This text was presented by Mikhail B. Konashev of Association Soviet Union. The video of the presentation can be found here: https://youtu.be/n2IqPvcudmU
The starting point of the attitude of the left in Russia to Finland’s accession to NATO is the historical fact that in the 20th century NATO was a military opponent of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, i.e. its class enemy. In 1991, the USSR was destroyed by its internal and external class enemy, but NATO has remained a military enemy and class enemy of all countries and peoples who are trying to free themselves from capitalist slavery. In particular, NATO is a class enemy of the peoples of Russia and Finland.
The reasons and consequences of Finland’s accession to NATO have been discussed in a number of publications in Russia. The main facts and conclusions that the Russian left agrees with, because NATO is still the class enemy of the working people of all countries, are as follows.
Some benefits of Finland’s neutrality. During the Cold War, Finland’s neutrality contributed to the development of a market economy and a reliable social protection system in Finland, allowed profitable trade with the USSR and other socialist countries. Finland actually became a member of the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance.
The USSR supplied energy carriers to Finland at low prices, thanks to which Finland not only developed old industries, but also created new ones: chemical and light industry, machine tool construction, its own military industry, advanced woodworking and others.
Soviet and then Russian oil, gas, nickel, chemical products, timber and electricity came to Europe through Finnish territory. The USSR bought industrial equipment, construction materials, chemical products, consumer goods, shipbuilding and timber processing products.
In the 90s and later, Finland’s exports of transport services exceeded five billion dollars a year, and exports of maritime transport services amounted to more than 900 million dollars a year. The average trade turnover between Finland and Russia reached $20 billion a year. In the pandemic year of 2021, the growth of trade turnover amounted to more than 70 percent.
Finns’ air travel to Asia via Russian territory was much faster and cheaper than any other way.
Prerequisites for joining NATO.
The greed of the Russian “elite” and its failed foreign policy is the root cause of Finland’s accession to NATO. In the post-Soviet years, Russia limited itself mainly to the economy, reducing political and cultural programs and exchanges to a minimum.
The strategy of the West. The United States has been politically and informationally influencing the Finnish elite and Finnish society on an increasing scale in order to turn Finland into a second Ukraine.
Finnish nationalism intensified due to the Russification policy of Tsar Nicholas II and was supported by both Germany and the Entente countries. In February 1919, at the peace conference in Versailles, the delegation of Finland demanded that the whole of Karelia and the Kola Peninsula be transferred to Finland in order to form “Great Finland”. It was the Finland of the white Finns, not the red ones, because the uprising of the red Finns, who proclaimed Finland socialist workers’ republic in January 2018 was suppressed with the help of German troops.
On April 21-22, 1919, Finnish troops unexpectedly invaded Karelia and quickly reached Petrozavodsk. During the June — July the Finns were defeated and retreated beyond the border line. The first Finnish-Soviet War ended on October 14, 1920 with the signing of the Tartu Peace Treaty. But On November 6, 1921, Finnish troops invaded again Eastern Karelia without declaring war. By mid-February, Finnish troops were driven out, and on March 21, 1922, the war ended.
November 30, 1939 – March 12, 1940 – so called “Winter War”. A peace treaty was signed in Moscow. Finland lost Karelian isthmus and the city of Vyborg.
1941 – 1944. The war against the USSR on the side of fascist Germany.
Immediately after the destruction of the USSR, the Finnish authorities began to think about a NATO “umbrella”. Finland joined the NATO Partnership for Peace program, regularly participated in exercises, as well as military campaigns of the alliance, including the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. The trigger of a sharp increase in anti-Russian sentiment in Finland was played by the beginning of Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine. Anti-Russian forces in Finland immediately drew a direct parallel with the “Winter War“.
Consequences of Finland’s accession to NATO.
The military aspect. Military spending (two percent of the country’s GDP) as a member of NATO. Plus additional infrastructure and other costs. In particular, Finland has already transferred military equipment worth 910 million euros to the armed forces of Ukraine and may be involved in the war in Ukraine. Back on May 26, 2022, not Russian, but Finnish political scientist Johan Beckman suggested that NATO could shoot down a civilian plane to provoke a conflict between Finland, Sweden and Russia. Now there is a high probability that the territory of Finland will become a base for Ukrainian terrorists.
