The myth of the “Finlandization” of Ukraine



Article by: Vitaliy Portnikov

The American political expert Zbigniew Brzezinski speaks of the need to “transform Ukraine into Finland.”

In his understanding this means military assistance to Ukraine as well as its “Finlandization”  — in other words, the conversion of Ukraine into a neutral state on the borders of Russia and the West. This proposal not only points to a lack of understanding of political legality, it also reveals a refusal to recall history.

When the Kremlin was fighting with Finland, there was no discussion about recognizing its neutrality. The goal was to destroy the Finish state. A DNR style government of the “Finnish Democratic Republic,” headed by the traitor Otto Kuusinen, was created on the occupied territory. The Finns were able to defend their freedom only because they had exhausted their opponent  and sacrificed a part of their territory, but this did not result in any friendship or neutrality. And no one, by the way, achieved peace in  Europe either: the Second World War continued. What happed then? Why did Finland become a neutral country? Because Stalin did not want to fight with Hitler on its territory, and neither did Roosevelt or Churchill. The war in Karelia was difficult and not needed by the Allies. Finland was able to retain its independence in exchange for refusing a war with the Allies as well as its own war with Germany. In the end, however, it turned out to be a country that was under the considerable influence of Moscow.

It is true that socialism was not imposed on Finland. But practically right up to Gorbachev its government was forced to consider the USSR in practically everything. This applied even when forming a government, electing a president, and in the way the Finnish papers referred to the USSR. Moscow paid for all this. Not only by not invading, but also with providing access to cheap wood, for example.

Well, Ukraine has already been that kind of country. During the time of Yanukovych and earlier, during the time of Kuchma, and it has turned out that Russia does not guarantee this type of status for Ukraine.

Let us remember that Russia occupied Crimea and launched the war in the Donbas not in response to any decision by Ukraine to join NATO or even the European Union, but after Ukraine had decided to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union. Finland — while dependent on the USSR — signed a similar agreement in 1973! In 1973! During the Brezhnev era! And no one invaded. Why?

Because by that time the Kremlin had already accepted the independence of Finland. The Karelian-Finnish SSR to which (the Soviets) had prepared to attach Finland was dissolved still in 1956. It was considered unnecessary.

But the Kremlin has not yet accepted the independence of Ukraine. In this sense Ukraine resembles not the Finland of 1944 but the Finland of 1939. (The Soviets) wanted to destroy the Finland of 1939. They were ready to come to an agreement with the Finland of 1944. For that reason Moscow viewed Finland’s neutrality as a compromise. But Russia considers the neutrality of Ukraine a defeat. Russia does not need for Ukraine to be neutral but for it to cease to exist. Is this really something that is not clear for Brzezinski?

Translated by: Anna Mostovych

Edited by: Melodia Kouklewsky

Source: Espreso TV

Dear readers! Since you’ ve made it to this point, we have a favor to ask. Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine is ongoing, but major news agencies have gone away, which is why it's extra important to provide news about Ukraine in English. We are a small independent journalist team on a shoestring budget, have no political or state affiliation, and depend on our readers to keep going (using the chanсe - a big thank you to our generous supporters, we couldn't make it without you.)  If you like what you see, please help keep us online with a donation

Tags: , , , ,


  1. Avatar Dagwood Bumstead says:

    Neither the current nor any other Ukrainian government in the foreseeable future will accept Finlandisation. To do so would be political suicide.
    Whether Moscow likes it or not, it has lost the Ukraine forever due purely to the dwarf’s own stupidity. His totally unnecessary aggression changed the Ukrainians from people who were mainly well-disposed to Russia to people who consider Russia to be their enemy. They no longer trust Russia.

    1. Avatar Terry Washington says:

      Question for Zbigniew Brzezinski- would you accept “Finlandization” for your native Poland???

  2. Avatar Tim Tomsen says:

    Why federation for Ukraine is bad it will become a tool for Moscow to
    put inn its clones into regional government and this how Moscow will
    get indirect control over Ukraine This is why Putin came with this
    solution in the first place

  3. Avatar Tim Tomsen says:

    It is not unto Russia to make a any choices for what type of system and how its nabour nation run there nation or what type of government system they chose If it up-too that nation in this case Ukraine too make that choice ,,,

    Russian propaganda about Crimea busted..RUSSIAN MYTHS AND PROPAGANDA ABOUT CRIMEA AND UKRAINE..Crimea has never really been Russian.

    more than Norway is Swedish just because Norway was forcefully taking
    into an union with Sweden and for some time under brutal Swedish
    occupation and rule dose not make Norway into Swedish lands … Norway
    like Ukraine was just a politically and military occupied nation for
    some time in history of its history that’s all..

    Norway has
    been from time to time under Swedish occupation and even some Norwegian
    city’s was built by Swedish occupier’s But that doesn’t mean that Sweden
    owns Norway or the Norwegians are Swedish ANY MORE THEN Russian owns

    The Russian public has long been encouraged to view Crimea as native Russian land.

    2014 annexation of Crimea was actually the fourth Russian attempt to
    claim the peninsula in the past 250 years. On each occasion, these
    efforts have ultimately failed. This video is history of Russian
    deception about the Crimea.


  4. Avatar Tim Tomsen says:

    Ukraine is a independent state this was excepted in 1991 by the Russian government and in 1993 documents was written confirming that Moscow sees Ukraine as a legal
    state and respects its borders and Crimea was part of Ukraine and within
    its borders…. For what other reason will Moscow rent a navy base in
    Crimea from Kiev and pay billions to kyiv for the rent if the territory
    was not seen as Ukrainian ????

  5. Avatar puttypants says:

    Brezinski is from the Kissinger school of thought. Let’s pretend Putin is not controlling your control. Just turn a blind eye to Putin and his regime and go along with anything he wants …oh hell just give him your country or let him destroy it.