How Russia created Finnish statehood

How Russia created Finnish statehood

At present, many residents of Russia do not even remember that more recently (according to historical by standards) Finland was part of the Russian state and what exactly the Russians created Finnish statehood. That under the first princes of the Rurik dynasty, modern Finland was one of the northern outskirts of Russia. Moreover, Finland paid Russia for this with black ingratitude: Finns, having gained independence, began to build "Great Finland" (at our expense) and twice - in 1918-1922 and 1941-1944. - tried to seize the Russian lands.

Usually Finland likes to represent in the image of a “small and peace-loving” country, but it was the Finns who were the first to attack huge Russia twice and only for the sake of territorial seizures.

Russian and Swedish colonization

By the beginning of the 9th century, Finno-Ugric tribes occupied large areas of Northern Europe from the Gulf of Bothnia to the Urals. The settled population engaged in farming and animal husbandry was located mainly on the southwestern coast, as well as in the valley of the Kumo River (Kokemäen) and its lake system in Satakunta and Häme (Tavastland). In other parts of the region, there were mostly small groups of hunters and gatherers (Saami). By origin, the Finns were a mixed people with Indo-European (German and Baltic) and Siberian (Uralic language family) roots.

Finnish tribes had neither statehood nor a single culture. Already during the reign of Prince Rurik (Falcon), much of modern Finland entered the sphere of influence of Russia. Finnish tribes paid tribute to the Russian princes. Residents of the southwestern part of Finland in Russia were called Sum, Finnish tribes living in Central and Eastern Finland were called em (Yam). In the 10th-12th centuries, the tribes living in the territories of modern Finland and Karelia paid tribute to the Russians. These lands were considered the property of Great Novgorod. Thus, the Finnish and Karelian tribes began to be part of the Old Russian state at about the same time as the Finno-Ugric tribes who lived in the districts of Murom, Meshchery and other places.

Western leaders, and homegrown Westerners, like to call any expansion of the Russian lands and spheres of influence “aggression”, explain the expansion as “the genetic tendency of Russians to violence and cruelty”. They say that the Finns were almost included in their “totalitarian” empire. However, this is a deception and a distortion of reality. If we compare Russian expansion and Western colonization, we can find a fundamental difference. The western world, expanding and absorbing new lands, killed local civilizations, cultures and nationalities. The West is a kind of “civilization-ghoul”, which sucks all the juices from the victim. No wonder, apparently, they are so fond of movies about vampires. So, at the time, the Romano-Germanic world crushed the Celtic civilization, almost killing its identity. Then the Romano-Germanic world destroyed the Slavic (part of the superethnos of the Rus) civilization in Central Europe. So, almost all of modern Germany, Denmark, Austria, and part of Italy (in particular, the Venetian Venetians founded the famous Venice) are the lands of the Slavic tribes. Berlin, Dresden, Vienna and Brandenburg are ancient Slavic cities. Then you can endlessly talk about the cultures and ethnic groups in America, Africa, Asia, Australia and Oceania that were destroyed by the Western colonizers (mainly the Anglo-Saxons). Peoples that were not completely destroyed, assimilated or reduced to a minimum (used a variety of methods - from brute force to "fire water" -alcohol and biological weapons). Thus, the descendants of the once proud and powerful tribes of Indians, Australian and New Zealand Aborigines now entertain tourists. Representatives of Western civilization needed land, resources, and other people's wealth, while “excess eaters” were simply “cleaned up”.

Russian colonization was different. The Rus (Russians) did not consider the representatives of other nationalities and races to be “subhumans” who must be destroyed or enslaved. Russia has always made the new lands "Russian", and the people who inhabited them had the same rights as the Russians themselves. It often happened that they also received privileges, privileges, in particular, were exempted from military service. It is clear that no conflicts could not do. But there are plenty of them in the modern world, this is a common phenomenon. But conflicts did not cause total sweeps and genocide.

And in the North, the Russian colonization of the Finno-Ugric tribes was radically different from the German and Swedish expansion. For example, German and Swedish feudal lords always acted in a rather simple, tough, but effective pattern. They built strongholds (castles, fortresses) on the colonized lands, some of which grew into cities where feudal lords, knights and their servants lived. The surrounding population, regardless of their will, was declared to be feudal serfs, and had to pay tribute and perform various duties. Local residents recruited slaves for the invaders' servants and formed militias that served as cannon fodder in various conflicts. Possible or obvious resistance leaders were immediately destroyed, or attracted to their camp by various promises. The natives who resisted punished themselves with brutal methods — burned, hung, crucified, etc. Destroyed entire villages and clans.

