The subject is not an easy one considering the whole of the historical context. To my greatest surprise Stalin actually made early efforts to avoid the Winter War (1939-1940) while repeatedly demanding a small island to protect Leningrad (Saint Petersburg). My guess is that the coming problems to Finland were mostly easy to anticipate. At least part of the Finnish government was for a deal with Stalin as they properly accessed they cannot win a war against him. Russian and international experts are divided on the issue if Stalin had an intention ever to occupy Finland. During the post-WWII period the Soviets were behaving in an almost civilized manner with Finland in comparison to other opponents. Putin reassured Finland on numerous occasions that he has no intention to take any land from them and there is no reason to question his sincerity.
"At least part of the Finnish government was for a deal with Stalin..."
You mean to say: that they were ready to give in to Stalin? After all, that kind Uncle Joe was only asking for "a small island".... A small, tiny, tiny, little island.
No, hats off to the Finns that they refused to submit to that dictator and decided to fight. I'm sure that the Russians would have done the same if they had been in the shoes of the Finns. As any decent nation would have done.
Not just generous in terms of the 6:1 ratio in favor of the Finns, but also generous in the sense that ALL of Finland had been a Russian province for centuries, and two bloody civil wars (one in Finland and one in the USSR) had created a border that was never really agreed on, but just mostly kept along Russian provincial lines.
The Finns were fools to refuse, and wasted tens of thousands of lives, on an outcome that left them even worse off.
The Soviet demands targeted Finland’s critical defensive zone and would have left the country vulnerable, while the land offered in exchange was strategically and economically negligible.
Sure. It wasn’t a sweetheart deal, it was a generous deal regardless, given that the border had never been properly adjudicated.
Every issue that the Finns had with giving up a “critical defensive zone” were doubly so for the Soviets. And not even in regards to Finland.
Anyone, Germany, the UK/France, could have used Finland as a springboard to attack the USSR (Which of course later happened.) and attack the country’s second largest city and home to numerous critical industries.
Therefore, the rational thing to do, would be to bend on the issue and avoid a costly war and territorial losses without compensation.
Unfortunately the Finnish government chose a less rational path.
Not exactly. They got the tens of thousands of dead Soviet soldiers and thousands of destroyed military vehicles in exchange. A glorious war they could not possibly win. The bottom of some of their thousands of lakes are still providing the final resting place for scores of tanks and uncounted thousands of Soviet soldiers. As they were marching on the thick ice in an orderly fashion the Finns opened fire with their artillery from the nearby hillsides, Broke up the ice around them and Soviet tanks were still heavier than water at the time.
Sometimes, before one starts a war a rational evaluation can save a lot of pain, suffering and territory. Not all wars are unavoidable. If Ukraine was led by pro-Ukraine nationalists this war could have been avoided. Finland, even with major help from the West was very unlikely to win a conflict against Stalin.
To be precise, Stalin didn’t even demand that the Finns just give up territory. He offered a very generous land swap, which as I recall was 6:1 in favor of Finland.
This is why I wrote I was surprised. Judging from the early acts Stalin was not really looking for the Winter War. I guess he figured out bad things can happen in cold weather.
Stalin wanted Finland to give up strategically crucial, heavily developed, economically important territory central to their national defense. He offered military useless thinly populated taiga.
The Soviet demands targeted Finland’s critical defensive zone and would have left the country vulnerable, while the land offered in exchange was strategically and economically negligible.
USA can demand Mexico cede a narrow stretch of Baja California near Tijuana and Ensenada containing key ports, highways, and population centers - in exchange for a far larger area in the Arizona desert north of Sonora, Mexico - empty, arid, and economically irrelevant. Mexico would lose the terrain that protects its urban corridor and main Pacific access, while gaining useless land.
This is totally false. You are confusing the final result of the Winter War, with the initial demands of Stalin.
The initial demand was for 2,761km2 with a population of some tens of thousands, for which 5,529km2 of sparsely populated land in other areas was offered.
What was finally ceded was 35,000km2 with a population of 422,000, about 12% of Finland's prewar population, including Finland's second city and commercial capital of Viipuri (today, Vyborg).
The Finns most definitely should have taken that deal, and remained neutral, instead of having neutrality forced upon them. In the end, they did fine, but it could have been much, much more fine.
Problem is, the last two decades, the pro-western actors are increadingly inept and incompetent people. That will have grave concequencess later on ... just like the now residing EU "elite" that is failing left and right and forced changes in chools that create a generation of weak people, given the problems they will have to fix.
The Finns have an axe to grind with the Russians, since Stalin annexed almost the whole of Karelia after the Soviet invasion of Finland and the ensuing Winter War of 1939-1940. That should be said too. It's a matter of fair play.
You're right, I took for granted that my audience would be aware of Finland's territorial losses to the then-USSR during WWII, which some Finns still deeply resent. I'm unsure how popular revanchist sentiment is in society, however, but maybe someone from there (if they're among my readers) can share some insight into this?