From now on, Finland must obey the policy of NATO, resist Russia and China, participate in wars around the world and then bury its citizens. In particular, Finland was accepted into NATO in order, as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have already stated, to close Russia’s access to the Baltic Sea, which will become a NATO lake. Then Finland will be the main participant in the new blockade of Leningrad (St. Petersburg).
American military bases and lethal weapons, including nuclear bombs, short- and medium-range missiles with nuclear stuffing, will be deployed on the territory of Finland. Accordingly, Finland has become the object of a retaliatory military strike, including a nuclear one in the event of a direct conflict between the “united West” and the “Russian-Chinese bloc”, the possible result of which will be the destruction of the country in the name of foreign and not Finnish strategic interests.
The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on April 4, 2023: “As we have repeatedly warned, the Russian Federation will be forced to take retaliatory measures of both military-technical and other nature in order to stop threats to our national security arising from Finland’s accession to NATO.”
The economic aspect. Finland has stopped buying oil, gas, wood, as well as coal and electricity from Russia. Replacements from the USA, South Africa and Australia are much more expensive due to logistics.
Finnish timber processing, the transport sector and tourism have already suffered the most.
The increase in electricity prices in Finland reached 353 percent in 2022. Inflation was almost 9 percent (8.8 percent), whereas during the previous ten years it did not exceed one or two percent.
Finland is losing 1.5 million euros a month due to the closure of Russian airspace.
In 2022, Finnish Fennovoima unilaterally terminated the contract for the construction of the Hanhikivi-1 nuclear power plant in Finland. Rosatom demanded compensation for the value of its shares and early repayment of the loan for 920 million euros, and its entire claim for about three billion euros.
The international transport corridor “North-South” (“from the Varangians to the Persians”) was supposed to end in Helsinki and complement the Chinese West-East project. Iran will benefit, Finland will not.
As a result, Finland is likely to face the fate of the Baltic states — a poor state with a weak economy. Once upon a time in tsarist Russia, the common people called Finland Chukhonia, which was synonymous with poverty and backwardness. Therefore, the title of one of the articles in the Russian media on April 16 is very symbolic: “Finland shot herself in the foot. Next up is a bullet in the forehead”.
The humanitarian aspect. Residents of Finland, especially the border towns of Imatra, Kotka, Savonlinna, Hamina, Kuhmo and others regularly traveled to the Russian side, where they had either relatives or good friends, conducted joint business, vacationed together, created families. But soon it will become impossible.
Conclusion. Most likely, it will be possible to fill in the gap that has arisen between Finland and Russia only in one case – the origin of a new Soviet Union from Lisbon to Vladivostok and from Helsinki to Athens, Istanbul and Tehran.
Some additional main dates
Finland was a Swedish province in the 12th – 18th centuries.
As a result of the war of 1808-1809, which ended with the complete defeat of Sweden, according to the Friedrichsham Peace Treaty of 1809, all of Finland and the Aland Islands were ceded to Russia. In 1809, the Grand Duchy of Finland was formed with its Sejm, and a special commission on Finnish affairs was created (later renamed the Committee on Finnish Affairs). In 1812, Helsingfors (Helsinki) was declared the capital of the principality. Finland enjoyed significant benefits and privileges.
Finland declared its independence on December 6, 1917. The Council of People’s Commissars, headed by Lenin, recognized Finland’s independence. On January 4, 1918, the VTSIK ratified the recognition of Finland’s independence.
The Finnish Social Democrats, together with other leftist forces, organized detachments of the Red Guard and in January 1918 proclaimed Finland a socialist workers’ republic. The Finnish government fled to the north, where the leader of the Conservative party, Baron Carl Gustav Mannerheim, formed detachments of the White Guard (Schutskor) to prevent the spread of the revolutionary movement. A civil war broke out between the whites and the Reds, who were helped by the Russian troops still remaining in the country. Germany sent a division to help the Whites establish a pro-German regime. The Reds were unable to resist the well-armed Kaiser’s troops, who soon captured Tampere and Helsinki. The last red stronghold of Vyborg fell in April 1918. The Sejm was convened to form a government, and Per Evind Svinhuvud was appointed acting head of state.
1956 – 1981. The 1956 presidential election was won by the leader of the Agrarian Union Urho Kekkonen, who until 1981 maintained a policy of friendly relations with the USSR.
When Finland was a Swedish province, they tried to build the Saimaa Canal, but it didn’t work out. When Finland was part of the Russian Empire, the canal was built at the expense of the Russian treasury in 1845-1856.