At the same time, the local population was Christianized. Christianization was necessary to eliminate the identity of the local population. The natives lost their native gods, gradually lost their language, switching to the language of the invaders, the names, their holidays, rituals, etc. The natives who tried to keep their faith were destroyed. Reformatting the “matrix” was an essential part of Western expansion. Religion played the role of a program that deprived the local peoples of their roots, the past, turned them into “ethnographic material” with which one could do anything. Therefore, Catholic priests and hierarchs were an important part of the occupational administration, always included in the retinue of feudal lords and themselves were spiritual feudal lords.

The Russians carried out colonization in a completely different way. It is clear that armed clashes with Finnish tribes took place, but in general, the colonization was peaceful. Several factors contributed to this. The Russians did not suppress the local culture. Russian did not need slaves and serfs. The Russians did not take the “ecological niche” from the Finns. The north was inhabited extremely weakly, and the Russians, having a much more developed material culture and methods of management, occupied empty niches. This allowed them to infiltrate extremely painlessly. And the tribute that was imposed on the locals was small, not burdensome. In fact, it was a sign of resignation, not real wealth.

You can pay attention to the fact that the Rus-Novgorod XI-XIII centuries. practically they did not build fortresses in the area of ​​the Neva River, in Karelia and in Southern Finland. Novgorodians did not need powerful support bases here to control vast territories. It should also be noted that after the Christianization of Russia, the Russian church for a long time led missionary activities with relatively weak and peaceful methods. In addition, Christianity in Russia, in most of the regions, and especially in the North, had weak positions, for a long time there was a dual faith. Most of Novgorod in the XI-XIII centuries. were pagans or Dvoevers, that is, they worshiped both Perun and Christ.

However, the process of the peaceful entry of Finnish lands into Russia was interrupted by external forces. If the Murom and Meshchersky Territories became primordially Russian lands, and the Murom and Meshchera tribes (as well as some others) became part of the Rus superethnos, the territory of modern Finland began to be actively mastered by the Swedish feudal lords, who were guided by Rome. Rome was an old enemy and implacable Slavs and Russia. The Swedes and the Roman popes intervened in the relatively peaceful coexistence of the Finns and the Rus.

Rome constantly set Swedish feudal lords against Finns, Karelians and Russians. Rome also sent the German feudal lords to the Baltic States, where the Balts and Finno-Ugrians were colonized. By the twelfth century, royal power was consolidated in Sweden, which increased the pressure on Finland, it was called Österland (Swede Österlanden - Eastern Country). By order of Rome, new archdiocese was founded - in Lund (1104) and Uppsala (1164). Three crusades to Finland are known - 1157, 1249 — 1250 and 1293 — 1300. At the same time, the Swedes, apparently in alliance with the Swordtails, tried to consolidate on the Neva, and, with good luck, seize Ladoga and defeat Novgorod. However, their plans put an end to Alexander Yaroslavich, who in the Neva battle in 1240, defeated the invaders.

In 1249, the Swedes conquered the land of Tavastov-Emi (Tavastlandia) and founded the Tavastgus Castle. In 1293, Swedish troops conquered southwestern Karelia and laid down Vyborg Castle there. In 1300, the Swedes again tried to gain a foothold on the Neva and erected the fortress of Landskrona. However, a year later, the fortress was taken and destroyed by the Novgorodians, led by Alexander Nevsky’s son, Prince Andrey Gorodetsky.

Russia at that time was weak, it fell apart into specific princedoms and lands that could not independently fight back a well-organized expansion. The long-term strategy of Rome bore fruit. Mr. Novgorod the Great was a trade republic, where the rules of the boyar-merchant elite, which had no strategic plans and lived for one day, thinking only of their incomes. Novgorod was unable to organize a proper response to the Swedes. In addition, the Novgorodians themselves did not know how far their possessions stretched in the north and northeast, one area less or more, small loss. Russian princes, however, mired in internecine strife and also did not pay much attention to the northern outskirts of Russia.

