T. Malinen on the current Finnish geopolitical amnesia

____________________________________

(Publisher’s Note – What follows below is a piece by Finnish economist T. Malinen, an Economics prof at the University of Helsinki (as I understand it). It is a polemic calling on Finland, which has just joined NATO, to sign a non-aggression pact with Russia and in so doing reducing the chance that Finland will be used as a springboard for a NATO to attack Russia. The piece first appeared in some form in Finland in Finnish. I used “Google Translate” – Finnish-to-English to translate it into English.

Although Malinen is essentially calling on the Finnish government to return to its former policy of neutrality between East and West (Russia and NATO/USA) – which seems, given Finnish post WW2 history of eminently reasonable, the likelihood of this happening in the near future is pretty close to nil. A genuine tragedy from where I am sitting having lived in Finland in the mid to late 1980s and experienced the fruits of that policy for the national well being and a reduction of tensions in Europe.

Admittedly, as my wife, Nancy, noted earlier today, all that today is “pie in the sky”. True enough, but, but – Finland’s dive into NATO, its new agreement to give the United States access to 15 military bases and the distinct possibility that should NATO attack Russia that at least a part of that attack would come through the Nordic countries, especially Finland – all this in such a short order – has created a new geo-political reality where Finland has morphed from a bridge between East and West to making Finland a frontline country – a kind of Ukraine of the North – that has dangerous implications (from where I am sitting) for its future.

Funny thing is that, quite frankly, on many issues, especially on economic and social policy, he and I are miles apart. From what I can gleam he is a quite conservative “free marketeer”, myself still a socialist. Yet, when he talks about geo-politics, about NATO, about Finnish relations with Russia, we are, essentially, on the same page: that Finland has made a terrible mistake in joining NATO and in putting itself on the frontline for confrontations with Russia.

He has shown both courage and a great deal of thought. I wish him well. RJP

T. Malinen – X – September 19, 2024

“I publish a Finnish speaking post here, in which I propose a non-aggression pact to be signed between Finland and Russia. It has been originally published in Puheenvuoro – blog @uusisuomi, but they have a very bad habit of censoring critical entries. (so he published on X)

“The main point of this piece is that citizens of Russia and Finland have had no quarrels between them for decades. The whole European escalation is being driven by political forces with likely sinister aims.

As a very worrying historical anecdote from Finland’s point of view, it must be stated that the political chaos of the world powers at that time has often predicted a great war. This applies to both the beginning of World War I and World War II, which I have gone through in the update of my English blog published at the end of 2022 (31.12).I predicted in the same blog that Ukraine has probably (in the worst case) already lost the war. Now only our most stubborn propagandists dispute it.

Although I started strongly defending Ukraine after the war started in February 2022, by the end of the summer I had begun to doubt the motives of the West,and especially the United States, behind the war. In the fact that the war did not end in the spring of 2022, when Russia had achieved all its publicly announced goals and the so-called the mud season had started in Ukraine(the soil did not support tanks),there was simply no sense. Now we know that the former Prime Minister of Great Britain @BorisJohnson and US President Joe Biden (@POTUS )administration destroyed the armistice agreement agreed in March-April 2022 in Turkey. The West’s motives in the conflict in Ukraine have indeed been revealed to be very dark, while Russia’s motives are clear, although quite unpleasant from the point of view of Ukraine.

Ukraine’s attack on Kursk can be seen as a last desperate attempt to get Russia to respond in a way that would lead to a wider conflict between NATO and it. It is the only hope of the corrupt current leadership of Ukraine. Since the operation is already in great difficulty, the next options for President Zelensky’s cabinet(and NATO) are a missile attack on Moscow (i.e. similar major escalation) or a false flag operation in Ukraine or Europe, for which Russia would be blamed. These so-called false flag operations are also familiar to us Finns. The Soviet Union falsely claimed that Finnish artillery fired on the Russian side in the village of Mainila on November 26, 1939, killing four soldiers, and used it as a reason to start the Winter War four days later.

For some reason, the European elite seems to want a war between Russia and NATO, where our country would naturally play a central role. Although I consider Finland’s joining NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) a catastrophic mistake for both our country and the world, we can also turn it to serve Finland’s decades-long peace mission.

In this article I present the main principles of how this would be done. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this will happen, because our president, prime minister and foreign minister, that is, my former friend Elina Valtonen, seem to be personally committed to pushing our country and Europe into a war against Russia.

