"Winter War" - 1939 and a special operation in Ukraine - 2022: parallels and differences


The thesis that everything in history repeats itself is perhaps not a fallacy. In any case, if you take a closer look, you can recognize that many of its moments have their analogues - more or less accurate. At the same time, sometimes the coincidences are so striking that they are already taken aback. The current events in Ukraine in many ways painfully resemble what happened in 1939-1940 between the USSR and Finland. What is more between these two armed conflicts - similarities or differences? Let's try to figure it out together.


Finland - "nezalezhnaya" 30s


Of course, we should start with the fact that Finland was as much an integral part of the Russian Empire that collapsed in 1917 as Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union that collapsed in 1991. And just like the "nezalezhnaya", from a certain moment it began to turn into a bridgehead directed against our country. Unless in the Finnish version, everything happened much faster - fierce Soviet-Finnish battles lasted from 1918 to 1922. After that, there was a relative calm. However, it was clear to everyone that sooner or later the guns would speak again - after all, in this case there were also quite specific claims to Russian territories that never belonged to the Finns in their lives, but declared Helsinki to be “ancestral lands”. The current role of Crimea was then played by Eastern Karelia, which the then Finnish military leader Karl Mannerheim swore to “de-occupy”, taking the well-known “oath of the sword”. Yes, yes - the very one to which some Russian very literate "culturgers" are eager to erect monuments in the very St. Petersburg, which he, together with Hitler, dreamed of destroying to the ground ... In Helsinki, they dreamed with might and main about the "Great Finland", built in the first place on the lands seized from Russia, and the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR Litvinov said back in 1935 that "there is no such hostile and aggressive internal propaganda conducted by the Finns in any country in the world." It is very similar to the "nezalezhnaya", isn't it?

However, the main problem in this case was not so wet dreams of the Finnish nationalists as the other two points. First, the rapid rapprochement between Helsinki and the Third Reich, which was gaining strength and power. The Finnish President Svinhufvud in 1937 in Berlin was crucified about the fact that “to protect against the Russian threat” they rely on “strong Germany” there and are generally ready to fraternize with even a bald devil - if only he was an “enemy of Russia”. Well, of course, NATO didn’t exist yet, so the Wehrmacht had to be called in for help. The second important factor, the relevance of which is especially visible in the light of the first, was the fact that the Finnish border ran some 18 kilometers from Leningrad, the second most important city in the USSR. Of course, there were no Hymars and operational-tactical missiles then, but long-range artillery and bomber aircraft proved their effectiveness in full. Not without reason, Comrade Stalin on this occasion told the Finns literally the following:

We can do nothing with geography, just like you ... Since Leningrad cannot be moved, we will have to move the border away from it.

They did not listen to him, but in vain ... By the way, all the nonsense of liberals and Western "historians" that Iosif Vissarionovich longed for Finland to "occupy", "return", "include in the USSR at any cost" is refuted by history itself. Stalin did not do anything similar either in 1940 or in 1945, although he had every right and opportunity to do so.

CBO from Comrade Stalin


Moscow has long and conscientiously tried to negotiate with Helsinki in an amicable way. Peace negotiations were held for two (!) years. The Finns, who had rested tightly, were persuaded, cajoled, rolled away, but all to no avail. The USSR needed, in addition to moving the border away from Leningrad, military bases to ensure the security of our country from the Gulf of Finland. The islands of Gogland, Lavansaari, Tyutyarsaari and Seskar were first asked not to give, but to lease for 30 years, as well as the Hanko Peninsula. Then the requirements became somewhat tougher - we needed the islands for good to create naval outposts there. But the Finns were still offered in exchange for them (as well as the lands lost as a result of the transfer of the border) territories in their coveted Karelia, moreover, twice the area of ​​​​the ones they lost. By the way, the same Mannerheim advocated that we must agree, - they say, these islands did not give up on our ears! We won’t be able to defend or find another use for them anyway, so let the Russians take it if they need it. By the way, the same was said by ... Hermann Goering, to whom the Finns turned for "support". Nevertheless, in Helsinki they puffed out and puffed up as best they could: they did not like the lands in Karelia (too wooded and marshy), and in general - the deal proposed by Moscow "was contrary to national interests." In a word, “Finland needs to be used!”, And the agreement with Moscow is “zrada”. Everything ended predictably - the then head of the Soviet diplomatic department, Vyacheslav Molotov, who was fed up with stubborn Finns worse than bitter radish, at the end of the negotiations transparently hinted to them that "now the soldiers will have their say."

