On 30 March, Finland's national railways announced that Russian Railways would resume operations in Finland from 31 March. Explaining the decision, Finland's state railways said that although Russteel was on the EU sanctions list, the situation did not apply to Finland. Finland's decision to make this decision will have three major implications for Russia's breakthrough of diplomatic sanctions and economic sanctions on Russia-Finland relations.
The decision of finland's state-owned railways to resume the operation of Russian railways is ultimately a matter of money. Because of the cooperation between Russian Railways and the Finnish State Railways, the Finnish State Railways Company can share a lot of transportation costs, which is a considerable income for Finland. The main thing is russia's oil and gas, which Is also urgently needed by Finland, and if the agreement between Russian Railways and Finnish State Railways is cut off, it will ultimately be Finland itself that will suffer. In particular, Russian President Vladimir Putin has clearly declared that for unfriendly countries, it must use rubles to pay for natural gas imports, and in this case, Finland may suffer even more if it continues to go against the wind. Therefore, the Finnish state-owned railway company, under the instruction of the government, can only make this kind of decision, although this decision is a bit inconsistent with European politics, but in the face of practical interests, the dead friend is not the most correct choice for the European country.
There are many reasons why Finland is involved in the Russian-Ukrainian crisis and joins the sanctions against Russia. Historically, Finland's relations with Russia were complex, and during the Tsarist period, Finland was in fact a grand duchy of the Tsar, with a high degree of autonomy, but the Tsar remained its suzerainty. During the February Revolution of 1917, Tsar Nicholas II abdicated, and many of the principalities in the Tsarist Empire became independent, including Finland. After Finland's independence, Russia entered a civil war from 1918 to 1920, when Russia was arguably in a state of extreme weakness. Such a Russia, which was to try to restore the heyday of the Tsarist era, was impossible for Finland to grow and develop.
On September 1, 1939, World War II began in Europe, and from November 1939 to March or April 1940, the Soviet Union offered a territorial exchange to Finland in order to gain a strategic depth in Leningrad. Finland was asked to exchange some areas of the Karelian Isthmus with the northern territories of the Soviet Union in exchange for the security of Petrograd. At that time, Stalin believed that Finland was close to Germany, and that Finland's borders and Leningrad in the Soviet Union could be said to be very close, and with the blitzkrieg capabilities of the German army, a charge could hit the walls of Leningrad. Therefore, in order to obtain a strategic buffer zone and deepen the strategic depth of Leningrad's defenses, Stalin hoped to obtain the Finnish Karelia Isthmus directly opposite Leningrad, in exchange for peace between Suf and Finnish.
In the face of Stalin's bullying, Finland, of course, did not back down, so the Soviet-Finnish War broke out from the end of 1930 to 1940. Although the Finnish army, supported by Germany, fought bravely during the Soviet-Finnish War, defeating the Soviet army led by Voroshilov in the first stage. But the Soviet Union was a behemoth after all, and after slowing down, it replaced Voroshilov with Timoshenko, and finally forced Finland to sign a treaty in a tragic way, ceding the Karelian Isthmus, so that Leningrad and Finland formed a relatively wide strategic depth. This is the historical entanglement between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II.
Although in World War II, Finland formed an alliance with Germany and became a servant army of Germany, with the counter-offensive of the Soviet Red Army, Finland also saw the opportunity relatively quickly, adjusted the national policy in time, and declared neutrality, which has continued to this day. It was precisely because of this neutral stance that the Soviet Union and Finland maintained a relatively friendly relationship at the height of the Cold War, and also made Finland an intermediary role in mediation between the United States and the Soviet Union. It can be said that Finland benefited from the two major camps of the East and the West, and after the 1960s and 1970s, it has developed rapidly. In particular, in 1975, U.S. President Carter and Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union Bonezhnev signed the Helsinki Agreement on the Peaceful Coexistence of the United States and the Soviet Union in Helsinki, which made Finland's position in the Cold War an unprecedented improvement. To this day, Finland's neutrality and non-membership in NATO have earned Russia's trust.
After the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, the United States and European countries have stood together to impose sanctions on Russia, and Finnish Prime Minister Marin also said in real time that considering Russia's aggressive offensive posture, for the sake of national interests and for its own security, it is ready to seek to join NATO. When Finnish Prime Minister Marin threatened to join NATO, Putin issued a threat, which will bring the most serious threat to Russian-Finnish relations and geopolitics, hoping that Finland can think twice, and then whether Finland will join NATO has become a concern of the Western world. When Both Russia and Europe were concerned about whether Finland would continue to propose to join NATO, the Finnish state-owned railway company suddenly issued such a announcement, which was actually to convey a message to the outside world again, and maintaining neutrality and not joining NATO is still the core position of Finland in safeguarding its national security interests. From history to reality, Mannerheim, the founding father of Finland, gave Finland a neutral national policy, which is indeed a policy that is in the best national interest for Finland, a Nordic country.
Finland suddenly jumped out to join NATO after the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, and then quickly retracted this decision, mainly due to two factors. First, the current Prime Minister of Finland, Marin, is a young woman. Recently, a relatively new situation has emerged in Western politics, that is, many of the leaders are young women.
When a young leader ascends to power step by step, not through the grinding of grassroots politics, but through a draft politics to promote the ascension to a high position, the ability to govern the country is indeed questionable. After all, the country's major affairs are complex, the coordination of interests is quite difficult, and without considerable wisdom and ability, as well as abundant resources, it is an unimaginable thing for the vast majority of people to manipulate the entire state apparatus. What's more, the international relations are even more deceitful and deceitful, and the slightest carelessness will bring disasters to the country.
This time, Finnish Prime Minister Marin blurted out that Finland is ready to join NATO, which has aroused a strong reaction from Russia, which is the evil result of this youthfulness. A person who had basically not understood much about state governance and inter-state relations before, who had state power, really didn't know how to use it, so that's why Finland suddenly proposed to join NATO, but quickly withdrew.
Second, on the one hand, Finland expressed its toughness toward Russia and wanted to join NATO, and then announced a compromise with Russia because of its own national interests and security considerations, in fact, it also unveiled another common phenomenon in European politics to the outside world. After this Russian-Ukrainian crisis, it will certainly be like Pandora's box, further igniting ultra-nationalist sentiments in Europe, under the wash of this nationalist sentiment, European politics on the one hand ultra-rightization has become a trend, and on the other hand, "anti-Russian" and "anti-Russian" have become political correctness. If Europe comes to this point, Europe's unity will become a joke, and Europe's strategic autonomy will not be able to talk about, so from a long-term point of view, the biggest injury to the Russian-Ukrainian crisis is Europe itself. If Europe cannot wake up, get rid of the shortcomings of draft politics, and truly elect leaders with statesmanship, Europe will still be a mess.