How Finland proves its superiority over Putin. And what Ukraine should take note of

The Turkish Parliament has approved the bill on Finland's accession to NATO. This means that in the near future Finland will officially and fully join the Alliance. And the Russian dictator will get even more NATO near Russia's borders. And most importantly, the bloc, which scares every Russian from 2 to 102 years old, is getting closer to the strategic Olenya airfield near Murmansk. This is the same one where the Russians moved all their strategic bombers after the explosions in Engels, the same aircraft which kill civilians in our cities.

Finland's accession to NATO – a lightning-fast, instantaneous and triumphant one – put an end to any talk that neutrality, compromises with Russia and concessions were absolutely unacceptable for Ukraine. For a long time, it was promoted for us under the code name 'Finlandization.'

When French President Emmanuel Macron visited Ukraine in February, just before the great war, he admitted that he had proposed a painful 'Finlandization' for Ukraine. To save Putin's face and to bend Ukraine into giving up territories and interests.

It is not known for certain what exactly Putin promised in the Kremlin at the time, but it did not work. Just as the USSR once promised not to attack Finland, Russian officials swore peace until dawn on February 24. And given the change in the formats of wars over the past decade, when one state does not have to officially declare war on another, attacks can be carried out with the help of 'polite people,' 'militias,' private military companies, and simply by cynically stating that we are simply marching in tank columns and landing troops to replace the democratically elected government with convenient puppets.

Sergei Lavrov made a proposal to 'Finlandize' Ukraine to former Obama Secretary of State John Kerry back in 2014. That we have taken Crimea, we are helping the freedom-loving people of Donbas fight against the junta in Kyiv. So let's meet in the middle – Ukraine is not joining NATO and the EU, it is friends with Russia, and so there will be happiness and good for everyone. But fortunately, neither the Obama administration nor our government at the time considered this option, claiming it completely unacceptable, and so it was lost in the whirlwind of events.

But then popular quotes a la Arestovych popped up in our political pond and statements began to be made that unhealthy 'Finlandization' is the best way out for Ukraine. And that there is no need for any anti-Russian activity, no anti-Russian resistance. They say that we just need to stop provoking Russia, and everything will resolve itself.

In fact, anyone who spreads the idea of Ukraine’s ‘Finlandization’ has obviously either not read how the Finns actually did it or deliberately worked for the interests of the Russian Federation.

The historian Henrik Meinander has very well described in his works how Finland maneuvered between treaties with the USSR: the then president Urho Kekkonen seemed to smile at Moscow, while in practice the economy and security completely repeated the models of close Western neighbors. In order to mislead Soviet leaders, there was a tacit agreement with the Finnish press not to publicize rapprochement with the West too much. As a result, modern Finland was fully prepared to meet all standards at the time of its official application to join NATO. And there was not a single government that said that it was not the right time for the Finns, or that they should wait a little longer until there were some changes in the open door policy.

Lavrov, Putin, and their many accomplices missed the moment when they could have pushed through the transformation of Ukraine into a toothless vegetable. 

If Medvedchuk, Portnov, Tsarev, and Yanukovych had been a bit more forward-thinking before 2013, they would have pushed something similar instead of 'non-alignment' and 'multi-vectorism.' It is quite possible that it could have been written into the Constitution. But the fact is that up to a certain point, it was not profitable for Russia to compare its relations with Finland in 1944. That is why Russian leaders in Ukraine simply decided to be non-aligned, which, according to the authors, excluded membership in the NATO bloc and not necessarily excluded membership in the CSTO Treaty.

Not so long ago, Oleg Tsarev, a state traitor and a man who was being trained to become a top gauleiter of occupied Ukraine, told where the miscalculation was and what the enemies of Ukraine were preparing.

“I was holding in my hands a document developed by analysts of the Party of Regions, which considered the scenario of Yanukovych's lifetime presidency. It was obvious that building friendly relations with the Russian Federation, achieving economic growth, raising living standards, all of this was possible. Two presidential terms, a change in the Constitution, two more terms…” Tsarev said in an interview with Russian propagandists. According to the scenario of pro-Russian forces, it was necessary to “advocate separatism, for the separation of a number of western regions into an autonomous entity that does not support the central government.” The rest of Ukraine would eventually become part of the Russian Federation, unnoticed by the general public.

If we look at the difference between the experiences of Finland and Ukraine, Russia is not satisfied with the existence of a sovereign Ukraine at all. After World War II, Finland retained its sovereignty because the USSR had no interest in the complete conquest of this state – a part of the territory was enough. Russia, as the situation with the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories shows, does not need these territories that much. It does not need our Ukrainian cities – Mariupol, Melitopol, Kharkiv. The occupiers do not need architecture, cultural value or economic power. They need political conquests. That is why any political concession on the part of Ukraine will not guarantee peace as long as Ukraine claims the right to determine its own future.

Finland's accession to NATO has best demonstrated that there are no better guarantees of security and protection than participation in this bloc. That there comes a time when the government and the people, due to constant threats, complete all the necessary applications at the speed of light. And they do not listen to 'alternative opinions' or engage in populism to please pacifists for Russian money.

From now on, 'Finlandization' means super-fast accession to NATO and a good slap in the face to Putin. Because the man who wanted to push NATO's borders as far as possible and was constantly crying out to Trump and Biden about it, has just had a bad dream come true. Finnish snipers in NATO uniforms will be the nightmare of every resident of St. Petersburg who was proud of their leader Putin.

About the author: Maryna Danyliuk-Yermolaieva, journalist, writer, TV host.