The then Soviet leaders did not throw words into the wind. The case remained for small things - for a reason, and it was given by the Finnish side on November 26, 1939, when the Mainil settlement on the Karelian Isthmus was subjected to artillery fire. To this day, the West is trumpeting that it was, they say, a “Soviet provocation”, and the Finns did nothing of the sort. This is understandable - after all, we are always “provoking” everyone ... Tellingly, the war on Helsinki has not been officially declared. The term "special military operation" was not in use at that time, therefore, in the Pravda newspaper and other sources, what was happening was called "the Finnish liberation campaign of the Red Army." Well, or "an armed conflict with the White Finns." The Soviet press wrote that the confrontation was not with the Finnish people, but with the “capitalist government that oppresses them”, and the soldiers of the Red Army were friends and liberators of the Finnish workers and peasants. Again, the terms “denazification” and “demilitarization” had not yet been coined in 1939… By the way, Moscow in those days acted very far-sightedly by creating the “People’s Government” of the Democratic Republic of Finland headed by the communist Otto Kuusinen. A little later, the formation of the "Finnish People's Army" began. Neither the first nor the second step played a significant role in the course of the conflict and its resolution. However, this experience may not be used by Russia in the current conditions in vain.

"Collective West" in all its glory


The situation with military support, which "Western partners" immediately rushed to provide Helsinki, is almost 100% similar to their current actions against Kyiv. Approximately 12 thousand "volunteers" fought on the Finnish side, three hundred of which, by the way, were US citizens. There were British, Swedes, Estonians and other bastards. Everything is exactly... And the supply of arms and equipment and did go in an endless stream. Artillery (more than half a thousand barrels), combat aircraft (250 vehicles), small arms in unlimited quantities, ammunition for all this - the Ukronazis could not even dream of such generosity! For now, at least... Yes, and the campaign to collect donations "Finnish's cause is our cause" was also carried out in a number of European countries. Britain, France, and the United States were especially zealous. Yes, yes, the very ones who will later be our "allies" - when they are very tight. By the way, American pilots also fought against us. Against this background, even the military assistance of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy paled, which, of course, was also provided. Moreover, it was Britain and France in 1940 (already being officially at war with the Third Reich!) in all seriousness that they were going to attack the USSR in order to support Finland! There, very specific plans were developed for bombing our territory, landing troops and sending expeditionary corps - everything was very "adult". Still a little carried - and, most likely, Paris and London would dare to do so. And they just didn't make it.

One cannot but say that the Finnish campaign did not develop at all in accordance with the operational plans drawn up by the leadership of the Red Army. Again, an underestimation of the enemy, especially his moral and psychological state and readiness to hold the line, no matter what. There were also purely technical miscalculations. The “javelins” of that time, which caused a lot of problems for our tankers, were the most ordinary Molotov cocktails, it was after this conflict that they received the name “Molotov cocktails”. And, in general, the Finnish army unpleasantly surprised both with its equipment and combat training. In vain, our newspapers laughed at them before the start of hostilities ... One way or another, but, despite all the help coming from outside and their own stubbornness, the Finns lost this war. Maybe because the USSR did not promise to "hit the decision-making centers", but did it from the first days of the conflict? In Helsinki "arrived" quite regularly. The "impregnable" Mannerheim line was broken into and broken through (as is now happening with the fortified areas built over 8 years in the Donbass). In Helsinki, they realized that no one would fight for them, and that the war could not be won with someone else's weapons and "volunteers". They asked for peace. It was concluded on terms that were immeasurably worse for Finland than those offered before the start of the conflict. The same border from Leningrad was moved not by 90, but by all 150 kilometers. The rest of the items were about the same. And it is clear that the Finns have not received any compensation, not a piece of our land in Karelia.

Still, the times then were more simple and frank. Speaking at a meeting of the command staff of the Red Army in 1940, Comrade Stalin said verbatim the following:

Could the war have been avoided? It seems to me that it was impossible. It was impossible to do without war. The war was necessary, since peace negotiations with Finland did not produce results, and the security of Leningrad had to be ensured, of course, because its security is the security of our Fatherland ...

