The statements about a “territorial concession” from Ukraine to Russia are increasing. The comparison with the modern history of Finland in the Soviet Union’s shadow is reasonable. “Crimea will remain Russian” and “we want agreement with Zelenski,” says US President Trump, “need territorial concessions,” Vice -President Vice -Presidents warn. As for the mayor of Kiev, he admits that the Ukraine It is not excluded that it grants territories to Russia, though it will be a “temporary” and “not fair” solution.

The homogeneous statements restores the painful scenarios for “peace in the dictation” in Ukraine. Which in this case is called upon to become a second Finland, with all the historical wounds indicated by the comparison. Journalistic leaks say that French President Emmanuel Macron had proposed a “Finnish” solution since 2022, which he himself refuses. After all, the idea no longer excites the Finns themselves.

In favor and against ‘Finnish’

The ‘Finnish“He describes a modus vivendi for the harmonious coexistence of a small country with a highly powerful and threatening neighbor. It was a tactic that Finland has been following for decades against the Soviet Union after World War II, avoiding complete submission to Moscow in return.

But it was also a tactic with a huge price for Finland’s national independence, which was forced to apply strict neutrality policy, avoiding any action or comment that may disturb the Soviets. Sometimes (from excessive zeal, perhaps) and voluntarily grant more than the powerful and armored neighbor demanded.

The debate on “Finnish” was rekindled on the occasion of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But former Finnish president Sauli Ninistos had stated from the outset that it would be “completely wrong” to recommend this model to any other country. And in November 2024, after Niki Trump in the US election, Finland Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen warned that a “Finnish” of Ukraine “would not bring about the peaceful resolution of the war”.

Attaching soil

In fact, “Finnish” was rooted in the offensive war that the Soviet Union against Finland in the fall of 1939, after the disgusting Pact Ribbentrop-Molotov, which dismantled Eastern Europe for the benefit of Hitler and Hitler. This is how the famous “Winter War” broke out, which was supposed to evolve into a national myth and a national trauma.

“Finland is fighting alone, but on the side of the angels,” the New York Times wrote at that time. Today the Swiss Neue Zürcher Zeitung notes that the Finns were “fighting like lions” against the Soviets, as the Ukrainians now do. The crucial and direct question is, however, whether the Ukrainians will eventually be forced to do what the Finns in the 40s will be done.

Under the “Treaty of Moscow” Finland prevented Stalin’s total attachment to the Soviet Union, but gave her 11% of her territories, including half of Karelia and Viipouri (Viborgi), the second largest city in the country. It was a huge price for the “Finnish” that later highlighted in the highest doctrine by Finland’s 25 -year -old President Urhu Kukonen.

As is often the case in David’s unequal battle with Goliath, the powerless resorted to humor. From the time of “Finnish” the following anecdote has been rescued, which is still heard in Finland today: President Kekonen visits “friend” Nikita Khrushchev.

At the official reception, Khrushchev raises the glass for a toast and says: “Comrade Kekonen, our two countries have such friendly relations that I wonder: Are the border between Finland and the Soviet Union necessary?” And Kekonen gives the following answer: “Comrade Khrushchev, I have thought about it too. But on the other hand, I am too great to run an entire empire … “