Pekka Toveri: “The worst day on the front line is better than the best day under Russia”

We spoke with Pekka Toveri, a Member of the European Parliament, retired Finnish general and former Chief of Military Intelligence of Finland, about Russia, Europe and the realities behind power and security. From Orbán’s Hungary to Finland’s model of resilience, he offers a clear-eyed view of the threats shaping today’s Europe.

The following is Pekka Toveri’s direct speech.

On Hungary

What went wrong with Hungary? I think Orbán went wrong.

If you look back to 2008, when Russia attacked Georgia, Orbán was strongly condemning Russian actions and calling for measures against Russia. He was saying that this kind of attack could not be allowed. A few years later, he changed his views.

When I was Chief of Military Intelligence in Finland, we looked very closely at the Russian economy, because it tells us what kind of armed forces they can build. My analysts said very clearly that Russia couldn’t build a military capable of seriously threatening NATO. They simply didn’t have the money. However, they have always had enough money to corrupt European businessmen and politicians. Russia has done this very effectively for decades, including influencing Orbán. Putin provided him with financial support, helping him to win and remain in power.

Orbán is an authoritarian leader. All authoritarian leaders are corrupt, and they create extensive corruption around them. Hungary is by far the most corrupt country in the EU. Orbán has built a circle of people around him who are mutually dependent on one another because they share the same crimes.

During this period, he changed the laws to make it easier to control the population. He controls the courts and other institutions. At the same time, he has built a base of voters who support him, which he has, in effect, bought.

It is similar to what Putin used to do before elections — increasing spending on social welfare and pensions. Ahead of elections in Hungary, Orbán has promised pensioners not only a 13th but even a 14th monthly pension. He is trying to buy votes, partly using EU funds.

We have Article 7 in the founding treaties of the EU, which clearly states that if a member state poses a threat to the European Union and other member states through its actions, its voting rights can be suspended. We should use Article 7 and suspend Hungary’s voting rights.

If Slovakia does not take the message, we should do the same to them. It is absurd that we do not use the tools we already have to hold these two leaders to account.

The EU needs a decision-making model that works, so that one country cannot block efforts to improve our defence and security. When it comes to security and defence policy, we should move to qualified majority voting instead of the current unanimous system, where everyone has to agree.

On Russia’s illusion of power

Russia is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, so despite spending huge amounts of money on its armed forces, a significant portion of that budget was stolen. Had those funds actually been used for military development, its forces would have been much stronger.

They did two things well, though.

One was propaganda. They invested heavily in creating the image of a large and capable army. They organised major exercises every four years, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, large-scale combat drills, rocket tests — all designed to create the image of a strong army. In Finnish intelligence, we were looking at these exercises and thinking: these are actually staged performances. You take a number of troops, train them repeatedly to perform well, so it looks impressive on video. It doesn’t tell anything about actual capability. In Finland, we were very sceptical about their actual strength — we understood it was largely for show — but the image proved effective in the West and globally.

The second factor is that no one in the West wants war — we are, fundamentally, peaceful societies. As a result, Russia could continue to push Western countries, knowing they would not respond militarily until it became absolutely necessary. Russia used that.

Putin had a number of successes — in Georgia, in Crimea, in Syria. The latter, in particular, created the impression the Russian army was powerful and effective, nobody really stopped to think about the actual conditions [in which they operated].

There is an old joke about the Israeli army having a formula for victory: if you have first-class equipment, second-class troops and a third-class opponent, you will always win. If you look at what happened in Georgia, or at the situation in Crimea — when Ukrainian armed forces were very unprepared — it was not a true test of Russian military capability. However, it created the perception — especially among politicians who do not listen to their own military experts — of a very strong and powerful Russian army.

On Finland

24 February 2026 was not only a sombre anniversary of Russian aggression, but also the first day on which Finland had been independent for longer than it had been under Russian rule. It is a significant moment for us.

We have fought dozens of wars with Russia. We have learned that, in order to survive as a small nation with an aggressive neighbour, you must use every person, every capability and all the resources your nation has.

During the Second World War, for four years, we spent over half of our gross national product on defence. Sixteen per cent of Finns served in the armed forces — one of the highest proportions among European countries involved in the war.

That experience stayed with us. We understood that, in order to survive a Russian attack, we must be fully prepared, because we know what Russia does to small nations. Every war with Russia is existential for the survival of the Finnish nation — its culture, its language, everything. Therefore, we must be prepared.

We have a saying in Finland: “One Finnish soldier equals ten Russians. But what happens when the eleventh arrives?” They just keep coming. You have to be prepared for that.

Since we are a small nation, we need sufficient numbers of soldiers, so we maintained conscription even after the Cold War, when others moved to professional armies. Professional armies are useful, but you cannot fight long wars with them — you need reserves. We have around one million people in reserve. Our wartime army numbers about 300,000, but it means that defence involves the whole of society.

We also have strong artillery and maintain top-level capabilities: F-18 fighters with cruise missiles, guided rockets, strong naval capabilities, advanced electronic warfare and so on.

For the defence forces to function, civil society must function too. If civil infrastructure collapses, the army cannot fight. That is why we built a strong system of civil defence. For example, in Helsinki, where the population is about 600,000, we have shelters for 950,000 people. Across Finland, we have shelters for around 5 million people. By law, if you build a residential building over 1,200 square metres, it must include a shelter.