That is exactly what happened, however, the Finnish, or Winter War, turned out to be only a prologue to further, much more formidable and large-scale events. The West did not at all abandon its plans to destroy the Soviet Union. In Finland, nothing was forgiven and forgotten, dreaming of a bloody revenge. The most unpleasant thing is that a series of failures of the Red Army in that conflict led some people there to consider the USSR a militarily weak power. Hitler called us "a colossus with feet of clay", and his generals decided that it would be a trifling matter for them to smash the Red Army. By the way, exactly the same opinion existed in the same Britain. The United States even declared a “moral embargo” against the USSR, introducing a bunch of sanctions as usual. Yes, and we were also expelled from the League of Nations (then analogue of the UN), which, however, was not a great loss.

Finland during the Second World War fought fiercely on the side of the Nazis, who, however, were "thrown" in 1944, when their defeat became inevitable and obvious. This happened at the suggestion of the same Mannerheim, who by that time had already “grown up” to the president of the country. After the Victory, Stalin did not touch him, he did not occupy Finland or turn it into a country of the “socialist camp”. At the same time, all subsequent years we lived with the Finns in peace and relative harmony. What will be the fate of Ukraine after the completion of the NWO, and will it not also become a “prologue” to a new, much more brutal and destructive war? Today we do not know this. Obviously, everything will depend on the final result. And we can only hope that the historical lessons will be taken into account by those on whom it really depends.
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 1 August 2022 10: 01
    0
    Moscow in those days acted very far-sightedly, creating the "People's Government" of the Democratic Republic of Finland, headed by the communist Otto Kuusinen. A little later, the formation of the "Finnish People's Army" began. Neither the first nor the second step played a significant role in the course of the conflict and its resolution. However, this experience may not be used by Russia in the current conditions in vain.

    Logic is just a problem. "far-sighted", but "did not play a significant role", and "this experience is not used by Russia in vain."
    Just the experience is used. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. More hassle and problems than the expected return.

    With regard to the inhabitants of the former Ukraine, there is the police of the DPR and LPR, you can enlist in the Russian army.
    Why create some new army? The word "Ukraine" irritates a huge number of Russians. Do you want to annoy them?
    The propaganda effect of the creation of a new army will be negative among the Russians and insignificant among the inhabitants of the former Ukraine.
    1. soloist2424 Offline soloist2424
      soloist2424 (Oleg) 1 August 2022 19: 58
      0
      Ukrainians are not taken into the Russian army, the DPR and LPR too.
  2. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 1 August 2022 10: 10
    +1
    I have no doubt that the analogy will be complete.
    That is why it is now necessary to finish the Kyiv junta to the end.
    Otherwise, just as in the last century the Finns fought against us, participated in the siege of Leningrad, so in this century the shortcomings will crawl out and harm us as best they can.
    Therefore, to finish off and hard and cruelly carry out denazification. There is very little time.
  3. Pat Rick Offline Pat Rick
    Pat Rick 1 August 2022 10: 27
    -8
    ... and the security of Leningrad had to be ensured, of course, because its security is the security of our Fatherland ...

    The course of the subsequent great war showed that the "security of Leningrad" was never achieved, and its blockade led to the loss of a huge number of lives of the civilian population and the Red Army.

    Speaking about the acquisitions of the USSR under the terms of the peace treaty with the Finns, one could also say about the human sacrifices that were paid for the territories received. Or there is no data on losses, both then and now.
    1. k7k8 Offline k7k8
      k7k8 (vic) 1 August 2022 11: 35
      +1
      Quote from Pat-Rick
      Or there is no data on losses, both then and now

      Why lie?

      During the 105 days of the "winter war", the Soviet side lost almost 127 thousand people killed and missing, 246 thousand soldiers were wounded, shell-shocked, received severe and moderate frostbite. Finnish losses amounted to 26 thousand people, 43,5 thousand soldiers were wounded.
      The USSR also suffered tangible political damage. As an "aggressor country" the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler, who closely followed the course of the war and saw miscalculations in the organization of the troops of the Red Army and the preparation of its command, came to the conclusion that the Wehrmacht could easily cope with it. Thus, the Soviet-Finnish War, which Western historians consider part of World War II, prepared Hitler's decision to attack the Soviet Union.