It should also be noted that yesterday Ilta-Sanomie’s editor Heini Särkkä contacted me asking for comments. I stated that I would answer all questions after the publication of this blog on Tuesday morning. They were obviously in a hurry, which is why the article was published on Monday. In relation to that, I can state that X is a public social media, and I am not responsible for what is written about my views in Russia. The Association of Docents recommends using the title “Associate Professor” in English from our title, which is unknown abroad, because it corresponds to the level of our academic merits. I have not received funding from Russia or any other state source, and I will not receive any.

Now to the matter itself.

Since the end of the Continuation War, Finland’s geopolitical role in Europe has been to stand between East and West. As President Paasikivi, sympathizing with the then leader of the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin, stated, we can’t do anything about geography (location. Our 1340 km border with Russia makes us the second most important European country for Russia after Ukraine.

Russia’s security concept has long been based on the concept of bezopasnost.

The direct translation of the concept is “absence of threat”.

Russian history writing includes five events when Russia’s existence has been threatened.

The Poles captured the Kremlin in the early 17th century.
• The Kingdom of Sweden-Finland fought a war against Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, as a result of which Finland was annexed to the Russian Empire (where we got autonomy and eventually our own money).
• On June 24, 1812, Napoleon launched his campaign into Russia, which resulted in the burning of Moscow (by the Russians), the massive defeat of Napoleon’s Grand Army, and Napoleon’s fall from power, for the second and final time.
• The First World War broke out primarily between the military coalitions of Russia-France and Germany-Austria/Hungarian Empire.
• Adolf Hitler started Operation Barbarossa, in which Finland acted as an “outside member”, on June 22, 1942. Operation Barbarossa spilled over into Russia through Poland and Ukraine, but also through Finland when we started the Continuation War just three days after the start of Operation Barbarossa. Napoleon invaded Russia through Poland and Ukraine.

So Russia has rightly felt that the threat is coming from Europe and Ukraine.

In Bezopasnost thinking, there is a safe zone around Russia, consisting of either allied countries or neutral (non-aligned)countries. This became very clear, for example, in the negotiations that took place after the end of the European part of the Second World War (and the so-called Potsdam Conference).

Stalin wanted a buffer zone in Poland, which it had already agreed on in the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement on August 23, 1939, where Finland was included in the Soviet front circle. However, the other Allies did not take too kindly to this, which led to the “Sovietization” of Poland and the division of Germany.

In the meantime, it must be stated that it is completely irrelevant whether the Russian leadership’s concern is justified or not. The only thing that matters is how they experience it. This applies to both nuclear weapons superpowers, the United States and Russia, who defend their interests brutally. The only difference between the two countries is that Russia focuses on nearby areas, while the United States, as the leading naval and air power, fights wars all over the world.

After the end of the Second World War, Finland was in a bad situation.

Because we had fought alongside Nazi Germany, the connections with the Western countries (the Allies) were severed. Things were dictated to us while the threat of a Soviet invasion hovered over us. I believe that hiding weapons saved us from that after the war ended. Finland was practically forced into some degree of close cooperation with the Soviet Union. This materialized in the signing of the “YYA” agreement on “friendship, cooperation and assistance” on April 6, 1948. The agreement defined our relationship with the Soviet Union for decades, but its primary purpose was to ensure Finland’s independence and keep our country outside the Warsaw Pact signed on May 14, 1955, which was the Soviet Union’s the leadership equivalent of NATO (which was founded on April 4, 1949).

In the 1950s, our presidents, Juho-Kusti Paasikivi and Urho Kaleva Kekkonen, formulated the Paasikivi-Kekkonen line, i.e. neutrality.

The Paasikivi-Kekkonen line worked excellently.

The foreign trade of the Soviet Union was fairly strongly sanctioned by the Western powers, which opened excellent opportunities for Finland to develop our industry with the help of Eastern trade. It must be remembered that Finland was a relatively poor country when the wars started, and trade with the Soviet Union played a key role in raising our country to its current standard of living. In practice, Finland presented friendship to the leadership of the Soviet Union, even though our eyes were always on the west.

Still, our state leadership understood “geography”. It was in Finland’s interest to arm the so-called ? to the teeth, but not to make our country a threat to the Soviet Union.