I lived in Finland for a few years. One of my close friends is from a family driven out of Karelia in the aftermath of the war, so with close personal experience. My impression is that there is zero desire to recover the lost territories. But there is a lot of hostility to Russia among some (not by any means all) Finns, and 100% of Finns I know believe, with pride, that Finland WON the Winter War.
Thanks for sharing that, it's very informative. I also expected the same as regards Finnish perceptions of the Winter War. It's like Polish perceptions of the Polish-Bolshevik War, which "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" and some "nationalist" Russians to this day insist that the Bolsheviks won.
A central part of the Finnish national perception of themselves is that they stopped the Bol'shevik hordes and saved their nation with an incredible feat of arms in the Winter War. That would be even somewhat true IF Stalin's intention had been to take over the whole country. Problem is there is zero evidence that Stalin had any intention other than getting the naval bases and the buffer zone around Leningrad which they demanded in the run-up to the war.
I think there's a remarkable parallel with the Ukraine War. Ukrainians mostly don't accept Putin's pre-war demands at face value; they believe that he really wants to destroy the whole nation and wipe it off the face of the earth. If an agreement were to be made along the lines of the Trump deal which stopped the war, the Ukrainians could tell themselves for centuries in the future, that they defeated the Russians, stopped Putin from wiping Ukraine off the map, and saved their country -- that they WON the Ukraine War. Losing the Donbas would seem like a small price to pay for that, just like the Finns view Karelia today. Would be a very good outcome for all involved.
You could ask Tuomas Malinen who is on Twitter/X or the young politician who was notoriously jailed for protesting in Finland. His last name is Mema, I think. He has appeared in videos on Neutrality Studies, and I believe Glenn Diesen interviewed him. I am writing a piece on Finland myself.
Since you bring up fair play, let’s get the entire story.
The USSR had serious concerns about their border with Finland being very close to Leningrad, (a dozen kilometers) which was an obvious invasion threat by for example the Germans.
(On top of that, the Finnish border was settled rather as a matter of fair accomplis during the civil war, rather than a proper negotiated solution.)
Stalin therefore, very generously offered the Finns land swaps. In return for a small strip of land near Leningrad, they’d get a many times bigger piece of territory in Karelia.
The Finns were dumb enough to refuse. Even after an ultimatum.
The winter war followed, and Finland lost not an even bigger piece of territory, than they had originally rejected swapping.
There is a lesson here for the Finns, but I’m pretty sure they’re busy drawing the wrong conclusions.
Thank you. Well, I must admit that I didn't know that Stalin proposed a lands swap. I thought that he just wanted to lay hands on a piece of Finnish territory, without offering something in return.
US cut the story before USSR installation of missile and "forgett" that it put its own missile in Turkey.
And they cut just after Kroutchev decided to go back.
They "forget" that Kennedy removed the US missiles in Turkey.
Take the Kuryl islands. US condemn the unfair occupation of "Japanese" territory by the evil Russians.
They "forget" that they SIGNED this agreement at the end of WW2.
For Ukraine, they begin the story from 22/2/22, forgetting all what before.
Same with Pearl Harbour.
Even with the Civil War.
And if omission and cut isn't enough, they invent. And they are very creative.
For exemple, long time after this war, they invented that they did it to abolish slavery. For remind, slavery were only abolished at the extreme end of the war with only the Union States( none confederate) which voted, and after incredible pressions and corruption, those northern states voted the abolition with only one voice majority and with the condition that black people was not allowed to be equal citizens.
Finland seems like a problem ideally suited for solving with a single 100 kt nuclear tipped Iskander, if they ever try to cause actual trouble.
Finns are deluding themselves if they think NATO is a solution.
What would leaders in Poland or Germany do if they wake up in the morning and find that Helsinki has been turned into rubble? Rush in to double down on Warsaw and Berlin?
Doubt!
The Americans likewise would hardly feel like trading New York for Moscow, because the highest official alive in Finland is now the mayor of Turku.
The only actual solution for Finland in its problems with their continental power neighbors has always been the diplomatic route.
I have said many times. *Start* with a relentless SEAD campaign, not flying over Ukraine with no antimissile defense loadout. Don't do bonehead things like release captured Ukrainian troops so they can fight again. Smash every piece of infrastructure, anything that can be used to prop up the Ukrainian state and its ability to fight.
Hell, that there is a single bridge in Ukraine left standing is a testament to Russian indecision.
Russia hasn't had air supremacy. If Russia did, it would be able to fly unmolested over Ukraine. That Ukraine is able to both fly its own aircraft and challenge Russian incursions is the result of Russian dithering.
If Russia's plan is to use Russians to soak up western munitions, I suggest that Russia look at Plan B. We've heard the "War of Attrition" nonsense before. It's cope, intended as an excuse.
Finnish ultra nationalist irredentists are taking unfair advantage of a lexical confusion which conflates Finno-Ugric languages with "Finno-Ugric ethnicities" in the minds of most laiety. Actually, the two are entirely different concepts. Finno-Ugric languages refers to a broad family of partly related languages spoken across a vast expanse of Europe from Hungary and Finland in the West and North respectively to Komi Republic and Udmurtia in Russia. The people who speak these languages do not bear ethnic kinship with one another.
