For decades, Finland survived as an unoccupied and independent democracy in the shadow of the Soviet Union, after ceding great influence over its politics to the Kremlin and maintaining a delicate neutrality during the Cold War.
That model — known in diplomatic circles as Finlandization — is being invoked today as a possible solution to the Ukraine impasse, an idea that would effectively neutralize its sovereignty and possibly give Russia a new sphere of influence for another era.
But for the Finns, and even more so for the Ukrainians, it is not an idea to throw lightly on the negotiating table, as it recalls the kind of Old World imperialist politics that once reduced the continent’s smaller countries to pawns in a game over which they had no control.
If you ask Finns in Helsinki’s snow-covered squares, icy harbors, Nordic-design cafes and modern libraries what they think of Finnishization, the older generation may look at you with suspicion and the younger generation with indifference. about an idea that for many belongs to the past.
“For Finns this has a negative tone,” says Mika Aaltola, director of the Finnish Institute of International Relations. “It has to do with a very difficult period in history.”
While politics helped the country on the edge of the Arctic avoid the fate of occupied Central and Eastern European countries as parts of the Soviet bloc, Finland’s independence came at the cost of swallowing no small amount of self-censorship and foreign control.
That changed substantially after the Cold War more than 30 years ago, making Finnishization an old-fashioned term that no longer applies to the country that gave it its name — where it is even considered something of an insult.
Finland is now a member of the European Union, uses the euro and treats the United States and Europe on equal terms. It is praised for its lack of corruption and generous welfare state, and is deeply Western, maintaining strong partnerships with NATO, although it is not affiliated.
Russia’s threat to Ukraine has only encouraged Finns to discuss more openly whether NATO makes sense, and the once-overwhelming opposition is wearing thin. But they are also clearly aware that they have a delicate relationship to manage with Russia, and they are careful not to provoke President Vladimir Putin unnecessarily.
But this is still a far cry from the conditions imposed on the country during the Cold War. The model surfaced again when French President Emmanuel Macron was asked by a reporter during his trip to Moscow for diplomatic talks whether Finlandization was a possibility for Ukraine. He replied, “Yes, it’s one of the options on the table.”
He later tried to go back, but the seed was planted in the imagination of some Ukrainian observers, even as the Finns themselves refuted it.
It remains a difficult thing to discuss, according to Elena Gorschkow, 45, a union director. As she spoke, all around her were signs of the influence of Russia, which ruled Finland from 1809 to 1917. She looked at a huge statue of Tsar Alexander II, who emancipated Russia’s serfs, and at the government building and cathedral. of Helsinki, built in the style of Saint Petersburg. On the garbage cans, yellow signs read “Beware of Russia,” showing Putin’s face in place of a skull over crossbones.
The daughter of a Russian father and a Finnish mother, Gorschkow said she grew up with Finns suspicious of her Russian name, and that her mother still refuses to talk about politics towards Russia.
At the Oodi Central Library in Helsinki, Matti Hjerppe, 69, says the return of the word Finnishization makes her laugh. “It keeps coming back. The same thing always happens,” he says, referring to Russia’s push to extend its influence to lands along its borders.
In fact, the term, originally coined in the 1960s by the Germans (“Finnlandisierung”), last resurfaced in 2014, during Russia’s invasion of Crimea, when old participants in the Cold War proposed it as a possible solution. (“They should adopt a position comparable to that of Finland,” wrote Henry Kissinger in the Washington Post, while Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that “the Finnish model is ideal for Ukraine.”)
But Finns said the model rewarded politicians who played Russia’s game, ostracized those who refused Moscow’s influence and introduced a crop of “Soviet” secret agents into the country who worked closely with the Finnish elite.
Aaltola doesn’t think Finlandization would be good for Ukraine or Finland, and while he said the period is firmly inscribed in the country’s history, redeploying it elsewhere on the Russian border could only hasten its return. “The Finns understand that what happens in Ukraine does not stay in Ukraine.”
The danger of conciliating Putin appears frequently in Finland, and in fact its inhabitants claim that their independence and immunity from a new round of Finlandization stems from Putin’s respect for his traditional military prowess and willingness to take up arms.
The Soviets tried to crush their smaller neighbor in 1939, but a small force held back the Red Army for months. Josef Stalin ended up winning the so-called Winter War and took 11% of Finnish territory, but the Soviets never occupied the country, which preserved its independence.
Unlike Sweden, which is almost unarmed, Finland remains well-equipped militarily, having recently ordered 64 F-35 fighter jets from the US. The country has an army of 180,000 and a powerful national determination to defend itself.
Any suggestion of finlandization remains taboo. On Tuesday, the chairman of the Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mika Nikko, said he would resign after suggesting what critics said sounded a lot like the policy of Finnishization in Ukraine. He wrote on Twitter that Macron or someone else should publicly declare that “Ukraine will not join NATO”.
In 2014, the environment minister resigned after he was attacked for insulting Finland by referring to the government’s decision to approve a Russian-built nuclear reactor as playing Moscow’s game and a retreat from Finlandization.
