Finland feels remorse about NATO

It would appear that is not only Donald Trump that seems to have a problem with NATO, its European members and their attitude to Russia
Currently The Finnish authorities are providing an astonishing example of political gymnastics . Just a few days ago they were calling on the West to practically fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, and now they are talking about the need to be "morally prepared" to restore businesd d relations with Russia.
Does this mean that Finland is ready to admit it got things completely wrong? The answer is Yes and no - and here's why.
It is necessary to be "mentally prepared" to restore relations with Russia, said the Finnish President Alexander Stubb.

At first glance, this is a strange statement.As Finland has been s one of the main European "hawks" in relations with Moscow, and did not adopt this position simply out of a sense of Russophobia. They believed they were being pragmatic and going with the flow .

This was Firstly, because they felt it was necessary to keep up with colleagues in the Baltic and Northern European countries, which are extremely interdependent in economic, cultural, political and security terms.
"In recent years it has been Northern Europe and the Baltic countries that have adopted the most hostile and hysterical position towards Russia. Forever screaming the Russians are coming and advocating more military forces in the region.
So it is obvious that if Finland had not joined in, it would have stood out from the crowd," staed Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the Higher School of Economics.

Secondly, Finland's accession to NATO was a key priority and major objective of the Joe Biden administration, which sought to expand NATO into the northeast region to surround Russia in the wast from the Arctic,to the Baltic and the Black Seas .
This was was also a priority of its Swedish neighbours, given the special military relations between the two countries. The local Euro-Atlantic elites also played a significant role in this matter. However, the Finnish population, with its strong historical and cultural ties to Russia and a general sense of security in the presence of Moscow, was not in favour of the country joining NATO.
Now before I continue I would like to make an appeal,if you like and enjoy my videos you can help me fund the channel and my websited sco brics insight .com and to further develop it. You can do this by making a small donation which you can do by clicking on the thanks button at the bottom of the video screen. Everybody who donates does get a personal thank you from me.
By the beginning of the Special Military Operation of Russia in the Ukraine, only 20% of Finns supported their country joining the North Atlantic Alliance.
According to Dmitry Suslov, the Finnish authorities have greatly exaggerated the Russian threat and stoked anti-Russian sentiment to try to gain support for joining NATO.
This has led to a continuation of this demonstrative hawkishness, which can be seen in calls to impose total sanctions on Moscow, intentions to sharply increase defense spending, and a readiness to withdraw from the agreement banning anti-personnel mines.
The continuation of this hawkishness is partly due to inertia, and partly because the Finnish politicians wished to follow Poland's example and generate revenue. The aim is to transform Finland into a significant US/NATO military base.
This could render Finland's 1,300-kilometer border with Russia to be vulnerable as NATO troops being deployed on Finnish territory, potentially pose a threat to St. Petersburg, Murmansk, and the Northern Fleet of the Russian Navy. The presence of NATO troops, through various forms of collaboration such as base rentals, accommodation, and infrastructure investments, could however generate substantial revenue for Finland.

But and there is always a BUT, it should be noted that this potential anti-Russian income would not fully offset the loss of real income from cooperation with Russia, either quantitatively or qualitatively.
Prior to the pandemic, the country welcomed over 800,000 Russian tourists annually, contributing significantly to the tourism sector's revenue, which stood at almost 20% of the l countriy's total income.
The closure of Finland's borders with Russia in 2023 resulted in the loss of this revenue stream, costing the country at least 2 billion dollars annually if not more and that is just tourism
. This figure does not include the loss of trade and economic ties, with it being well-known that the economy of the south-eastern regions of Finland was closely linked to trade with Russia. Consequently, a wave of bankruptcies and layoffs swept across the country, and exports fell by almost 30%.

However, the Finns voluntarily chose to sacrifice these trade relations in favour of the new Russophobic policy.
This was partly due to the belief that the termination of trade and economic relations was unavoidable. "In the circumstances, when Finland acted, the predominant forecast in the West was the imminent collapse of Russia. The ripping to shreds of its economy. Consequently, the Finns anticipated that the ties would be severed in any case," says Dmitry Suslov.

