‘…of all the nations on the continent of Europe involved in the Second World War, only Finland escaped an enemy occupation. Her social fabric remained intact and the continuity of her political institutions unbroken. In this fact, which is the key to understanding her present position as an independent nations, lies an achievement that transcends the conventional meaning of such terms as defeat or victory. For in the end Finland did not fight for Karelia or Petsamo. She did not fight for any abstract principles or ideals. She fought for national survival. When the fight was over, Finland was a nation crippled and exhausted. But Finland survived. This may seem a pitifully unheroic end to a story of much effort and sacrifice, suffering and blood. But for a small nation, in the iron times of the Second World War, survival was a rare triumph.’ 1. Introduction These are the words - bearing a deep meaning though simple as the verses of an ancient drama - that the Finnish historian and diplomat Max Jakobson wrote about half a century ago in order to assess the consequences of the Finnish resistance during the Winter War and the subsequent Continuation War. Since the end of the Continuation War, historians and political scientists addressed themselves to the issue of the reasons why Finland was only half-included in the Soviet sphere of influence. Drawing comparisons with the cases of Czechoslovakia, Poland or Hungary was one of the tools used by specialists in social studies in order to come up with answers. There have not been so far any attempts to comparatively analyze the positions of Finland and Romania, the only states of in-between Europe that, between 1941 and 1944, effectively fought a war with the Soviet Union being able at the same time to preserve a certain degree of independence vis-à-vis the great competitors of the Second World War. Therefore, this approach envisages drawing a comparison between the Romanian and Finnish ‘cases’. This comparative study also aims at defining my view on the usage and meaning of the terms communization and finlandization. It must be pointed out, from the very beginning, that the fundamental and obvious difference between the situations of Romania and Finland by the end of Second World War seemed to have been the presence of the Red Army in Romania. By her staunch military resistance, Finland was able to lock its door against the penetration of the Soviet Army. The unity displayed by the Finnish nation, made possible by the preservation of the democratic institutions of the country, was remarkable. No major political splitting within the Finnish nation registered during the war.

My 2010 PhD thesis for Manchester Metropolitan University on Finnish post-Cold War security policy; particularly considering the impact of European Integration on Finland's security politics.

Relations between European Neutrals and the Kremlin were not among the priorities of France’s foreign policy during the Cold War. Nevertheless, French interest for Switzerland, Finland and, to a lesser extent, Sweden and Austria remained constant and was determined by an attempt not to sacrifice national identities for “the policy of the blocs”. This structural position explains to a great extent Paris’s use of neutrality: even though France’s support to the Neutrals was undeniably sincere, it mainly appeared as a way to underline French foreign policy, especially towards disarmament, European integration and relations with the USSR. In Paris, thinking about the relations between the Neutrals and Moscow meant reflecting on the Franco-Soviet links. That was not unequivocal, far from it. Thus, the French strongly supported the Neutrals, as long as this did not harm the basis of French power; in the same way, France often professed its interest for neutrality but was opposed to its expansion in Europe.

Volume 2 of the bicentennial history of the Bank of Finland, covering the period from the outbreak of WW2 to the establishment of the euro area.