Finnish mainstream populace comprises of Nordic Scandinavian Europeans originating in Sweden and Norway who had moved eastward after displacing native Sami people's of the Arctic. Government sponsored genocide of the Sami natives of the Arctic had continued in full fury throughout Sweden even upto as late as the 1970's via forcibly sterilisation of all races deemed non-conforming with the anthro-morphic stats of Viking tribes which form the bulk of so called mainstream ethnic Scandinavian populace. The name "Sami" is a pejorative applied to the non Viking native race of the Scandinavian Arctic by the Viking colonisers ensconced in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, which says "savage" in the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish Viking languages.
Finland had not only participated in Hitler-inspired Holocaust of Russian civilians during World War 2, but had imposed starvation and withholding of medical care upon thousands o Russian captives who had been held as war booty in concentration camps based in Finland.
Players of card games know that if you have several jokers in your hand, you keep them until the end of the game when you either win or avoid defeat. After WW2, Soviet Union gave, one by one, all her jokers away. Result: several hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers dead or mimed for life in the ongoing war. The main joker was obviously Eastern Germany. Admittedly, the West Germans paid a lot of money for it, money that was badly needed by the Soviet Union at the time. But that is exactly the point: she should not have arrived in a situation where that money was so much needed. States or Superstates that are driven by ideology are unable to design or follow a wining strategy. They are devoured by their ideology that eats their guts from inside and will sooner or later succumb. Finland was certainly a second important joker that the Soviets let go in 1947. Finland hit the Jackpot with the Neutrality Treaty, which they denounced in 2023. Instead of fully occupying Finland, like the East Germany, the Soviets chose to annex Galicia (much of the Western Ukraine), a nest of Russophobes that kept them busy until the late 1950s. Hungary and Romania, although partners to Germany in WW2, could have been more easily converted to a Finland-type of countries. Czechoslovakia got her before the war President back and voted freely her first government led by the Communists. The cordon sanitaire, so much wanted by the Soviets, could have been more easily obtained South of the Black See. One only needs to look quickly at the maps. The Baltic See is the Achilles heel, not the Black See. The latter could have been a lot more easily controlled than the former.
Ethno-nationalism does not recognise geopolitical borders. Therein lies the greatest threat to world peace. Ethno-nationalist extremists will not respect or observe clearly defined, politically authorised fences, borders or marks on a map, therefor they will constantly undermine the stability of the majority for the false benefit of the few. Leave history behind !
My humble guess is that in the post-Ukraine peace solution, Russia will probably still accept Poland in the NATO, but not Sweden, Finland, Baltics or Romania and Bulgaria. Not to mention Austria and Switzerland. In addition, there will probably be a reopening of discussions on Kosovo and Bosnia.
And how will Russia "not accept" Sweden, Finland etc. in NATO? These are faits accomplis which will not be reversed unless, God forbid, there is a big war in Europe.
Nor does Russia have any voice in NATO membership for Switzerland or Austria, which have never been part of Russia or the Russian Empire or even within Russia's sphere of influence.
The Baltics could be vulnerable, however, in case of some blockade of Kaliningrad.
They’re vulnerable if they keep acting like retards, sure.
One nuclear tipped Iskander for each is all it would take for Russia to win the war against the Baltic countries or Finland.
Fortunately for them, Russia has no desire to re-acquire their former Baltic possessions. But if they keep tarding out and for example blockade Kaliningrad, things could change very rapidly.
We shall see. I don't think the European members perceive NATO as "obsolete", and even less so since 2022. It's the only system for pooling military resources of Europe. So I rather expect that NATO has a lot of life left in it.
Should NATO be replaced by an EU military? It would make more sense for Europe's security, I think, than U.S.-led NATO, but creating an EU military would require a unanimous decision of the member states to cede this part of their sovereignty -- very doubtful that this could happen in the current environment.
So my guess is NATO will live on. But who knows for sure? We shall see.
But then what's the point of NATO if they can't do anything really? Their military strategies ain't working, they have been outproduced by a single country and all their equipment is over expensive garbage (with a few exceptions like HIMARS). Fact is NATO doesn't know how to fight real wars.
Europe will have two options after the war, if Russian manages to win afterall, get along with Russia and find a security framework that works for everyone or go down the drain. Right now everything looks like they are aiming for number 2 and creating a European military, spending money that they don't have is part of option number 2.
Back in the 80's and early 90's NATO was a formidable force. But then eventually their Forces changed into a more lightly armed but very mobile force to be sent to other countries to conquer them with over whelming air power.
And I guess it made sense as the USSR was gone and the real threat of a large ground war in Europe was over. The forever wars started. Balkans and Middle East. NATO doctrine changed into more of a counter insurgency strategy.
Thus they have found themselves in this situation where they've provoked a war they could never win.
NATO is only a mechanism which gives the Europeans a MEANS to pool their militaries IN CASE there is the will to do that. It's no substitute for that will.
In case there was a general attack of Russia on Europe (hypothetically speaking) and a general desire of Europeans to defend against that in a coordinated and collective way, in that case NATO would be very, very useful.
Less useful than an actual EU army, but still very useful.
