"The war machine is moving and, I repeat, it is coming close to our borders."
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
As Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Vladimir Putin claimed the net was tightening around Moscow.
The Russian President's declaration of war in February was laced with paranoia over NATO, long framed as an existential threat by Moscow.
With Russian troops marching towards Kyiv, the Kremlin was issuing ominous threats to neighbours considering joining the pact.
Months on, Finland and Sweden seem on an unstoppable path to full membership. Many Finnish officials believe the country, a NATO partner and European Union member, was already on that trajectory.
But Putin's brutal gamble obliterated any pretence neutrality could guarantee Finland's survival, jolting it into action.
If his plan was to push NATO further away, it appears to be backfiring.
'Couldn't close our eyes'
Iro Sarkka, political scientist at Helsinki University, describes NATO membership as a "huge mental step" for Finland, which has spent decades balancing deep roots in Europe with the latent threat to its east.
Putin has long railed against expansion of the bloc - guaranteeing military protection if any member state is attacked - and is publicly unconvinced it is solely a defensive alliance.
And with the then Soviet Union intent on maintaining "buffer states" on its border, Sarkka says neutrality established during the Cold War was Finland's survival strategy.
"In the background there's been this looming fear of Russia, and having to take into account what it thinks," she says.
"We couldn't really close our eyes to Russia, because we knew that historically there have been turbulent events and Russia could change very quickly."
That unease has long been reflected among Finns, even after the country joined the EU in 1995; just a quarter backed joining NATO at the beginning of this year.
With muted domestic support, and relative quiet on the eastern front, membership became the issue that dare-not-speak-its-name for lawmakers.
"It wasn't really acknowledged amongst the politicians. Even though most of them supported [membership], they never really thought that they would have to activate it," Sarkka says.
'Wishful thinking'
Even Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and its support for a bloody proxy war in eastern Ukraine were not enough to force NATO membership onto the agenda.
But February's full-scale invasion, and the dawning realisation of a dangerously erratic power on Finland's doorstep, reversed public opinion virtually overnight.
"There was a kind of wishful thinking that Finland could somehow build a special relationship with Russia, being part of the west but acting as a bridge builder to the east," Sarkka says.
"But the Finns were really shocked to see that we were dealing with a completely unpredictable neighbour. That really pushed the public opinion to support NATO membership."
A seismic, previously unthinkable shift was underway.
Support soared past 50 per cent within weeks, and has been climbing steadily ever since. By the time lawmakers approved membership in May - by 188 votes to eight - it was edging towards 80 per cent.
'Enemy camp'
Janne Kuusela, director-general of Finland's Defence Policy Department, says the country's hand has been forced, but insists it is entering the new paradigm with its eyes wide open.
"We made the decision ... understanding very clearly that there are risks involved, and we need to be prepared to face them," he says.
In December, extraordinary demands from Moscow laid bare those dangers. Military reprisals would be justified if NATO expanded, and its presence was not significantly reduced in eastern Europe, it said.
The intervention, essentially demanding buffer states between east and west, was interpreted as an attack on Finnish sovereignty by Helsinki, and radically shifted its outlook.
"We were basically faced with a choice between the Russian and American sphere of influence. It was a very easy decision for us to make," Kuusela says.
"We looked at how Russia was treating its non-NATO neighbours ... and we didn't like what we saw."
Moscow threatened Finland with "military and political consequences" for signing onto the pact just days after invading Ukraine.
But while its objections to Kyiv joining NATO are existential - Putin views Ukraine as part of Russia - Kuusela says it takes a more "pragmatic stance" on its Nordic neighbours, which were never part of the Soviet Union.
Its war in Ukraine faltering, the Kremlin was walking back the threats by the time Helsinki formally declared its hand in May.
"[It] can have a negative impact on Russian-Finnish relations developed over years in a spirit of good neighbourliness and cooperation between partners," was all it could muster.
Left with no option but to save face, Putin insisted he had "no problems" with Finnish and Swedish accession.
"I guess they understand that at this point, there's only so much they can do to stop us ... even though they don't like it," Kuusela says.
"Basically, what they're saying now is ... there's no returning back to the old times and the old relationships. We are now in the enemy camp."
'Prepared for anything'
Analysts had warned a dragged-out application could have exposed Finland to exactly the scenario neutrality sought to avoid: an angered Moscow, a ticking clock, and no certainty of protection.
What would happen in the "grey period", once Finland's intentions were clear, but before it was cocooned within NATO?
Security assurances from the US and UK in the interim, and Turkey dropping threats to block membership earlier this month, smoothed its path.
"We don't feel we are in any kind of grey period. The ratification phase is just one part of a long path towards NATO membership," Kuusela says.
"[But] it is important for us to know that NATO-allied countries already treated us practically as allies ... [and] would not just stand by and watch if we ended up in trouble."
READ MORE:
Kuusela says military reprisals are highly unlikely; Moscow is unable to launch a ground invasion for "quite some time", with its stretched resources bogged down in Ukraine.
But he has no doubt Russia will return as a "mighty military power" in time, and expects weaponry to eventually be stockpiled on the border.
"I would not be surprised to see [that], after the dust has settled," he says.
"[But] that's alright, we don't mind. They have always had plenty of their latest weapon systems and forces around Finland."
Russia reacted to Finland's historic vote within days, cutting gas exports over its western border. And a "constant all-out war" in cyberspace remains a "daily menace", Kuusela says.
Beyond that, predicting Moscow's next move is near impossible.
"It remains to be seen. It's up to the President [Putin] ... But we are prepared for anything," Kuusela says.
'We cannot change geography'
Some communication on managing the border, described as professional by Finnish officials, is ongoing. But dialogue otherwise ceased the moment Russia launched its invasion.
Satu Mattila-Budich, Finland's ambassador to Australia, hopes diplomacy can eventually be restored, though concedes that is difficult to envision while the war continues to rage.
She says the invasion had "broken" Finns' long-standing trust in the status quo, a process she describes as traumatic.
"The geopolitical situation has changed rapidly and in a very fundamental way, but we cannot change geography," she says.
"We always need diplomacy and we try to find constructive ways to discuss [issues] with our neighbours. But in this situation, it might take a long time because we have only one message for Russia at the moment: stop the war in Ukraine."