“Finlandization” is a kind of jargon or code word whose meaning even Finns might wonder about.
Essentially, the idea is to see whether neutrality as a foreign policy can guarantee homeland security, even when you live next to a country that poses a serious threat and a challenge.
Finland has very stable borders, whereas Ukraine does not. This somewhat changes the stakes.
The goal is to create stability not only with Russia, but also with Belarus, where the Russian presence has proven to be problematic. Defending natural borders is less of an issue.
In addition, Ukraine is located in a geostrategic region, between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, that is very important for trade. Finland does not have that trade corridor, so relations are easier to maintain.
Personally, I'm keeping a close eye on Moldova, which is a tiny, neutral country in the region. It's interesting to see how that country is staying out of trouble despite being in a region where tensions are high.
I believe that there are lessons to learn from other countries in the region, but I don't think that the “Finlandization” of Ukraine is an acceptable solution, least of all for Russia.
As I said, Russia believes that Ukraine is part of Russia and that it is an infant democracy where the last 30 years of independence are merely an obstacle or a test. Its claim to Crimea goes back 430 years. According to Russia, we are somewhat foolish. Russia perceives Ukraine as Russian, so it will be difficult to convince it otherwise.