And why were the Soviets forced to make a pact with Nazi Germany? It was because the western powers rejected good-faith Soviet efforts to make a defence pact against the Nazis in the first place.
Why did the Winter Wars start? The Russians knew that the Nazis wouldn't honour the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and that Germany would have to use Finnish territories to invade Russia. So Stalin made some pre-emptive demands on the Finns to enhance security at their borders (territorial swap to create buffer zones, Soviet bases on strategic areas in Finland and in return Finland was offered security guarantees and trade). Ofcourse, due to historic mistrust between the Finns and the Russians, and as this impinged on the sovereignty of the Finns, the Finns had plenty of legitimate concerns to these demands. But what really tipped them to fight the Russians was the false hope that western superpowers would help them fight the Russians. The west didn't / couldn't. Just like with Ukraine today.
Finland was very much alone.
Just as Ukraine is fighting the Russians alone, today, right? That is factual. It is also factual that just as Ukraine is backed by many western powers in its fight against the Russians today, Finland was also backed by many western powers in its fight against the Soviet Union. The scale of effort may be different, but the politics are the same - encourage a proxy to fight the Russians, to weaken them, without sacrificing any of their own countrymen.
The war ended ... because Russians had broken through the main defensive line ...
Yeah, and that the Finns were smart is my point too - they knew when to stop fighting and surrender! Ukraine is losing men and territory, which it has no hopes of replenishing or regaining militarily, however much it hopes it can inflict some kind of defeat.
Finland did not believe that territory was unimportant.
That's debatable. Yeah, they licked their wounds after the Winter War, made a new alliance with Nazi Germany (who they assumed was a stronger partner) and when they felt confident to fight again, they did. And then after 3+ years, when they realised that they were again on the losing side, they stopped fighting and pragmatically surrendered. Read the history notes - Finland actually lost more territory after the Continuation war than it did in the Winter Wars. Apart from the loss of territory, they also had to pay huge reparations, fight the German army and rid of them from its territories, demobilise most of its army and agree to a reduced military and be neutral. And they did all that.
The pragmatism displayed by the Finnish leaders has to be appreciated. They fought, made peace, fought again, realised they (and Germany) were on the losing side, made peace again and even signed a "Friendship treaty" with USSR and gained the trust of the Russians again with sincere compliance. Subsequent Finnish governments were highly conscious of Soviet security interests, and Finland avoided policies that Moscow considered threatening. This bought them peace and security to strengthen themselves during this period.
As for the demands on Ukraine being different, note that the Russian demand on Ukraine, for a long time, was only to remain a neutral state and maintain its multi-cultural identity. Even after the western instigated coup, all Zelensky had to do was de-escalate domestic tension and declare that it would not join NATO and remain neutral. That's it. Instead, he escalated confrontation with Russia. If he had actually gained anything from that, I would call him a smart politician too. But what has been the result - he lost Crimea, he lost most parts of Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine's military is being decimated, it's economic infrastructure is facing heavy destruction, it's GDP is in the negative and now it is in danger of becoming a land locked country in the future too.
As to neutrality, Finland didn't join NATO because a 80-year-old clock ran out ...
They were neutral as long as it served their interest. But they were also pragmatic to prepare for the day they had to choose a side. That is what the 80+ years bought them. If they had let their ego dictate their war, they would either be a Russian territory or a war-ravaged nation with a broken economy like Ukraine is now.
Ukraine pursued the same kind of "sitting on both stools" neutrality and it didn't work out ...
It chose not to be neutral and became a pawn in the superpower politics between the west and Russia. It is as simple as that.
> And why were the Soviets forced to make a pact with Nazi Germany? It was because the western powers rejected good-faith Soviet efforts to make a defence pact against the Nazis in the first place.
Nobody forced the USSR to enter an alliance with Germany. You stress "good-faith" as is customary to Russian trolls, because the pre-war negotiations were anything but; the USSR demanded free transit through Poland in the event of war with Germany. Poland rejected this, fearing that the Soviets would remain as an occupying force and never leave. History proved them correct. In practical terms, this would have legitimized the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September 1939.
> But what really tipped them to fight the Russians was the false hope that western superpowers would help them fight the Russians.
