CHILLING FINNISH WAR FICTION ⟩ "Conflict" by Aku Louhimies Brings the Crimean Occupation Scenario to the Heart of the Scandinavian Idyll

Aku Louhimies: Maybe so. But it’s also because, in our story, the enemy takes just a small area—the Hanko Peninsula [ed.]—and they can control it with a limited number of well-trained mercenary troops. Plus, back in 2014, Ukraine maybe wasn’t as prepared as Finland is today. I’d say Finland is quite well-prepared for this kind of event.

Interviewer: Can you talk about your personal experiences with the military? Have you served in the military in any capacity?

Aku Louhimies: We have compulsory service in Finland, which means most of us have been through training, and yes, I’ve done that too. I was an anti-tank guy. My service was quite a while ago, though. Everything is more modern now. I’d say we’re well-prepared, even though you can never be too prepared, I suppose.

Interviewer: Conflict is quite scary to watch. Part of the scariness comes from the atmosphere of absolute isolation, both for the local community of the Hanko Peninsula, where this attack occurs, and for Finland as a country in international isolation. Have you been accused of scaremongering? It’s a pretty anxious time right now, and some people are very sensitive to this kind of realism.

Aku Louhimies: It was our intention to create a show that would provoke discussion and thought, and I think it has sparked conversations—we’ve achieved that. Conflict is relevant for several European audiences. Maybe even more relevant than we intended.

On social media, there’s a wide range of responses from across the spectrum—political criticism about the diversity of our defense forces on one side and, on the other, how we handle our female characters in the story. The loudest voices on social media aren’t Finns; these bots and voices are financed from the East.

Most audience members understand that a TV series needs some drama. Something has to go wrong to create a story. In reality, it’s very unlikely that such an enemy formation or large-scale attack would bypass our reconnaissance and surveillance systems.

That said, people feel it’s a good topic to discuss. Through fiction, you can show things that you can’t in a documentary format. For example, we can’t show special forces—we do have a Special Operations Forces' element here in Finland that’s in good shape, but we can’t feature them in a documentary.

Interviewer: The Hanko Peninsula, where this invasion by enemy troops and short occupation occurs, is a real place. How did the municipality and local community react to the idea of a TV show about them being subjected to an occupation?

Aku Louhimies: Hanko has quite a bit of historical significance. It played a key role in the peace negotiations with the Soviet Union in the fall of 1944. Rather than inventing a fictional location, we wanted to use a realistic one. Local residents and officials, of course, have differing feelings and thoughts about it, but that’s what our drama does—it stirs emotions and thoughts. That’s what good drama is supposed to do.

Interviewer: In your series, the young female President and the older male Prime Minister clash and have radically different strategies for resolving the conflict. The President is belligerent and decides to use blunt military force against the invader, while the Prime Minister pursues diplomatic resolutions through some shady intermediaries. This is a fictional scenario, but is it something you could imagine Finland witnessing in real life as well?

Aku Louhimies: We have a somewhat unique system here in Finland, where the President has more power than in some other European countries—not as much as in the U.S., but still significant. That could have been problematic, but in 1944, it wasn’t. I would assume that if a conflict like this happened today, those roles would be quite united. 

I think that’s the message: as a small nation, we have to stay united. We can be certain that any external aggressor would try to sow discord, using all available means to undermine national unity. That’s the same strategy they’d use against Europe as a whole. The only effective response is to remain united, decisive, and swift in our reactions.

Having had the opportunity to gain deeper insight into our defense forces and how they operate, I feel assured that we’re currently in good hands.

Interviewer: I believe a lot of viewers are intrigued by the shady Prime Minister Kai Laavakuru [played by Pirkka-Pekka Petelius] and whether he was corrupted by the Russians or sincerely trying to de-escalate the situation.

Aku Louhimies: Well, first of all, the viewer is always right—you can interpret it differently. Of course, there are always peaceful solutions, and maybe there are right or wrong ways to pursue them. But in a conflict, we should always look for peace; it’s just a matter of terms. So, I don’t think he’s wrong in that sense.

