Comments attributed to Emmanuel Macron judging that she is doing “part of the models that are on the table” also caused a lot of ink to flow, even if the French president denied having used the term. Preserving its borders by granting its powerful neighbor the right to scrutinize strategic issues: the precedent has echoes in the current situation in Ukraine, but a similar solution risks being unacceptable for Kiev, which has set the objective of adherence to NATO in its Constitution.
After a first war (1939-1940) caused by the invasion of the Soviet Union, then a second from June 1941 when Finland fought the Red Army alongside Nazi Germany, Finland and the USSR signed an armistice in 1944, then a peace agreement in Paris in 1947.
In the new context of the Cold War and the Iron Curtain, a “friendship treaty” was signed the following year between Moscow and Helsinki. Under this agreement, Finnish leaders agree to stay out of Western military cooperation, including the newly created NATO.
Authoritarian policies aimed at suppressing anti-Soviet sentiment in Finnish political and cultural spheres are implemented, especially in the media. Moscow exercises control over Finland’s foreign and military policy, preventing for example mutual protection agreements of the former Russian province (1809-1917) with Sweden and Norway.
insulting word
The policy staved off any Soviet invasion and tipping the country into the Eastern bloc, and many agree that Finland’s rulers had little choice. But Finland’s stab at independence is seen by many in the Nordic country today as a shameful time. “In Finland, when you say someone has been ‘Finlandized’, it’s almost an insult, saying you lean more towards Russia than the West”, underlines the former Prime Minister of Finland Alexander Stubb. Many political and media figures of the period are now being criticized for having abused self-censorship so as not to displease the Kremlin.
After the fall of the USSR in 1991, Finland abandoned its neutrality to clearly join the Western camp, joining the European Union in 1995 and then becoming a partner – but not a member – of NATO.
“We were a small country stuck between a rock and a hard place”emphasizes Professor Teivo Teivainen of the University of Helsinki. “A lot of people accept that finlandisation has been part of our history”he judges. “But to talk about it today, whether it’s Finland or Ukraine, is an offense” for many, explains the expert.
“New Situations”
The idea that a “Finlandization” of Ukraine could resolve tensions with Russia or even the conflict that has lasted since the annexation of Crimea in 2014 is arousing strong reactions on the eastern shore of the Baltic. For former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, “Finland would not have been considered [comme] a democracy” during the period of finlandization. “It was not a pretty sight”he pointed out, referring in particular to the case of Urho Kekkonen, a powerful president for 26 years and whose mandate had been extended by a simple parliamentary decision.
“Old words for new situations rarely work”, Mr. Stubb got carried away on Twitter, saying later that he did not believe that Emmanuel Macron could have used him. The former head of Finland’s diplomacy, who had been involved in the mediations for the ceasefire between Russia and Georgia in 2008, firmly rejects the idea that Finnishization could represent a way out of the impasse on the Ukrainian file. “No major power, Russia or anyone else, should decide the line Ukraine wants to take with regard to its own security.”