This claim is not supported by the historical record by any stretch. It is a modern Russian spin on events to belittle the agency of neighboring countries and reduce everything to a "western conspiracy", because they don't want to draw attention to the reasons why everyone hates Russians. After Russians dropped bombs on Helsinki, the Finns did not need any cigar-smoking top-hat wearing man from Washington to tell them to defend their homeland from invaders.
> Even after the western instigated coup, all Zelensky had to do was de-escalate domestic tension and declare that it would not join NATO and remain neutral. /---/ he lost Crimea, he lost most parts of Eastern Ukraine
There was no coup in Ukraine, and by the time Zelenskyy was voted into office (2019), the Russian war against Ukraine was in its fifth year. Pinning the loss of Crimea (2014) on him tells that you just don't know what you're talking about. Accusing Zelenskyy of escalating tensions with Russia is also utterly absurd. He campaigned on de-escalation, met with Putin in December 2019 in pursuit of that, and in the first few years in office, worked on a comprehensive ceasefire. His efforts were rewarded with a full-scale invasion of the entire country.
As I said before, you are recommending a recipe that already led to a disaster.
Comments
And why were the Soviets forced to make a pact with Nazi Germany? It was because the western powers rejected good-faith Soviet efforts to make a defence pact against the Nazis in the first place.
Why did the Winter Wars start? The Russians knew that the Nazis wouldn't honour the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and that Germany would have to use Finnish territories to invade Russia. So Stalin made some pre-emptive demands on the Finns to enhance security at their borders (territorial swap to create buffer zones, Soviet bases on strategic areas in Finland and in return Finland was offered security guarantees and trade). Ofcourse, due to historic mistrust between the Finns and the Russians, and as this impinged on the sovereignty of the Finns, the Finns had plenty of legitimate concerns to these demands. But what really tipped them to fight the Russians was the false hope that western superpowers would help them fight the Russians. The west didn't / couldn't. Just like with Ukraine today.
Just as Ukraine is fighting the Russians alone, today, right? That is factual. It is also factual that just as Ukraine is backed by many western powers in its fight against the Russians today, Finland was also backed by many western powers in its fight against the Soviet Union. The scale of effort may be different, but the politics are the same - encourage a proxy to fight the Russians, to weaken them, without sacrificing any of their own countrymen.
Yeah, and that the Finns were smart is my point too - they knew when to stop fighting and surrender! Ukraine is losing men and territory, which it has no hopes of replenishing or regaining militarily, however much it hopes it can inflict some kind of defeat.
That's debatable. Yeah, they licked their wounds after the Winter War, made a new alliance with Nazi Germany (who they assumed was a stronger partner) and when they felt confident to fight again, they did. And then after 3+ years, when they realised that they were again on the losing side, they stopped fighting and pragmatically surrendered. Read the history notes - Finland actually lost more territory after the Continuation war than it did in the Winter Wars. Apart from the loss of territory, they also had to pay huge reparations, fight the German army and rid of them from its territories, demobilise most of its army and agree to a reduced military and be neutral. And they did all that.
The pragmatism displayed by the Finnish leaders has to be appreciated. They fought, made peace, fought again, realised they (and Germany) were on the losing side, made peace again and even signed a "Friendship treaty" with USSR and gained the trust of the Russians again with sincere compliance. Subsequent Finnish governments were highly conscious of Soviet security interests, and Finland avoided policies that Moscow considered threatening. This bought them peace and security to strengthen themselves during this period.
As for the demands on Ukraine being different, note that the Russian demand on Ukraine, for a long time, was only to remain a neutral state and maintain its multi-cultural identity. Even after the western instigated coup, all Zelensky had to do was de-escalate domestic tension and declare that it would not join NATO and remain neutral. That's it. Instead, he escalated confrontation with Russia. If he had actually gained anything from that, I would call him a smart politician too. But what has been the result - he lost Crimea, he lost most parts of Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine's military is being decimated, it's economic infrastructure is facing heavy destruction, it's GDP is in the negative and now it is in danger of becoming a land locked country in the future too.
They were neutral as long as it served their interest. But they were also pragmatic to prepare for the day they had to choose a side. That is what the 80+ years bought them. If they had let their ego dictate their war, they would either be a Russian territory or a war-ravaged nation with a broken economy like Ukraine is now.
It chose not to be neutral and became a pawn in the superpower politics between the west and Russia. It is as simple as that.
As I said before, you are recommending a recipe that already led to a disaster.