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.” In another passage, he wrote in the same vein: “The real danger for Taiwan … was Finlandisation by China.” Actually, I think the real danger is de jure independence, which will immediately start a cross-strait war, but that’s just me. In fact, his whole short book can be summarised in a sentence or two: every Southeast Asian country must avoid Finlandisation by China, by relying on the United States, and the US must make sure they do so by keeping up military spending and dominance in the region. Finland ‘highly likely’ to apply to join Nato, says minister For Kaplan and his like-minded critics, it’s always better to rely on America’s military might for your security. But wouldn’t that mean being Finlandised by the US? Granted, that term is almost never applied to the US, perhaps because its power is global and hegemonic, so it’s not geographically next door to most countries over which it exerts dominance or at least undue influence. On the other hand, they can always be sure there is one US military base or more in their neighbourhoods. But the most recent controversy about the term concerned French President Emmanuel Macron during his failed diplomacy to avert a war between Russia and Ukraine. He reportedly proposed Finlandisation for Ukraine. He has denied using the term, but his idea amounts to the same thing, such as for Ukraine to promise not to join Nato, along with other security guarantees for Russia. The Finns, however, are ready to bury the hated term once and for all. Public opinion on joining Nato has shifted quickly since the start of the year. In late January, polls showed only three in 10 Finns wanted to join. After months of Russian military build-up, on the eve of the invasion, the figure jumped to 53 per cent. By mid-March, it was 62 per cent. In January, Prime Minister Sanna Marin said Finland was unlikely to apply for Nato membership before her term ended next year. This month, Marin and President Sauli Niinisto disclosed the government was ready to apply. There is now a majority support for the move within the Finnish parliament. Russia has threatened nuclear deployments if Finland and Sweden join Nato. Only time will tell whether jettisoning Finlandisation is wise, brave or foolhardy – standing up to a bully or starting a third world war.