A different question is what actual military force the European members of NATO can put together. Not much today. A bit more if they manage the increases being discussed today, but that will still not be nearly enough for a big attritional war. Military PPP is a bitch.
I don't see NATO losing any countries due to Ukraine war. I think Austria and Switzerland are smart enough to not give up their neutrality like Sweden and Finland did.
Finland has/had a non-aggression treaty/ies with Soviet Union in 1944 and following that it has broken by becoming a NATO member. It will probably argue that treaties with Soviets are not transferrable to Russia. But hey, we heard the same music with regards to NATO Eastward extension, that promises to Soviet Union not to extend, have become no longer valid if Soviet Union doesn't exist. IIRC Soviet Union occupied some Finnish islands in the Finnish Gulf post WW2, that they later gave back?
With regards to Lithuania - Soviet Union gave over the most Eastern part of East-Prussia, the Memel-Land to Lithuania after 1945. What if it asks for it back? The territory encompasses Klaipeda, the largest Lithuanian port. There are similar pressure points re Estonia and Latvia.
NATO has become irrelevant, since it was always US military might and nukes that made it a player.
But you’re unlikely to see any dramatic scenes with countries leaving and slamming the door. Instead it’ll just fade into obscurity and becoming yet another club for bureaucrats and politicians to lunch at.
Sweden’s robust, growing high-tech defence industry punches above what “raw sales” suggest: a cluster of firms exporting ~$5-billion yearly, already well-integrated into European defence markets. Recent years have seen swift expansion as demand for Swedish systems has risen.
Keep whining about russia's disadvantaged geography to be lien yourself more, Stevie.
Oh please. Sweden is a shithole country*, that’s about to totally lose demographic cohesion. And deficit spends like there’s no tomorrow.
Their main weapons export is to countries that either can’t afford better, American hardware, or are already locked into an ecosystem that precludes them from buying better, Russian or Chinese arms.
*Yes, shithole country. I found a Swedish newspaper on the train the other day, just a small town rag.
On page seven, they had a story about a grenade blowing up at a local pizzeria. Not the front page, not page 2. Page seven.
Because thirdworlders settling their feuds with guns or grenades is so common in Sweden now, that it’s not even real news when a bomb or grenade goes off somewhere.
I know Sweden, I’ve been to Sweden, I see Swedes every day. And it IS a shithole.
Fortunately it’s not going to be around for that much longer.
At the end of the century it’ll finally live up to its full potential as test case for mass migration and be a shithole that’ll likely act as some kind of containment zone for ethnic minorities kicked out of Denmark, Finland, etc.
It is the tinfoil hats in Sweden that caused this, they have no choice,.
those who control behind decide, otherwise it ends like O P . Sweden is one of the biggest hypocrites in the world when it comes to double standards.
They point with their whole hand that they want peace in the world, but at the same time arm them with weapons. Sweden is fully responsible for wars in the world. It was a Swede who went to Iraq to inspect whether there were chemical weapons, which he said there were not,
but went to Israel after the Iraq trip and there he changed his version and said that there were chemical weapons, which was the starting point of a long-term war.
Sweden will learn a big lesson, unfortunately the civilians who in all other countries are affected by it economically, psychologically and physically.
Sweden has no bullets to incite against Russia. Sweden knows its place.
But the politicians and their ilk and also those behind them who are not visible are creating a Russian hatred among civilians on a completely different level.
Fortunately, many have woken up from their slumber, but the majority are still sheep, bääääh
Russia otoh has an ocean to its East, a southern border that’s mostly safe and either way has a long history of interaction and ties with Russia.
Its western border is hostile sure, but none of them individually amount to much of a threat. Even together the threat to Russia is pretty laughable.
Eurocrats dream of “EU armies”, totally forgetting that an army with a dozen officer corps, half a dozen languages and often incompatible equipment isn’t exactly a huge threat.
Does anyone seriously believe that an Italian or Greek will fight and die for Finland? Or the French and German are in any hurry to lay down their lives for some Baltic shithole?
The subject is not an easy one considering the whole of the historical context. To my greatest surprise Stalin actually made early efforts to avoid the Winter War (1939-1940) while repeatedly demanding a small island to protect Leningrad (Saint Petersburg). My guess is that the coming problems to Finland were mostly easy to anticipate. At least part of the Finnish government was for a deal with Stalin as they properly accessed they cannot win a war against him. Russian and international experts are divided on the issue if Stalin had an intention ever to occupy Finland. During the post-WWII period the Soviets were behaving in an almost civilized manner with Finland in comparison to other opponents. Putin reassured Finland on numerous occasions that he has no intention to take any land from them and there is no reason to question his sincerity.
"At least part of the Finnish government was for a deal with Stalin..."
You mean to say: that they were ready to give in to Stalin? After all, that kind Uncle Joe was only asking for "a small island".... A small, tiny, tiny, little island.
No, hats off to the Finns that they refused to submit to that dictator and decided to fight. I'm sure that the Russians would have done the same if they had been in the shoes of the Finns. As any decent nation would have done.
Stalin offered them a very generous land swap.
