In WWII there was no such weapon that could destroy the entire planet. WWII Soviet doctrine was to simply throw meat at the German war machine and overwhelm it. A botched river crossing on the Eastern front is in no way, shape or form a comparable to launching thermonuclear devices on populated areas that WILL lead to the end of civilization.
Never say never, but you are insinuating that Finland is Russia's red line, but that is far from the case. Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania are already members and they are on Russia's doorstep. What makes Finland so different?
Russian recruitment offices are getting hit with molotov coctails. Once again, hard to say who's doing this, but I would put it down as signs of dissidence.
Russian recruitment offices are getting hit with molotov coctails. Once again, hard to say who's doing this, but I would put it down as signs of dissidence.
Mandatory military service, they don't so much lure as order. That's a hell of a motivation for young men to torch these places down.
My understanding is that although some conscripts are filtering to the front lines, Putin has stated he wants ot put a stop to that and is at least limiting the number of conscripts in Ukraine. You may be correct about conscripts, but Russia is also very actively looking for "volunteers".
My understanding is that although some conscripts are filtering to the front lines, Putin has stated he wants ot put a stop to that and is at least limiting the number of conscripts in Ukraine. You may be correct about conscripts, but Russia is also very actively looking for "volunteers".
Yeah no question, and Russia is also genuinely trying to recruit people into the "professional" part of their force.
That said, it's Putin... Would you bet your life on his word on that?
Those things are mostly inaccurate, but there's a LOT of misinformation about that era around, even in Finland.
The myth of finlandization as it's discussed today is mostly an ahistorical pummeling tool certain people on the right direct at the left.
Actual finlandization was a lot more about the right and center deciding that Finlands commercial interests with Soviet Union were more important than anything else. Security was a part of it of course,, but if trade with Soviet Union hadn't become a massive source of wealth for Finland, Finlandization likely never happens.
As for how it worked, again it was mostly just about people in power, from politicians to businessmen to news editors etc, kind of all agreeing that talking smack about Soviet Union is a bad idea, and each enforcing that through their own means, rather than specific laws. It's something that can happen quite easily in a small country, as the people in power all know each other.
The extent to which criticism of Soviet Union was prohibited is also massively exaggerated. It was certainly a thing, but you could absolutely get books or articles or songs published on that topic for example. You could of course get a lot of public #### if you did it, or even worse be ignored to death, which obviously created a chilling effect. But it's not hard at all to find anti-soviet talk from that era.
Not that there wasn't plenty of genuinely pro-soviet thinking on the left, but that didn't really change during this period from what it was before, it was the center and right changing their stance that really created this era. SInce for the the right Finlandization wasn't ideological but purely practical, paradoxically criticizing the Soviet Union became mostly a leftist thing, as it was very much part of leftist infighting. (For an example, the two then-major left wing parties condemned Prague Spring 1968 quite strictly, while no other party said anything.)
Finlandization wasn't caused by any one factor, but rather there was a period where most people regardless of their political leanings kind of all agreed that we shouldn't talk smack about the Soviet Union, all for their own reasons. Some of it was security, some of it was ideology, but a lot of it was money.
Soviet Union wasn't just a huge trading partner for Finland, it was also an extremely profitable one, because Finland was one of the very few countries in the world that could pretty freely trade with both the Soviet bloc and the Nato bloc. That special trade position is a key reason why Finland very rapidly went from a poor mostly agricultural country to a rich industrialized country during the Cold War era.
As I like to put it, it's easy to get righteous about it now, but Finlandization worked out extremely well for us in retrospect.
I am sure you know the intricacies better than I do, being from there. I have only recently read about it as it became the word of the day because of the Ukraine war.
Something I found funny though is that the Soviets pressured Finland to remove some books from libraries and publication because they were considered anti-Soviet, or in some cases, Finland made the decision to avoid any issues. The books were of course still legal to own and sell second hand, so it's not like people would get prosecuted just for having them. I heard, and maybe my information is incorrect, that there is a library in Finland that has a special section now for banned books from around there world. If it is banned somewhere in the world, or was at some point of history, they put the book in their library to preserve it in history. Kind of like a big middle finger to oppressive regimes.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I am sure you know the intricacies better than I do, being from there. I have only recently read about it as it became the word of the day because of the Ukraine war.