Secondly, they anticipated compensating for losses by utilising the "Russian legacy". "In Helsinki, there was a plan to divide up the economic benefits of Russia's economic collapse. The Finnish authorities were anticipating the disintegration of Russia, with the intention of acquiring the regions of Vyborg and Petrozavodsk," explains political scientist Nikolai Mezhevich.
In addition, the prospect of acquiring resources (timber) from the Russian Federation at minimal cost was a significant incentive.

However, this strategy ultimately proved to nothing more than an erotic fantasy of the Western political class. The Russian economy has remained stable, and Russia has not lost the conflict. Plus of course the geopolitical winds shifted, Western nations are moving away from the idea of a blockades and isolation to the search for ways to normalise relations with Russia.
It is widely acknowledged that the war in Ukraine is approaching its conclusion. And that this conclusion is not the outcome that the Europeans desired or initially expected – the finale will be a predominant or complete victory for Russia. This will necessitate a re-evaluation of European relations with Moscow. The search for a formula for neighbourliness with Russia is underway," says Dmitry Suslov.

The new American administration is one of the factors that is altering the prevailing Western perspective. the US President Donald Trump is likely to accept the upcoming outcome of the Russia victory in the special military operation and acknowledge them to some extent. He is expected to normalise relations with Moscow and even make Russia his global partner in some matters. This concept was reportedly conveyed to Alexander Stubb during their recent discussions over a game of golf. Do Love a game of golf,the wonderful thing about golf is you are playing against yourself,nature and the elements and it can make fools out even the best exponents

In his statement President Stubb reportedly said that he understood that this was not just a fleeting desire of Trump, but this was a significant geopolitical shift.
"Europe must understand that the United States wants to reduce its presence in European affairs. This is not merely a personal inclination on Trump's part, but rather a strategic reorientation of the United States towards contending with China and the Pacific region," says Dmitry Suslov.

"At the same time, the United States is not willing to leave a significant mess behind like Biden did in Afghanistan. They recognise the need for stability in Europe, and are encouraging European countries to normalise relations with Moscow.
Consequently, Stubb has initiated a strategic shift towards this approach."The Finnish president was faced with a choice of two courses of action. The first was to continue to rely on those politicians, primarily European ones, who advocate escalating the war and the Kyiv regime. This would involve supporting the plans of Great Britain and France to organise military provocations and to harm Moscow in every possible way.

This approach carries with it the risk of straining relations with Washington and potentially leading to more significant economic challenges for Finland. It is important to note that, unlike France and Great Britain, Finland shares a border with Russia.
It is improbable that Finland would wish to emulate the Baltic states in their Russophobia, which has hindered their socio-economic development opportunities in partnership with Russia.

The second option is to adjust its policy immediately, thereby gaining a strategic advantage in the rapidly evolving situation. This represents a shift in Western countries' approach towards normalising relations with Moscow.
"A certain reality challenge has already begun. This is an unavoidable consequence of the need to adapt to the new reality. The United States has already broken through the narrative, and if they can normalize relations, why can't others?
Those with the least ideological stance have already begun to make preparations for their return, with South Korea being a notable example. Italy's Ariston company is another notable example. Perhaps Finland will also remember its pragmatic roots," says Dmitry Suslov.

It is possible that the Finns will also recognise that the primary benefits (both economic and political) in the near future will be received by those countries that are the first to reverse their policies and return to the Russian market. It is acknowledged that this will not be a simple undertaking for Finland. There are significant challenges, including the loss of trust and the need to recalibrate its foreign policy, which is heavily reliant on Brussels. However, the Russian side has already stated that it will not create any obstacles on its part. As Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov stated, "President Putin has repeatedly said that our country is open to normalizing relations with those who want it."

The onus is now on Finland to demonstrate its commitment through concrete actions. One such example would be the return of Russian property that has been taken. Only when these conditions are met will Finland be able to proceed with its rat race.