The independent state of Finland has never existed. And it doesn't come with the current trend. I do not apologize for this perception, I want to justify it.
We were part of Sweden. The saying Sweden-Finland was a false invention. The part of Sweden, the eastern country, had been robbed and plundered, from which men and horses were taken to fight to secure the interests of the Swedish great power.
The Swedish army marched across Europe, smoking behind them. The kingdom could not afford to repatriate its large army. To keep things in order, the king gave his soldiers the right to booty. As is known, it agreed to this, slicing open the stomachs of the slain to find the gold coins it had swallowed.
Until there was a defeat, Pultava, the collapse and then the transfer of Finland to the Russian Empire. The best time in our history began. We became prosperous, got "independence" and rights, which finally made the emperor nervous. Other Russian provinces became jealous.
Revolution and Lenin, Finland's "independence". As Juhani Suomi documents in his work "Lastu laineilla", the politics of Finland in the 1920s was anything but the activities of an independent state. All essential decisions were circulated through London or Paris, not forgetting Berlin.
K. J. Ståhlberg copied for us an excellent constitution. He was not wanted to continue as president. In wars we allied with Germany, always. We lost. After which Paasikivi and Kekkonen created the illusion of an independent country. I admire them to no end. We couldn't have gotten anything bigger than that: "independence" under the protection of the Soviet Union, prosperity, an extravagant standard of living, peace, a world reputation as a country of reconciliation and diplomacy.
Koivisto already gave up. We allied ourselves with the worst idea of the millennium, the European Union. Own money, own foreign policy, own politics were handed over. Great men were not born. An illusion was tried to be maintained without grounds. After which the shout started: "Finland belongs to the west!"
Is not part of. We do not belong to the "West". Think about the world of values of the "West", starting from the destruction of the indigenous peoples to the endless and terrible imperialism. What do we, the people of the East, have to do with that?
We would belong to the East, to the Russian family of nations, if our false and idiotic pride, the lie that the elite stuck in our heads were not an obstacle.
What a shame would that be? Not shame but honest pride to acknowledge ourselves, our soul, our origin. The obstacle is illusion and the fact that we Finns are a mixed nation. Some of us are east, some are west. The cultural differences between eastern and western Finland testify to this.
Why can't we understand who we are? I know the reason. The "Western" high standard of living has turned Finns into little Americans. It's a wonder that this dream didn't go away, even though we now know that our real standard of living, which rose until the 1980s, was largely built on our good relations with the East, and that "cutting all ties with Russia" (prime minister, later entertainment star Sanna Marin) was the most idiotic, stupid and destructive state leadership statement ever.
The independent, sovereign state of Finland has never existed. But we are a people, a nation, a group of people groping for themselves, whose elite longs for the West, firmly believing in its idea: genocide, hegemony.
P.S. Unfounded faith and trust in the European Union or NATO membership will not improve the situation or turn the development curve for the better. And the direction of development is not changed either by the information about the available seats at the big tables.
Finland is what it has always been: a periphery to be taken away by the big ones, without knowledge and will for independence.
33 comments on the post “THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF FINLAND IS AN ILLUSION"
Reply
You must log in to comment.
President J.K. Paasikivi's well-known statement is still relevant today: "Recognition of facts is the beginning of all wisdom"
Our world is changing and that also means that both the West and the East are changing.
Finland's population structure and natural resources do not allow neutrality based on wealth. The Europeans have established a modern state in North America based on the English language (so not French or Spanish). This modernism is making its comeback in Europe with the help of entertainment technology spread through the Internet. Can not help it…
"Finland's population structure and natural resources do not allow neutrality based on wealth."
I did not quite understand. In my opinion, it is precisely neutrality that enables the best interaction with all other countries. Or does the author mean that we have too few natural resources or that as a small nation we could not control them without alliances. Maybe I'm a bit stupid, but presumably there are other stupid people. That's why I like to ask these questions.
What is your North American modernism? Do you even know? I'll tell you: LGBTQ+ disease, millions of developing countries to live here to live. The siphoning of financial benefits from natural resources into the hands of small, already bottomlessly rich USA bandit families, the climate lie, the planned digital prison for everyone - that is, everyone, except for the elite..here are just some examples of your American modernism.