However, hostilities between the Swedes and Novgorod continued almost continuously until the 1323 year, and the Swedish feudal lords, having no strength for further expansion, were able to capture only the southern and part of the central territory of modern Finland. In 1323, the Swedish king Magnus concluded a peace treaty with Novgorod Prince Yury Daniilovich in the Oreshek fortress at the source of the Neva River. Under the terms of the agreement, the border of Sweden and Veliky Novgorod was established on the Karelian Isthmus along the line: from the mouth of the Sestra River (Sisterbek) to its source, then through the swamps from where the Sister originated, to the sources of the Saya river, down the Saya river before its confluence with Vuoksa, then along Vuoksa to the point where the river makes a sharp turn to the north and there is a huge boulder - “Sun Stone”. As a result, the new border divided the Karelian Isthmus from south to north and then went to the Saimaa basin and then to the confluence of the Pühajoki River in the Gulf of Bothnia. It was the ancient tribal border between Sumy (Suomi) and Karelians, it was confirmed and preserved. In addition, Novgorod retained the right to hunt and fish on the outgoing lands to the Swedes; Novgorod and the Swedes could use equal land equally with six land plots, and at another two land plots they were entitled to one sixth of the loot. An interesting fact is that in the Orekhovetsky treaty only the south-western frontier of the Russian lands near the Gulf of Bothnia (River Pyuhayoki-Pocheoki) was fixed. How far north the Russian possessions were was not indicated.

After the World of Orekhovets there were several more Russian-Swedish clashes, but in all peace agreements the borders approximately corresponded to the Treaty of Orekhovets. Only Tyavzinsky peace treaty of 1595 of the year, which ended the Russian-Swedish war of 1590 — 1593, seriously changed the position of the borders. Russia ceded Sweden Estland principality (Esterbotnia).

During this period, the Finns were baptized (they later adopted Lutheranism). The Swedes were actively colonizing the island and coastal regions of Finland. Swedish has become the official language of the region. Swedish feudal lords owned vast territories, in the hands of the Swedes were all the highest administrative and judicial positions.

In the Time of Troubles, Sweden was able to capture a significant part of North Russia. Russia lost all access to the Baltic Sea and the northern coast of Lake Ladoga: the cities of Ivangorod, Yam, Koporye, Oreshek and Korela. However, most of Karelia managed to save for Russia.

To be continued ...
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    April 23 2014 09: 05
    Not one, NOT ONE part of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE (USSR!), Having become independent, has become a good ally ... But after some years they begin to APPLY calling for help. It will always be so!
    1. +5
      April 23 2014 11: 52
      You forgot about Belarus and Armenia. Only in these republics there was no persecution of the Russians
  2. +4
    April 23 2014 09: 17
    They had too much autonomy! And then they became lazy! The whip that we got on time sometimes helps a lot! We tried with the Finns for good, but they understood only for bad! The perspective and history will be the same! They will trample on Russia again and again get their teeth! Russia has one gorgeous example of the elimination of the enemy — East Prussia! This is exactly what you need to do with the enemies! Eliminate statehood and replace the population!
  3. +8
    April 23 2014 09: 29
    The independence of Finland was given by our Emperor Alexander 1, and then Lenin. Stalin personally signed this act in the 1918 year. Interesting events were in the North of our country when the Solovetsky Monastery was created. Then the Swedes, Germans and Finns tried to eliminate it. But the Russians skillfully repelled the raids, and Ivan IV put an end to them, he ordered the governors not to take prisoners, but to take the prisoners. Only by force did these invasions calm down. I think that the same actions are necessary now in relation to the enemies of our country. I have the honor.
    1. -4
      April 23 2014 22: 36
      Quote: Drop
      The independence of Finland was given by our Emperor Alexander 1, and then Lenin. Stalin personally signed this act in the 1918 year.
      Eprst belay and here it was not without scattering
      But in fact, neither Sasha, nor Vova and Josia gave the independence of Finland, but the Finns themselves good
      And once again they fully deserved the "Winter War" of 1939-1940.
      Moreover, the Finns are considered by the Kazakhs as an example soldier :
      It should be borne in mind that in our time, a war between states is too expensive to be long. Even the great powers are not ready for long-term hostilities. Therefore, the strategy of small countries can be based on the fact that in the event of aggression of any opponent hold out as long as possible. The most important thing is not to give up. Thus, those who resist, perhaps, will not win the war, but will significantly increase the costs for the attackers. In the end, this will give time to opponents of any aggressor from among the great powers. And such people in the conditions of geopolitical conflict of interests will always be found. They will be able to put pressure on the advancing side. If a small country gives up, then there will be no one to protect.