In diplomacy, when you’re negotiating, some discussions have to happen secretly, and the other side might feed you information that isn’t true. If we look at what happened at the end of World War II, there were definitely a lot of negotiations. In our story, there’s also an assassination attempt on the Prime Minister, without clarity about who was behind it. This is realistic in the sense that we don’t always know who cut the pipelines in the Baltic Sea—some events are hard to evaluate and assess.

Interviewer: The clash between the President and Prime Minister hit home for me. With 21 years at the Ministry of Defense, I’ve seen tensions between Parliament, the President, and the Prime Minister popping up during scenario exercises. Your series mirrored my experiences with high-level decision-makers, showing how strategies compete in war. Great job capturing that—politics don’t pause in crisis, and art like this prepares the public for real world crises. But why did the Allies distance themselves from Finland? Was it just a story choice, or was there something more?

Aku Louhimies: The events in our series unfold over a short time span—a few days, a week, during midsummer. We explored the idea that NATO might hesitate to invoke Article 5 over an incident of this scale, which is a scenario that could realistically be tested. The United States is unquestionably an ally we honor and respect. In our scenario, we envisioned a situation where tensions in the Pacific were escalating, leading the U.S. to encourage Europe to take greater responsibility for its own defense. I wish that prediction hadn’t felt so relevant.

Also, when we wrote the script, Finland wasn’t part of NATO. We had to rewrite the script while we were shooting, and that influenced the storyline. The timespan of the conflict is relatively short, and the occupied area is fairly small, so it would probably take some time before NATO would react—especially when some member states are less reliable than others. We thought a more bilateral element with the U.S. was needed here.

Nobody could have predicted what’s happening with the U.S. now. The current U.S. president seems heavily affected by information warfare. We had a sense that Mr. Trump was likely to return as president. However, we couldn’t have anticipated the extent to which he might be influenced by Russian narratives.

I consider the U.S. my second home, and I deeply believe that, despite current political fluctuations, the core values of the United States—democracy, liberty, and justice—will endure. But in our fiction, everything happens so quickly that no one else can react besides Finland and Sweden.

Interviewer: This rings true because bigger nations might push smaller ones to dial back conflicts, avoiding a clash with a powerful foe. So, this viewpoint isn’t just made-up—it holds weight, especially now.

Aku Louhimies: I believe misinformation and disinformation are key elements. I think Finns are quite well-prepared for that—thanks to our education system, people can read and write critically. But sometimes, people react emotionally and too quickly.

You hear something, and you don’t have time to think about whether it’s really true or not—you just push a button: I love it or I hate it. I think that’s something we need to improve on—not reacting too judgmentally or too quickly with emotion. There’s nothing wrong with emotions, but an enemy can strongly influence your decision-making through them.

Interviewer: Am I exaggerating when I say that you downplayed the role of the media in Conflict? There were no journalist characters in the series, only newsreaders. But the media plays such a big role nowadays in how we frame conflict.

Aku Louhimies: As filmmakers, we recognize the power of storytelling and the ongoing influence of information warfare, but we didn’t want to give it too much screen time. That’s true, and we made it that way because sometimes it’s really hard to follow what’s going on in the media.

I felt that hybrid warfare was already complex enough to follow, so we intentionally left media coverage in the background. We figured this scenario unfolds over just a couple of days during Midsummer, and our main characters aren’t following the media that much. The President is keeping track of everything, but she only receives a small, well-curated portion of the information. That’s why we left it out, especially as the enemy is using more direct methods, like driving around the occupied streets with old-fashioned megaphones [as PSYOPS elements – ed.].

Interviewer: That’s another authentic feature of your series, as we’ve seen in Ukraine—occupiers first cut off the local community from outside connections or media. So, in that way, it feels very true-to-life. The Finnish President in the series was fiercely defiant and aggressive, calling to mind your late Prime Minister Sanna Marin, or Sergeant Ripley from Alien, or Sarah Connor from Terminator.

Aku Louhimies: For the sake of our story, it was important that we chose a President who would be the least likely to be a Finnish head of state at the moment: a young female President with little defense experience and a foreign spouse. We wanted to put her in a situation where she faced only bad options and had to make a decision that would cause collateral civilian damage.