Not just generous in terms of the 6:1 ratio in favor of the Finns, but also generous in the sense that ALL of Finland had been a Russian province for centuries, and two bloody civil wars (one in Finland and one in the USSR) had created a border that was never really agreed on, but just mostly kept along Russian provincial lines.
The Finns were fools to refuse, and wasted tens of thousands of lives, on an outcome that left them even worse off.
The Soviet demands targeted Finland’s critical defensive zone and would have left the country vulnerable, while the land offered in exchange was strategically and economically negligible.
Sure. It wasn’t a sweetheart deal, it was a generous deal regardless, given that the border had never been properly adjudicated.
Every issue that the Finns had with giving up a “critical defensive zone” were doubly so for the Soviets. And not even in regards to Finland.
Anyone, Germany, the UK/France, could have used Finland as a springboard to attack the USSR (Which of course later happened.) and attack the country’s second largest city and home to numerous critical industries.
Therefore, the rational thing to do, would be to bend on the issue and avoid a costly war and territorial losses without compensation.
Unfortunately the Finnish government chose a less rational path.
I seem to remember that in the end they had to give up that territory and got nothing in return?
Is that right?
Not exactly. They got the tens of thousands of dead Soviet soldiers and thousands of destroyed military vehicles in exchange. A glorious war they could not possibly win. The bottom of some of their thousands of lakes are still providing the final resting place for scores of tanks and uncounted thousands of Soviet soldiers. As they were marching on the thick ice in an orderly fashion the Finns opened fire with their artillery from the nearby hillsides, Broke up the ice around them and Soviet tanks were still heavier than water at the time.
Aye, thank heaven we have hover tanks with death ray now.....
Yup!
Sometimes, before one starts a war a rational evaluation can save a lot of pain, suffering and territory. Not all wars are unavoidable. If Ukraine was led by pro-Ukraine nationalists this war could have been avoided. Finland, even with major help from the West was very unlikely to win a conflict against Stalin.
To be precise, Stalin didn’t even demand that the Finns just give up territory. He offered a very generous land swap, which as I recall was 6:1 in favor of Finland.
This is why I wrote I was surprised. Judging from the early acts Stalin was not really looking for the Winter War. I guess he figured out bad things can happen in cold weather.
Stalin wanted Finland to give up strategically crucial, heavily developed, economically important territory central to their national defense. He offered military useless thinly populated taiga.
The Soviet demands targeted Finland’s critical defensive zone and would have left the country vulnerable, while the land offered in exchange was strategically and economically negligible.
USA can demand Mexico cede a narrow stretch of Baja California near Tijuana and Ensenada containing key ports, highways, and population centers - in exchange for a far larger area in the Arizona desert north of Sonora, Mexico - empty, arid, and economically irrelevant. Mexico would lose the terrain that protects its urban corridor and main Pacific access, while gaining useless land.
This is totally false. You are confusing the final result of the Winter War, with the initial demands of Stalin.
The initial demand was for 2,761km2 with a population of some tens of thousands, for which 5,529km2 of sparsely populated land in other areas was offered.
What was finally ceded was 35,000km2 with a population of 422,000, about 12% of Finland's prewar population, including Finland's second city and commercial capital of Viipuri (today, Vyborg).
The Finns most definitely should have taken that deal, and remained neutral, instead of having neutrality forced upon them. In the end, they did fine, but it could have been much, much more fine.
Is there a map of these land-proposals somewhere ?
Yes.
US strategy looks more and more clear:
First it requiers a permanent harassment of Russia by its minions included Finland.
Second: Permanent harassment and even destruction of russian friend to prove to the world that Russia is unable to protect friends.
For now, that works rather good.
Problem is, the last two decades, the pro-western actors are increadingly inept and incompetent people. That will have grave concequencess later on ... just like the now residing EU "elite" that is failing left and right and forced changes in chools that create a generation of weak people, given the problems they will have to fix.
Besides, the last idiot hasn't been born yet.
The Finns have an axe to grind with the Russians, since Stalin annexed almost the whole of Karelia after the Soviet invasion of Finland and the ensuing Winter War of 1939-1940. That should be said too. It's a matter of fair play.
You're right, I took for granted that my audience would be aware of Finland's territorial losses to the then-USSR during WWII, which some Finns still deeply resent. I'm unsure how popular revanchist sentiment is in society, however, but maybe someone from there (if they're among my readers) can share some insight into this?
I lived in Finland for a few years. One of my close friends is from a family driven out of Karelia in the aftermath of the war, so with close personal experience. My impression is that there is zero desire to recover the lost territories. But there is a lot of hostility to Russia among some (not by any means all) Finns, and 100% of Finns I know believe, with pride, that Finland WON the Winter War.
Thanks for sharing that, it's very informative. I also expected the same as regards Finnish perceptions of the Winter War. It's like Polish perceptions of the Polish-Bolshevik War, which "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" and some "nationalist" Russians to this day insist that the Bolsheviks won.