      A very revealing situation occurred in the 1940 year. Then, after the start of World War II in 1939, the USSR began to implement agreements reached with Germany on the division of zones of influence in Eastern Europe. As a result of Moscow’s pressure, the Baltic countries capitulated because the scale of the armed forces of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia was too incomparable. At the same time, the Finns, who were in a similar situation, began to resist. This initially seemed a hopeless struggle, but the Finnish commander Mannerheim said that it was necessary to fight for the sake of future generations.
      This is logical because whoever resists, so they finally agreewho simply surrenders, he has no chance to independently determine his fate.
  4. Wolland
    April 23 2014 09: 32
    That's where the Russian lands crawled to, pride takes for our grandfathers and great-grandfathers .....
    1. +3
      April 23 2014 14: 53
      To be proud of the possessions of the past is certainly good, but we must make sure that our great-grandchildren have pride in their great-grandfathers !!!
    2. 0
      April 23 2014 20: 33
      even in Norway there are villages with Russian names. Earlier, Pomors lived there.
  5. -3
    April 23 2014 09: 36
    Gentlemen, something is some kind of article with a reserve!
    Finns are quite a neutral people
    In any case, it is definitely not hostile to Russia.
    Separate statements of individual politicians do not count
    1. 0
      April 23 2014 20: 35
      they did not learn how to drink correctly, and vodka, including.
    2. +6
      April 23 2014 21: 47
      Strongly disagree! Finns hate Russia. Chat with residents of Vyborg and St. Petersburg, who go there more often than others.
      My classmate - a Finnish mother - now lives in Helsinki, I hear all the stories firsthand. After the world hockey championship, when ours became champions, he and his son rode in a car, and his son held the Russian flag. So at the traffic lights these Finns ran up and bit (!) Him. Like dogs, simple.
      A circus with the selection of our children? No country in the world has this.
      No illusions.
  6. +7
    April 23 2014 10: 01
    Dear Vadim, you have not seen photos and documents, according to which Manerheim developed such activities that you wanted to capture Leningrad in the 1941 year. His plans included the capture of Arkhangelsk. This army was stopped by our fathers and grandfathers. In Povenets it was only the explosion of platinum BBK, when in December 1941 of the year 2 thousand Finns were washed away into Lake Onega, the Karelian front stabilized until the 1944 of the year. Dear Vadim, everyone is afraid of only the strong. I have the honor.
    1. 0
      April 23 2014 20: 37
      vodka is bad for some people.
    2. 0
      April 23 2014 23: 38
      Dear Yuri Grigorievich. As far as I know, Mannerheim had no plans to capture Leningrad. Do you know why Stalin did not punish the Finns too much after the war?
  7. +2
    April 23 2014 10: 06
    In relation to both the Finns and the Poles, the stupidity was utterly stupid, the Poles were violent, and the Finns were muddy. Both of them parasitized on the body of the Russian Empire, enjoyed a bunch of privileges, protection and at the same time constantly stirred up something there and in due time " "Russia. How many revolutionary terrorists escaped from the tsarist secret police to the territory of Finland or to their Polish friends? And from the Don, as they say, there is no extradition. It was good then for the murderers and terrorists, he threw a bomb at the tsar or some minister, and with a shout" this it was for the sake of freedom "it was possible to run away to the Finns or Poles, they love such people there.
  8. Wolland
    April 23 2014 10: 29
    Earlier, when they were part of the Russian Federation, the difficulty was in the remoteness of these lands, it was not always possible to get there in a timely manner, so they muddied their ....
  9. +2
    April 23 2014 11: 11
    Quote: name
    Not one, NOT ONE part of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE (USSR!) Becoming independent did not become a good ally ... But after some years, they begin to APPLY calling for help.

