Finlandization
CrowdSource 2.17.2025
Welcome to CrowdSource, your weekly guided tour of the latest intellectual disputes, ideological disagreements, and national debates that piqued our interest (or inflamed our passions). This week: an old idea for a new crisis.
Join us! CrowdSource features the best comments from The Crowd — our cherished readers and subscribers who, with their comments and emails, help make Wisdom of Crowds what it is.
Ukraine Alone?
Peace talks pending, in the wake of the Munich Security Conference, it seems clear that Ukraine will not be joining NATO any time soon. Whatever happens, it faces a complicated postwar future.
“Most Likely Scenario.”
writes: “The most likely scenario is some form of Finlandization.”What’s Old is New Again. Since the Russia-Ukraine conflict began in 2014, “Finlandization,” a Cold War concept, has enjoyed renewed currency among foreign policy analysts anticipating how the conflict might end.
The Meaning of “Finlandization”
What does the word mean?
Neutrality for the Sake of Stability. Finnish scholar Tapio Juntunen defines “Finlandization” as “a voluntary foreign policy strategy … that aims to reassure a more powerful state, usually a neighbor, either through bilateral politics or other means such as reinforcing regional stability through a neutralist foreign policy posture.”
History of the Concept. From an essential 1977 article by Walter Z. Laqueur: “[Finlandization] was allegedly first described in 1953 by the Austrian Foreign Minister Karl Gruber, warning his government not to follow the Finnish example. He did not, however, actually coin the term. Professor Richard Lowenthal said in a 1974 interview with Time magazine that he may have been the first to use the term sometime in 1966, when the Warsaw Pact countries, at their meeting in Bucharest, suggested the dissolution of all military blocs.”
“The Finnish Example.” Finnish foreign policy analyst explains it: “Finland successfully defended its sovereignty during World War II and was not forced to become a Soviet republic. However, this was followed by the 1948 Friendship Treaty between Finland and the USSR … For more than four decades, Finlandization served as a survival strategy for Finnish independence. In practice, this meant voluntarily taking the interests of the neighboring Soviet Union into account, both in terms of foreign and domestic policy.”
The Costs of Finlandization. The USSR had partial, indirect control over Finnish politics. Laqueur elaborates: “[In 1977], Finland [was] … a neutral country, but not vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, toward which it has special obligations. It must not oppose any major Soviet foreign-policy initiative or enter into any commitments without Soviet approval, and it is expected to give active support to some aspects of Soviet foreign policy.”
Restrictions and Compromises. also discusses the costs: “… Finlandization meant a series of restrictions and compromises on core democratic standards. Self-censorship was imposed throughout the Finnish media … Finns also accepted more than two decades without any changes in the country’s leadership …”
Finlandization and Ukraine
For several analysts, Finlandization is the only conceivable endgame to the Ukraine war. But they differ on whether Finlandization is compatible with democracy.
In 2014, after the outbreak of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, Henry Kissinger alluded to Finlandization in an op-ed: “[Ukraine] should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.”
Responding to Kissinger, then-Brookings Institute analyst Clifford Gaddy wrote: “Finlandization is a utopian goal for Ukraine. It … is not something the Russians would just give to Ukraine. The Ukrainians — not the West — would have to earn it. That would be a lengthy, painful process. Russia can and undoubtedly will punish Ukraine for a long time to come. We can’t protect Ukraine from most of what Putin can do. We don’t have the money, the will, or the patience. It’s a big mistake if we pretend we can. We’ll lose face, and the Ukrainian people will suffer for nothing.”
Weeks before the Russian invasion in February 2022, the New York Times reported that French President Emmanuel Macron appealed to Finlandization as a way to prevent war in Ukraine. But later, “standing alongside President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in Kyiv, Macron denied making the remark, which appeared to put him at odds with not only the Ukrainians but also the United States. But the idea is once again being discussed in diplomatic circles.”
Last November, Trump’s inauguration on the horizon, Finlandization was again discussed by European leaders.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz suggested that Ukraine should consider taking a “neutral” position, like Finland.
Finnish foreign minister Elina Valtonen dismissed the idea of a “Finlandized” Ukraine.
Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said: “Finland is a member of NATO and the EU. We support Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s aggression. This is the model the Ukrainians are fighting for.”
Also in November, foreign policy analyst Eldar Mamedov, wrote: “Sensing that the tide has turned in his favor, Russian President Vladimir Putin may be tempted to press for greater advantage … Tragically, ‘Finlandization,’ even if Ukraine and its Western backers … would agree to it, may no longer be enough to end the war.”
Last week, provided a more hopeful take on Finlandization for Ukraine: “If the Ukraine war ended like Finland’s wars, with territorial losses and promises not to join NATO, but with independence and democracy preserved, it will represent a tactical loss but a great strategic victory for Ukraine. It will all but ensure that Ukraine, like Finland after 1944, remains an independent nation into the foreseeable future.”
From the Crowd
This is certainly a take but it feels like a knee-jerk and unreflective defense of the status quo. I would encourage the author to make a noble attempt at understanding the rationale behind this flurry of executive orders. On the confusingly named USAID--which isn't an aid organization--I'd recommend any of the long interviews with Mike Benz. He did a good one on (*gasp*) Rogan a few months ago.
Might some people die when aid is cut? Yes. But this ignores the opportunity cost of this aid. IOW, there are good things we could do with federal money that we currently aren't because we're sending it elsewhere. You can't condemn cutting aid without considering the alternatives. "But what could be better than saving babies' lives?" Ask yourself the same question about the $6.7 trillion currently not being spent on saving babies' lives. This shows that you too accept that the US gov is not an international humanitarian organization. The question is just where to draw the line.
Correction. In last week’s CrowdSource, we wrote that believes that the courts’ motions against Trump and DOGE amount to a constitutional crisis. This was a poor reading on our part. Vermeule does not believe this, and he clarified his views in a new post: “Confusion about the Separation of Powers.”
Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!
Huh. I'd be curious to know the ramifications of Finlandization that took root from the outset but still are dug in today. Anyone aware of resources on that?
"with independence and democracy preserved"
What would preserve that?