Why Finland Is a Bad Example for a Peace Deal

As part of the American and European push towards the end of negotiation with the Russia-Ukraine war, Kiev was subjected to increasing pressure to accept regional concessions. Recently, attention focused on a possible precedent for a peace agreement with Moscow: the Finnish Soviet armistice of 1944, which followed two consecutive wars between neighbors. Helsinki has always transferred the large Finnish lands to Moscow and was not attacked again.

In recent weeks, the example entered the discussion center, with Finnish President Alexander Stop and Economist Announcing it is positive. At the annual conference of Yalta European Strategy, organized by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation in Kyiv, this week, the influential historian Niall Ferguson praised the protection before the combined security elite.

As part of the American and European push towards the end of negotiation with the Russia-Ukraine war, Kiev was subjected to increasing pressure to accept regional concessions. Recently, attention focused on a possible precedent for a peace agreement with Moscow: the Finnish Soviet armistice of 1944, which followed two consecutive wars between neighbors. Helsinki has always transferred the large Finnish lands to Moscow and was not attacked again.

In recent weeks, the example entered the discussion center, with Finnish President Alexander Stop and Economist Announcing it is positive. At the annual conference of Yalta European Strategy, organized by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation in Kyiv, this week, the influential historian Niall Ferguson praised the protection before the combined security elite.

1939 Soviet Nazism Charter Eastern Europe has divided Finland into the field of Soviet influence. When the Soviet forces invaded in late November of that year, the Finns fought and avoided the amount that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin described to them. Then, with the 1944 Moscow’s truce, Finland surrendered close to 12 percent From its lands with peace and preserving independence. So far, very similar.

However, Finland is more important as a warning more than a model. Parallel is very questionable at first: compared to Ukraine, Finland is a small country of Moscow’s strategic interest. Unlike Finland in 1944, Ukraine is now a single axis of the activity of the Russian war. In 1944, the Soviet Union was really aimed at ending the war; Today, the Russian leadership clarified Achieving for more conquest In Ukraine Elsewhere.

Ukraine, not Finland, has embarrassment, Even the legendary place in The Russians understand their imperial project. From the Caesarean period to this day, Moscow has never wondered about the existence of the Finnish nation, language and culture – which is the opposite of the Russian view of Ukraine completely. Independent Finland was not an obstacle to Soviet aspirations elsewhere, but independent Ukraine is a severe blow to Russia’s efforts to restore its empire in the Soviet era.

However, the Finnish example may be applicable to Ukraine – but only if we add two fundamental modifications. The Finnish people were left to live in peace because their country was not a central of the geopolitical Kremlin strategy – something that cannot be said about Ukraine today. Therefore, the strong and well -armed Ukraine is a prerequisite for peace like Finland. Russia’s deterrence will be more demanding in Ukraine, and requires serious Ukrainian weapons, security guarantee, and long-term western support-something that Finland did not enjoy after 1944.

Finland avoided another invasion thanks to a mixture of the wider geopolitical context and its best defense – not by being friendly towards the Soviets, such as September 1. Economist An article was incorrectly hinting. Despite the official neutrality, Helsinki Maintain strong defenses And a large reserve army throughout the era of the Cold War. Just like the Ukrainians today, the Finns showed themselves the masters of war and more than one able to inflict huge losses to the Kremlin army.

Secondly, Finland agreed to permanently, de Euer of land at a time when the entire map of Europe was redrawing in the aftermath of World War II. Tens of millions of people have been exposed to forced transport, loss of their homes, ways to live, and their lives are often. Specifically to avoid returning to that era, one of the basic principles of the post -World War II regime is the strict ban on changing borders by opening.

Europe does not want to return to the time of Moscow’s truce, when this arrangement is not yet. Therefore, no new borders should be recognized between Russia and Ukraine de Yor, as in the Finnish issue, but only in reality-Russian regions that are running pending a final settlement. The Russian war of aggression and war crimes should not be rewarded.

What’s more, Russian demand for The entire area of ​​DopasIncluding the large areas that Russia tried to seriously but failed to overcome it since its forces were sent first In the region in 2014It must be firmly rejected. (This request was misleading Named As “land swap” by the Kremlin and the White House.) These lands contain important Ukrainian defensive fortifications; The waiver of them to Russia will strongly undermine Ukraine’s ability to defend its heart.

There are other more useful historical precedents. The sections of Germany and Korea after World War II were cases where new borders were actually drawn and respected between the forces concerned, although the division line was not ratified as permanent international borders. With a great exception to the Korean War and the accidental skirmishes in the descending region by dividing the peninsula, the peace that was held in both cases was held. In Europe, even the 1990 treaty that set Germany and officially ended World War II. In East Asia, it is still the case today, although the two Koreas did not sign the peace treaty, and thus remain in a technical war.

These two passengers explain that changing the borders of De Jure is not a pre -stable condition for a stable and stable peace. At the same time, the tensions between the two Koreas remain high, showing the risks that can increase a bad deal in Ukraine from the possibility of renewed escalation.

Returning to the Finnish issue, it deserves the risks of special attention when looking at the prospects for peace in Ukraine.

Not only did Finland abandon large lands, but also had to pay widespread compensation in the war and accept restrictions on its sovereignty and armed forces. Certainly it was not fair peace. The Soviet Union did not intend to be a sustainable peace. The Kremlin still wants to achieve the full application of Finland, even if it is not aimed at including the rest of the country. Moscow has tried hard to achieve this through the so-called active measures-Nowadays the hybrid war is called war-Like interference in the elections, pressure on the appointment of government ministers in Moscow, support for Finnish Communists, and inciting workers and protests in the streets. There is no doubt that Moscow will use these and other methods to try to make Kiev under its political control even after reaching a peace agreement.

From the Ukrainian perspective, the maximum goals set by Ukrainian President Folodimir Zellinski in 2022 Peace Plan It no longer seems to be a realistic result of war. Now, the majority of Ukrainians recognize Opinion polls They cannot liberate the occupied army in the army, which means any time soon. The West is responsible for this situation – especially the Biden administration, which blocked the aid and the Ukrainian attack slowed when Russia was in its weakest in late 2022 and early 2023. Since then, Russia has built more military power, while Ukraine has become more exhausted.

Zelensky admitted the need for concessions in March, when it is Agreed To the United States’ suggestion for unconditional shooting. The main concern for freezing the current front line and leaving the occupied areas under Russian control is that it will allow Russia to recover and prepare for the next assault. Trump withdraw He requested a ceasefire after his talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, allowing Russia to continue to kill Ukrainian soldiers and civilians as long as peace negotiations were prepared and held. Putin did not show any preparation for concessions, and Trump has missed every chance of serious pressure on him.

If Ukraine can remain an independent and democratic country after waiver the occupied territories – even if it is actually – depends on the actions of the Western Ukraine supporters only. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine the conditions that are ready to stop the fighting, but more than others Critical issues of Europe It reaches further than Ukraine. The peace agreement will eventually bring security not only to Ukraine but also to the Baltic countries, PolandAnd Finland and the rest of Europe.

Instead of pushing Ukraine to accept a bad deal, it is in the interest of Europe to increase support to Ukraine specifically to prevent a bad agreement with the dangerous repercussions of Europe. Ukraine partners do not have the luxury of the risk of Finland’s agreement that leaves the country to confront the Kremlin on its own.