A warm relationship also began to emerge between Finns and Russians, at least in the east. In the western parts of Finland, Russia has often been feared, primarily because there is no contact surface there. It was completely different for people living in Eastern and Southeastern Finland, where both sides of my family come from. Of course, there was a certain hostility towards Russia there too, because many had lost lands and people in our wars (like my mother’s side of the family). Still, the attitude towards the Russians was mostly warm, but reserved. When the borders opened after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians gradually raised the areas of Imatra, Lappeenranta and Joensuu to an almost unprecedented growth. Now the regions are either in decline or persevering with government subsidies (Joensuu’s situation is slightly better.

The connection between Finland and Russia continued to flourish even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, change was on the way.

Corruption and propaganda of the Finnish political leadership

I discussed the dangerous alliance between Finland and NATO in my article published in the US-based The Epoch Times on March 21, 2023. In it I reviewed our warlike but successful history with Russia, the broken promises of our political leadership, especially President Niinistö, about consulting the people about NATO membership, and the danger that Finland, as a member of NATO, would drive Europe into. The article was not quoted in Finland because I was labeled as a Russian troll. Knowing my family history, I found this rather absurd, but the same development was seen throughout the Western world.

Anyone who questioned NATO’s involvement in the war in Ukraine was labeled either a Russian supporter or a lunatic. Their motives and sources of funding were questioned in the media, but especially in extensive social media campaigns where “NATO fellas” painted and smeared anyone who critically analyzed the war in Ukraine. Funding for the campaign will likely come from both NATO and the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Russia is naturally carrying out its own propaganda operations, as it has been doing for a very long time. Almost all Finns are familiar with Russia’s attempts to influence Finland, but we are not used to the large-scale war propaganda of the Western media, and especially not our own media. However, we became subject to it in February 2022, and they continue to this day. Propaganda’s task is to make the majority of the people believe lies, and in Finland it succeeded excellently.

It must be said that both Helsingin Sanomat and e.g. Iltalehti have continued to smear me by publishing only parts of my long interviews that in some way indirectly question my motives and patriotism. I agreed to both of the interviews linked above only to show myself, and the Finns, how corrupt our mainstream media is.

Back to the point.

Although the connection between Russians and Finns strengthened during the 1990s and 2000s, our state leaders proceeded in completely different directions. The Finnish leadership kept pushing Finland closer to NATO, and the suspicions of the Russian leadership towards NATO and Finland grew. The annexation of Crimea, the background of which has been excellently mapped by the well-known American economist and diplomat Jeffrey Sachs. @TuckerCarlson in the interview, the cooperation between Finland and NATO began to deepen in a way that eventually led to our full membership in the military alliance.

However, the wildest moment of our independence was experienced when the sitting president @alexstubb signed a defense cooperation agreement with the current leadership of Ukraine. For the first time since President Risto Rytin, who agreed in his personal letter to Adolf Hitler in June 1944 that Finland would not seek a separate peace with the Soviet Union, our president has agreed on military cooperation with Russia’s enemy. In the summer of 1944, we were of course in a completely different situation, and President Ryti’s personal courage probably saved our country from the invasion of the Soviet Union. On the contrary, President Stubb has made our country the target of military action.

I have discussed Stubb’s activities with a law firm specializing in constitutional matters, and they have wondered how the president can make such an agreement without the formal approval of parliament. The question is also whether President Stubb’s action is treason? If the agreement leads to war between Russia and Finland, according to the law firm, it would be difficult to see how it would NOT be treason.

In any case, President Stubb has put our country in unimaginable danger, as has Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen when he signed the DCA (Defense Cooperation Agreement) with the United States. The agreement apparently gives the United States the opportunity to use the military areas defined in it almost as its own, which in the worst case would mean that it could deploy e.g. nuclear weapons in Finland if it wanted to (although our nuclear weapons law currently prohibits this). This would be a situation to which the Russian leadership would almost have to react.

In my opinion, the most worrying thing is that President Stubb did not rule out sending Finnish troops to Ukraine in the interview. I can’t answer whether this would even be possible within the scope of our current military oath, which we have sworn to Finland. The statements of Prime Minister Orpo and Defense Minister Häkkänen are also unheard of in their aggressiveness towards Russia. Neutrality has turned into warmongering, the rationality of which can only be questioned. I keep asking myself who instructed them to talk like this?

In any case, Finland has very quickly turned from a neutral and friendly country into a threat to our nuclear-armed neighbor to the east. Of course, the risks of this are known to everyone, and I will not detail them further here. Instead, I’ll tell you how we’re changing course.

