In Finland a book was published, from which it follows that at the beginning of 1990-ies Russia could lose Karelia and Vyborg, but its territorial integrity was allegedly saved the position of the Finnish President Koivisto. Is it true that Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin traded territories of the country behind its population?
The reason is such that you have to approval of diplomat, scientist and writer Yucca Seppinen about the readiness of the USSR under Gorbachev to discuss the transfer of Karelia to Finland are problematic. If it is somehow suddenly not a lie, then at least attempt to wishful thinking.
Among majority of Russian citizens, the prevailing negative attitude to Gorbachev. Accusations of betrayal of national interests and “groveling before the West” have become common place and, admittedly, are without Foundation. But not in this case.
The evidence base Seppinen frankly weak, and when Gorbachev said that the first time I hear about something like that, he can be trusted. In the Fund of the former President of the Soviet Union on the request of the newspaper LOOK tougher said:
“these allegations are innuendo. This may not correspond to reality, because it was nothing like this. All conversations of the then leaders of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev and Finland Mauno Koivisto documented, now published. Their relationship was close, they discussed various issues. But nothing like that happened and could not be neither in the internal negotiations or with external partners. I just can’t imagine that any leader of our country would like to discuss”, – the head declared a press-service “Gorbachev-Fund” Pavel Palazhchenko.
The weakest logic Seppinen, described in detail in this article, it’s an analogy. He compares the Republic of Karelia with the Baltic republics gained independence before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Supposedly this path in the early nineties could pass Karelia for further merger with Finland, but actually could not.
First, in contrast to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, she did not have the status of a Union Republic, which had the right to secede from the USSR. He was in the Karelo-Finnish SSR, was abolished in 1956. Abolished it, by the way, because finally refused Stalin’s idea to incorporate Finland into the USSR. Instead, the Finns signed bonded contract guaranteeing a waiver of any territorial claims, formally neutral status Helsinki and its actually Pro-Soviet orientation.
This Treaty has sunk into Oblivion in September of 1991 – that is, when, according to Seppanen, Finland has had a chance to take Karelia. But it’s hard to imagine that Gorbachev, while trying to save the remnants of the Union, in order to remain President at least something, suddenly interested in gearher Karelia and Viborg Finland.
The Soviet Union was influenced by the desire to get rid of Vyborg, as the captured territory was in a poor state, and the resources for its restoration were not available, says Seppanen.
Sounds crazy, as the resources then there was none, but there were regions and more neglected than Vyborg.
Second, the separation of Baltic republics from the Soviet Union occurred on demand “from below”. Soviet patriots are skeptical about the struggle of Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians for independence, but this fight really was, it was truly massive and cover a wide layers of the population. Nothing like that in Karelia there was not and could not be. Even in the early twentieth century, the majority of the local population were Russian, and at the time of the collapse of the USSR, they were already under 75%.
If you ask a direct question, where the diplomat and political scientist all think that the Soviet leadership had plans to discuss the fate of Karelia, it turns out that it depends on the specific episode in his biography. In the summer of 1990, the city of Kotka held a celebration in honor of the 200th anniversary Rochensalmsky battles – victory of the Russian fleet over the Swedish. Seppinen led this project, and after the celebrations were invited to the dinner, “Minister counselor of the Soviet Union in Helsinki” Lev by Pausini.
“He said that the liberal majority of the Soviet Politburo believes that the USSR might start with Finland, the negotiations on the return of Karelia,” – says Seppanen.
This wording may seem that Pouzin was Ambassador of the Soviet Union, but it is not. Minister Counsellor – Deputy Ambassador, but in the official biography Pausina, given the location of his current service that are not marked that he had occupied such a position. But it is said that in the late 90s he was the Consul General of Russia in Turku, and it is a lower diplomatic status.
He Pausin declined to comment, but the participants of the dinner, the principle does not entail the exchange of classified information – more like the usual kitchen chatter (perhaps entirely fictitious), if not notorious “a provocation of the KGB”.
The main thrust of the book Seppinen directed against the former President of Finland Mauno Koivisto. Supposedly he missed the chance to regain Karelia. Actually, the book is called “Because the President Koivisto has been against a return of Karelia”. And why was he against it? The answer is:
“He didn’t want to have Western Finland was a competitor in the face of Vyborg. Still in 1930-e years Vyborg was Finland’s successful city.”
Perhaps Seppinen to Koivisto personal. Perhaps all of his sensational accusations subordinated to one goal – to sell your literary work, to work that all publications about it (and this is no exception). The theme of the lost Karelia and Vyborg (which, by the way, Karelia never was a part of) dabout still finds a lively response in the hearts of the Finnish patriots, although the official Helsinki has no territorial claims to anyone.
Whereupon Gorbachev can be justified. Harder with Yeltsin. Deputy Minister of foreign Affairs of the RSFSR in the period of the August coup, Andrei Fedorov, long time working in Finland, admitted in an interview that the Karelian question in 1991 at least been discussed by the Russian government in a secret mode. When this was mentioned the possibility of the sale of the Republic of Finland and the option of joint management of its territory.
Yeltsin’s team then needed the money – the Treasury was empty. At the same time Finland was seen as a place created by the Russian government in exile if putsch will win. The talks conducted himself Fyodorov.
Another thing is that this kind of “trick” of the Yeltsin presidency – he was ready to discuss anything for the sake of “conversation”. The most famous example is the fate of the Kuril Islands, because, as he recalled former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, the Russian President was a kind of obsession to sign the Japanese peace Treaty at all costs, but the government stood on its hind legs and on readiness to “discuss” the matter did not advance.
The “part” of Karelia would be more difficult than with the Kuril Islands: changes in its status threatened to nourish separatism in the national republics in the conditions of Chechnya Moscow is no longer obeyed, and Tatarstan refused to sign the Federal agreement and literally dreamed of independence.
Perhaps that is why no specifics of the Karelian case does not contain: if the question of territorial concessions Finland really up, then quickly was closed to the sadness of those Finnish patriots for whom the expansion of the boundaries of the homeland remains the age-old dream.
In the history of our relationship, was all. There were four wars with any other country, the Soviet Union fought as often and as long as Finland. Was, in particular, and war in Karelia, which, after the October revolution became as the DNI – the self-proclaimed and unrecognized state. Was psychotic Russophobia of the Finnish elite, once referred to the Soviet Union and Russia as well as the Galicians and poles are now.
Modern Finland is one of the most friendly to Russia countries of the European Union, whose economy is significantly dependent on the economy nuclear neighbor: any major crisis we have consistently hit and Finns too. But the nostalgia for the lost lands from them, however strong may be able to increase the circulation of books Seppinen, and more on what is not capable.
