About Finlandisering

”Finlandization” is a term which one can google, and at least in Finland it seems that the term easily arouses negative feelings/memories. To give just one example: as the reader may have noticed, I am concerning the (real) Russian threat to Ukraine of the opinion that Ukraine (and perhaps also Finland) should offer to sign an obligation that it will not allow any attack on Russia over its territory (which would not hinder the signers to join NATO AS LONG AS NATO can convincingly be restricted to being an organisation for defense ONLY). But a political activist to whom I happen to have some contact commented on this that signing such an obligation would be political suicide for the signer, as it would rouse too many memories of the era of Finlandisering. – Well, yes, it might. But of course one could try to hammer the agreement out behind as tightly closed doors as the doors behind which the decision came about to buy the F-35 jet fighter, so that the blame could be put squarely on those anonymous ”experts” … . The yellow press would of course not like it (after all it earns well by appealing to nationalist bluster – and has done so since VERY MANY years all over the Western world), but the memory of the yellow press is also very short … .

But well, memories of Finlandisering WILL arouse negative feelings. And is there anything which could possibly be done against it? Perhaps not. But it might be possible to distribute the feelings in ways which are less of a hindrance to reasonable politics. For example by pointing out that that Finladisering is still with us (even very much so). During the time of the ”classical” Finlandisering there was always that anxious look over the shoulder whether one’s political plans might displease the BIG NEIGHBOR in the East. And now the quite as anxious looks over the shoulder are directed NOT towards Brussels but to the USA, that ”leading power of the Free World” (which might – or might not – object if one might want to join that NATO …). And what one could in this situation do is that one compares ”prices”: Finlandisering towards the Soviet Union was not very expensive (in fact Finland was economically developing rather unhindered and quite nicely, nor was it required to contribute armed forces to some military adventures of the Soviet Union).

Finlandisering towards the USA (and at present) is a rather different matter which invites a whole string of questions, among them the perhaps most problematic being what to do if the USA should AGAIN ”invite” to join some ”coalition of the willing”: The first such invitation in very recent times came after 9/11, and as to that I invite the reader to google ”dancing Israelis” (especially the piece ”Five Israelis were seen filming …”), and if that piece should arouse some doubts, I can add to the doubts by pointing out that there are several professors plus a former German federal minister (who was also pointing to what one can google under ”operation northwoods”, which is a very drastic illustration of what the CIA has at times felt entitled to do) plus meanwhile more than 3,000 ”Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”, who all have meanwhile gone public with their doubts about the official version of the event. Thus, could we perhaps agree that there ARE ”remaining doubts”. The resulting invitation to join the ”War against Terror” brought then also German soldiers to Afghanistan, where their well-meant attempts to improve the situation of the civilians were partly sabotaged by the careless behavior of the US forces (and we remember that the attempts at ”nation building” have meanwhile been scrapped …). After the invasion of Afghanistan the USA were issuing another invitation to willing allies, this time to invade Iraq (which brought at least British and Polish soldiers there). The reasons which were given for this invitation have meanwhile turned out to be a simple bunch of (carefully made up) lies. And the attempts at nation building have also in Iraq largely failed. And completely failed in Libya. And aside of that, what help might the present Finlandisering towards the USA provide for Finland’s further development? Finland IS already a free and democratic society (and let’s see how long the USA will still be that – but whatever the USA may become, they will expect to be followed). And what the USA have to contribute will mainly be expensive weapons and legal complications – which also have good chances to become VERY expensive (think of things like the ISDS).

If we then (hopefully) agree that the present Finlandisering towards the USA is ”not-really-desirable” and that, IF one wants to orient oneself in some direction, one should perhaps better try to ”make something” of the EU (uninviting and difficult though it is), there is still the necessity to spread some ”truths” about ”military experts”. (a) If they are representatives of the NATO, they will OF COURSE describe Russia as ”the enemy” and always advise to join NATO (should we call it THEIR Finlandisering?). And (b): the thinking about political consequences they tend to leave to others – they want to feel ”strong”, and tend to ”advise” accordingly, and one should of course listen to what they have to contribute, but before DECIDING, the politicians should switch their OWN heads on and also listen to other (and preferably INTELLIGENT) advisors.

1 kommentar på “About Finlandisering

  1. Sorry men jag svarar igen på svenska för jag vet att blogginläggsskrivaren kan svenska.

    Man glömmer alltför ofta att nämna att den gamla finlandiseringen byggde på VSB-pakten mellan Finland och Sovjetunionen i vilken ingick att finland inte skulle tillåta att Sovjet attackerades via Finland (av Tyskland som på den tiden var Sovjets huvudfiende).
    Sådana avtal vill vi ju inte mera ha. Men å andra sidan tecknades det ju ett nytt lindrigare ”VSB”-avtal mellan Finland och det sönderfallande Sovjetunionen omkring 1990-1991. Vad hände för övrigt med det avtalet sedermera ???
    Till all lycka tycks enligt opinionsundersökningar majoriteten av det finska folket ännu vara mot NATO. Hoppas Finland kan hålla sig ”neutralt” i dagens skrämmande internationella situation.
    Jag gick för övrigt in i militären i oktober 1968, 1,5 månader efter att Sovjetunionen hade invaderat Tcheckoslovakien. Finlands militär låg i högsta beredskap då och vi beviljades inga permissioner under den första månaden av vår tjänstgöring. Vi fick också höra att president Kekkonen och Sovjetunionens utrikesminister Gromyko (hette han inte så då ?) träffades på ett krigsfartyg utanför den finska kusten nära Dragsvik för att förhandla om Finlands position under krisen som var minst lika allvarlig som Ukrainakrisen nu – ännu allvarligare för Finlands del. Det finska kommunistpartiet splittrades senast dessa dagar, taistoiterna stödde Sovjets ockupation medan Saarinens anhängare var emot. Till all lycka var det då över två år tills jag skulle att komma att ansluta mig till kommunistpartiet. Så jag behövde inte ta ställning – fast jag var nog på riktigt mot Sovjets agerande då.

    Läs och följ med för övrigt de läsarinsändare som ingått i Helsingin Sanomat under hela januari i år angående Taistoiterna och huruvida man borde ”börja undersöka vad taistoiterna hade för sig” på 1970-talet.

Lämna ett svar

Din e-postadress kommer inte publiceras.


Denna webbplats använder Akismet för att minska skräppost. Lär dig hur din kommentardata bearbetas.