      As for the current losses of the Russian Army, they really are classified data that may be revealed at the end of hostilities and after debriefing. For example, your beloved United States has not yet declassified the actual losses either in the Afghan war (there are data only for 2014-2015) or in Iraq (the figures are different in all sources).
      1. Pat Rick Offline Pat Rick
        Pat Rick 1 August 2022 12: 45
        -1
        Why lie?

        The author of the opus did not provide data on losses.

        From the above figures it can be seen that the losses of Finland were 5 times less than the losses of the USSR.

        secret information that perhaps will be opened at the end of hostilities and after debriefing.

        Yes, yes, and a donut hole. WWII archives are classified until 2042. And no one living today will ever know about NWO.

        ...your favorite USA...

        They are yours just like ours.
        1. k7k8 Offline k7k8
          k7k8 (vic) 1 August 2022 14: 20
          -1
          Quote from Pat-Rick
          The author of the opus did not provide data on losses

          Are these your words?

          Quote from Pat-Rick
          Or there is no data on losses, both then and now.

          Quote from Pat-Rick
          WWII archives are classified until 2042

          You're lying again. Only the order of access to them has been changed. But secret documents are constantly being made public. Yes, by the way, there are documents that will never be declassified. But this is a global practice. Not everything is supposed to know people. Or do you think that everything related to the Second World War is now declassified in the USA and Great Britain? So they haven’t declassified everything about the First World War!

          Quote from Pat-Rick
          And no one will ever know about NWO from the living

          Are you sure you want to know everything? Do you already know what you would do with this knowledge? You are still very similar to the representative of the extreme peoples of the small North (did I mix anything up?)
      2. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 1 August 2022 19: 39
        -2
        During the 105 days of the "winter war", the Soviet side lost almost 127 thousand people killed and missing, 246 thousand soldiers were wounded, shell-shocked, received severe and moderate frostbite. Finnish losses amounted to 26 thousand people, 43,5 thousand soldiers were wounded.

        With such losses, it is not clear why the Finnish army surrendered? They would fight for a couple more months and destroy the Red Army to the end ...
        1. Dart2027 Offline Dart2027
          Dart2027 1 August 2022 21: 47
          0
          Quote: Bakht
          They would fight for a couple more months and destroy the Red Army to the end ...

          The defensive line was broken.
          1. Bakht Offline Bakht
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 1 August 2022 23: 22
            0
            And there were no troops left. Memoirs of Mannerheim - there were no personnel. There were weapons, supplies from abroad, volunteers (mostly Norwegians), industry issued weapons. But there were not enough personnel.
            In 1945, Finland admitted the loss (killed and wounded) of more than 100 people.
            In total, 300-330 thousand people were mobilized. Losses of 100 thousand (up to 30% of the personnel) were fatal.
            The USSR mobilized about 1 thousand. As of March (the end of the war), there were about a million in service. Consequently, the losses amounted to about 300 people.
            There are no exact data. Historians are still arguing. But the fact is that the Finnish army was practically destroyed.
            In connection with the present (the war in Ukraine), it is interesting to read Mannerheim's memoirs. He directly writes that he was not going to fight "until the last Finn". And he preferred a peace treaty with the loss of territory to the destruction of the army. Zelensky clearly did not read Mannerheim.

            At the end of the war the weakest point was not the lack of materials, but the lack of manpower. The front has stretched out, all the available troops have already been involved, and people are mortally tired. Will we be able to resist the enemy before the spring thaw gives us a few weeks to respite? On a long front in difficult terrain, this seemed achievable, but in the main theater of operations, where the ability to defend was on the verge of collapse, a retreat seemed inevitable. What's next? The doubt that the Western powers would be able to help us became more and more clear, and when the expected German attack on France became a fact, we would be left all alone. As long as the army is not defeated and we have a diplomatic trump card in the form of the threat of intervention from the Western powers, the best way out is to try to stop hostilities. The irresistible strength of our resistance was the prerequisite for a decision that would preserve the independence of our country and prevent complete destruction.
            1. Dart2027 Offline Dart2027
              Dart2027 2 August 2022 20: 11
              0
              Quote: Bakht
              And there were no troops left.

              And this too, but after breaking through the fortifications, even if they had suffered smaller losses by that time, they would have dared them.

              Quote: Bakht
              Zelensky clearly did not read Mannerheim.