If you want to provide telecommunications services in Finland, you must guarantee that they will function in times of crisis and war. If you run a pharmacy, you must maintain stockpiles. We stockpile everything — fuel, gas and spare parts — for three to six months. If you build a bridge in Finland, it must be designed with the possibility of demolition in mind.

On Finland’s geography and survival

We are an Arctic nation. We know that winter will always come. To survive here over centuries, people had to cooperate, work together and prepare. You have to prepare in the summer for the coming winter. That is our mentality. It is not because we are geniuses — we are not. We are shaped by our geography and our history, which have forced us to act this way.

You also have to remember that, for Finland, geography and climate are allies — making things much easier than for Ukraine. Finland is an extremely difficult country to attack. People say: you have a 1,343.6-kilometre land border with Russia. I always reply: yes, but over 80% of that border is total wilderness — forests and swamps. Attacking there is extremely difficult. The Russians tried it twice in the last century, and on both occasions all the forces attacking north of Lake Ladoga were encircled and destroyed. If they try it again, we will open champagne, because it would make our job much easier.

Fighting in winter is not easy if you do not know what you are doing. Fortunately, the Russians are not very good at it.

On the willingness to fight

The most important factor is people’s willingness to fight.

In Finland, we conduct an annual poll in which we ask: if Finland were attacked by military force, should we take up armed resistance even if the outcome is uncertain — meaning that we might lose? Over 80 per cent of respondents say yes, we should fight. That is by far the highest percentage in Europe.

The key reason for this is that people must feel they have something to defend. Why would I go to war if I have nothing — if I am poor and no one takes care of me? In Finland, the gap in income between the richest and the poorest is among the smallest in the world. We have worked hard to reduce inequality through taxation and public support, so that everyone is taken care of.

We have virtually no homelessness, for example. It can sometimes be frustrating to pay high taxes, but when you understand that this creates stability in society, it makes sense. We do not face threats of internal unrest or coups, because people feel that the system works and that they have something to defend.

By law, every Finn can be required to support the war effort — whether by working in the defence industry, caring for elderly people, or performing other essential roles. Everyone participates because everyone recognises that we have a great deal to lose. There is a common attitude in Finland when we look at the war in Ukraine: even the worst day on the front line would be better than the best day under Russian occupation.

On the Winter War and national unity

The Winter War was extremely important for Finland. When it began, we had been independent for only twenty years.

Shortly after independence, we experienced a bloody civil war, as the Soviets supported a left-wing uprising in Finland against the lawful government, demanding social justice and reforms that had already been agreed upon. It was essentially a ploy by the Soviets to bring Finland back under their control.

Civil wars are always brutal, and this one caused deep national trauma. When the Soviet Union launched the Winter War and attacked Finland, it became a defining moment, because it united the Finns — we now had a common enemy.

Finns knew that many of those “Reds” who had fled to the Soviet Union after failing to topple the government had been killed by Stalin. Even people on the left understood that nothing good could come from the East.

The Winter War united Finland in defence of its independence. Although we lost 11 per cent of our territory and more than 10 per cent of our population lost their homes, we preserved our freedom and our democracy. That was a victory for us. When you look at the life of an average Russian today, we were the real winners. Our standard of living is much higher.

We are free. We can vote and choose our political leaders. For eight consecutive years, we have been ranked the happiest country in the world. The spirit of the Winter War remains deeply rooted in the Finnish ethos — that you never give up, you never surrender.

It is Finnish sisu (a term for “stoic determination” — ed.) that prevails: even in the toughest moments, you can endure, as long as you do not give up.

On the Ukraine’s EU membership

There are certain obstacles to Ukraine’s path towards EU membership, such as Hungary and Slovakia. I’m sure that the Hungarian obstacle will be addressed this April, when they hold elections. That will also send a message to Fico, because in Slovakia, people are not truly anti-Ukrainian — it’s the leadership.

For Ukraine to become a member of the EU, it has to fulfil the necessary requirements. There are many internal changes needed in administration, the political system and the economy to become a fully fledged member. I know — as I chair the Ukraine delegation — how hard Ukraine is working. Even while under constant attack almost every night, Ukraine has managed to implement many of the required reforms.

One of the biggest obstacles often cited against Ukrainian membership is corruption. These issues are frequently in the headlines, and Ukraine does have to address them. What I have noticed, however, is how open Ukrainian counterparts are to discussing this. When we raise concerns about corruption, they acknowledge them openly. They say: yes, we have this problem, and we want to tackle it — please help us.

What people often forget is that the fact these cases are being reported actually shows that the system is working. There are investigations, independent prosecutors and courts dealing with these issues. The fact that even people close to the president can be arrested and prosecuted demonstrates that the system functions.

I believe Ukraine will address this problem. Especially now, after a bloody war in which thousands of Ukrainians have lost their lives defending their country and its democracy, tolerance for corruption — at any level — has decreased significantly.

This is very important, because there is strong public demand for accountability. It also makes the EU’s role easier, because ultimately this is a Ukrainian issue, and only Ukrainians can fully resolve it. Ukraine is on the right track.

We host open conversations with a wide range of voices. The opinions expressed by our guests are their own and may not reflect our views.