In this way, Russia could disrupt Finland militarily – forced landing in Lapland, grounding in Åland or a stray missile

Dropping a helicopter in the northern wilderness, running a submarine aground in the Åland archipelago or a missile getting lost on the Finnish side.

Here are three scenarios in which Russia could cause Finland gray hair. Fake accidents would not be related to Finnish people or Finnish military targets, but would require a military response from Finland.

Thus says the military professor of the National Defense College (evp.) Mika Hyytiäinen. He specializes in hybrid warfare and teaches the subject at the National Defense College and in national defense courses.

In this story, he introduces possible hybrid attacks that have a reality base. He hopes that by talking about them out loud, people will be more prepared if something similar happens. At the same time, he hopes that public speculation would prevent the attacks from taking place.

Hyytiäinen emphasizes that these are fantasies, not predictions.

According to him, Russia could have an interest in launching a series of events in the near future, when the Finnish state leadership is caught up in the NATO process.

Another opportune time would be autumn, when people’s resilience to adversity is declining.

Imagination: Russia organizes an accident under the guise of which it praises on the spot to rescue its own citizens or equipment.

An accident could be, for example, a forced landing of a passenger plane or a helicopter falling into a fell, says Mika Hyytiäinen.

Russian helicopters often fly near Finland’s northern border areas, making transports to oil companies, among others.

Russia could argue that the accident helicopter would contain industrial secrets or sensitive equipment and demand that outsiders not allow access to the area.

Meanwhile, the Russian rescue department could be on the border ready to come to the rescue. The ward could have 40-60 rescuers and a transport tank from the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations, which could cross an unofficial border crossing along a forest road, Hyytiäinen envisions.

– It’s a force that can’t just be commanded out, he says.

An accident has often been practiced in the Barents region, requiring the help of neighboring countries. Finland, Sweden, Norway and Russia have agreed that their northern rescue services will cross the border to help each other if necessary.

The reason is that in wilderness areas the weather is often harsh and help is far away. Therefore, rescue forces have expedited entry procedures and permission to bring equipment across the border.

Russia could take advantage of this scenario, even though the country was excluded from Barents cooperation after it invaded Ukraine.

The Russians could justify their entry on the grounds that they would have the fastest knowledge of their own accident.

Hyytiäinen points out that the costumes of Russian rescuers look military compared to their Nordic counterparts.

– The subtlety of an information advocacy tool is that it can take an action that looks harmless. This was a trained thing. This time they may not have been invited, Hyytiäinen says.

According to him, if the situation continues for a long time, it would cause a big challenge for Finland. Where would the rescuers be deported by force?

Imagination: A Russian submarine or other ship crashes on a remote island belonging to Finland.

A submarine could become a problem, for example, in a routine demining exercise when the Russian navy is training in the Baltic Sea.

– Of course we wouldn’t be allowed to touch it. It is happening at sea all the time that it is forbidden to go to the scene of an accident, Hyytiäinen says.

Russian rescuers would be the first to be present. They would like to repair their fleet themselves, and other ships would want to avoid the area, especially if it were declared mine-hazardous.

According to Hyytiäinen, the submarine is one of Finland’s worst fears: a secret weapon, the movement of which is below the surface in the territorial waters of another is strictly forbidden. Transit is only allowed in view.

A Russian submarine would always raise the question of whether it carries nuclear weapons.

– It could have almost anything really, but influencing information has a bigger meaning here, Hyytiäinen points out.

He refers to the conflict in Sweden in 1981, in which a Soviet submarine ran aground on the south coast of the country. It was a shock to the Swedes because their defense had not noticed from the start.

The Soviet Union complained of a navigational error, and eventually the ship was towed away. The Swedes estimate that the submarine was equipped with nuclear weapons.

In Finland, in April 2015, the Navy detected a vague underwater object near Helsinki and warned it with hand-held bombs. Destination never found.

If a foreign ship drifted into Finland’s insignificant outer credit and held it, it would be difficult to evict the intruders. Finland does not have significant landing capabilities or landing craft to transport troops.

Due to its special status, Åland must be kept out of military conflicts and there must be no military forces.

