3 ms·

Your narrative on the Winter War is very flawed. For starters, it was not fought before WWII, but from late November 1939 to mid-March 1940, which puts it betwe

by mopsi 2mo ago

Your narrative on the Winter War is very flawed. For starters, it was not fought before WWII, but from late November 1939 to mid-March 1940, which puts it between the invasion of Poland and the fall of France. It was a part of the broader joint German-Soviet attack on smaller European democracies in the early part of WWII. The secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact signed in August 1939 between Germany and the USSR that divided Europe left the USSR free hands to invade Finland. Immediately they began pressuring Finland and conducting false-flag operations like the shelling of Mainila to accuse Finland of hostility and demand concessions. When the talks broke down, the Finns woke up on 30 November 1939 to the surprise of Russian bombers dropping their loads on Helsinki. So much about "choice". Pinning this on "the false assurances of then western powers" is just rubbish (with a very modern smell), nor was there anything comparable to the international coalition currently supporting Ukraine. Finland was very much alone. Even the Swedish state hesitated and lot of support that is counted in statistics as "Swedish" came through volunteers instead. The war ended not because "they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego", but because Russians had broken through the main defensive line and the situation had become critical for the Finns and making territorial concessions was considered the less risky option. The Finns were afraid that if the war dragged on, Germany would enter the war in support of the USSR. Germany was about to invade Denmark and Norway (April 1940), after all. Finland did not believe that territory was unimportant. When the major fighting broke out on the eastern front in 1941, Finland fought three years to regain their lost territory in the Continuation War of 1941-1944, and the USSR ultimately settled for far less than Russia is demanding from Ukraine. The situation is nothing comparable to Ukraine's present day, because Russia has been stuck for years, the defensive lines hold well and the risk of sudden breakthrough is minimal, while Ukraine is able to deliver increasingly severe and disruptive strikes on the Russian rear. Since the introduction of improved drones in February-March 2026, the balance of power has been visibly tipping in favor of Ukraine, and the FP-7 and FP-9 ballistic missiles that are expected to enter service in the coming months will shift that even more so. As to neutrality, Finland didn't join NATO because a 80-year-old clock ran out, but because the unprovoked nature of the war against Ukraine and the scale of it proved neutrality as an unviable option. There's simply no hope for any country in Europe to avoid such invasion without betraying their independence and becoming a colony of Russia, nor to stand against such onslaught alone. Even with pooled European resources and additional support from all parts of the world, it's still very difficult, as we can see from the news. Ukraine pursued the same kind of "sitting on both stools" neutrality and it didn't work out, because that did little to slash Russian ambitions, but left Ukraine without much stronger foreign support in the initial stages of the war. There's a reason why from the arctic tip of Norway down to the hot deserts of the Middle East, not a single neutral country remains on Russian border anymore. What you are suggesting is exactly the kind of recipe that led to this war: isolate your country from allies and hope Russians don't come to attack you. That is not a responsible statesmanship.

thisislife2 2mo ago
And why were the Soviets forced to make a pact with Nazi Germany? It was because the western powers rejected good-faith Soviet efforts to make a defence pact against the Nazis in the first place. Why did the Winter Wars start? The Russians knew that the Nazis wouldn't honour the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and that Germany would have to use Finnish territories to invade Russia. So Stalin made some pre-emptive demands on the Finns to enhance security at their borders (territorial swap to create buffer zones, Soviet bases on strategic areas in Finland and in return Finland was offered security guarantees and trade). Ofcourse, due to historic mistrust between the Finns and the Russians, and as this impinged on the sovereignty of the Finns, the Finns had plenty of legitimate concerns to these demands. But what really tipped them to fight the Russians was the false hope that western superpowers would help them fight the Russians. The west didn't / couldn't. Just like with Ukraine today. > Finland was very much alone. Just as Ukraine is fighting the Russians alone, today, right? That is factual. It is also factual that just as Ukraine is backed by many western powers in its fight against the Russians today, Finland was also backed by many western powers in its fight against the Soviet Union. The scale of effort may be different, but the politics are the same - encourage a proxy to fight the Russians, to weaken them, without sacrificing any of their own countrymen. > The war ended ... because Russians had broken through the main defensive line ... Yeah, and that the Finns were smart is my point too - they knew when to stop fighting and surrender! Ukraine is losing men and territory, which it has no hopes of replenishing or regaining militarily, however much it hopes it can inflict some kind of defeat. > Finland did not believe that territory was unimportant. That's debatable. Yeah, they licked their wounds after the Winter War, made a new alliance with Nazi Germany (who they assumed was a stronger partner) and when they felt confident to fight again, they did. And then after 3+ years, when they realised that they were again on the losing side, they stopped fighting and pragmatically surrendered. Read the history notes - Finland actually lost more territory after the Continuation war than it did in the Winter Wars. Apart from the loss of territory, they also had to pay huge reparations, fight the German army and rid of them from its territories, demobilise most of its army and agree to a reduced military and be neutral. And they did all that. The pragmatism displayed by the Finnish leaders has to be appreciated. They fought, made peace, fought again, realised they (and Germany) were on the losing side, made peace again and even signed a "Friendship treaty" with USSR and gained the trust of the Russians again with sincere compliance. Subsequent Finnish governments were highly conscious of Soviet security interests, and Finland avoided policies that Moscow considered threatening. This bought them peace and security to strengthen themselves during this period. As for the demands on Ukraine being different, note that the Russian demand on Ukraine, for a long time, was only to remain a neutral state and maintain its multi-cultural identity. Even after the western instigated coup, all Zelensky had to do was de-escalate domestic tension and declare that it would not join NATO and remain neutral. That's it. Instead, he escalated confrontation with Russia. If he had actually gained anything from that, I would call him a smart politician too. But what has been the result - he lost Crimea, he lost most parts of Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine's military is being decimated, it's economic infrastructure is facing heavy destruction, it's GDP is in the negative and now it is in danger of becoming a land locked country in the future too. > As to neutrality, Finland didn't join NATO because a 80-year-old clock ran out ... They were neutral as long as it served their interest. But they were also pragmatic to prepare for the day they had to choose a side. That is what the 80+ years bought them. If they had let their ego dictate their war, they would either be a Russian territory or a war-ravaged nation with a broken economy like Ukraine is now. > Ukraine pursued the same kind of "sitting on both stools" neutrality and it didn't work out ... It chose not to be neutral and became a pawn in the superpower politics between the west and Russia. It is as simple as that.

