My God, no. I simply meant it demonstrated its neutrality by recognising them both at the same time after years of silence on the issue.
Now it's day and after I explained what exactly I meant, I think your laughter will die out as the power of Achileus by the arrow of Paris.Now more seriously.
I am afraid you conveniently pretend to misunderstand my arguments (or I simply did not explain them well, which is my fault then). Surely, you can not deny that as a host of the Conference, the Finns did a good work with the organisation of the Conference and occasionally, prevented some accidents from happening for the good of the dialogue + Finland was certainly not a random choice. Both sides accepted to meet there. Or maybe you are not familiar what the structuire of the Peace treaties between Finland and the USSR were?
I do not say Finland was a super factor in the world politics but certainly it did well defending its regional interests. Apart from some limitation of the freedom of speech and some election cases (both temporary events in the Finnish history), you have no real arguments against the so called "Finlandisation".
Bookmarks