That's how it changes. All our presidential candidates support NATO membership and are concerned about unpredictable Russia and border security.
Could this be written some day about Finland? Quote: "Like in large parts of Europe, the Reformation and the division of Western Christianity led to tensions and armed conflicts in Switzerland, too. In parallel, Switzerland developed a characteristic that has withstood the test of time – its neutrality.
Still, neutrality could not prevent the French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars from also affecting Switzerland. In the Helvetic Republic created through the French occupation, today's borders were defined and closely linked areas became independent cantons. The modern federal state evolved from these developments.
The 20th century also clearly showed how strongly Switzerland was linked to its neighboring countries on the one hand and how it took its own distinct path on the other. Although Switzerland was also severely affected by the two world wars, it was spared any destruction. During the Cold War, Switzerland developed in a way similar to Western Europe, but was able to maintain its neutrality and mediating role between East and West. After the end of the Cold War, Switzerland continued to participate in the economic unification of Europe, but kept its distance from the European Union.”
An excellent column above politics. In my opinion, Finland could very well be independent as well - even more powerful than ever. If we wanted independence and a high standard of living, we should leave the EU, NATO, DCA and the like and start respecting our current agreements with Russia again. Those actions would not make us enemies or rejects of anyone, but on the contrary would bring respect and security in addition to the standard of living.
I've never understood why you should so-called choose sides. After all, no one demands such a thing from us, and if they do, such a demander does not deserve our respect. Against all realities and Ukraine's interests, Ukraine was required to choose either Russia or the EU (USA). As far as I know, Russia did not demand such a choice from Ukraine, but if it did in the situation created by the EU, I believe it was because it knew that Ukraine would be forced to choose and what a wrong choice by the USA-EU-NATO would lead to - an attempt to destabilize Russia with the help of Ukraine.
So, of course, Finland should not choose Russia either - except as a friendly partner like all other countries in the world who want to be like that with Finland. It always sounds great when e.g. Russian leaders assure that the partnership between Russia and China is in no way intended against anyone. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the United States.
If I could decide on Finland's affairs, I could promise Finland speedy security and good prospects as an independent friend of all. However, I would probably not implement such neutrality that the Finnish government could not diplomatically take a position on the wrongs of the world. But in the pursuit of agreement, peace and justice, and only after careful consideration, based on certain facts and - if possible - listening to the parties involved first.
It hurts to see natural, geopolitical and business advantages unlocked for Finland after the SU Collapse thrown under the bus. A whole generation of Finnish business captains were passionate about "going East" and achieved huge gains in the post-Soviet space within a relatively short time. Particularly gaining a strong foothold in the markets of Saint Petersburg and Moscow. In the nineties Russia was one of the few (if not the only) market in which the phrase "Finnish quality" actually meant something. Even more regrettable is the fact that not only all the gains are now gone, but also Finland, unlike major "western corporations" still operating in Russia under various modes, has firmly slammed the door behind itself, making chances of a comeback virtually zero. What other country could be a better bridge between the East and the West than Finland? Now it is a country where railway tracks are leading nowhere, figuratively speaking. Although, they could have connected all the way to China (even the same tracks size). Truly sad and senseless to see the efforts of generations of Finns, taxpayers' money and time just crossed out. No matter what politicians are temporarily in power, no matter what are the political agendas of the day, natural competitive advantages of a country should be preserved and developed for a greater purpose. If done honestly, competently and consistently it would not mean compromising on any values or principles, even in the face of ethical dilemmas. Those shouting otherwise are either idiots or, more likely, dangerous hypocrites acting behind the back to secure the juicy pieces for themselves.
What would Finland be like now, if it had even stuck to its neutrality. Federalists Stubb or Haavisto do not care about Finland.
I myself have thought about that from time to time or since we wouldn't have even joined the EU.. on the other hand, I've thought that it's pointless. The elite's desire to enter the EU, including large companies, was so strong that it would have been impossible to prevent it.
Probably, the Freemasons and other secret societies should have been allowed to be held outside this country, so then the situation could have turned out differently.
