Finland has recently taken a significant step away from its long-standing tradition of transparency regarding arms exports, a move that has raised eyebrows both domestically and internationally. This shift, which began in 2021, involves concealing crucial details about the country’s defense trade, marking a departure from the previously open policy that allowed public access to all arms export licenses.
According to an investigation by Finnish public broadcaster Yle, the Finnish Ministry of Defence has begun issuing encrypted export licenses that omit key information such as the identity of the exporter, the end user, and the specific types of equipment being sold. This change has made it increasingly difficult to ascertain what kinds of weapons Finnish companies are exporting and to whom.
The Ministry of Defence attributes this shift to evolving security concerns and, in some cases, direct requests from exporters or recipient states. Riika Pitkänen, a representative of the Ministry, explained that the request for encryption is sometimes tied to commercial confidentiality or security interests of the destination country. "Sometimes the request for encryption is tied to commercial confidentiality or the destination country’s security interests," Pitkänen stated.
Since the first encrypted export license was issued in June 2021, when the Vantaa-based company Sensofusion received permission to export anti-drone systems to Israel, the practice has expanded significantly. In total, Finland has issued 19 classified export licenses to eight countries since that time. Notably, Ukraine has emerged as the most frequent destination for these secret supplies, while Israel has also requested non-disclosure regarding its arms imports.
This new policy stands in stark contrast to the period from 2000 to 2020, during which no export license required classification. The Finnish government’s decision to implement such a policy change has sparked concerns over the implications for democratic oversight and public accountability in matters of national defense.
As arms export is a political decision, the reduction in available information means that citizens have fewer opportunities to evaluate the actions of their state leaders. "Arms export is a political decision. Almost all information about it comes from the authorities. If the authorities share less information, citizens have fewer opportunities to evaluate the actions of state leaders," noted political analyst Paasonen.
In March 2025, this issue gained further prominence when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo to discuss defense support for Ukraine. During this meeting, they focused on strengthening air defense, artillery, and investments in arms production.
Finland’s shift towards greater secrecy in arms exports is also influenced by its bilateral information security agreements with over 20 countries. These agreements could necessitate confidentiality in defense transfers, further complicating the landscape of international arms trade.
In addition to the changes in arms export policies, Finnish defense firm Patria recently announced a €40 million investment aimed at scaling up the production of armored vehicles at its Hämeenlinna facility. This investment is expected to enhance manufacturing capacity and includes plans for a new facility dedicated to assembling and servicing F135 engines for F-35 fighter jets.
The implications of Finland's new approach to arms exports are multifaceted. On one hand, proponents argue that the shift is necessary in light of changing global security dynamics and the need to protect sensitive information. On the other hand, critics highlight the potential risks associated with reduced transparency, including the possibility of enabling arms to fall into the wrong hands or contributing to conflicts without public scrutiny.
As the situation develops, it remains to be seen how this policy change will affect Finland’s relationships with both its allies and the countries receiving its arms exports. The balance between national security interests and the public's right to know will likely continue to be a contentious issue.
In conclusion, Finland’s decision to conceal details of its arms exports marks a notable shift in its defense policy, raising questions about transparency and accountability in the arms trade. As the landscape of international security evolves, the implications of these changes will be closely watched by both domestic and international observers.
