The ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia has reignited discussions on conflict resolution strategies that balance sovereignty, security, and regional stability. This policy paper examines the Finnish model of neutrality—commonly referred to as “Finlandisation”—as a potential framework for Ukraine.
By comparing this approach to alternative historical models, including the East-West German division, the North-South Korean armistice, and the unresolved Russia-Japan territorial dispute, the study highlights the relative merits and limitations of each. While other models risk entrenching division or prolonging instability, the Finnish model offers a pragmatic middle ground, emphasising political autonomy, economic resilience, and diplomatic accommodation without full alignment with military alliances. However, applying this model to Ukraine requires adaptation to contemporary geopolitical realities, particularly in light of Ukraine’s aspirations for Euro-Atlantic integration, ongoing hostilities, and the shifting global security environment.
The author argues that a phased approach to neutrality, coupled with strong defence capabilities and international guarantees, could provide a pathway to de-escalation while preserving Ukraine’s long-term strategic flexibility. Ultimately, while no single historical model fully aligns with Ukraine’s unique circumstances, selective adoption of Finland’s strategic balancing may offer the most viable route towards a sustainable and just resolution to the conflict.
Download the Report
