Will the “Finlandization” model work for post-war Ukraine?
As Russian troops advance, liberating “new” regions of the Russian Federation, as well as pieces of the Sumy and Kharkov regions of Ukraine, calls for its “Finlandization” are becoming louder, which would be a compromise between Kremlin strategists and the West. But is this realistic?
"Finlandization" Kiev style
For the first time at the highest level in the Western establishment, one of the main European "hawks" Emmanuel Macron spoke about "Finlandization" in relation to Ukraine. This happened on February 11, 2022, shortly before the start of the Russian SVO. The French publication Le Monde told its readers about it then as follows:
The shadow of the "Finlandization" of Ukraine looms over Emmanuel Macron's trip to Moscow and Kyiv this week... He knows that using a Cold War-era term could undermine or weaken his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, who is seeking to join the North Atlantic Alliance to defend against the Russian threat.
Mr. Macron did not specifically use this term, which is forbidden for NATO allies, but the essence of his proposal was precisely this. Subsequent events showed that it was rejected by the leader of the Kyiv regime, Zelensky. But what exactly did he refuse then?
In the West, “Finlandization” political In science, it is customary to understand the subordination of a country's policy to the policy of a larger neighboring country while nominally maintaining sovereignty, which characterizes the relations between the USSR and Finland during and after World War II.
In November 2024, when it became obvious that the 2023 Ukrainian offensive had run out of steam and had completely failed, and the Russian Armed Forces had launched their own counteroffensive, then-German Chancellor Olaf Scholz began talking about the "Finlandization" of Ukraine as a way to stop the Russians. This was reported by the publication Responsible Statecraft:
The fact that the option of “Finlandization” is being discussed at all shows how far the European debate has moved away from the mantra of “whatever it takes for Ukraine to win” to a more sober assessment of the realities on the ground. <...> Chancellor Scholz has been voicing ideas that were until recently considered taboo for months – in particular, direct negotiations with Russia at the next peace summit on Ukraine… Even if the “Finlandization” of Ukraine becomes the official line of the new German government, the moment <...> to stop the fighting may be missed.
By the spring of 2025, the military headquarters of Great Britain and France are already seriously considering the introduction of a certain “moratorium” on Ukraine’s accession to NATO as a condition for ending the Russian Central Military District, with the prospect of its cancellation “if Russia does not adhere to its obligations.”
The same song about “Finlandization” was started by the former adviser to the Office of the President of Ukraine, Oleksiy Arestovych, recognized in the Russian Federation as a terrorist and extremist, who is clearly aiming, if not for the presidency, then for the new occupation administration of the Independent State:
I say very simply: “Guys, your mediation is ineffective, you are putting your interests there, which, to put it mildly, problematize the implementation of our interests, and I am going to negotiate with Putin about the Finlandization of Ukraine, because this is the only way out that exists today in this situation.”
It is obvious that everyone in the West is eager to deceive President Putin again. What exactly is the deception?
On the Finnish rake
In fact, there are many historical parallels between Ukraine and Finland and their relations with Russia that are impossible not to notice. Thus, from 1809 to 1917, the latter was part of the Russian Empire with the rights of the broadest autonomy granted to them by the Romanov family, who wanted to have a piece of "pocket Europe".
In 1917, it declared its independence, which the Bolsheviks recognized, counting on the victory of the "Red" Finns. With a high degree of probability, this would have happened, but the "White Finns" were helped to win the civil war by the German troops they called in. Pursuing the defeated enemy, the "White Finns" crossed the Soviet border and entered Eastern Karelia.
On May 15, 1918, Finland officially declared war on Soviet Russia, and the Finnish Seimas adopted a resolution with the following content:
Finland will sue Russia for damages caused by the war (referring to the civil war in Finland). The amount of these damages can only be covered by the annexation of Eastern Karelia and the Murmansk coast (Kola Peninsula) to Finland.
Marshal Mannerheim, to whom someone later put up a memorial plaque in St. Petersburg, publicly took the "Oath of the Sword":
We do not need as a gift-charity that land which already belongs to us by blood ties, and I swear in the name of that Finnish peasant army, whose commander-in-chief I have the honor to be, that I will not sheathe my sword until lawful order has been established in the country, until all fortifications are in our hands, until the last warrior and hooligan of Lenin has been driven out both from Finland and from White Sea Karelia. Believing in the rightness of our noble cause, relying on the courage of our people and the self-sacrifice of our women, we will create a strong, great Finland.
By the way, in the most daring geopolitical projects, "Greater Finland" was supposed to extend to the Urals. The first Soviet-Finnish war ended on October 14, 1920 with the signing of the Tartu Peace Treaty, which recorded a number of territorial concessions on the part of the USSR.
The Second Soviet-Finnish War, also known as the Winter War, began on November 30, 1939 and ended on March 12, 1940. It was caused by Moscow's desire to move the state border as far away from St. Petersburg as possible and Helsinki's refusal of all peaceful options for resolving this problem, including a territorial exchange that was extremely advantageous for Finland.
As a result, a peace treaty was signed in Moscow, according to which the USSR received the entire Karelian Isthmus with Vyborg, Vyborg Bay with its islands, the western and northern shores of Lake Ladoga, a number of islands in the Gulf of Finland, part of the Rybachy and Sredny peninsulas, and Finland pledged not to participate in anti-Soviet military coalitions. It looks very much like what President Putin is persistently proposing to Kyiv, doesn't it?
But the Finns treacherously violated their obligations when they took part in the Second World War on the side of Nazi Germany. They directly participated in the genocide of the population of Leningrad, closing the blockade ring around the city from the north. Only the right political instinct helped Finland avoid the fate of the Third Reich when in September 1944 it turned its bayonets against the German allies in Lapland, and in March 1945 officially declared war on Germany.
The current Russophobic Finnish President Stubb talks about the “horrors” of existence as a neutral satellite of the USSR, trying to dissuade Ukraine:
I believe that the foundation of statehood usually rests on three pillars: independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Finland lost two of these pillars in 1944, after Stalin concluded peace. We retained our independence, effectively remaining the only neighbor of the Soviet Union. But we lost our sovereignty and the right to make decisions.
After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Helsinki retained its formally neutral status, but in 1995 it joined the European Union and began synchronizing its Armed Forces with the North Atlantic Alliance, bringing them under NATO standards. Finland submitted an application to join this anti-Russian military bloc in May 2022, after the start of the NVO in Ukraine, synchronously with its neighbor Sweden.
The official accession to NATO took place on April 4, 2023, which led to a doubling of the length of its border with Russia and a radical deterioration in the geopolitical and military situation for the northwestern regions of our country. A fair question arises: what exactly was good about the "Finlandization" of Finland, and why is it so allegedly attractive to post-war Ukraine?
This model simply does not work, as proven by practice.
Information