YYA 2.0 – The Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948

Finland has all the means to resolve the situation peacefully, both for itself and for Europe (and the world). On April 6, 1948, Finland and the Soviet Union therefore signed an agreement on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance, commonly known as the YYA agreement. It can be considered a real genius stamp from President Juho Kusti Paasikivi. As stated, after the Second World War, Finland was in a bad position after fighting alongside the losing side, Nazi Germany and thus the Axis Powers. We were isolated from Western cooperation for a long time.

The gaps between the allies began to close quickly after the victory, as I also stated above. The Soviet Union wanted a buffer zone in northern Europe and the United States did not want to loosen its grip on Europe. The government led by President Paasikivi and Prime Minister Mauno Pekkala apparently sensed the danger. Europe was blocking again.

In order to prevent Finland from falling into the Soviet Union’s favor again, the YYA agreement was negotiated. The main point of the agreement was its first article:

In the event that Finland or the Soviet Union through Finnish territory are subject to an armed attack by Germany or another state allied with it, Finland, loyal to its obligations as an independent state, will fight to repel the attack. In this case, Finland will use all available forces to defend the integrity of its territory on land, sea and air and will do so within Finland’s borders in accordance with its obligations defined in this agreement, with the assistance of the Soviet Union or together with it if necessary.

In the above-mentioned cases, the Soviet Union will provide Finland with the necessary assistance, which the contracting parties will mutually agree upon.

The clause “Finland faithful to its obligations as an independent state…” meant that Finland remained outside the Warsaw Pact signed on May 14, 1955, and also the North Atlantic Defense Alliance signed on April 4, 1949, i.e. NATO, until April 4, 2023. The agreement was a stroke of foreign policy genius, and even though we are now in NATO, we can do the same.

We can agree and sign an agreement with Russia in which we agree that Finland will not attack Russia, and we will not allow any country to attack Russia through Finland either. Finland naturally defends its territorial integrity if necessary by all means, and with the help of NATO, but we will not start and we will not allow anyone to start a war against Russia through our country. We also agreed that if a war breaks out between NATO and Russia, Finland will provide support to NATO countries according to the requirements of Article 5 and at our own discretion, but we will not start military operations against Russia and we will not allow NATO to carry out a military operation through our country.

We entered into YYA 2.0.

It is completely clear that our state leadership will not agree to this or even start a discussion on the matter. Personally, I believe that the Prime Minister @PetteriOrpo, Minister of Foreign Affairs @elinavaltonen Defense Minister Häkkänen and President Stubb can be completely controlled by an outside party. I know that the accusation is serious, but I can no longer find another motive for their anti-Russian and unpatriotic actions.

The threat is real

The Russian leadership has shown how it would probably work if a war broke out between NATO and Russia. Two nuclear bombardment exercises on Stockholm by bombers (at the end of April 2013 and at the end of March 2022) showed that Stockholm would be destroyed by nuclear weapons, after which the Russian forces would (probably) occupy the island of Gotland, thereby taking control of the entire Baltic Sea. The destruction of Stockholm would practically paralyze the defense of the Nordic countries and as an “island” Finland would be forced to negotiate and surrender. The alternative would be for our country’s central cities and critical infrastructure to be destroyed, most likely by nuclear strikes. After this, it would be little consolation what would happen to Russia.

Finland has everything to lose in the dawning war between NATO and Russia, but for some reason our state leadership is pushing us into it. There has been no hostility between the peoples of Finland and Russia for decades. Wars were fought, defeats were accepted and coexistence continued, which, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, clearly deepened.

The current conflict is entirely driven by our political leaders; Not Russian or Finnish citizens. It’s time for us (citizens) to remind our political leaders what we really want (peace).

_________________________

Endnotes:

1. The term the “Continuous War” refers to Finland’s participation in World War 2 in cooperation with the Nazis. To refer to Finland’s role in WW2 on the side of the Nazis as “a continuation” is a mechanical way to soften the fact that it was in an alliance with Hitler and to suggest that they were just “continuing” their struggle for national independence from the USSR. Perhaps a reason for this deception was the Finnish effort to distance themselves from their role in the blockade of Leningrad (now St Petersburg) in which a million people died of starvation, freezing to death, death from shelling
2. YYA – The Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance known as the YYA Agreement in Finnish