A central part of the Finnish national perception of themselves is that they stopped the Bol'shevik hordes and saved their nation with an incredible feat of arms in the Winter War. That would be even somewhat true IF Stalin's intention had been to take over the whole country. Problem is there is zero evidence that Stalin had any intention other than getting the naval bases and the buffer zone around Leningrad which they demanded in the run-up to the war.
I think there's a remarkable parallel with the Ukraine War. Ukrainians mostly don't accept Putin's pre-war demands at face value; they believe that he really wants to destroy the whole nation and wipe it off the face of the earth. If an agreement were to be made along the lines of the Trump deal which stopped the war, the Ukrainians could tell themselves for centuries in the future, that they defeated the Russians, stopped Putin from wiping Ukraine off the map, and saved their country -- that they WON the Ukraine War. Losing the Donbas would seem like a small price to pay for that, just like the Finns view Karelia today. Would be a very good outcome for all involved.
They are very proud of their (hakkapeliitta)
Some of them that I know in Sweden admit their betrayal during World War II towards Russia.
You could ask Tuomas Malinen who is on Twitter/X or the young politician who was notoriously jailed for protesting in Finland. His last name is Mema, I think. He has appeared in videos on Neutrality Studies, and I believe Glenn Diesen interviewed him. I am writing a piece on Finland myself.
Since you bring up fair play, let’s get the entire story.
The USSR had serious concerns about their border with Finland being very close to Leningrad, (a dozen kilometers) which was an obvious invasion threat by for example the Germans.
(On top of that, the Finnish border was settled rather as a matter of fair accomplis during the civil war, rather than a proper negotiated solution.)
Stalin therefore, very generously offered the Finns land swaps. In return for a small strip of land near Leningrad, they’d get a many times bigger piece of territory in Karelia.
The Finns were dumb enough to refuse. Even after an ultimatum.
The winter war followed, and Finland lost not an even bigger piece of territory, than they had originally rejected swapping.
There is a lesson here for the Finns, but I’m pretty sure they’re busy drawing the wrong conclusions.
Thank you. Well, I must admit that I didn't know that Stalin proposed a lands swap. I thought that he just wanted to lay hands on a piece of Finnish territory, without offering something in return.
Being well informed is crucial.
Yes, that part of the story is often left out. Wonder why? ;)
And for numerous reasons, the Soviet demands were hardly unreasonable.
Omission is the favourite weapon of western soft power.
Especially Anglo-Saxon soft power.
Omission and cutting chronology are the two udders of US soft power.
Take the Cuba affair, 1962.
US cut the story before USSR installation of missile and "forgett" that it put its own missile in Turkey.
And they cut just after Kroutchev decided to go back.
They "forget" that Kennedy removed the US missiles in Turkey.
Take the Kuryl islands. US condemn the unfair occupation of "Japanese" territory by the evil Russians.
They "forget" that they SIGNED this agreement at the end of WW2.
For Ukraine, they begin the story from 22/2/22, forgetting all what before.
Same with Pearl Harbour.
Even with the Civil War.
And if omission and cut isn't enough, they invent. And they are very creative.
For exemple, long time after this war, they invented that they did it to abolish slavery. For remind, slavery were only abolished at the extreme end of the war with only the Union States( none confederate) which voted, and after incredible pressions and corruption, those northern states voted the abolition with only one voice majority and with the condition that black people was not allowed to be equal citizens.
Disturbing, thanks
I don’t see the big issue.
Finland seems like a problem ideally suited for solving with a single 100 kt nuclear tipped Iskander, if they ever try to cause actual trouble.
Finns are deluding themselves if they think NATO is a solution.
What would leaders in Poland or Germany do if they wake up in the morning and find that Helsinki has been turned into rubble? Rush in to double down on Warsaw and Berlin?
Doubt!
The Americans likewise would hardly feel like trading New York for Moscow, because the highest official alive in Finland is now the mayor of Turku.
The only actual solution for Finland in its problems with their continental power neighbors has always been the diplomatic route.
Russia is in this position because it didn't take the Ukraine War seriously from the outset.
I have said many times. *Start* with a relentless SEAD campaign, not flying over Ukraine with no antimissile defense loadout. Don't do bonehead things like release captured Ukrainian troops so they can fight again. Smash every piece of infrastructure, anything that can be used to prop up the Ukrainian state and its ability to fight.
Hell, that there is a single bridge in Ukraine left standing is a testament to Russian indecision.
Russia hasn't had air supremacy. If Russia did, it would be able to fly unmolested over Ukraine. That Ukraine is able to both fly its own aircraft and challenge Russian incursions is the result of Russian dithering.
If Russia's plan is to use Russians to soak up western munitions, I suggest that Russia look at Plan B. We've heard the "War of Attrition" nonsense before. It's cope, intended as an excuse.
I think Russia has gone about it according to what they have been capable of, without enlisting help from their allies.
It is probably not a war of attrition, but very tactical, even if it has not been in all attacks.
They can have a tactical war because they can and that is the best way.
There is no war in the world that has been decided in just a few years.
Sure. Libya and Serbia come prominently to mind.
NATO certainly anticipated Russia being able to overrun Ukraine in 72 hours. Had Russia used adequate force, it could have easily done so.
