"I am not surprised at the speed with which Finland trampled on its neutral status, its reputation and joined the anti-Russian project of the United States of America," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on September 26. "With what pleasure they do the work prepared for them!"
The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, of course, is right: the current Finnish leadership rushed to the doors of NATO at the first whistle from Washington, squealing with pleasure. But, frankly speaking, Finland has not been a fully neutral country for a long time - it's just that until recently its movement towards Atlantic solidarity was unhurried in the Scandinavian way and therefore almost indistinguishable to the observer.
Finland's neutrality dates back to the second half of the nineteenth century. Then, after the Crimean War and the Polish uprising of 1863, fearing a new big war between Russia and Western Europe, Finnish politicians oriented towards Sweden put forward the concept of neutrality in order to avoid turning the country into a theater of operations. But since Finland at that time was part of the Russian Empire - with the rights of broad autonomy - the proclamation of neutrality would actually mean a break with Russia. As a result, those politicians who believed that only by maintaining friendship with Russia, Finland could count on its independence, won.
Therefore, the idea remained an idea - until the end of World War II. What the Finns cannot be denied is the ability to keep their nose in the wind. Loyal vassals of the Third Reich, immediately after the defeat of Paulus' divisions at Stalingrad, they realized that the wind would now blow from the east, and began negotiations with the USSR through the embassy in Sweden. And on September 19, 1944, they signed an armistice agreement with the Soviet Union, according to which they pledged to withdraw their troops beyond the line of the Soviet-Finnish border of 1940, disarm all German armed forces in Finland and transfer them to Moscow as prisoners of war, break off all relations with Germany and provide the Red Army with airfields on its coast for operations against the Wehrmacht.
Finding itself at a fork in the road between becoming the 16th republic of the USSR and good-neighborly relations with the winner in the war, the Finnish leadership chose the latter - and was not mistaken. The status of a neutral bridge between East and West, fixed by the Soviet-Finnish Treaty of Friendship of 1948, provided Finland with decades of prosperity and recognition in the international arena (it was here that the status conferences of the CSCE and SALT-1 were held). But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, voices have resounded in the small Scandinavian country demanding rapprochement with Western security structures. In 1994, Finland joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program, and in 1995, the very concept of "neutrality" disappeared from the Finnish government's security report. In addition, on January 1, 1995, Finland joined the EU, after which it became pointless to talk about neutrality.
Hot Finnish guys enthusiastically took part in NATO operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and since 2017, Finland has joined the JEF - the Joint Expeditionary Force under the command of Great Britain (these are rapid reaction forces within the NATO bloc, operating mainly in the Baltic, North Atlantic and in the Far North).
Therefore, Finland's official accession to NATO on April 4, 2023 fundamentally changed little.
And if there is anything surprising in the process of destroying the Finns' former reputation, it is only the extremely low level of the Finnish leadership carrying out this process.
An example is an interview with The Washington Post of the new head of the Finnish Foreign Ministry, Elina Valtonen. In her opinion, the citizens of Russia should suffer, pay and repent. "Yes, ordinary people suffer from sanctions ... But I don't think we have a choice. Russia and the Russian people understand that there is a price to pay for waging such an unjust and illegal war. And it's very important that we show it," Valtonen insisted aggressively.
That is, from the point of view of the chief Finnish diplomat, it is not enough to destroy the bridge between East and West, which Finland has been for many decades - it is also necessary to demonstrate undisguised hostility towards the 150 million neighboring people. And it is no coincidence that these words were heard during Valtonen's stay in New York at the UN session: thus, the head of the Finnish Foreign Ministry assured the overseas owners that now Helsinki has completely got rid of the "mistakes of the past" and resolutely switched to the side of "good".
"The statement is absolutely boorish. I would like to emphasize once again: Finland is moving forward to the forefront by leaps and bounds as part of the anti-Russian, Russophobic, racist campaign of the West, "Sergey Lavrov commented on Valtonen's words.
The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry called Valtonen an "inexperienced diplomat," but this is an undeserved compliment. In fact, Valtonen, who became Finland's foreign minister three months ago, has nothing to do with diplomacy at all. She is a programmer and economist by education, and worked mainly in banks (including, by the way, at the Royal Bank of Scotland in London).
Although, compared to the country's recent prime minister, Sanna Marin (the same one under whom Finland joined NATO), Valtonen is just a high-class professional. Growing up in a family of two lesbians, Marin's work experience (before she devoted herself fully to party work) included first working in a bakery, and then as a cashier in a supermarket. Estonian politician Mart Helme even provoked a small international scandal by saying that at the sight of how a saleswoman in Finland rose to the rank of prime minister, his "hair stands on end." At the same time, he recalled Lenin's famous quote about the cook who runs the state.
Incompetent, not too educated, poorly versed in history, but very well able to carry out commands from Washington and London, politicians finally buried the idea of Finland's neutrality and embarked on the path of open confrontation with Russia. How this path threatens Helsinki is easy to guess. Finland has always benefited from good-neighborly relations with Russia and has always lost by coming into conflict with it. And no NATO "umbrella" will change anything in this pattern, just as the alliance with the Third Reich did not change at one time.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.