René Nyberg, former Finnish ambassador to Russia (2000-04) and Germany (2004-08), had an interesting op-ed in last week’s New York Times. The immediate context was the Ukraine crisis. As he made clear, though, the actual topic was how small states might deal with big neighbours. More technically, how can such countries manage the asymmetric power relationship they face?

Nyberg notes that Russian history generates two main models for handling bordering territories. One is absorption. The other is recognition (because the territory in question is either Russia’s equal, or too large to confront). The single modern state that fits neither pattern is Finland. How come? The true story of Finlandization, he writes, is this: “Finland remained true to its principles: credible defense and a strong free-market system.” That is, Helsinki made clear first that it intended to assert its independence (notably by repelling Red Army offensives in 1939 and 1944), and second that both Finland and Russia would suffer if it was precluded from joining the unfolding project of European economic integration.

I find this analysis intriguing. In the Myanmar context, though, a question that arises is how to stop the military from exploiting a situation of asymmetric power? Roughly a decade after Finland had faced down Russia’s Red Army, Burma was confronted with incursion by China’s People’s Army and other forces as the 1949 revolution threatened to spill over onto its territory. When appeals to the UN were disregarded, it did what any rational state would do – built up its defensive capacity. The problem was that the military arm of the state soon became so powerful that it simply seized political control. The rest, as they say, is history.

How does a country like Burma or Finland, a small state with a big neighbour, prevent this from happening? Do you also need a receptive external political environment? Was it the potent attraction of the nascent EU (initially no more than a six-country European Economic Community) that enabled Finland to take a successful path, and the lack of such a magnet that condemned Burma to failure?