Finnish ultra nationalist irredentists are taking unfair advantage of a lexical confusion which conflates Finno-Ugric languages with "Finno-Ugric ethnicities" in the minds of most laiety. Actually, the two are entirely different concepts. Finno-Ugric languages refers to a broad family of partly related languages spoken across a vast expanse of Europe from Hungary and Finland in the West and North respectively to Komi Republic and Udmurtia in Russia. The people who speak these languages do not bear ethnic kinship with one another.
Finnish mainstream populace comprises of Nordic Scandinavian Europeans originating in Sweden and Norway who had moved eastward after displacing native Sami people's of the Arctic. Government sponsored genocide of the Sami natives of the Arctic had continued in full fury throughout Sweden even upto as late as the 1970's via forcibly sterilisation of all races deemed non-conforming with the anthro-morphic stats of Viking tribes which form the bulk of so called mainstream ethnic Scandinavian populace. The name "Sami" is a pejorative applied to the non Viking native race of the Scandinavian Arctic by the Viking colonisers ensconced in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, which says "savage" in the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish Viking languages.
Finland had not only participated in Hitler-inspired Holocaust of Russian civilians during World War 2, but had imposed starvation and withholding of medical care upon thousands o Russian captives who had been held as war booty in concentration camps based in Finland.
I think that 3rd Pres is at least tied with the 2nd maybe we get a run off take a poll
Players of card games know that if you have several jokers in your hand, you keep them until the end of the game when you either win or avoid defeat. After WW2, Soviet Union gave, one by one, all her jokers away. Result: several hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers dead or mimed for life in the ongoing war. The main joker was obviously Eastern Germany. Admittedly, the West Germans paid a lot of money for it, money that was badly needed by the Soviet Union at the time. But that is exactly the point: she should not have arrived in a situation where that money was so much needed. States or Superstates that are driven by ideology are unable to design or follow a wining strategy. They are devoured by their ideology that eats their guts from inside and will sooner or later succumb. Finland was certainly a second important joker that the Soviets let go in 1947. Finland hit the Jackpot with the Neutrality Treaty, which they denounced in 2023. Instead of fully occupying Finland, like the East Germany, the Soviets chose to annex Galicia (much of the Western Ukraine), a nest of Russophobes that kept them busy until the late 1950s. Hungary and Romania, although partners to Germany in WW2, could have been more easily converted to a Finland-type of countries. Czechoslovakia got her before the war President back and voted freely her first government led by the Communists. The cordon sanitaire, so much wanted by the Soviets, could have been more easily obtained South of the Black See. One only needs to look quickly at the maps. The Baltic See is the Achilles heel, not the Black See. The latter could have been a lot more easily controlled than the former.
Ethno-nationalism does not recognise geopolitical borders. Therein lies the greatest threat to world peace. Ethno-nationalist extremists will not respect or observe clearly defined, politically authorised fences, borders or marks on a map, therefor they will constantly undermine the stability of the majority for the false benefit of the few. Leave history behind !
My humble guess is that in the post-Ukraine peace solution, Russia will probably still accept Poland in the NATO, but not Sweden, Finland, Baltics or Romania and Bulgaria. Not to mention Austria and Switzerland. In addition, there will probably be a reopening of discussions on Kosovo and Bosnia.
And how will Russia "not accept" Sweden, Finland etc. in NATO? These are faits accomplis which will not be reversed unless, God forbid, there is a big war in Europe.
Nor does Russia have any voice in NATO membership for Switzerland or Austria, which have never been part of Russia or the Russian Empire or even within Russia's sphere of influence.
The Baltics could be vulnerable, however, in case of some blockade of Kaliningrad.
Baltics are vulnerable full stop. Same with Finland.
They’re vulnerable if they keep acting like retards, sure.
One nuclear tipped Iskander for each is all it would take for Russia to win the war against the Baltic countries or Finland.
Fortunately for them, Russia has no desire to re-acquire their former Baltic possessions. But if they keep tarding out and for example blockade Kaliningrad, things could change very rapidly.
NATO may become obsolete if Russia wins in Ukraine.
We shall see. I don't think the European members perceive NATO as "obsolete", and even less so since 2022. It's the only system for pooling military resources of Europe. So I rather expect that NATO has a lot of life left in it.
Should NATO be replaced by an EU military? It would make more sense for Europe's security, I think, than U.S.-led NATO, but creating an EU military would require a unanimous decision of the member states to cede this part of their sovereignty -- very doubtful that this could happen in the current environment.
So my guess is NATO will live on. But who knows for sure? We shall see.
But then what's the point of NATO if they can't do anything really? Their military strategies ain't working, they have been outproduced by a single country and all their equipment is over expensive garbage (with a few exceptions like HIMARS). Fact is NATO doesn't know how to fight real wars.
Europe will have two options after the war, if Russian manages to win afterall, get along with Russia and find a security framework that works for everyone or go down the drain. Right now everything looks like they are aiming for number 2 and creating a European military, spending money that they don't have is part of option number 2.
Back in the 80's and early 90's NATO was a formidable force. But then eventually their Forces changed into a more lightly armed but very mobile force to be sent to other countries to conquer them with over whelming air power.
