The invasion of Finland on the part of Joseph Stalin in 1939 has been the subject of parallels with Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, amid debates over whether the agreement that ended the Winter War could serve as a model for resolving the current conflict. However, Helsinki has warned that Ukraine should not follow the example of the treaty signed after the conflict with the Soviet Union, which laid the foundations for what is known as “finlandization“.
In 1948, the Finno-Soviet treaty allowed Finland to maintain its independence at the cost of demilitarizing itself, declaring itself neutral and aligning its foreign policy with Moscow. For Pekka Kallioniemi, a researcher at the University of Tampere, any attempt to apply that model to Ukraine “belongs in the dustbin of history” and would only benefit Putin’s interests.
Moscow’s invasions of Finland in 1939 and Ukraine in 2022 share key elements: both were preceded by failed negotiations and were carried out in the belief that They would be quick victories thanks to an apparent military advantage. According to Kallioniemi, “Stalin, like Putin, thought the war would be over in a matter of days.”
In the Finnish case, Stalin sought a buffer zone with Germany and accused Finland’s leaders of being fascists, justifying the invasion with security reasons. Similarly, Putin argued that the “denazification” and the neutrality of Ukraine were sufficient reasons for the attack. In both conflicts, false flag operations were reported, such as the bombing of Mainila in 1939, attributed to Finland but executed by the Soviet NKVD.
Although Finland manages to inflict significant casualties on the Red Army under extreme conditions, Stalin achieves his territorial objectives. This experience has led Finland to advise against Ukraine giving up its aspirations to join NATO.. “Forcing neutrality on Ukraine will not bring peace”says Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen.
Sari Arho Havréna research associate at the Royal United Services Institute, has pointed out that proposing Finnishness as a model for Ukraine is a strategy that mainly benefits Russia. “It was a temporary solution for Finland, a lesser evil to survive. But it is not applicable in the current context“, he states.
Finland’s entry into NATO in 2023 marks the end of its era of neutrality. However, for Havrén, any agreement that excludes Ukraine from NATO would perpetuate Russian influence over kyiv. Konstantin Sonin, an academic at the University of Chicago, has stressed that “Until 2022, Russia had enormous influence over Ukraine, perhaps greater than the USSR had over Finland.”
As the war in Ukraine approaches its fourth year, Donald Trump’s possible return to the White House has sparked speculation about a quick deal to end the conflict. Although Moscow demands that kyiv give up recovering its 1991 borders, Trump has promised an immediate ceasefire.
Leaders such as Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna have expressed hope that Trump can act as a “Churchill of our times.” However, the Ukrainian president, Volodímir Zelenskihas made clear that any solution will require Western security guarantees and membership in the I’LL TAKEconditions that Moscow categorically rejects.
Despite international pressure, Ukraine faces a difficult outlook, with Russian advances in the east and high costs in human lives. “Any peace agreement must go through a national referendum. Too much blood has been spilled”concludes Yuriy Boyechko, leader of the Hope for Ukraine organization.