This study looked at the values expressed in rulers’ (Czars and Presidents) public speeches in Finland from 1809-2000. During this time Finland underwent a transformation from a small, rural, backward, peripheral province into one of the forefront Western democracies in terms of transparent democratic practices, citizens’ welfare, education, and living standards. Rulers never reign in a vacuum, whether they are democratically elected presidents or hereditary emperors. Their rule is subject to cultural expectations, which is linked to the place and time of their reign. Culture, i.e. the shared beliefs and assumptions uniting both rulers and the people they reign over, influences the perceptions of what kind of reigning is recognized as just and suitable. At the core of culture are its values, the abstract goals according to which the society tries to live, concepts of what is good and worthy to be pursued. Society’s values are manifested and upheld through rituals and ceremonies, such as recurring public speeches. These speeches are most often held by the heads of state, acting as gatekeepers and spokesmen for the entire society. Three types of written collections of speeches directed to the entire population were used: Parliament Opening Speeches (1809-2000), Prayer Day Declarations (1812-1999) and New Year’s Speeches (1935-2000). The texts were analyzed using qualitative theory-driven content analysis. For the analysis a coding manual was created, which was based on Schwartz’ Theory of Basic Human Values and on previous Finnish value research. Overall changes of values in the data follow the predicted pattern of societal pluralization, but not secularization. The findings confirm the applicability of the survey-based Schwartz Value Theory also for archival value research. However, the findings also demonstrate that the two value types (Spirituality and Workrelated values) found in previous Finnish studies, are also necessary to capture the essence of this timeframe. Contrary to the expectations of the value theory, Self-enhancement values (Power and Achievement) and Self-direction values are not presented as values for the individual, but only as values for the collective. The Czars and Presidents mostly differ on scope of their value emphasis. In their speeches the Czars concentrate on Benevolence, Spirituality and Conformity values, i.e. they emphasize the in-group and its welfare. As for the Presidents, they appeal to a wide variety of values, and reflect more the contemporary political situations, for instance Work-related values are accentuated especially in the times of crisis (e.g. war, recession). As the rulers present themselves as promoters of the society’s goals, they also act as creators and protectors of cohesion in their speeches. This results in the emphasis on Selftranscendence values and on values promoting social cohesion, especially Conservation values. Towards the end of the time included in this study (1980s and 1990s) there is a marked rise in Universalism values, as questions of natureconservation and maintenance of global peace come to the forefront of the larger political agenda. This thesis applies social psychological viewpoints to political history, thus deepening the researching and the interpretation of historical phenomena. The results of this study underline the importance of the context in value research, and contribute to the widening of value research into political and archival data. Furthermore, this study adds to the research of how societal cohesion is rhetorically maintained. The results can also be applied in larger societal context to better understand the links between leaders and their followers.

The paper analyses the unique position of Armenia within the overlapping paradigms of European and Eurasian integration. It deals with the security challenges for Armenia, which arise from contradictions between integration, fragmentation and sovereign nationhood in the shared neighbourhood of the European Union (EU) and Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). On November 24, 2017, Armenia, a member of both Russia-led EAEU and the EU’s Eastern Partnership (EaP), signed an ambitious Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with the EU. Armenia and the EU managed to make the CEPA, a lighter version of AAs / DCFTAs concluded with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, compatible with Armenia’s membership in the EAEU. Furthermore, the applicability of Cold War time Finland’s Paasikivi-Kekkonen foreign policy doctrine for Armenia needs to be conceptualized, which will provide valuable insights into the security of EaP countries. Thus, via comparative case study of Armenia’s way of containment and accommodation of the Russian power and its ambitious engagement with the EU, the paper will reveal the possibility of new paradigms for other EaP countries.