by mopsi 2mo ago

thisislife2 2mo ago

And why were the Soviets forced to make a pact with Nazi Germany? It was because the western powers rejected good-faith Soviet efforts to make a defence pact against the Nazis in the first place. Why did the Winter Wars start? The Russians knew that the Nazis wouldn't honour the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and that Germany would have to use Finnish territories to invade Russia. So Stalin made some pre-emptive demands on the Finns to enhance security at their borders (territorial swap to create buffer zones, Soviet bases on strategic areas in Finland and in return Finland was offered security guarantees and trade). Ofcourse, due to historic mistrust between the Finns and the Russians, and as this impinged on the sovereignty of the Finns, the Finns had plenty of legitimate concerns to these demands. But what really tipped them to fight the Russians was the false hope that western superpowers would help them fight the Russians. The west didn't / couldn't. Just like with Ukraine today. > Finland was very much alone. Just as Ukraine is fighting the Russians alone, today, right? That is factual. It is also factual that just as Ukraine is backed by many western powers in its fight against the Russians today, Finland was also backed by many western powers in its fight against the Soviet Union. The scale of effort may be different, but the politics are the same - encourage a proxy to fight the Russians, to weaken them, without sacrificing any of their own countrymen. > The war ended ... because Russians had broken through the main defensive line ... Yeah, and that the Finns were smart is my point too - they knew when to stop fighting and surrender! Ukraine is losing men and territory, which it has no hopes of replenishing or regaining militarily, however much it hopes it can inflict some kind of defeat. > Finland did not believe that territory was unimportant. That's debatable. Yeah, they licked their wounds after the Winter War, made a new alliance with Nazi Germany (who they assumed was a stronger partner) and when they felt confident to fight again, they did. And then after 3+ years, when they realised that they were again on the losing side, they stopped fighting and pragmatically surrendered. Read the history notes - Finland actually lost more territory after the Continuation war than it did in the Winter Wars. Apart from the loss of territory, they also had to pay huge reparations, fight the German army and rid of them from its territories, demobilise most of its army and agree to a reduced military and be neutral. And they did all that. The pragmatism displayed by the Finnish leaders has to be appreciated. They fought, made peace, fought again, realised they (and Germany) were on the losing side, made peace again and even signed a "Friendship treaty" with USSR and gained the trust of the Russians again with sincere compliance. Subsequent Finnish governments were highly conscious of Soviet security interests, and Finland avoided policies that Moscow considered threatening. This bought them peace and security to strengthen themselves during this period. As for the demands on Ukraine being different, note that the Russian demand on Ukraine, for a long time, was only to remain a neutral state and maintain its multi-cultural identity. Even after the western instigated coup, all Zelensky had to do was de-escalate domestic tension and declare that it would not join NATO and remain neutral. That's it. Instead, he escalated confrontation with Russia. If he had actually gained anything from that, I would call him a smart politician too. But what has been the result - he lost Crimea, he lost most parts of Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine's military is being decimated, it's economic infrastructure is facing heavy destruction, it's GDP is in the negative and now it is in danger of becoming a land locked country in the future too. > As to neutrality, Finland didn't join NATO because a 80-year-old clock ran out ... They were neutral as long as it served their interest. But they were also pragmatic to prepare for the day they had to choose a side. That is what the 80+ years bought them. If they had let their ego dictate their war, they would either be a Russian territory or a war-ravaged nation with a broken economy like Ukraine is now. > Ukraine pursued the same kind of "sitting on both stools" neutrality and it didn't work out ... It chose not to be neutral and became a pawn in the superpower politics between the west and Russia. It is as simple as that.