NATO in Finland - and we were warned, and for a long time
Forgotten treaty
Finland's accession to NATO radically changes the line of contact between Russia and this bloc. More precisely, this line, taking into account the maritime Finnish-Russian border, increases more than ten times - to almost 1600 km. And it passes, we recall, not far from Leningrad, Murmansk, Petrozavodsk, the White Sea-Baltic Canal. And near Vyborg, Primorsk, Pechenga, Lake Ladoga.
As you know, the 1992 bilateral agreement between the Russian Federation and Finland "On the Fundamentals of Relations", which is still in force, provides that the countries undertake to
“respect the inviolability of borders and the territorial integrity of each other” (Article 3);
"to refrain from the use of force against each other and not to allow their territory to be used for armed aggression against a contracting party and another country" (Article 4).
But it is very strange that - as in the agreements of the Russian Federation with the Baltic countries (1991-1992) - this document did not indicate that, firstly, both parties would not participate in military blocs that could pose a security threat to both countries. Or, secondly, in connection with the possible participation of these countries in such blocs, the parties will hold mutual consultations on the conditions for the participation of any contracting country in such blocs.
Such significant shortcomings in the mentioned treaties could not but create the preconditions for the possible - now actual - participation of Finland, as before, of the Baltic countries in NATO.
Border without a castle
Meanwhile, since the second half of the 1950s, some Finnish media periodically campaigned for the "clarification" of the borders with the USSR. Moreover, it is noted that, firstly, Suomi should use the “experience” of Japan, which obtained consent from the USSR in 1956 to transfer the islands of Shikotan and Habomai to it.
And secondly, the early termination by Moscow in 1956 of the lease to the Soviet Navy of the Porkkala-Udd area near Helsinki allegedly showed the readiness of the USSR for territorial concessions in favor of Suomi. Recall that the lease term here was set for 50 years: 1947-1996…
Moscow did not react to the mentioned information stuffing, which created in Finland the impression that the campaign was justified. According to available information, Aimo Aaltonen (1944–1945), head of the Communist Party of Finland (in 1948-1966 and 1906-1987), proposed an active response of the USSR to these “revanchist outbursts”.
This politician, who always kept somewhat in the shadow of Kuusinen and even several Finnish leaders, including Marshal Mannerheim, rightly believed that the Soviet "silence" on these publications would encourage Helsinki to launch a more significant revanchist campaign. To which the official political figures of Finland may well be connected.
Aaltonen was also against the early liquidation of the Soviet lease of Porkkala-Udd, considering this decision an incentive for "Great Finnish" revanchism and a promising rapprochement between Suomi and NATO. In his appeals to the USSR Foreign Ministry and the Politburo in the late 50s and early 60s, Aaltonen reported that in Finland
“So far, latently, but forces are ripening in favor of putting forward territorial claims against the USSR and rapprochement of the country with NATO. Restraining factors are the neutrality of Sweden and the mass of benefits from economic cooperation with the USSR. But the mood remains to try to "return the lost", which will not weaken.
Don't leave Porkkala Udd
According to Aaltonen, this situation has developed because
“The early departure from Porkkala Udd is seen by some in our country as a signal for a gradual transition to a claims policy. And then - and to build bridges with NATO, believing that this bloc can contribute to the return of Suomi to the borders of 1939.
Aaltonen stated this position, for example, at a meeting with Khrushchev during the international meeting of communist parties in Moscow in November 1960. As well as at a meeting with him and with the Minister of Defense of the USSR R. Ya. Malinovsky in October 1961, when he headed the delegation Finnish Communist Party at the XXII Congress of the CPSU.
At the same time, Aaltonen also pointed out that the discrediting of Stalin and the early departure from Porkkala Udd,
“since they coincided in time, they created in our country the opinion that Stalin’s dictate about the half-century Soviet lease of this base and along the new border with the USSR became a manifestation of the “cult of personality” as well.”
As a result, as the Finnish communist noted,
“There are proposals that have not yet been voiced to revise this border, imposed by the “cult” of the same person.”
therefore
“Harmful for the USSR and Soviet-Finnish relations were both the indiscriminate criticism of Stalin by his own “disciples” and the departure from Porkkala Udd.”
At that time, Aaltonen's arguments were not heeded. Moreover, in February 1966, at the XIV Congress of the Finnish Communist Party, Aimo Aaltonen was removed from the post of head of the party. Officiallyfor authoritarianism, dogmatism and ignoring the criticism of comrades addressed to him”, but not without the effective, albeit camouflaged, not too carefully, “complicity” of the Soviet Politburo.
In 1970 Aaltonen left this party. Soon there were reports of his participation in the creation of a Stalinist, that is, a pro-Maoist-pro-Albanian communist group in Suomi. Regardless of this, it was his assessments and forecasts that actually came true, even if so many years later - especially since Finland is already in NATO ...
- Alexey Chichkin
- smotrim.ru, ru.wikipedia.org, fennica.pohjoiseen.fi
Information