              Zelensky is a talking head.
              1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 August 2022 22: 35
                -2
                Analogy with modernity

                negotiations began on 8 March. Ryti read out a declaration in Russian, which spoke of the desire to live in peace with a great neighbor. The Finnish delegation called for restraint in the demands, which "are, in our opinion, too heavy, and would leave a deep wound in the heart of the Finnish people, while at the same time having the most unfavorable impact on the economic life of Finland." In response, Molotov stated that the Soviet Union was trying to achieve resolving disputes through negotiations and not to blame for the shedding of blood. Now the situation has changed and unilateral border correction became inevitable. It was clear from the start that Helsinki would have to make concessions. Nevertheless, the Finns refused to sell Hanko, and insisted on increasing the rent for the use of the peninsula from 5 to 8 million Finnish marks. However, the Soviet side was malleable only up to this amount. The delegation tried to defend the correctness of the actions of the leadership of their country, but Molotov described the situation very clearly: “Perhaps Finland did not plan and did not conclude direct agreements with the major powers. However, the policy of the Finnish government was so similar and moved so precisely in the same direction with the policies of several major powers that Finland was in line with them. We, in turn, do not need anything from Finland, neither its forests, nor its lands, nor its population. But we need to secure Leningrad, the Murmansk railway and Murmansk itself - our only ocean port.

                https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2976963.html
                In my opinion, the analogy is quite clear.

                PS It was then that Kirponos was called the "Ice Divisional Commander". And he went up the hill. He met 1941 as a colonel general and commander of the KOVO. In one year from divisional commander to district commander. Not a very good commander.
    2. soloist2424 Offline soloist2424
      soloist2424 (Oleg) 1 August 2022 20: 01
      0
      Since the Second World War began, they failed to ensure the security of Moscow. A large distance from the border is not an absolute guarantee of security, but a relative one.
  4. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 1 August 2022 11: 32
    +2
    Quote from Pat-Rick
    The course of the subsequent great war showed that the "security of Leningrad" had not been achieved.

    The course of the subsequent great war showed that the "security of Leningrad" was not fully achieved. But if this war did not exist, then the loss of Leningrad would have been inevitable. And this would be a strategic defeat for the USSR. It was according to the results of WWII that it became clear that the Finnish company fully justified the losses incurred.
    And, by the way, the territories conquered from the Finns are now part of the Russian Federation, which is good, excellent and wonderful.

    Finland's accession to NATO will lead to the loss of a part of the territory that is currently available.
    1. Pat Rick Offline Pat Rick
      Pat Rick 1 August 2022 12: 48
      -4
      Rђ RІRѕS, if this war was not, then the loss of Leningrad would be inevitable. And this would be strategic defeat of the USSR.

      History has no subjunctive mood. It was the way it was.
      And leave your reasoning for Internet educated people like a retired major of the Strategic Missile Forces.

      And when Finland joins NATO, then you will argue here in every way what it will lead to.
      1. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 1 August 2022 13: 28
        +1
        My words about you do not pass censorship))).

        I have read many times that "this is a historical fact - Finland won the winter war with the USSR."

        You are the same "expert" of history (finally found a definition that censorship misses).
        1. Pat Rick Offline Pat Rick
          Pat Rick 1 August 2022 15: 19
          -2
          In the winter war with Finland, the USSR won the victory with losses in the proportion of 5 Soviet to 1 Finnish.
      2. k7k8 Offline k7k8
        k7k8 (vic) 1 August 2022 14: 28
        +1
        Quote from Pat-Rick
        History has no subjunctive mood. Was the way it was

        You continue to assert with a tenacity worthy of a better application that analysis is inapplicable, as a method of research, to history itself. Namely, the absence of analytical thinking and the denial of the analysis of historical events (as, indeed, analysis as such) betrays in you someone whose name is not allowed by local censorship.
        1. Pat Rick Offline Pat Rick
          Pat Rick 1 August 2022 15: 24
          -2
          You, with a mark on your forehead from a cap, cannot reach in any way that an online newspaper is not at all the format where you need to analyze historical events.
          Here you are sort of like a military engineer, so do your core business, leave history to historians, medicine to doctors, pedagogy to teachers, and so on. Don't stick your nose where you know oranges like oink-oink.
          1. k7k8 Offline k7k8
            k7k8 (vic) 1 August 2022 15: 57
            +1
            1.
            Quote from Pat-Rick
            analysis of historical events

            What kind of analysis are you whispering about? Do you basically deny it?
            2.
            Quote from Pat-Rick
            do things that matter to you

            Do not tell me what to do, and I will not tell you where to go.
            3.
            Quote from Pat-Rick
            Here you are like a military engineer

            But you are not at all like a foreign troll.
      3. Dart2027 Offline Dart2027
        Dart2027 1 August 2022 21: 48
        0
        Quote from Pat-Rick
        And when Finland joins NATO

        Well, when? Some time ago there were so many screams and... Silence.
  5. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 1 August 2022 12: 43
    -4
    And, another explanation of why everything is as it is ...
    How many more will be ...