First, a leader is needed who will found a party that will convert the majority of Finns to his side. Then the departure from the EU, NATO, DCA and the application to join Brics. Let's cancel the new fighter jet deals with the USA. We are negotiating a new YYA agreement with Russia. Let's nationalize all strategic companies such as electricity companies and many others for the state.
It's just difficult. No matter how good the leader is, etc., the media only gives negative visibility and the sheep wander to the media's pace.
That's the point, I definitely agree. You know, even if we have to because of expensive electricity, people simply don't have enough money to pay for expensive electricity!
GOOD PRINCIPALS
Except that we don't need a new YYA agreement, because we already have an agreement between the Republic of Finland and the Russian Federation on the basis of relations, i.e. a neighborhood agreement. Western countries will lose to the BRICS countries economically and militarily. However, the BRICS countries are not a defense alliance. We need a political leader who is intelligent and common sense and understands the interests of the Finnish people. Separation from the EU, the euro (replaced by its own mark), NATO and the DCA agreement are necessary. Let's cancel the new fighter jet deals with the USA. In addition, we need a constitutional court, because today's politicians do not care about the constitution, which also includes international agreements such as the Paris Peace Treaty. A party that is patriotic and only defends Finland's interests is needed in Parliament, such as Freedom Alliance r.p.. Finland needs a successor to Kekkonen's work.
I don't think the goals of the Freedom League have much support in our country. In last year's parliamentary elections, it received less than one percent of the vote. For this year's presidential elections, the party did not have support even equal to collecting 20 thousand supporter cards to nominate a candidate.
There are many parties in Finland that support our country's separation from the EU, the common European currency and NATO. These include at least the Communist Party of Finland, the Communist Labor Party, the Finnish Labor Party and the Freedom Alliance. They are talented at competing with each other and reprimanding others, but they have never been able to blow on one another.
THE ALLIANCE OF FREEDOM BLOWN TOGETHER
The Freedom Alliance was in an electoral alliance with the Crystal Party and the Revolution Party and also offered an electoral alliance with other small anti-EU parties. Valtamedia kept the freedom union in a news blackout.
Every party has an unchanging base of supporters, especially those that have been around for a long time. So then what remains are the possible non-committed ones, and that is the group that needs to be attacked and grabbed. The problem is only that the media discourages the vast majority of other presenters of ideas. What is the means by which we get not bound together. We would have to develop a method or an idea that we can take forward to the street and outside and attract supporters like a magnet to a magnet. This has to be drummed up long before the elections. There are common national themes, e.g. electricity and many others. Here are some thoughts for the Freedom League.
Another very current topic came to mind, i.e. the boycott of the eastern border and Russia. Eastern Finns and those who live and work near the border should hold a continuous 24-hour protest to get the border open and traffic back to normal. At the same time, all boycotts related to Russia should be called off, so that people's jobs can be preserved and the cost level can be improved.
The European Union was originally supposed to make Europe stronger, create a Western alternative and balance the power of the USA. It was the other way around. Bound by its common filth, Europe is now weaker than ever before, it has become a part of the US empire, towards which the US uses its power relentlessly, as evidenced by the explosion of the Nordstream pipelines. The political leadership of European countries has distanced itself further and further from the citizens of their own countries and no longer answers to them. That's why, and only why, it was necessary for Finland to choose its side. It didn't seem to have much to do with the Finns themselves.
Culturally, we are a mix of East and West. Unhappy and cut off from our roots like children in the middle of a contentious divorce, where one parent blackmails and forbids seeing the other side's family again. My own roots extend to both Inker and St. Petersburg, I'm bitter, I admit, but I'm probably not the only one who is angered by this arbitrary and downright violent construction of border fences to prevent the right of ordinary citizens to visit their roots on the other side of the border.
What about our economy then, as if we were now jumping with one foot instead of walking with two. It's just hard to realize that the leaders of our country have steered us into this kind of situation.
The country called Finland has been independent, neutral and militarily non-aligned for only 50 years, 1945-1994. Absolute independence of the state or freedom of an individual person is not even possible, because a state or a person cannot exist/live without others.
Before the 1945 parliamentary elections, Finland was only a "three-quarter democracy", because the communist party was banned and the attempts of communists and those close to them to enter the parliament by other means were stopped and people were locked up in prisons. In the first completely free elections of independent Finland in 1945, the party representing these people, SKDL, received almost a quarter of all votes.
