In Finland’s Russia debate, there are always tensions between principles and practicality. EU decisions on sanctions are based on principles, while business wants to continue business as usual. Such the opposite is not uncommon when legal principles collide with the use of violence and outsiders have to suffer. But one might ask: Are we outsiders?
Undoubtedly, Russia’s policy towards Ukraine has had an impact on us as well. It updates the existential issues related to Finland’s security. It evokes unpleasant memories, such as when Putin expresses his understanding of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It should also remind us of our long-standing Eastern policy.
It is worrying that there are people who are ready to understand Russia’s demands in an area of interest in which the country has the right to intervene. The excuse is that Ukraine is not a functioning state and that Crimea once belonged to Russia and can therefore be taken back. What do they think of Finland in the case that once belonged to the Russian Empire?
Paasikivi and President Kekkonen have different opinions about the neighbor. Simply put: Kekkonen clearly feared world power, the Soviet Union, and wanted to believe that the policy of friendship would protect us. Together with the inevitability of geopolitics, this led to the strengthening of the “legitimate security problems” of the Soviet Union. It allowed us to fall within the sphere of interest of the Soviet Union, not because of our own free choice, but because of the geographical situation and the outcome of the war.
It is clear from Paasikivi’s diaries that he recognizes the nature of world power and its security interests. This requires objectivity and sensitivity in Russia policy, but at the same time he warned against trusting the Russians and their good will. The world power does not love a small neighbor, at most it is tolerated. There was no slave who whispered in Stalin’s ear: Master, master, remember Finland.
In particular, the following myth is cherished among a few clicks: Finland is in a particularly privileged position in Russian foreign policy. However, its cultivation is dangerous self-deception. It is true that the Russians have shown us good will, but it is so easily destroyed by the false propaganda spread by the wrongdoer Johan Bäckman.
To the question of how we treat Russians in general, I answer: We can consider Russians as individuals, but we consider them as a collective (the idea of the Russian state). Rusophobia is not a good basis for realistic Russia policy. Let the merchants trade as long as possible (until their investment is confiscated?), And try to distinguish between Putin’s doctrine and his subjects, those who nomenclature try to brainwash to incorporate new but old doctrines of the empire.
We cannot prevent Putin’s Russia from looking at us and the Baltics in its area of interest, but we do not have to accept it. Even today, there is good reason to remember Paasikivi’s realistic opinions.
Pär Stenbäck
The author was under Finnish Foreign Minister Bresjnev.
Pär Stenbäck is a former Finnish politician who has been a Member of Parliament, Minister of Education and Foreign Affairs in 1985 before the year. For 20 years he served in a leading position in the Red Cross movement, including as Secretary General of Russia. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (Geneva). He is a founding member of the ICG and the ECP of the European Parliament of Culture. He was awarded the Order of the Minister in 1999. Today he is the President of the New Finnish Foreign Policy Association (NUPS). He works regularly in the media.