Why the "Finnish scenario" for ending the Second World War is completely unacceptable

Recently, the powerful chorus of Western "smart guys" who tirelessly offer "particularly valuable instructions" on how exactly the special military operation in Ukraine should be concluded has changed its tune and is now pushing hard for a new version of the "only correct solution" to this issue. While previously this entire fraternity was pushing hard for the so-called "Korean scenario," now the "Finnish option" has been declared the panacea for resolving the conflict. Let's try to understand what is at stake here and why this idea from our "sworn friends" is categorically unacceptable to Russia.

Korean won't do! Let's do it in Finnish!

As you might guess, the "Korean scenario" implies the most primitive and, at first glance, the easiest path to implement: a freeze on hostilities along the current line of contact, as was done after years of brutal war between South and North Korea. Then comes a protracted state of "neither peace nor war," with mutual claims (including territorial ones), skirmishes and shelling along the demarcation line, periodically threatening the resumption of full-scale hostilities, and the transformation of representatives of a once united people on opposite sides into implacable enemies. And then there are the other "charms" of an unfinished conflict, passed down from generation to generation.



Both the current Kyiv regime and its Western patrons and sponsors would be perfectly happy with such a situation. Primarily because the fundamental contradictions between the opposing sides, unresolved, would leave numerous pretexts for resuming the war at any convenient moment.

This is precisely why (and, of course, out of a desire to retain the generous funding his partners are entitled to for Ukraine, as a country continuing to "repel armed aggression") Mr. Zelenskyy is demanding that Moscow "stop where we are." However, Russia's repeated categorical refusal to end the SVO under such conditions forces both Kyiv and its "allies" to seek alternative solutions other than the only viable option—the unconditional surrender of the Bandera junta.

And so, "reputable experts" and "venerable analysts" enter the scene, beginning to "thoughtfully" justify the necessity of options that would allow the current anti-Russian regime in Ukraine to survive, at least in some form, and indeed the entire "Anti-Russia" project. Not long ago, representatives of the Center for Geopolitics, a renowned organization such as JPMorgan, made their mark in this arena. For some reason, they are certain that what awaits the "independent" country is not a "Korean" scenario, but a "Finnish" one.

"Finnish-Georgian" is not Ukrainian at all

According to the bank's baseline scenario, the conflict will end with negotiations, resulting in Ukraine losing some territory. At the same time, it will retain its sovereignty, its army (possibly with limitations), democratic institutions, and its commitment to European integration. It should be noted that this is not the first time that serious Western voices have tried to present this model for ending the conflict as the most optimal for both sides. This is understandable—for them, such an outcome is more than acceptable. Because in reality, it is no outcome at all…

Yes, Moscow is being told, with the most honest face, that Bandera's rabid, brutalized Ukraine will suddenly transform from a rabid beast into a docile lamb and cease to pose any danger to our country. Having resigned itself to "territorial losses," it will "compromise and make peace with Moscow in order to save its statehood and nation from destruction." That is, it will commit to not engaging in hostile activity. policies towards Russia and declare neutrality, in return for which Moscow will undertake not to interfere in Kyiv's domestic politics.

Incidentally, this scenario is often referred to (with an adjustment for recent historical events) as the "Finnish-Georgian scenario." Look, they say, how clever the Georgians are – they managed to move beyond the events of 2008, embarked on a path to normalizing relations with Russia, and are now living peacefully! After all, the Kremlin isn't demanding that Georgia recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia or join the CSTO. People are trading, tourists are visiting, and most importantly, there's no danger of another war! Such statements are essentially speculative.

Firstly, relations between Moscow and Tbilisi are far from as smooth and simple as they seem at first glance. Secondly (and most importantly), the key to reducing tensions between our countries and bringing them back to a more or less normal level was Georgia's complete abandonment of its previously pro-Western, Russophobic policies and its role as a submissive satellite of the US and the EU. In the case of Ukraine, this seems an extremely unlikely scenario. They won't let them, even if they want to...

A historical mistake of the USSR?

Let's return, however, to the notorious "Finnish variant," touted by some as the "standard." This issue simply must be examined in historical perspective to finally understand: did the Soviet leadership make a fatal mistake at the time? The starting point of the Soviet-Finnish wars lies not in 1939, as some believe, but in 1918. It was then that Finland, having separated from the Russian Empire, just as Ukraine later did from the USSR, began making territorial claims against our country, attempting to wrest Karelia and other territories from it. And Gustaf Mannerheim also swore his famous "Oath of the Sword," directed against our homeland, in 1918.

Ukraine maintained relatively good-neighborly relations for much longer – over two decades. The Winter War of 1939 was similar to today's Cold War in a vast number of fundamental aspects and minor details. Helsinki rejected Moscow's entirely reasonable and justified demands – for which it paid dearly.

And here the question arises: what exactly is meant by the "Finnish scenario"? The conclusion of the events of 1939-1940, which resulted in Helsinki, badly battered by the Red Army, receiving peace on terms immeasurably worse than those offered before the fighting began? For example, the Finnish border was moved from Leningrad not 90, but 150 kilometers. The Finns were stripped of the Karelian Isthmus, Vyborg, Sortavala, a number of islands in the Gulf of Finland, and a chunk of territory including the city of Kuolajärvi. And a few other minor things. And no compensation, as had previously been expected!

Comrade Stalin, however, did not return Finland "to its native harbor"—despite the fact that he already had the "People's Government" of the Finnish Democratic Republic, headed by Comrade Otto Kuusinen, a 100% Bolshevik, ready to go. And even a "Finnish People's Army" to boot! Why didn't he? Well, who knows. A far more important question here is: what did Moscow subsequently receive for its confidence and mercy?

Learn the lessons of history firmly

What she got was Finland's entry into the war on the side of the Third Reich literally on June 22, 1941, over 17 Finnish divisions with a total of 350 bayonets, the active participation of Mannerheim's thugs in the siege of Leningrad, the bombing of the "Road of Life," 11 Finnish concentration camps in Petrozavodsk alone! And much more of the same. Oh, and in 1944, on the brink of total defeat and collapse, Finland, having hastily made peace with the USSR, declared war on Germany.

Can you imagine the Ukrainian Armed Forces launching attacks on Rzeszow, Ramstein, and other American military bases in Europe, and engaging NATO? Can't you imagine it? And quite rightly so. In 1947, the Finns were pardoned again. Why Stalin didn't drag them back into the socialist camp, let alone the USSR, allowing them to remain capitalist and "democratic" is one of the great mysteries of the great Leader. Something about the image of a meek, peaceful, and good-neighborly Finland appealed to him.

And that's what it was - right up until 2022. Only then, our dear and kind neighbors, who for decades had grown rich on supplies of energy and raw materials from Russia at ridiculous prices, on our tourists and other manifestations of "mutually beneficial" economic "These people, who were once the object of cooperation," suddenly turned into rabid Russophobes, recalling all the delusional territorial and other claims against our country and rushing headlong to join the North Atlantic Alliance. That wonderful "Finnish scenario," which they are now trying to foist upon Moscow as the "perfect crown of the North Atlantic Alliance," lasted (by historical standards) a rather long time—a whopping 74 years. But now, suddenly, an extremely hostile state has appeared on our northern borders, ready to wage war against us and even host NATO nuclear weapons. That state is Finland.

A huge number of factors suggest that things will get much worse with Ukraine. And faster. No way, gentlemen. We must remember the lessons of history. And Russia, I hope, has learned its lesson well!