As far as I know, this is not a real quote from anyone. It certainly does not come from the linked article. Please don’t spread false quotes, no matter how much you like the sentiment.
Also, I personally hate the conclusion of this article.
Here the lesson of the Russo-Finnish War is that a diplomatic compromise may be necessary. Ukraine may have to provide a guarantee of neutrality and agree to give up some of the territory that is already de facto in the hands of Russia: Crimea and the Donbas region in the east.
- -
In some sense, everyone will dislike such an outcome. Much like the Soviets in Finland, Putin will be frustrated that he failed to conquer and annex the entire country. The Ukrainians will be unhappy with the loss of their territory, as the Finns were. The U.S. and its allies will dislike removing sanctions against Putin despite his evident war crimes (although may be partly mollified if it calms the global economy).
But that outcome would stop the fighting, get Ukrainian refugees home, and allow the nation to continue as a sovereign albeit neutral state. Sometimes neutrality has advantages: Finland was able to serve as the negotiating place for the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which among other things guaranteed new human-rights protections for Soviet citizens.
Although there are obvious differences, the lessons of the Russo-Finnish War provide important lessons as we consider how to conclude an awful chapter in European history. The keys will be not just the continuing spirited resistance of the Ukrainians and more outside assistance, but also a willingness for compromise on all sides.
The writer is incredibly ignorant. Finland would have never agreed to give up its territory had there been a real choice or it wouldn’t have fought so fiercely in the first place.
The article does mention that like Ukraine, Finland received help and volunteer fighters, but it neglects to mention that most of the actual physical, tangible help arrived too late or not at all. Some of the material help meant for Finland hadn’t even been shipped yet by the time Finland ran out of ammunition and was therefore forced to sue for peace or face the inevitable defeat. Many of the volunteers who did arrive in Finland in time were not fit for action (such as Christopher Lee who famously volunteered and never saw combat in Finland).
“Outcome would stop the fighting, get Ukrainian refugees home, and allow the nation to continue as a sovereign albeit neutral state.” Are you serious?!
It did not stop fighting in Finland. It led to another war with just as devastating results for Finland, and that’s what led to Finland’s “neutrality”. Finland’s neutrality was not by choice and it would not be a true choice for Ukraine, either. Finland was forced into “neutrality” that led to Finland being unable to pursue the kind of relationship with the West it had wanted (even before independence Finland pursued a relationship with the West and wanted to be seen as Western which it very much wasn’t considered at the time – Finland being part of the West is still a very new concept) and left Finland under the influence of the Soviet Union despite “neutrality”. Finland may have been independent, but it was firmly under the Soviet Union’s thumb until its fall. Is this the future you want for Ukraine?! A sovereign nation only in name where media and people need to censor themselves? What a disgusting, deplorable suggestion.
The refugees cannot go home in this situation. If you give territory to Russia, people cannot go home. That happened in Finland. 420,000 people lost their homes forever. That was roughly 12% of Finland’s entire population at the time evacuated from the territories the Soviet Union took with the blessing of the West.
Try to, for a moment, imagine having to give up 12% of your own country’s territory (including your country’s second largest city) to an enemy and needing to resettle 12% of your country’s population while trying to recover from a war. Imagine being one of those people, forced to leave your home, your home region, forever. Having to start a new life potentially with nothing while many people around you inevitably grow frustrated because on top of their own problems and losses you are there. This is what happened to Finland. Is that the future you want for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people?
We all know what happened to ethnic minorities, dissidents, and the residents of the conquered territories in the Soviet Union. They died in millions. That would have likely been the fate of the Finnish people, too, had they remained in the ceded territories. We’ve already seen Russia deporting and killing Ukrainians in the occupied territories. People cannot safely go home if these territories are handed to Russia.
The lesson of the Winter War should be that we, the world, must never allow the same end result in Ukraine.
One of the better takes I’ve heard about the Winter War is that the conventional view, that it was a disaster for Russia or at best a symbolic victory, completely misunderstands the Russian point of view on things. Yes, two hundred thousands Russians died for a comparatively small piece of territory. But the territory was acquired, the local Finnish population was either ethnically cleansed or swamped with Russian colonizers, the land remains Russian to this day, and nobody even in Finland seriously considers that they’ll ever get it back. That’s a win. As far as Stalin was concerned, two hundred thousand dead is an acceptable trade, and Putin’s made it clear that he’s the same.
It’s not just Putin and Stalin. Any capture of land, especially from an enemy framed as “evil fascist” (which to Russia after WWII is every enemy) is celebrated and the casualties presented as a valiant sacrifice for the motherland.