And I guess it made sense as the USSR was gone and the real threat of a large ground war in Europe was over. The forever wars started. Balkans and Middle East. NATO doctrine changed into more of a counter insurgency strategy.
Thus they have found themselves in this situation where they've provoked a war they could never win.
Read that word 'pooling' you used again and consider how likely it is that victorious military force will come from that. It's a mindset thing.
NATO is only a mechanism which gives the Europeans a MEANS to pool their militaries IN CASE there is the will to do that. It's no substitute for that will.
In case there was a general attack of Russia on Europe (hypothetically speaking) and a general desire of Europeans to defend against that in a coordinated and collective way, in that case NATO would be very, very useful.
Less useful than an actual EU army, but still very useful.
A different question is what actual military force the European members of NATO can put together. Not much today. A bit more if they manage the increases being discussed today, but that will still not be nearly enough for a big attritional war. Military PPP is a bitch.
I don't see NATO losing any countries due to Ukraine war. I think Austria and Switzerland are smart enough to not give up their neutrality like Sweden and Finland did.
Finland has/had a non-aggression treaty/ies with Soviet Union in 1944 and following that it has broken by becoming a NATO member. It will probably argue that treaties with Soviets are not transferrable to Russia. But hey, we heard the same music with regards to NATO Eastward extension, that promises to Soviet Union not to extend, have become no longer valid if Soviet Union doesn't exist. IIRC Soviet Union occupied some Finnish islands in the Finnish Gulf post WW2, that they later gave back?
With regards to Lithuania - Soviet Union gave over the most Eastern part of East-Prussia, the Memel-Land to Lithuania after 1945. What if it asks for it back? The territory encompasses Klaipeda, the largest Lithuanian port. There are similar pressure points re Estonia and Latvia.
NATO has become irrelevant, since it was always US military might and nukes that made it a player.
But you’re unlikely to see any dramatic scenes with countries leaving and slamming the door. Instead it’ll just fade into obscurity and becoming yet another club for bureaucrats and politicians to lunch at.
Actually, Sweden is bigger and armed to its teeth. So both Sweden and Finland are causes for concern.
Stevie remains confidently dimwitted.
Sweden’s robust, growing high-tech defence industry punches above what “raw sales” suggest: a cluster of firms exporting ~$5-billion yearly, already well-integrated into European defence markets. Recent years have seen swift expansion as demand for Swedish systems has risen.
Keep whining about russia's disadvantaged geography to be lien yourself more, Stevie.
Block due to being an asshole.
Oh please. Sweden is a shithole country*, that’s about to totally lose demographic cohesion. And deficit spends like there’s no tomorrow.
Their main weapons export is to countries that either can’t afford better, American hardware, or are already locked into an ecosystem that precludes them from buying better, Russian or Chinese arms.
*Yes, shithole country. I found a Swedish newspaper on the train the other day, just a small town rag.
On page seven, they had a story about a grenade blowing up at a local pizzeria. Not the front page, not page 2. Page seven.
Because thirdworlders settling their feuds with guns or grenades is so common in Sweden now, that it’s not even real news when a bomb or grenade goes off somewhere.
You're a shit hole "person" - but thanks for being hilarious.
Hilarious and factual.
I know Sweden, I’ve been to Sweden, I see Swedes every day. And it IS a shithole.
Fortunately it’s not going to be around for that much longer.
At the end of the century it’ll finally live up to its full potential as test case for mass migration and be a shithole that’ll likely act as some kind of containment zone for ethnic minorities kicked out of Denmark, Finland, etc.
It is the tinfoil hats in Sweden that caused this, they have no choice,.
those who control behind decide, otherwise it ends like O P . Sweden is one of the biggest hypocrites in the world when it comes to double standards.
They point with their whole hand that they want peace in the world, but at the same time arm them with weapons. Sweden is fully responsible for wars in the world. It was a Swede who went to Iraq to inspect whether there were chemical weapons, which he said there were not,
but went to Israel after the Iraq trip and there he changed his version and said that there were chemical weapons, which was the starting point of a long-term war.
Sweden will learn a big lesson, unfortunately the civilians who in all other countries are affected by it economically, psychologically and physically.
More rightwing white shite crime.
Sweden has no bullets to incite against Russia. Sweden knows its place.
But the politicians and their ilk and also those behind them who are not visible are creating a Russian hatred among civilians on a completely different level.
Fortunately, many have woken up from their slumber, but the majority are still sheep, bääääh
I wouldn’t necessarily say so.
Yes, America is blessed by two huge oceans.
Russia otoh has an ocean to its East, a southern border that’s mostly safe and either way has a long history of interaction and ties with Russia.
Its western border is hostile sure, but none of them individually amount to much of a threat. Even together the threat to Russia is pretty laughable.
Eurocrats dream of “EU armies”, totally forgetting that an army with a dozen officer corps, half a dozen languages and often incompatible equipment isn’t exactly a huge threat.
Does anyone seriously believe that an Italian or Greek will fight and die for Finland? Or the French and German are in any hurry to lay down their lives for some Baltic shithole?