    And it has been said for a long time. Imperialism is war.
  6. guest Offline guest
    guest 1 August 2022 14: 29
    +3
    Quote from Pat-Rick
    The course of the subsequent great war showed that the "security of Leningrad" was never achieved, and its blockade led to the loss of a huge number of lives of the civilian population and the Red Army.

    Complete security may not have been achieved, but if the territories that the USSR managed to return as a result of the winter war would remain in the hands of the enemy, then the situation in Leningrad would be much worse and the city might even be completely destroyed.
    1. Pat Rick Offline Pat Rick
      Pat Rick 1 August 2022 15: 30
      -2
      Pat-Rick Today, 12:48 pm
      History has no subjunctive mood. Was the way it was

      Already answered one, the second writes the same thing - would, would, would would...
  7. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 1 August 2022 15: 34
    0
    Usually Alexander, you write competent articles about history and set the right accents. But here. No need to compare the op with a finger or pull an owl on a globe. Putin did not conduct any negotiations, but only increased the financing of the fascist regime. And in 2014, he could legally, if not all, but most of Ukraine, without a war, return to Russia. Even the constant violations of the Minsk agreements did not stop the financing of the fascist regime. And now, by the way, this funding continues. Or do you think that Russia has curtailed all trade with Ukraine? Yes, and our losses of NWO are catastrophic, especially in the LDNR, when compared with Afghanistan. I think so. But they fought there for 10 years.
    The article looks like a fawning of power. Are you descending to the level of Volkonsky?
    1. soloist2424 Offline soloist2424
      soloist2424 (Oleg) 1 August 2022 20: 10
      -1
      Negotiations were underway, even in the fall of 2021, when it was already useless. And was it right to return Ukraine in 2014, historians will say over time. Because we do not have data on the readiness of the Russian defense industry at that time, what agreements were then with China, India, and other countries, and there is not much data. It was possible to take Ukraine, and give immeasurably more.
    2. Dart2027 Offline Dart2027
      Dart2027 1 August 2022 21: 51
      -1
      Quote: steel maker
      in 2014 he could legally, if not all, but most of Ukraine, without a war

      The question is "no war" or not.

      Quote: steel maker
      Yes, and our losses of NWO are catastrophic, especially in the LDNR, when compared with Afghanistan.

      Where do you know them from?
  8. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 1 August 2022 16: 35
    0
    Finland during the Second World War fought fiercely on the side of the Nazis, who, however, were "thrown" in 1944, when their defeat became inevitable and obvious.

    It is quite obvious that some of the Ukrainian oligarchs and the Armed Forces of Ukraine may well abandon Zelensky and his team when their defeat becomes inevitable and obvious. But when will the time of this 1944 come?
    1. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 1 August 2022 16: 46
      -1
      In November 2022.
  9. Spasatel Offline Spasatel
    Spasatel 1 August 2022 17: 19
    +1
    That is exactly what happened, however, the Finnish, or Winter War, turned out to be only a prologue to further, much more formidable and large-scale events.

    So.
    That is how it was, and that is how it will be now.
    And the longer this war drags on, the more likely the world conflict is to the fullest, with the use of nuclear weapons.
    The farther into the forest, the more firewood ...
  10. Michael L. Offline Michael L.
    Michael L. 1 August 2022 17: 50
    +1
    The author believes that by analogy: after the Victory, V. Putin will not occupy Ukraine and V. Zelensky will not be touched?
    The goal of the current campaign is not at all to move the border away, but to take control of ... the whole of Ukraine.
    If you do not occupy its territory, but go for the creation of a puppet pro-Russian Government, there is no guarantee that such a government will not start begging again (!) in the West!
    If you look at the root: the problem is purely economic and ... internally Russian!