Edward Lucas of the Economist has penned a piece on Finland's (and Sweden's) ever-closer relations with NATO. It mostly gets things right, but you can tell that Lucas hasn't followed the Finnish discussion on the topic all that closely.
[Finland's] border with Russia is long and will be more exposed when it gives up landmines, a move reluctantly planned for 2016. [...] Yet Finnish political leaders have been quiet.There was some debate on the topic during the recent election campaign, although not enough to derail the project. Aapotsikko readers may recall that I wrote about it at the time.
[President Tarja Halonen] outraged patriotic Finns by describing Estonia (a close ethnic cousin) and Russia as friends of equal importance.This is the first I've heard of any such outrage - or the description, for that matter - so I can only assume that it isn't very widespread. Had said comment received significant media attention, I think that even patriotic Finns would generally understand that it's shading the truth in favor of Estonia. Naturally Russia, due to its enormous size if not the warmness of the friendship, is much more important to Finland than Estonia.
Also, while Lucas correctly notes that "the government is privately more hawkish" than Halonen, the article could have done with an explanation of why it's not a good idea for the government to confront her. Namely, the President of Finland still has enough powers left in the field of foreign policy that Halonen would win the confrontation. It's not a matter of deference; it's the constitution.