Something I found funny though is that the Soviets pressured Finland to remove some books from libraries and publication because they were considered anti-Soviet, or in some cases, Finland made the decision to avoid any issues. The books were of course still legal to own and sell second hand, so it's not like people would get prosecuted just for having them. I heard, and maybe my information is incorrect, that there is a library in Finland that has a special section now for banned books from around there world. If it is banned somewhere in the world, or was at some point of history, they put the book in their library to preserve it in history. Kind of like a big middle finger to oppressive regimes.
Yeah that sort of thing did happen, Soviet Union making unreasonable demands and Finns agreeing. Again, Finlandization was a thing, it's just good to be aware that greed played a large part in it.
Your example is also a pretty good one, in that it captures pretty well what Finlandization meant in practice a lot of the time. "Sure we'll remove certain books from the libraries and stop printing them". Of course, most books ever get one print anyway so it's a rather meaningless concession, and who's going to actually check every library in Finland in the pre-digital age. Oh, and obviously we can only control public libraries, not any of the other libraries.
There were some really huge things though, the main one being that at times certain parties were kept in opposition because of worries what Soviet Union might think, and a large reason we had the same president from 1956 to 1982 was because he was seen as someone who could guarantee good relationships with the Soviet Union.
As a whole Finlandization is more complicated than trading freedom for safety. Keeping good relationships with Soviet Union was about lot more than just being afraid they might attack.
It's also good to remember that major powers dictating policy for smaller countries has been a thing since countries have been a thing. USA did and does exactly the same, and has attacked countries which dare to oppose US interests, either financially or militarily. It's one reason why the EU happened rather quickly after the Soviet collapse. At that time there was only one superpower left standing, and Europe felt it needed to work together to be able to push back.
I have to point out that my view on Finlandization isn't necessarily Finnish mainstream. But I have studied the topic more than average :P
Last edited by Itse; 05-14-2022 at 04:38 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
In WWII there was no such weapon that could destroy the entire planet. WWII Soviet doctrine was to simply throw meat at the German war machine and overwhelm it. A botched river crossing on the Eastern front is in no way, shape or form a comparable to launching thermonuclear devices on populated areas that WILL lead to the end of civilization.
Never say never, but you are insinuating that Finland is Russia's red line, but that is far from the case. Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania are already members and they are on Russia's doorstep. What makes Finland so different?
No, it’s if they would Launch a Nuke in the absence of an invasion of Russia, no amount of appeasement will stop them from launching a Nuke.
I do agree with your point on appeasement and to that end, it was inevitable then. Which when you have nuclear weapons lying around, maybe human nature just does make it inevitable.
MOD and map updates. Over last few days Russians appear to be withdrawing near the Kharkiv area with Ukrainian forces continuing to push northward towards the border. They are within 10Km in some places there. In the Izium area the Ukrainians have reportedly started a counter attack in the region, but have not shown any gains yet. Russians in the area have managed to gain control over small areas in Donetsk Oblast near Popasana, Lyman, and Rubizhne but have not been able to gain enough control at all to encircle Severodonetsk from reports of their plans.
Kherson's puppet government is petitioning to join the Russian federation just like with Donetsk and Luhansk, no surprise there.
An interesting article on what Putins end game could look like which kind of explains the resource being spent to try to encircle things and as interesting ramifications on the nuclear discussion
Russian President Vladimir Putin likely intends to annex occupied southern and eastern Ukraine directly into the Russian Federation in the coming months. He will likely then state, directly or obliquely, that Russian doctrine permitting the use of nuclear weapons to defend Russian territory applies to those newly annexed territories. Such actions would threaten Ukraine and its partners with nuclear attack if Ukrainian counteroffensives to liberate Russian-occupied territory continue. Putin may believe that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would restore Russian deterrence after his disastrous invasion shattered Russia's conventional deterrent capabilities.
If you haven't heard if the hockey tournament before, I suggest you look it up. Putin plays against pros and typically gets around 8 goals. If you're wondering why Russian propaganda gets lapped up the way it does.. Well it's not a few thing.