    Let's be fair. Finland just after it received "musals" from Russia, for the last time in 1945. clearly understood that it is more profitable to be friends with Russia and not to quarrel. And over the past years, this country has gotten well from such a policy towards Russia. Russia objectively does nothing bad for Finland; on the contrary, the entire Finnish economy, which has been successful until recently, was entirely dependent on its eastern neighbor. The entire Finnish light industry, really very, very good before his untimely death in the battle with the Chinese, was bought up mainly by our citizens. Almost all Finnish tourism is also our curious travelers, at the same time buying a bunch of goods that tourists from Europe never buy (Russians spent 1,2 billion euros in Finland last year). Who, besides the Russian fool, will go to the Arctic in winter to see the "real Santa Claus" in Rovaniemi? Since the times of Kekkonen and Kosygin, a number of branches of Finnish industry have been "sharpened" exclusively for our consumer. But, times are changing and there they again begin to glance at our lands with lust, considering them their own. They begin to hate us, Russians, quietly, in Finnish. He finally fell out of love with Finland after he found out how their people were flocking to a musical about the love of a noble SS officer for a Finnish girl, who is interfered with by vile Russians. I realized right away that soon the attitude towards us in this country will change dramatically. It has changed.
    1. 0
      April 23 2014 20: 40
      this people can hardly digest vodka production. that’s why the problem ..
    2. +1
      April 23 2014 23: 34
      In what year did the Finns, you say, received the last time on the "tinsel"? In 45, when did she leave the war? Maybe in 44?
    3. 0
      April 25 2014 23: 14
      Finns are very fond of the Russian forest. Well, they love so much that they only buy it or take our forest, and pay with paper instead of money.
      And they don’t like their own forest, and therefore they don’t cut it down. And they don’t like us either, probably because we don’t have a prohibition. Patzemu vaz nett of dry law, when we have it - that's what the Finns say.
      And on the contrary, we love our Russian forest very much and therefore give it to the right and left i.e. Finns and Chinese. The Chinese saw the wood on the boards and sell us back.
      Here are such interesting people, these Finns, and at the same time the Chinese.
  10. +1
    April 23 2014 11: 36
    I wonder what the Finns have written in history books?
    Russians tormented and milked until the Swedes liberators came?
    1. +1
      April 23 2014 11: 57
      Forgot to add "and began to milk more and more often"
    2. 0
      April 23 2014 23: 43
      They have more or less everything in truth in history textbooks. They come to us regularly (Finno-Ugric peoples). In the 90s they tried to stir up something on nationalist grounds --- they quickly grabbed it off, now everything is fine (we are just related and similar languages)
  11. +4
    April 23 2014 11: 51
    Enemies will always try to set any chipped piece of the state against this state. A good example of this is Ukraine with a people almost identical to us. What can we say about Finland.
    I would not say that the Finns are a terribly aggressive people towards us, the strength and resources for this are not enough. I think the Finns are well aware of this. But Russia always needs to "keep the powder dry", to be strong and mighty. Otherwise, it will simply be torn to pieces. The European Union and the United States dream of making the Eurozone from the European part of Russia, a sales market for products, China is always aimed at the East and Siberia. Well, on the sly, the Finns will never give up Karelia (although this is not the worst threat).
    Our ancestors understood this when they built the ring of fortresses in the Northwest. Burevoy-Vybor- was set by Vyborg, Nevo Slavenovich - Nut-city (Nut) to protect the then-standing capital of Slavensk-Novgorod. No less important were the later Kaporye, Ivangorod, Yamburg, etc.
    1. 0
      April 23 2014 23: 45
      There was such a republic within the USSR --- Karelian-Finnish SSR. Who steered it in the know?
  12. Andy J.
    April 23 2014 12: 45
    Quote: demotivator
    Let's be fair. Finland just after it received "musals" from Russia, for the last time in 1945. clearly understood that it is more profitable to be friends with Russia and not to quarrel.

    Finland really understood this, but by no means from what it received from someone. Compare losses
    Finns and the USSR according to the results of the Winter War. If the same Mannerheim supported Hitler’s demands and joined the siege of Leningrad, then this heroic story would have ended much sadder.