The years 1945-1962 were a struggle for Finland's foreign policy line. The millionaires' party Kokoomus, the right of the Dems (the Tannerites), the right of the Maalaisliitto and the right of the people's parties tried to sway Finland's "Rysä-hate" line against the foreign policy line of Paasikiven-Kekkonen represented by Kekkonen. Reason prevailed, however, and Kekkonen's election as president for a second term in 1962 cemented Finland's policy of neutrality and non-alignment for decades to come.
Kekkonen's "king's idea" was that since the 1920s, Finland was dominated by political middle groups. The extreme left and extreme right could not be allowed to rule (in governments). Before 1945, political participation was already prohibited for communists and those close to them. In the 1930s, when he was minister of the interior, Kekkonen pushed through the abolition of the Finnish fascist party IKL (based on the "Lapual laws" or "communist laws" that IKL's predecessor pushed through the Lapuan movement, the Lapuan movement itself had already been abolished!). However, the decision was overturned in court and Kekkonen was politically "sidetracked".
However, that loss could be Kekkonen's salvation. In this way, he did not get/had to join the wartime governments and thus was spared from being accused in war crimes trials.
Those convicted in the war crimes trials - especially Väinö Tanner - bore a grudge against Kekkonen, who as Minister of Justice was responsible for the implementation of those retroactive laws.
However, Tanner's address was wrong. War guilt laws were demanded by the Soviet Union, not Kekkonen. Paasikivi and Kekkonen, on the contrary, tried to weaken those laws and reduce the number of convicts as much as possible. In the end, the chairman of the Supervisory Commission, Sdanov, got so annoyed by the Finns' slowness that he threatened to take the accused to Moscow to be tried. The list of those convicted in the Soviet Union was much longer than the list in Finland, and the charges were harsher - and so were the sentences. If it weren't for Kekko, Tanner might have gotten a bullet in his skull in Moscow, too.
Thanks to Tanner, the SDP split in two at the end of the 1950s, when Tanner was elected chairman of his party and tried to continue with the "socialist-in-arms" Väinö Leskinen the SDP's 1930s anti-rut politics.
The Left Democrats did not like Väinö's line and founded their own party, TPSL. The division culminated in the 1962 parliamentary elections, where the SDP "reached" the lowest support in its history with only 38 MPs. Only Antti Rinnee's SDP was able to "limbo" below it in the far 2000s.
In the following parliamentary elections in 1966, the leader of SDP's third-line members, Rafael Paasio, corrected the SDP's course "a couple of steps to the left" and the party immediately achieved a "bullet victory", pulling the entire parliament with it into a left-wing majority.
Those elections can be considered the beginning of the construction of Finland's "welfare state". The parties SDP, Keskustapoolue and SKDL, which represented all people doing real work in Finland, entered the Paasio government following the elections. Kekkonen would have liked to keep SKDL out of governments, but SDP's condition was: either both labor parties or we don't participate. The gentlemen's parties Kokoumus and the small people's parties were left in the opposition. However, the RKP, which was always ready to ally itself with the devil in order to preserve its power, often supplemented the People's Front in governments.
These popular front governments made it possible to build a welfare state in the interests of ordinary Finns. At the same time, they raised Finland from a war-torn agricultural country to one of the world's most developed industrial countries. That was also the gentlemen's advantage, which they themselves probably didn't quite realize.
But nothing good lasts forever. When Finns had become prosperous during the People's Front period of 1966-1985, more and more people lost their class consciousness and started voting for the bourgeois. Therefore, the millionaires' party Kokoomus had to be put into government in 1986, especially when the SDP had returned to the "sources of Tannerism", i.e. cooperation with the people of Kokoomus (albeit for the time being, still without grudges). That was the beginning of the downfall of the welfare state according to Milton Friedman's economic liberalism.
Now the country of nausea, Finland, has reached rock bottom. It's like going back to the 1930s.
Thanks for this enlightening historical review, it clarified a lot of things for me at least.
