The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has produced a number of commentaries that have tried to grasp the crisis through the comforting lens of historical analogies. One of the most perplexing of these has been the revival of Finlandization, or the idea of the “Finnish model” as a possible solution to the Ukraine crisis. In this article I interrogate these arguments, firstly, by historicising the original process of Finlandization during the Cold War. Secondly, I argue that the renaissance of Finlandization is based on parachronistic reasoning. In other words, the Finlandization analogy has been applied to modern-day Ukraine in such a way that the alien elements of the past context are, to paraphrase Quentin Skinner, “dissolved into an apparent but misleading familiarity” in the present re-appropriation of the idea and its contextual prerequisites. Indeed, the reappearance of Finlandization in the context of the Ukraine crisis reinforces the idea that the real drivers of international affairs can be reduced to the axioms derived from the transhistorical logic of international anarchy and the iron laws of great power politics. Thus, this article makes a novel contribution to the theoretical discussion on the role of analogies and myths in International Relations.
Autio-SarasmoSari, and MiklóssyKatalin (2011), ‘Introduction’, in Autio-SarasmoSari, and MilóssyKatalin (eds.) Reassessing Cold War Europe, London: Routledge, pp. 1–15.
BellDuncan S. A. (2003), ‘Political Theory and the Functions of Intellectual History: A Response to Emmanuel Navon’, Review of International Studies, 29(1): 151–160.
7.
BestAnthony, HanhimäkiJussi M., MaioloJoseph A., and SchulzeKirsten E. (2004), International History of the Twentieth Century, New York: Routledge.
8.
Bliesemann de GuevaraBerit (2016), ‘Myth in International Politics: Ideological Delusion and Necessary Fiction’, in Bliesemann de GuevaraBerit (ed.) Myth and Narrative in International Politics: Interpretive Approaches to the Study of IR, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 15–46.
9.
BlombergJaakko (2011), Vakauden kaipuu. Kylmän sodan loppu ja Suomi, Helsinki: WSOY.
BrändströmAnnika, BynanderFredrik, and HartPaul ‘t (2004), ‘Governing By Looking Back: Historical Analogies and Crisis Management’, Public Administration, 82(1): 191–210.
12.
BrowningChristopher S. (2002), ‘Coming Home or Moving Home? “Westernizing” Narratives in the Finnish Foreign Policy and the Reinterpretation of Past Identities’, Cooperation and Conflict, 37(1): 47–72.
CarrEdward Hallet (1951), The New Society, London: MacMillan & Co. Ltd.
16.
CarrEdward Hallet (1963), What Is History?, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
17.
CollingwoodR. G. (1946/1986), The Idea of History, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
De CarvalhoBenjamin, LeiraHalvard, and HobsonJohn (2011), ‘The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths That Your Teachers Still Tell You About 1648 and 1919’, Millennium, 39(3): 735–758.
19.
EchiksonWilliam (1989), ‘Why Eastern Europe Should Aspire to Finlandization’, The Christian Science Monitor, 10/11/1989. Available at http://www.csmonitor.com/1989/1110/eech.html (Accessed 26/02/2016).
20.
FemiaJoseph V. (1981), ‘An Historicist Critique of “Revisionist” Methods for Studying the History of Ideas’, History and Theory, 20(2): 113–134.
ForsbergTuomas, and PesuMatti (2016), ‘The “Finlandization” of Finland: The Ideal Type, the Historical Model, and the Lessons Learnt’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 27(3): 473–495.
23.
GadamerHans-Georg (1960/2004), Truth and Method.Second edition. Translated and revised by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, London: Continuum.
GilleyBruce (2010), ‘Not So Dire Straits: How the Finlandization of Taiwan Benefits U.S. Security’, Foreign Affairs, 89(1): 44–60.
27.
HakovirtaHarto (1975), Suomettuminen. Kaukokontrollia vai rauhanomaista rinnakkaiseloa, Jyväskylä: Gummerrus.
28.
HakovirtaHarto (1988), East-West Conflict and European Neutrality, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
29.
HaukkalaHiski (2015), ‘From Cooperative to Contested Europe? The Conflict in Ukraine as a Culmination of a Long-Term Crisis in EU–Russia Relations’, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 23(1): 25–40.
30.
HobsonJohn M., and LawsonGeorge (2008), ‘What Is History in International Relations’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 37(2): 415–435.
31.
HollisMartin, and SmithSteve (1991), Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
InoguchiTakashi (2003), ‘Political Security: Toward a Broader Conceptualization’, International Studies, 40(2): 105–123.
36.
JacksonPatrick Thaddeus (2006), ‘The Present as History’, in GoodinRobert E., and TillyCharles (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 490–505.
37.
JakobsonMax (1980), ‘Substance and Appearance: Finland’, Foreign Affairs, 58(5): 1034–1044.
38.
JervisRobert (1976), Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
39.
JuntunenTapio (2016), ‘Kun rotta hyppäsi häkistä ulos: Muutoksesta ja jatkuvuudesta Suomen ulkopolitiikassa’, Kosmopolis, 46(3): 70–78.