    Quote: demotivator
    And over the past years, this country is well raped by such a policy towards Russia. Russia objectively does nothing wrong for Finland, on the contrary, the entire successful Finnish economy until recently depended entirely on its eastern neighbor ... Almost all Finnish tourism is also our curious travelers, who at the same time buy a bunch of goods that tourists from Europe never buy

    It's true. Paradoxically, the goods that Europeans very rarely buy because everything is very expensive for them in Finland, I buy Russian because ... Cheaper and higher quality.

    Quote: demotivator
    Who, besides the Russian fool, will go to the Arctic in winter to see the "real Santa Claus" in Rovaniemi?

    Strange as it may seem, most of the "fools" are not from Russia.

    Quote: demotivator
    Since the times of Kekkonen and Kosygin, a number of branches of Finnish industry have been "tailored" exclusively for our consumer.

    Yes. Finns are very pragmatic people. Over time, however, more and more products are exported worldwide. Sales markets need to be diversified. On the other hand, now many Finnish companies are investing in Russia.

    Quote: demotivator
    But, times are changing and there again they begin to glance with lust at our lands, considering them their own. I understood right away that soon in this country the attitude towards us will change greatly. It has changed.

    Bullshit. If someone thinks so, it is exclusively marginalized who do not have any serious political weight. Neither at the official nor at the national level there is absolutely no desire to capture something there. Russian, on the contrary, is being taught more and more in schools. As I wrote above, the Finns are very pragmatic.
    1. +2
      April 23 2014 20: 43
    2. +1
      April 23 2014 22: 40
      When an offensive operation is underway, especially on a prepared and echeloned defense, the losses are at least 1: 5 not in favor of the attackers ..... this is not in our favor on the issue of losses ... these losses were necessary for solving strategic tasks and goals. ... You, apparently, slightly frivolously write your conclusions here .....
    3. -1
      April 23 2014 23: 49
      Plus from you to me! I talked with yours, really pragmatists. And we have a rest in our way!
  13. 0
    April 23 2014 12: 51
    Enemies will always try to set any chipped piece of the state against this state.

    If a piece of the state breaks away from a common country, then something has already disturbed him in this country and the enemies are already graying in this piece.
  14. 0
    April 23 2014 13: 57
    Do not expect good from good ...
  15. Yaroslav
    April 23 2014 16: 37
    Quote: Figvam
    Gentlemen, something is some kind of article with a reserve!
    Finns are quite a neutral people
    In any case, it is definitely not hostile to Russia.
    Separate statements of individual politicians do not count

    I completely agree...
  16. 0
    April 23 2014 17: 37
    Quote: Wolland
    That's where the Russian lands crawled to, pride takes for our grandfathers and great-grandfathers .....

    Lenin's national policy has done its job. And if you look to the south - how many states appeared on the site of the Turkestan governor general! How much lost, no words!
  17. +1
    April 23 2014 17: 39
    Quote: Andy J.
    Bullshit. If someone thinks so, it is exclusively marginalized who do not have any serious political weight. Neither at the official nor at the national level there is absolutely no desire to capture something there. Russian, on the contrary, is being taught more and more in schools. As I wrote above, the Finns are very pragmatic.