Our "Christian" party's attitude towards Israel and Gaza describes quite well the Finnish middle-right's attitude towards the "West", i.e. the USA. There is no information about the facts, and you might not even want to know them. The main thing is the desire to preserve the childlike, beautiful and bright image of the "land of happiness". If someone tries to break that image, they deserve a severe punishment. There is no justice in the world of imagination and preferences. There, a dictator, a character called ME, reigns and rules.
France, Britain, Holland, Belgium have the burden of colonialist history, Spain and the United States have their burden of subjugating the Indians. Sweden has its own imperialist past, the United States has its post-World War II actions in interfering in the internal affairs of other countries in different parts of the world. However, Russian history is not that much cleaner and more flattering. Russia's historical background is a thousand-year tradition of despotic rule, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, who wanted to execute those sentenced to death himself, the great purge of the paranoid Stalin, in which more than half a million people were executed, and now, Vladimir Putin, who has embarked on the path of autocratic rule that Stalin pointed out. We Finns also have as our historical burden the usurping of Lappish lands and the "Finnishing" of Lappish people, but it has mostly been part of the Finnish mentality that we have not humbled ourselves before despots.
Dear brother Mauno, I think that ninety percent of Finns reject your idea that we Finns belong to the Russian family of nations. You've been wrong more than once.
"Vladimir Putin, who has taken the path of autocratic rule indicated by Stalin."
It's not true, but if we assume that it is, do you really believe that Russia would turn into a Western LGBTQIA+, woke-, "democratic" , ... what ever country, if Putin were, for example, assassinated or otherwise just died/left the leadership? Where and how else is Russia undemocratic? I think Finland is currently more undemocratic than Russia (for example, preventing Väyrynen from participating in the presidential elections, which the police refuse to investigate).
"Dear brother Mauno, I think that ninety percent of Finns reject your idea"
90%, 95%, 96,8%, etc. do not tell about anything other than the fact that the brainwashing and demonization of Russia by the Western mainstream media is really effective and has had an effect in Finland, for example, at least since 1917 (sometimes even earlier). If you want to play with percentages, you should not forget that the "Western countries", whose majority of the population seems to sign the claims about Russia and Putin, are themselves roughly only 15% of humanity. Other people have very different ideas about things - I would argue that the majority of all people do. (so the comment did not only concern the Russian family of nations)
You took the words out of my mouth. That equating Putin with the Georgian Stalin (and I guess I mean Stalin's dark side) is probably the stupidest thing I've read in Naapuriseura Sanamo. It is of course true that the Russian president has a lot of power. This is also the case with the leader of many other countries, for example the president of the United States.
Good nickname pekkah, I notice that you belong to the small minority who consider themselves the enlightened vanguard and the majority of the population of our country as brainwashed. I haven't "seen the light" like you, but I have studied for 50 years how the governing systems of different countries work. Your perception that Finland is more undemocratic than Russia gives me interesting information about what kind of light you have seen.
I don't consider myself to belong to any vanguard (communists used to use that term for themselves). My "enlightenment" is only due to the fact that I have been following this conflict in Ukraine since its very beginning and also received information about Donbass from independent journalists active there (mainly Westerners, as I don't know Russian) and others who communicate on the Internet. The information coming from there is completely contrary to what is read/heard in the "western" mainstream media (which you really don't need to look for. It hits the eyes from everywhere here in the west). The Western mainstream media has almost no war correspondents on that side of the front, so I wonder where they get their "information".
This war already started on February 17.2.2022, 1944, with the Ukrainian army's major attack on the Donbass (a bit like the Soviet Union's major attack on the Isthmus in the summer of 2021). Not a word about that in the western media. Russia _had_ to intervene. Otherwise, the result would have been genocide (a bit like in Gaza now). Of course, Russia knew about the coming attack. Why else would they have concentrated troops on the borders of Ukraine already at the end of XNUMX. The USA and its allies just turned it upside down in their media as "Russia's unprovoked attack against sovereign democratic Ukraine". Russia was not even going to start a military operation. the intention was to force Ukraine to the negotiating table, which succeeded. However, the USA and its allies broke the already signed agreement.
In addition, I am convinced that the senseless hatred towards Russia and everything Russian is only bad for Finland. As far as I understand, the idea of the neighborhood club is to hold discussions with _all_ neighboring countries, even if you don't happen to like everyone's politics.