According to Hyytiäinen, Finland would face a difficult choice: in principle, the stalemate should be reacted peacefully.

Imagination: Russia flies an unleashed missile or other device into Finnish territory. It could stray to side roads from military exercises.

Such an incident really happened in late 1984, when a Soviet missile fell into Lake Inari and caused a Cold War in the midst of a major international crisis.

The Soviet Union said it had lost control of the missile during military exercises in the Barents Sea.

If Russia reported a lost missile – which could have run out of fuel as well – Finland would have to consider whether the report is true at all. Of course, one should not go near the alleged missile, even if it is declared empty of ammunition.

Most likely, the scenario would occur in a remote area where almost no one lives or moves.

If the instrument were to fall near the radar station of the Defense Forces and Russia sent a transport plane to pick it up, the situation would become more serious. That would be a big military provocation.

Finland would have been forced to act, but how?

Hyytiäinen estimates that a vague situation could cause the unity of Finns to crack.

– Some would think that it is useless to lift, nothing else when you shoot. Some would say that everything should be negotiated, not provoked, he describes.

Russia could also fly another mystical instrument across Finland and try to show that Finland would not be able to protect its airspace.

Finland would be required to take a lot of action to intervene in situations that look like accidents or damage as military offenses. There is a high risk of escalation.

– It would be difficult to think about what the right measures would be. The question is who will shoot the first shot, Hyytiäinen says.

Russia could also cause damage to Finland by using a so-called refugee weapon or causing a maritime conflict between Gotland and Kaliningrad.

Two times are particularly vulnerable for Finland, Mika Hyytiäinen ponders.

The first of these is being lived right now, when the state leadership is shuttleing to apply for support for Finland’s NATO application and Parliament is dealing with the matter on a tight schedule.

The calendars of politicians and officials are clogged, and a surprising mess would take resources away from NATO diplomacy.

When Finland’s possible application for membership were to be decided by NATO countries, Finland would no longer be as close in the face of Russian harassment attempts.

Another place of attack could be in the autumn, when the readiness of Finns to receive nasty news is declining. There is likely to be a shortage of food and fuel and a possible economic crisis.

– It is easy to be virtuous and defend your values ​​when things are going well. When defending values ​​becomes a pain, the will to deceive begins, Hyytiäinen says.

At the same time, the war in Ukraine may no longer be as visible in our daily lives as it is now.

Hyytiäinen thinks that Russia will most likely send asylum seekers across the eastern border only when the weather cools down.

Refugees could even be seen in inflatables in the Baltic Sea if they were sent on a trip from Kaliningrad to the island of Gotland in Sweden, he envisions.

Kaliningrad is a region between Lithuania and Poland that belongs to Russia.

The area between Kaliningrad and Gotland is otherwise strategically important. If there were a conflict or a major Russian military exercise or rescue operation on the sea route, it could shut down almost all traffic in the Baltic Sea.

Merchant ships should circumnavigate the island of Gotland on the Swedish mainland side. Finnish imports and exports would suffer.

Russia could declare similar exclusion zones in the Baltic Sea as it has declared in the Black Sea off the coast of Ukraine.

In the Baltic Sea, the situation would be in great danger of escalation, as Finland and Sweden would have to ask NATO for help, Hyytiäinen believes. NATO has previously secured the passage of merchant ships in the Gulf, for example.

Hyytiäinen points out that hybrid influence is about making weaknesses a weapon.

– Finland’s weaknesses are an over-tuned economy and the values ​​we speak for ourselves. The refugee weapon is impressive because closing the border would force us to act against our declared values, he says.

At this stage, Russia can hardly stop Finland from joining NATO. There are two goals left.

Russia would carry out hybrid attacks, above all for communication reasons: to intimidate Finns and increase the internal opposition in Finland as much as possible.

– So that there would be a strong group left in Finland who would think that here [Nato-päätöksessä] a big mistake was made, Hyytiäinen says.

The second goal is more radical: the glory of great power. According to Hyytiäinen, Russia feels compelled to do something because of its reputation, because Finland has betrayed it.

Finland’s direct military threat would be too great a risk for Russia, but bullying and harassment would not, he says.

– Great power never fails to retaliate. We must not be allowed to go unpunished.