    I am flattered by such attention to my post, but I cannot agree with something. A couple of examples about "pragmatic Finns". It's only about recent events. At the end of last year, the Finnish parliament discussed the possibility of limiting the right of foreigners, primarily Russians, to buy real estate in the country. The legislative initiative has already been supported by 100 parliamentarians. The bill proposes to allow the purchase of real estate only after five years of residence in the country. According to them, the transactions of the Russians are rather dubious and have signs of money laundering. As a result, the cost of coastal summer cottages is increasing rapidly. It was reported that annually Russian citizens conclude about 500 real estate transactions in Finland. Most of them are in South-East and East Finland. As I understand it, the bill is a clear example of the growing "friendship" between the Finnish and Russian peoples, and especially the "pragmatism" of the Finns. You don't need to be a big real estate analyst to understand that a German or an Italian is unlikely to buy a dacha on the Finnish Baltic coast, and all this is purely Russian buyers. Moreover, as a rule, not Muscovites or Yekaterinburg residents, but residents of the North-West of the Russian Federation, mainly Petersburgers and Petrozavodsk residents. Who else needs it?
    And from St. Petersburg it is really convenient - 2-3 hours by car, and you are in some Lampenranta, on the shore of Lake Saimaa. If you want to sunbathe and swim, if you don't want to - wander through endless shops and zucchini. And the price for a Finnish dacha is really not more expensive than in the Leningrad region, if there is extra money, it is a completely rational investment. How did the Russian real estate prevent the Finns? It would seem that for the very liberal economy of Finland, such purchases are an unexpected joy, serious support in a crisis: the "new Russians" pay taxes, and in full, without deductions; they regularly pay bills for electricity, water, and more; they very rarely take jobs in Finland, more often they even create them; for the final they give jobs to Finnish builders, developers and other market participants.
    Of course, there is no economy at all in such a legislative initiative, pure chauvinism - who wants to have a "dirty Russian pig" as a neighbor in the country. I am without a shadow of irony - most Russians do not understand a word in Finnish, most of the dialogues are in English, and more and more Finns are learning Russian in the service. But if we understood what they say to each other about us ...
    Not so long ago, the European public was shocked by the result of a sociological survey, according to which hostility towards Russians was maximally developed in Europe precisely in Finland, and with a wide margin from the second place, it seems, among the Poles. The Finnish cabinet even tried to somehow clumsyly justify themselves. After the country entered the EU, Finland was flooded with numerous migrants with other racial characteristics - blacks, Arabs, Turks. From them there are exactly as many problems in Helsinki as in Paris, Berlin, Vienna or London. But they do not buy Finnish houses. Therefore, the Russians are still an annoying factor for the Finns.
    In Finland, there has long been an organization that considers it its patriotic duty to spoil in the Russian houses closed in the absence of the owners. For which, let me remind you, the Finns were paid, and from which taxes are regularly received into the Finnish treasury. And, finally, - greetings from the "gray mare" to the lousy goat!
    1. +3
      April 23 2014 22: 30
      I join in your greetings.
      Before dissolving snot about the next "brotherhood", it would not be good to enter the topic.
      Judging by the "pluses" and "minuses" to the comments, a lot of amateurs joined the discussion of the topic who do not imagine the real state of affairs. I repeat - everything is fine with Finland at the government level, but at the level of the population ... I would not advise any of my friends to live there. Terry chauvinism.
  18. shezar
    April 23 2014 17: 42
    And now Russia is creating: Tatar, Chechen, Ossetian, Bashkir, and other statehoods in the national republics on the territory of the Russian Federation, and this is done under cries of friendship of peoples and a single Russian nation, which, apparently, consists of nationalist representatives of "brotherly peoples" who live in their national republics and are the titular nations there of the Russian people, which, judging by the policy of the Russian Federation, has no right to national subjectivity, but is a breeding ground for the cultivation of young statesmen of "fraternal peoples", and if the Russians say that in general they exist or that it was the Russian people who created Russia, then immediately a crowd of mestizos, representatives of "fraternal peoples" or "Soviet" Russians, who sympathize with them, begin to shout about "Russian fascists" and Hitler, which does not prevent the "brotherly peoples" from being nationalists themselves , only Chechen, Tatar and any others, but not Russian! It's time for us to start learning from our own mistakes, gentlemen, to understand how everything works and not to repeat such mistakes again.
  19. +1
    April 23 2014 18: 05
    Do not drive to Finland! this country is the most calm and reliable neighbor of Russia over the past 70 years, unlike the former fraternal Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and the Czech Republic, but I don’t even speak about many union republics ... But because of such articles and people who share similar views in the West, they are fanning the image of Russian cannibals! Finns, if not best friends, are not enemies, that's for sure !!!
  20. 0
    April 23 2014 18: 37
    At present, many residents of Russia will not remember that until recently (by historical standards) Finland was part of the Russian state and that it was the Russians who created Finnish statehood.

