Sweden's new army chief Johan Pekkari does not want to risk his staff going to jail because landmines are banned in Sweden but allowed in Finland.
He has barely taken office as Sweden's army chief when Major General Johan Pekkari makes his first trip in the new position to Finland to meet the head of the Finnish army, Lieutenant General Pasi Välimäki.
Pekkari's Finnish-sounding name comes from his Tornedal background on his father's side. He himself does not speak Meänkieli like his father, something he says he wishes he could.
It is no coincidence, but custom, that the new army chief's first trip abroad is to the neighboring country to the east. But this time the timing is unusually interesting. A few days earlier, it was announced that Sweden is sending military aid to Finland to combat drones.
That same morning, Finland again closed the sea area in the eastern Gulf of Finland so that the Armed Forces could shoot down errant Ukrainian drones without danger to the public. And on the same day, Germany accused Russia of being behind the explosive drone discovered at Leipzig airport in August.
Since time is short when HBL meets the army chief just before he is to go back to Stockholm, we get straight to the point:
How do you see the risk of Russia trying to carry out a military operation elsewhere in Europe than in Ukraine?
- I don't like to talk about risks, because it easily becomes a matter of probabilities and that is not my task. My job is to think worst case, i.e. start from the worst scenario.
- We have to plan that from the outside. If the fighting in Ukraine ends, we will have to watch closely what Russia does. The same applies to developments along the Finnish border and the Baltic border. It is incredibly important to keep track and maintain a common situational picture.
Pekkari does not want to assess whether Russia will attack, for example, Finland, the Baltics or any of the strategic islands that are often mentioned in the speculation: Gotland, Svalbard or Åland. But he says Russia has clearly signaled that it questions the rules-based world order.
- Russia has already shown that they are prepared to try to move borders by force. It is something that we must include in the planning. If I put on Russian glasses, I see a Europe that is expanding and strengthening its military capability. Russia notes that, and therefore we must also be awake here and now.
Last week it was announced that Sweden is sending military support to Finland, mainly warships and warplanes. But it may also be relevant that the army, which Pekkari leads, contributes if necessary to relieve Finland.
- What one chooses to implement depends on the operational situation and what needs Finland has. We have the ability to influence drones in both Sweden and Finland.
The new Swedish-led NATO force FLF Finland, which will defend northern Finland and the Northern Cape, has left the planning stage and begun to take concrete shape. The Swedish battle group starts from Boden, while the command staff is built up in Rovaniemi. At the same time, the soldiers must regularly train in Finland.
Pekkari describes the investment as a direct response to the deteriorating security situation in Europe's northernmost corner.
Included in the NATO force are the Nordic countries, France, Great Britain and Italy. Now the work is about clarifying how the eight participating countries will contribute to the force.
- The basis is Swedish-Finnish cooperation and joint war planning. It gives us a solid base to stand on.
How important is what happens on the Russian side of the border when you plan how the new force will function?
- We do not change the planning from day to day based on what happens on the other side of the border. But we closely follow developments, both in Ukraine and in the Russian military build-up.
Unlike Sweden, Finland has, due to the threat from Russia, left the Ottawa Convention, which prohibits anti-personnel mines. Experts in Sweden and Finland recently warned in Officerstidningen that Swedish officers leading allied units in Finland and Latvia risk prison because Sweden adheres to the ban on anti-personnel mines.
Sweden's Commander-in-Chief Michael Claesson has also said that he does not want unnecessary restrictions and wants "the best possible effect for his personnel to solve their tasks".
ÖB has raised the issue and experts have warned that your officers risk imprisonment if they deal with anti-personnel mines in Finland. What do you think?
- Swedish legislation is clear: anyone who deals with anti-personnel mines risks being convicted. It is a personal responsibility, both for me as a commander and for my soldiers. As long as the regulations look like they do, we cannot deal with those types of weapons.
Is that a problem?
- I will not risk my staff ending up in prison. Then you have to apply what within NATO are called caveats, i.e. national restrictions on what a unit is allowed to do.
How does that affect the work?
- If Sweden and Finland have different regulations, we must take that into account in the planning. Seen from a military logic, it is always easier if the regulations are the same.
Pekkari hopes that the political leaders weigh all perspectives and arrive at a balanced decision.
- Then we in the Armed Forces have to deal with it, regardless of whether the regulations remain fixed or change.