In Finland, we always go by the book—we follow the rules, respect human rights, and always speak the truth, which I think is very important. But these traits can sometimes make us too predictable. Sometimes, leaders might have to make decisions that breach some of those principles, and that’s an element in the story as well. She has to bomb Finnish civilians [used as human shields by the enemy to protect its electronic warfare equipment and air defense assets] to move forward.

If survival depends on it, we must be prepared to break certain conventions. That doesn’t mean abandoning our principles—we’ll still uphold truth, humanity, and the rule of law. However, if necessary, we may need to adapt our approach so our adversaries can’t anticipate our every move. That adaptability is essential for the future.

In turbulent times, there’s a need for people to see behind the curtains. It’s good to show the classified Operations Center where the President and Chief of Defense wage war. There are certainly elements we couldn’t have shown, but opening it up a little—showing what we might be doing and how war would be conducted—I think it serves the public well. As filmmakers, we can’t contribute much to the fight itself, but we’ve already stated that we’re willing to donate the series to Ukraine if it’s deemed appropriate.

Interviewer: You consulted with the Finnish Defense Forces and used their military equipment in the series. Did they place any conditions on the series during development?

Aku Louhimies: They didn’t want to censor anything. I received only two notes from them beforehand. The first was that if we used their equipment, it had to be a realistic depiction of war—no tanks shooting dinosaurs or anything like that. The second was that the story should have some kind of positive ending.

I think our defense system is strong enough to handle some criticism; we don’t need to be overly flattering. A decade ago, I was at the Moscow Film Festival with my film Vuosaari, and a journalist stood up and asked how it was possible that Finland allowed us to make such unpatriotic films. I told her I don’t really know what a patriotic film is, but I do believe our system is ready to accept criticism, and that’s its greatness.

I also think that, in turbulent times, people need to see behind the curtains. It’s valuable to show, in our series, the classified Operations Center where the President and Chief of Defense wage war. Of course, there are elements we couldn’t show, but opening it up even a little—revealing what we might be doing and how a war would be conducted—serves the public well. As filmmakers, we can’t contribute much to the fight itself, but we’ve already stated that we’re willing to donate the series to Ukraine if it’s deemed appropriate.

Interviewer: Conflict has a realistic depiction of battles. Did you have real Finnish military personnel acting in it as well?

Aku Louhimies: No, it’s mainly actors, but they did operate the equipment—tanks, helicopters, etc. The actors were trained to rappel down from a helicopter. When we had military scenes, we always had someone from the Defense Forces on set.

Having a Ukrainian actor, Alyona Osmanova, play a female sniper was particularly valuable—her perspective on the war helped us fine-tune our approach and ensure we were handling the subject matter with sensitivity. It was important to us that our Ukrainian friends appreciated and understood why we were telling this story.

Interviewer: Did you use CGI at all?

Aku Louhimies: Some, but not much. Some of the explosions were slightly enhanced, and the missile flying toward a cruise ship was something you couldn’t capture in real life.

For me, the most difficult part was capturing the realism of the opening moments—how to direct young actors, how to portray the fear and chaos of battle when I, personally, have never been shot at or seen a comrade fall next to me.

Interviewer: You said the Defense Forces asked for a somewhat positive ending, but it’s actually a bittersweet one. I would even call it a frightening ending. You have armored vehicles and soldiers patrolling central Helsinki, and the victorious protagonist—the President—almost promises that a new conflict is coming. Were you just hinting at Season 2, or was this series really meant to mentally prepare Finns for future conflicts?

Aku Louhimies: Yes, we are preparing for Seasons 2 and 3. We just need to secure financing for them, and we hope to make them more international. The ending was positive in the sense that Finland survived the attack and prevailed, despite the civilian and military lives lost.

Interviewer: What’s behind your involvement in so many war movies? You’ve also done hostage crisis films. What draws you to these kinds of scenarios?

Aku Louhimies: Well, first of all, it’s partly just an accident. I’d love to make a children’s film if I could just find the right script.

But I think extreme situations provide an effective backdrop for telling stories about human beings and the decisions they make—decisions of life and death, not just Do you still love me or not? In a situation like Conflict, a single mistake can cost an entire country. These heightened situations create fertile ground for compelling drama.

But I’d be more than happy to do love stories, too.