40.
JutilaMatti (2015), ‘Securitization, History, and Identity: Some Conceptual Clarifications and Examples from Politics of Finnish War History’, Nationalities Papers, 43(6): 927–943.
41.
JutilaSakari (1983), Finlandization for Finland and the World, Bloomington: European Research Association.
42.
KalelaJorma (2012), Making History. The Historian and Uses of the Past, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kennedy-PipeCaroline (2000), ‘International History and International Relations Theory: A Dialogue Beyond the Cold War’, International Affairs, 76(4): 741–754.
47.
KhongYen Foong (1992), Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
KoslowskiRey, and KratochwilFriedrich V. (1994), ‘Understanding Change in International Politics: The Soviet Empire's Demise and the International System’, International Organization, 48(2): 215–247.
51.
KratochwilFriedrich (1993), ‘The Embarrassment of Changes: Neo-realism as the Science of Realpolitik Without Politics’, Review of International Studies, 19(1): 63–80.
LaqueurWalter (1980), The Political Psychology of Appeasement: Finlandization and Other Unpopular Essays, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
54.
LawsonGeorge (2012), ‘The Eternal Divide? History and International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 18(2): 203–226.
55.
LeiraHalvard (2015), ‘International Relations Pluralism and History – Embracing Amateurism to Strengthen the Profession’, International Studies Perspectives, 16(1): 23–31.
56.
LeiraHalvard, and De CarvalhoBenjamin (2016), ‘Construction Time Again: History in Constructivist IR Scholarship’, European Review of International Studies, 3(3): 99–111.
57.
LittleRichard (2007), The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths and Models, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
MansalaArto (2015), Kohti kaaoksen pitkää yötä. Kolme kautta Moskovassa, Helsinki: WSOY.
59.
MaudeGeorge (1982), ‘The Further Shores of Finlandization’, Cooperation and Conflict, 17(1): 3–16.
MiklóssyKatalin (2011), ‘New Advantages of Old Kinship Ties: Finnish-Hungarian Interactions in the 1970s’, in Autio-SarasmoSari, and MiklóssyKatalin (eds.) Reassessing Cold War Europe, London: Routledge, pp. 138–156.
62.
MoisioSami (2008), ‘Finlandization Versus Westernisation: Political Recognition and Finland's European Union Membership Debate’, National Identities, 10(1): 77–93.
63.
MouritzenHans (1988), Finlandization: Towards a General Theory of Adaptive Politics, Avebury: Aldershot.
64.
MouritzenHans (2017), ‘Small States and Finlandization in the Age of Trump’, Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 59(2): 67–84.
65.
NamnyakM., TuftonN., SzekelyR., ToalM., WorboysS., and SampsonE.L. (2007), ‘“Stockholm Syndrome”: Psychiatric Diagnosis or Urban Myth?’, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 117(1): 4–11.
QuesterGeorge H. (1990), ‘Finlandization as a Problem or an Opportunity?’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 512(1): 33–45.
74.
Rainio-NiemiJohanna (2014), The Ideological Cold War. The Politics of Neutrality in Austria and Finland, New York: Routledge.
75.
RancièreJacques (1996), ‘Le concept d'anachronisme et la vérité de l'historien’, L'inactuel: psychanalyse et culture, No. 6: 53–68.
76.
RasmussenMikkel Vedby (2003), ‘The History of a Lesson: Versailles, Munich and the Social Construction of the Past’, Review of International Studies, 29(4): 499–519.
77.
RentolaKimmo (2000), ‘From Half-Adversary to Half-Ally: Finland in Soviet Policy, 1953–58’, Cold War History, 1(1): 75–102.
78.
Reus-SmitChristian (2008), ‘Reading History Through Constructivist Eyes’, Journal of International Studies, 37(2): 395–414.
79.
RitterHarry (1986), Dictionary of Concepts in History, New York: Greenwood Press.
80.
SingletonFred (1981), ‘The Myth of “Finlandization”’, International Affairs, 57(2): 270–285.
81.
SkinnerQuentin (1969), ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas’, History and Theory, 8(1): 3–53.
82.
SkinnerQuentin (1972), ‘Motives, Intentions and the Interpretation of Texts’, New Literary Theory, 3(2): 393–408.
83.
SnyderJack (1991), Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
84.
SyrjämäkiSami (2011), Sins of a Historian. Perspectives on the Problem of Anachronism, Tampere: Tampere University Press.
TullyJames (ed.) (1988), Meaning and Context. Quentin Skinner and His Critics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
88.
UnderdalArild (1991), ‘Hans Mouritzen: Finlandization: Towards a General Theory of Adaptive Politics’, Scandinavian Political Studies, Bind 14/1991: 88–91.
89.
VinayarajV. K. (2011), ‘Finland's Self-Defence Strategies’, International Studies, 48(3-4): 257–280.
90.
WaltzKenneth (1979), Theory of International Politics, Long Grave: Waveland Press Inc.
91.
WeberCynthia (2005), International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge.