Having been set up on November 27, 2008, the Romanian Association for Baltic and Nordic Studies (ARSBN) has established as its fundamental goals the promotion of research activities in the field of Baltic and Nordic studies, the encouragement of knowledge in public benefit regarding this geographical area, including by the means of education, especially of higher education, the cooperation with similar institutions and associations from Romania and abroad, the promotion of the dialogue and cooperation on the axis the Baltic Sea – the Black Sea. In this regard, the establishing of a scientific publication to further our knowledge of Baltic and Nordic societies and to spread information about the Romanian society to Baltic and Northern Europe was essential. The magazine was also regarded as a springboard for the mutual acknowledgment of the bonds and relations between Romanians and the Baltic and Nordic peoples throughout their history and in contemporary times. It was our understanding and hope that the magazine will become a multidisciplinary publication hosting articles in fields such as history, history of international relations, international relations, literature and philology, economics and business, and various other sciences. When established, the editorial college also considered that it will be in the advantage of the magazine to include also book and article reviews, assessments of scientific conferences or notes of doctoral studies in the fields covered by the publication which will promote the dialogue between the two peripheries of the European continent. A year after the project was decided upon, the first issue of Revista Română de Studii Baltice şi Nordice (RRSBN) comes out bringing forth articles published by scientists from Estonia, Finland, Lithuania and Romania. Although as it was expected to happen the articles included in the first issue are mostly dealing with historical developments, it must be pointed out that the themes and the approaches differ significantly. Chronologically, the articles cover the interwar period, the Cold War, and larger time periods as it happens with Alexandru Popescu’s notes. Thematically, two articles focus on processes taking place in one particular country, but with larger regional or international connotations. Thus, at a time when the scholarly research focuses on the transition to market economy, Olaf Mertelsmann goes back in time and shows how the opposite process happened. The large scale of changes in the structure of property and the gradual loss of private entrepreneurial skills as well as the human and economic costs should be remembered when dealing with post-1989 transition. In terms of outcomes, Mertelsmann concludes that “transition to command economy was something like the worst possible scenario”. Instead, Elena Dragomir approaches the Cold War from a different perspective. With the Soviet Union collapsing and the self-censure gradually being renounced at, the recent past started to be reinterpreted in order to fit the new Finnish foreign and domestic policy aims. The debate over the legacy of Finlandization was passionate, but the mainstream political opinion tended to practice a sort of “protochronism” by inventing roots and traits to developments that have emanated in the post-Cold War environment. This kind of ideology rapidly acquired some sort of legitimacy and pass through to younger generation which could not be judged as pursuing a hidden political agenda. Two articles carried in this issue of RRSBN approach, based on new archival findings, the intersections between the populations from Romania and those in Baltic area and Scandinavia. Cezar Stanciu’s article focuses on the state relations between a Communist totalitarian regime and the democratic states of Northern Europe at a time when a rapprochement was contemplated. Desirous to reconnect to the words trade flow and acquire a more autonomous profile in the international relations, Romania was nevertheless wavering in the relations with Scandinavia and was more astute in relation to Finland, a country trusted in Moscow to a larger extent. On contrary, Vasile Ciobanu has approached the “transnational” approach between German minorities in Transylvania and the Baltic states. By sharing numerous common concerns and facing common challenges and nurturing common projects, the communities of Sibiu Saxons and Estonia and Latvia’s Balts have developed networks and contacts of mutual benefit. Ciobanu’s discoveries thus add to the recent publications by John Hiden and Martyn Housden on this topic. The role of perceptions and the Danish travelers mindsets about Romanians are approached in Oana Lăculiceanu’s contribution. Although the article may be fitted into the same category of transnational history, it brings forth no new conceptual interpretations, but contributes with interesting and sometimes hilarious facts to the encounters between Romanians and Danes. Citizens of Denmark, a developed agrarian country according to the European standards, were sometimes shocked when they encountered the Romanian realities, especially as they looked in some rural or town periphery areas. Their descriptions of Bucharest, of the Romanian peasant and of the dynamics of development in a “third world country” – to put it so – are rude expressions of the differences between Northern and South Eastern Europe at the beginning of the 20th century and a reminder of the reasons for which the relations between those societies were so limited. Alexandru Popescu’s contribution enriches the chronology and bibliography of the Romanian-Finnish relations with new facts and is a testimony of the recent developments to which the author himself, a former diplomatic counselor in the Romanian Embassy in Helsinki, has contributed. Nerijus Babinskas’ theoretical contribution compares the approaches to the concept of tributalism of Samir Amin, Hohn Haldon and H.H. Stahl., a Romanian sociologist and historian from Dimitrie Gusti’s school of thought. The author discovers a gap between the Western and Eastern historiography traditions by the importance the concept has acquired in West and emphasizes why the debate is still important and topical. In the end, I hope that the novelty of interpretation and the new findings behind the articles included in the first issue of RRSBN will attract scholarly and public interest and give birth to fresh academic debates on the exchange of cultural values between the Romanian space and Baltic and Nordic Europe in the past and – as this new magazine shows – in the present. The new networks created between Romanian and Baltic and Nordic scholars can open new avenues of cooperation and contribute to the progress of our scholarly and public agendas and the magazine is ready to become a mirror of those developments.