also about planning and executing, situation reports and reporting. Artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum technology, and numerous other factors enrich and enhance leading, but technologies are incapable of replacing leadership proper in its significance.
Technologies are incapable of replacing leadership proper in its significance.
It is evident that a military leader must understand and utilise the technologies fielded on the battlefield and force protect to counter their effects. This requires increasingly specific training, pursuing training opportunities, and sustaining motivation for continuing self-development. Above all, this requires capabilities. My Ukrainian colleague stressed in our discussion leaders’ mathematical competence, physics and natural sciences since the full spectrum must be mastered on the battlefield.
We are living in an era where the battlefield’s rate of change has exponentially increased, and the significance of researched knowledge has become pronounced. Research activity is increasingly dynamic, and research-based evidenced knowledge is demanded to be available ever more quickly. We must see to it that the future of land warfare and training of military leaders are grounded in research-based knowledge. In doing so we ensure that the development of capabilities is goal-oriented and expedient.
We must see to it that the future of land warfare and training of military leaders are grounded in research-based knowledge.
We soldiers need to prepare also for other types of changes alongside the military technological developments. We must be able to respond to the changed security situation in all domains, under all conditions, and across all time dimensions (cf. current/future fight). We cannot only accept the categorical view of technologisation on the battlefield because we need to be ready at all times for alternative scenarios involving “what if”. What if there is power outage, what if digital positioning malfunctions, what if fire mission fails to get transmitted, what if it is minus 30 degrees Celsius, or what if the enemy hooks the leg from the right flank?
It is important to prepare soldiers and military leaders in particular to operate in a dynamic environment that is in a constant state of flux. Adaptability has become one of the soldier’s basic characteristics. Continuous evolving takes place in hours, days, years, and decades. For a good military leader, rapid change does not mean shifting to leading “from the saddle”. Even amidst change, a good military leader can make leading, command and control, look clear, easy to understand, and simple. The importance of this skill will be highlighted in the future, and is part of growing into a leader.
On the battlefield, adjacent to a military leader may be fighting a force of the alliance with which the leader must co-ordinate their own forces’ activity. Over the past few years since the accession to the alliance we have gone great lengths to achieve interoperability on all levels with the alliance’s forces. The importance of practice in interoperability cannot be understated.
Adaptability has become one of the soldier’s basic characteristics.
In the same vein, capability requirements remain present on the future battlefield. Increasing technologies will not lead to soldiers staying put in data facilities. We disperse, camouflage and conceal, and blend technologies from labs to the field. The future warrior must operate under both physical and mental stress as did the warriors of the previous generations. The individual is responsible for taking care of comprehensive operational performance capability every single day.
Army Academy as the builder of the future
As promised, I am returning to the idea of humanity’s tendency to wage war, and an inherent human need to do so. Militarisation of societies and glorification of warfighting are not aligned with the Finnish mental landscape. We have always strived to live in peace, unconditionally, without expecting anything from others, and by safeguarding what is ours. During the Cold War and in its aftermath, we even earned credentials as a facilitator of international diplomacy and mediator in crises.
If and when the humanity seems to have a natural tendency to wage war, we had always better prepare. The prehistoric human would hardly have challenged a well-prepared counterpart in full operational capability under circumstances where it would be forced onto the backfoot.
The Army Academy plays a decisive role in preparedness. We challenge ourselves both as an institution and as individuals. Through research we ensure that we are riding the wave of warfare development. We are an internationally credible actor that conducts strong co-operation with the allies. We build trustworthy military leaders to the future battlefield.
The operating environment poses challenges, but by means of readiness, training, and research at the Army Academy we provide the backbone for the defence of Finland.
Commandant of the Army Academy
Colonel Timo Hänninen
