Finland’s choice. Join NATO and cross Russia’s path

Presidential elections were held in Finland last Sunday. Incumbent President Sauli Niinistö (re-elected in 2018 with over 60% of the vote in the first round, setting a national record) has an impressive 90% rating, but he refused to change the constitution and did not participate in this election for the 1st time. Third time. It is not surprising that the two most popular candidates who made it to the second round of the elections, Green Party MP and former Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto and former Prime Minister Alexander Stubb, representative of the centre-right, imitated the current president in every possible way. As observers note, Finns have only one question for any of the presidential candidates: “Can you protect us from Russia?”

How did Finland say goodbye to its colony status?

The stories of Ukraine and Finland are quite similar. The Russian Empire conquered both and took these territories from weaker Western conquerors. Finland also had a certain special status in the empire (which Ukraine lost over time). And here disputes began.

After the 1917 revolution, Finland achieved what Ukraine had failed to do: it gained independence. The country of Suomi seems to be several decades ahead of Ukraine. Twenty years later, the restored empire sought to regain its “lost” territory. A short war took place in 1939-1940, which went down in history as the “Winter War”.

Important

In recent years, Ukraine has followed the example of Marshal Carl Gustav Mannerheim, who later led the resistance against the USSR, but in reality he acknowledged that his state had lost about 10% of its territory and the country’s second largest city. country, Vyborg. However, less than two years later he tried to win it back by forming an alliance with Nazi Germany. The Finns chose the wrong allies and could pay dearly for it. And already here Marshal Mannerheim really showed miracles of flexibility, admitted his guilt and still avoided the occupation of his lands.

Thus, Finland, the de facto ally of the Axis powers, found itself in a much better position as a result of World War II than Czechoslovakia and Poland, which were the first victims of aggression and came under harsh Soviet occupation. In fact, most countries in Eastern Europe became Moscow provinces, while Finland retained “broad autonomy”. Suomi was not included in the Warsaw Pact. Although the Finns became part of Moscow’s sphere of influence, they retained their self-government and political system. In practice, their position allowed them to maintain good relations with both sides of the Cold War, that is, to trade with both. To some extent this is a better temperament than some NATO countries.

This development of events led to Finland having one of the highest living standards in the world when it joined the European Union in 1995, following the collapse of the Bolshevik bloc. There was no point in giving up neutrality when the end of history seemed to be coming. The Russian Federation remained Finland’s largest trading partner until 2013. Finland imported energy resources from Russia (60-65% of imports) and in return sold high value-added finished products to the Russian Federation. The classical plan is actually beneficial for both – it made it possible to ensure a high level of wages for democratic Finland, which led to high living standards of the population; authoritarian Russia – to enrich the ruling elite from natural resources.

Finland and NATO – 30 years of cooperation

In the political realities of Ukraine at the turn of the millennium, attempts were made to define the concepts of political neutrality and pacifism. In fact, these are completely different concepts, and Suomi understood this very well. Like Switzerland and Sweden, Finland paid a certain price for non-alignment. He invested significant resources in his military-industrial complex, in the armament of his army and kept his population in good shape (or rather, in military registry). For Finland, the concept of neutrality did not mean that no one would attack it, but that in case of external attack, no one would oppose it. Therefore, you will still have to defend your independence on your own.

Therefore, Finland joined NATO with its own high military standards. Since 1992, the Finns began military cooperation with the alliance, which has deepened significantly in recent years. Already in the winter of 2022, 64 of the newest American military aircraft have been purchased.

Finland independently achieved a defense expenditure of more than 2% of its GDP (NATO standard); A significant portion of the alliance members cannot reach this figure. Despite possible stereotypes, Finnish society is highly militarized. At least 21 thousand reserve soldiers receive training every year, the total number of reserves is 900 thousand people, and the regular army is 280 thousand. This all has to do with Finland’s population of 5.5 million. If these rates are reflected in Ukraine, by December 2021 we should have a regular army of approximately 2 million people and approximately 7.5 million reserve soldiers ready to take up arms at any time.

How and why did Finland close its borders with the Russian Federation?

In recent years, with the usurpation of power in the Russian Federation by Putin, the situation on the border of the Russian Federation has become increasingly tense.

Borders with Finland make up less than 11% of Russia’s land border. It is difficult to isolate a large country like the Russian Federation, but it is possible to compress certain arteries. The route to the Kul Peninsula is one of these arteries and is controlled by Finland.

Finland’s strategic location provides real potential for controlling Russian troops’ access to the Arctic Ocean. According to Finnish professor Timo Vihavainen, Finland and the water bodies under its control have been of strategic importance to Russia for centuries and therefore it will not give them up so easily.

An important factor in relations between the Russian Federation and Finland is the ethnic component. East Karelia. After the annexation of the Finnish territory, a significant part of the population (about 25%) was resettled from there. This act of genocide is commemorated on both sides of the border. In addition, Finns are ethnically close to the inhabitants of the Karelia region of Russia. Many of its residents have relatives in Finland. Not to mention the difference in living standards on both sides of the border. Of course, the Russian authorities are brutally suppressing any sparks of local separatism, but the situation can change at any time and no one knows how far the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe “historical unity of the Finnish people” can go. Finally, after a war lost by the Russian Empire, whose fronts were almost as far from Finland as they were from Karelia, Finland gained independence.

The Kremlin’s hybrid response: an artificial migrant crisis and ultimatums

Finland’s participation in NATO has been the most beneficial for both parties. NATO has strengthened itself with a truly powerful ally that strengthens the military potential of the alliance. In addition, Finland’s strategic location has strengthened NATO’s geopolitical position. The loser in this situation was Russia, which received a strong response to its ultimatum in December 2021. The Russian Federation demanded that the alliance withdraw to the west and in return received a multiple increase in its land border with the alliance, which was also the most unfavorable for itself.

The Kremlin is trying in every possible way to destabilize the situation. In November 2021, the situation on the Polish-Belarusian border was repeated on the Finnish-Russian border. Russia “attacked” Finland with illegal immigrants. As a result, Helsinki decided to completely close the border with its underdog eastern neighbor. Even earlier, a strange situation occurred with damage to the gas pipeline connecting Finland with Estonia. It is clear that the hybrid aggression against Finland will continue in 2024, but it remains a secret what methods the Kremlin will choose in the future.

Results for Ukraine

For Ukraine, NATO expansion is an extremely positive factor. This puts Russian troops in a difficult situation (which is especially important in terms of electronic warfare and air defense systems; the Kremlin cannot afford to remain completely “blind” at such an important point) and also shows that the ultimatum policy in the Euro-Atlantic is working. The world is unacceptable and meaningless. It is important that official Kiev continues this trend in the long term, in order to provide more strategic support to Ukraine in our fight against the aggressor.