My Take | Putin’s aggression helps kill ‘Finlandisation’
- Long a byword for a small state to placate a more powerful neighbour and hated by the Finns themselves, the term as a legacy of the Cold War is to be buried as Finland plans to apply for Nato membership against Russian threats
Even the Finns don’t want to be “Finlandised” any more. You know the international system is undergoing seismic changes when a common political term suddenly loses its meaning. Thomas Kuhn, the science historian, calls it a “paradigm shift”.
Since the end of World War II, Finlandisation has come to mean placating a bigger and more powerful neighbour for a smaller and weaker country. It has the connotation of not just neutrality, but bending over backwards to avoid offending the big bad boss next door so he would leave you alone or at least not take over your home.
Understandably, the Finns have always hated the term. But it has also been used to describe the skilful ways in which generations of Finnish leaders, especially during the presidency of Urho Kekkonen (1956-1982), had managed to preserve their country’s sovereignty, system of government and way of life against constant threats and pressure from the Soviet/Russian bear.
But by signalling its readiness to join Nato in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Finns are finally laying to rest the much-hated term. It will be, however, to the lament of pundits and commentators everywhere for losing a highly useful word that implies knowledge and the analytical ability to draw historical and political comparisons.
I did a Google search. Many countries have had the term applied to them, at one time or another. During the height of Greece’s financial crisis in 2010, Greek critics had accused Turkey and Nato of trying to Finlandise their country. More recently, Indian commentators have warned New Delhi not to be Finlandised by China.
Likewise, it’s the favourite term of influential political writer Robert Kaplan. His 2014 book, Asia’s Cauldron, mentions Finlandisation six times in fewer than 200 pages of text, according to its index.
“China’s geographical centrality,” he wrote, “its economic heft, and its burgeoning air and naval forces would translate into some measure of Finlandisation for Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore in the event of large-scale US defence cuts.”