I have also been following Paavo Väyrynen's pages and the information I got from there regarding the EU, joining the euro and most recently NATO and other related agreements (as well as the attitude of the elite towards Paavo himself). The impression I got really does not support the idea that Finland's leading politicians have acted according to the rules of democracy in recent years. However, I still hope that this will change with time.
I want to thank you for one thing, Heikki Paloheimo. At no point do you submit to low-style communication, which I have come across numerous times when communicating online. They bark at you as a Putinist, Stalinist, tell you to go to P-Korea, etc., before even an actual conversation has taken place, let alone that the other party has the slightest idea of the person to whom you are talking/writing. I think you yourself noticed the same thing about the same thing on here earlier.
Bad brother Heikki! Yes, good brother Mauno is absolutely right. I myself have a bit of Russian heritage in my blood. The family comes from the church village of Salmi and the grandfather from Sortavala. At one time I visited Leningrad and later Moscow several times. I can honestly say that the treatment was matter-of-fact and I had a great time. Western acidity has dissolved brain heritage into non-existence. Those who came from the former Karelia and partly from Russia have spread throughout Finland and are producing more offspring.
Dear Toine kaenae, I'd rather discuss things than yell at people. In the Russian family of nations, the situation may be the opposite. However, by whining about the non-existence of Finns' brain heritage, you couldn't even collect twenty thousand supporter cards to get your favorite candidate for the presidential election. Judging from that, the number of people belonging to the Russian family cannot be very large.
I'm not an expert and I can't know about Mauno Saari's intentions, but I assume he mainly meant our ethnicity, linguistic kinship, etc. I haven't thought about it, but that's probably how it is for the majority of Finns. But one way or another, for example, I do not feel any dislike towards the citizens of any of our neighboring countries.
In general, I don't dislike any of them, but there is one thing that disgusts me. Russophobia and other possible negative (racist) attitudes. I don't know Russians, but according to my understanding, they don't have similar racist ideas about, say, Finns or Swedes. Unfortunately, it's only in these years that they have to notice how they are treated.
Good write up, not much to add. However, I would like to say that a nation that does not know where it comes from does not know where it is going. Today's living examples are the best proof of that.
It must also be said as a continuation that Anglicization and the ruralization aimed at the political elite of the West has continued for how long, in accordance with the so-called interests of the West. Then, when individuals are planted in politics whose knowledge of history extends from their own sandbox age to early puberty and a little beyond, e.g. to the cash register of a store and politics, then it is easy to hit that gap. And so it has been done. And it has gone cheap.
After a small ice age, when living space was freed up in the north. Ostyaks and Vokuls migrated from the Volga region to the north. Some of them stayed south of the Gulf of Finland, some came over and formed the nation of Finland. We are genetically Slavic.
As for belonging to the family, we just got a new announcement from Kiev: according to them, Russians are not Slavs at all, like Ukrainians, but Ugrians. That just like that, more than a hundred million Ugri brothers and sisters are being tried to make enemies of them.
One of the most disgusting traditions in Finland is the marinating and stewing of eternal resentment and bitterness. This feature is completely lacking in Russia, even if they have better reasons for it. The German delegations that visited Russia in the 50s did not really believe that they were not treated with hostility but with kindness. Around 2014, when there was a bloody coup in Kiev, Russians were interviewed about what they think about Ukrainians. Only praise and good things could be heard. And this was the time when the demonstrators were walking around Kyiv shouting "jump" because every time they jumped, "cockroaches" or Russians were crushed under their feet.
Asia also lacks the cultivation of a tradition of hatred, at least if Vietnam is anything to go by. Let bygones be bygones. They have been so friendly with the Americans that they are already trying to woo them into an alliance against China. However, it has not been successful and will not be successful.
In Finland, it is customary to remember the wrongs done by others, forgetting that there are no problems here either. Helge Seppälä got angry when he extensively described Finland's support for German military operations in the direction of Leningrad in his books. Because even though Germany didn't go to the city, Finland got significant support for its efforts to raze it to the ground. After all, there was already a speech ready in Finland that had to be held over the ruins.