    Absolutely true thesis! Indeed, the Finnish people have been deprived of their statehood throughout their history. Always, while the Finns did not become part of Russia. And only the entry of Finland into the Russian Empire gave the Finns their own state. It passed in stages. It all began with the Nishtad peace of 1721, followed by the Russo-Swedish war, which was waged by the daughter of Peter Elizabeth 1741-1743, then the war of Catherine the Great at the very end of the 18th century. Finally, Finland’s annexation was completed by Emperor Alexander I on the eve of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, when the Swedes were once again defeated by the Russian army.
    I would like to note the special status of the Principality of Finland, which it had as part of the Russian Empire. The Finns as part of Russia had their own parliament, when it was not yet in Russia, their government, their currency, their police, their customs. Submission was carried out at the level of the person of the emperor, bypassing the entire bureaucratic ladder. Russia did not prevent the Finns from living as they wished, nor did they prevent them from maintaining their identity. And therefore, a hundred years (1808-1917) there was practically no uprising and the struggle for independence that took place in the British or French empire, and which were brutally suppressed by "civilized Europeans." After the events of 1917. in Russia, Finland withdrew from its composition and became an independent state. And here an interesting question arises - the boundaries! What can be the boundaries of a new entity, which had never before in history been an independent state? Any border between the USSR and Finland by them was always only the result of a consensus of forces, and was not based on any historical fact. However, the borders of all countries, and not just the USSR and Finland, at all times reflect only the balance of political forces and nothing else. Recall the USSR - by the way, in Helsinki Brezhnev and the US President signed the Helsinki Accords of 1975. about peace and borders in Europe. And where is this world? And where are these boundaries today? Even there are no such states that signed this document (USSR, Yugoslavia). Before the war, Stalin made a proposal to Finland on the exchange of territories. At the talks, he said:
    “We do not demand and take, but offer ... Since Leningrad cannot be moved, we ask that the border should be 70 kilometers from Leningrad ... We ask for 2700 sq. M. km And we offer in return more than 5500 square meters. km ... We cannot do anything with geography, just as you cannot change it. ”
    At that time, no country offered such conditions - they simply took and occupied it. But the Finns did not compromise, as a result, a war broke out, after which Finland ceded to the USSR larger territories than he had requested before the war. Subsequently, Finland again fought against the USSR on the side of Germany, and surrendered again (a ceasefire was signed on September 19, 1944, and Finland declared war on Germany).
    In its final form, the conditions of peace between Finland and the USSR were very soft for Finland.
    I note that for a country that has lost the war, the conditions are more than good. Especially if you remember what became its ally - Germany
    1. -1
      April 23 2014 22: 41
      Quote: demotivator
      But the Finns did not compromise, as a result, war broke out
      Well, as if the Finns were offered, as in that joke - "- Choose: death or matumba." wassat
      Africa. The traveler is walking through the jungle. Suddenly, from behind the bushes, a crowd of blacks surrounds, knits, carries them to the leader. The leader says menacingly: "Well, warrior? Death or Matumba?" A man thinks: well, death - we will always be in time, but what is Matumba? and answers the leader: "Matumba". A HUGE Negro comes out of the crowd and, in front of the whole tribe, how to put it more politely, severely oppresses the unfortunate traveler, after which he is released.
      A mounth later. The same dude walks back through the same jungle. Again a crowd of savages, again grabbed the leader. "Well, warrior? Death or Matumba?" The man immediately: "Death !!!". "You are a brave warrior ... DEATH THROUGH MATUMBU !!!"
  21. -1
    April 24 2014 07: 50
    Quote: Kazbek
    Choose: death or

    No need to distort the facts. What the hell is death? They were offered the EXCHANGE of territories, and the USSR gave Finland a much larger area than requested in return. Once again, just an exchange. Here are the facts:
    We ask for 2700 sq. M. km And we offer in return more than 5500 square meters.

    How foolish it is to see death in this exchange offer? Want to joke? The Finns refused, underestimating the strength of the USSR and their own capabilities and brought matters to war. Only after that we got our "matumba". And rightly so, no need to run up. But you could understand them. What did they base their plans on? That the USSR did not change during the years that Stalin ruled it, that if little Poland managed to defeat the USSR in the war of 1920, then why can't Great Finland be able to repeat this "feat"? So we lost it. But after World War II, they became pragmatists and lived with us in friendship and harmony. Until recently, until chauvinism and revanchism woke up there.
    1. -3
      April 24 2014 10: 39
      Quote: demotivator
      They were offered the EXCHANGE of territories, and the USSR gave Finland a much larger area than requested in return.
      Yeah, as far as I know, they were offered vast empty lands instead of highly developed territories ..
      Quote: demotivator
      But after the 2 World War they became pragmatists and lived with us in friendship and harmony.
      As if this is the merit of the Finns, who, with weapons in their hands, showed that they should go to them .. soldier