On January 24, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko became the first head of state to visit Finland in its independence anniversary year, as stated by President of Finland Sauli Niinisto at a joint press conference at the presidential palace. In addition, he said that Finland supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine and condemned the annexation of Crimea. Niinisto expressed the view that the US would not loosen the anti-Russian sanctions. He also stressed: “As an EU member Finland respects the EU decisions that we have also been involved in making.”
For his part, Poroshenko said that Finland understood Ukraine against which Russia was waging hybrid warfare. The Ukrainian president also expressed his country’s expectation that Finland would take a principled stance regarding the Nord Stream II project.
It should be noted that the concrete result of the presidential visit was the signing of a memorandum of cooperation in the fields of energy efficiency, renewable energy (also known as “green energy”), and alternative fuels. The document was signed by Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine Hennadii Zubko and Minister for Foreign Trade and Development of Finland Kai Mykkanen.
“THE CONCEPT OF FINLANDIZATION IS UNPOPULAR HERE”
Arkadii MOSHES, Program Director for EU’s Eastern Neighborhood and Russia Research Program at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki:
“This visit is quite important. One should not overestimate its role in the Ukrainian leadership’s international activities. Still, anything happening for the first time in more than a decade certainly deserves its rightful share of attention.
“In this way, Finland, firstly, shows solidarity with Ukraine and its foreign policy positions. Given inner workings of the Finnish political system, it was not necessarily an easy choice for Finland. This is because when choosing between Russia and Ukraine, quite a few members of the political class and elites instinctively desire to tread very carefully so as to avoid needlessly irritating Russia. This is a demonstration of solidarity at a high enough level and it has a meaning in itself.
“And, secondly, it is a demonstration of Finland’s commitment to the cause of reform in Ukraine. Because, of course, the Ukrainian leader will conduct talks during his meetings in Helsinki focusing on how Finnish experts and representatives may participate in offering expert assistance and financial support to the reform process.
“Also, the signed memorandum of cooperation in the fields of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and alternative fuels came precisely because Finland has the technical expertise and experience in dealing with such seemingly minor but, nevertheless, quite important issues.
“The abovementioned agreement is just a confirmation that people are looking for and identifying the niches in which a small country like Finland can be useful for Ukraine in addressing specific issues.
“Keep in mind also that Finland, despite the ongoing debate in the country, is in the camp of solid supporters of the EU’s official position that the Minsk Agreements must be implemented, and only after that the sanctions against Russia should be lifted. This is another reason which has made possible the Ukrainian leader’s visit to Helsinki.”
Some experts believe that the visit of the president of Ukraine to Estonia and then straight away to Finland opens the door to establishing the Black Sea-Baltic cooperation. Can we expect that Finland will join such a belt?
“It is unlikely that such things can be directly linked and positioned. The fact that the visit’s destinations included Estonia and Finland is a positive thing. It sends the message that Ukraine is dealing not only with the Baltic countries. Although Finland’s position differs from that of the Baltic countries, we still see a demonstration of solidarity with Ukraine. However, the ideas of the Baltic-Black Sea area or Intermarium are unpopular here.”
Is the public support for Finland’s membership in NATO growing in response to the growing aggressiveness of Russia?
“There is no real movement in the discussion on Finland’s NATO membership. The discussion is going on, the parties somehow indicate their positions, but no serious or significant changes are happening in public opinion. Less than a quarter of Finns favor membership in the alliance, slightly more than half are against it, and the public has been set in these positions for a very long time. The elites are now on the contrary, rather concerned about the potential response from Russia. Therefore, in terms of practical politics, this issue is not on the agenda, and the old formula of keeping all options open still applies. Finland seeks to maintain its security in other ways.”
What do people in your country think about Henry Kissinger’s idea to Finlandize Ukraine to resolve the conflict with Russia?
“One can find adepts of this point of view in this country. However, the concept of Finlandization is unpopular here. It was a period of history which evokes different attitudes, but everyone understands that it was a forced choice which was accepted in very difficult historical conditions. And as soon as the conditions had changed, Finland abandoned that choice.”
