Professor Tuomas Malinen, lecturer at the University of Helsinki, co-founder and chief investigation group analyst in geopolitics and economics, GnS Economics in Conversation with ed. Konrad Hand for net Channel WithoutCensorship.
Finland lost both wars to the USSR
KR: I would like to start with a fewer comparisons. As we know, Poland is seen in the planet as an highly pro-war country. Meanwhile, in Poland an example is used... Finland as an incentive for even more activity in the Ukrainian crisis. “Look at the Finns” – we hear – “They have just joined NATO, abandoned their neutrality, besides think Russia is aggressive, prepare for war and can be our certain allies, fighting like during the Winter War.” We besides deal with another examples of history, stories about Finnish snipers during the Continuing War, all of which is included in the historical policy dominant in Polish media.
TM: That's very interesting!
KR: There is no mention of another very crucial historical process, no 1 wants to remember about finlandisation. No 1 reminds you of how we envied you, the Finns inactive in the 1970s and 1980s, observing how through the politics of Juho Paasikivi and Urho Kekkonena you could benefit from being between East and West. What has changed in Finland that clearly you have besides forgotten this?
TM: First I want to make certain that your media mention that we've lost both wars with Russia?
KR: Of course not.
TM: Of course... Meanwhile, we lost 12 percent of our territory. The winter war was a defensive war against the aggression of the russian Union resulting from the pact Ribbentrop-Molotov, dividing east Europe into the spheres of influence of the USSR and Germany. Russia wanted to seize areas applicable for military reasons as well as take control of Europe's largest nickel deposits in Petsamo. specified were the causes of the wars that Finland lost. What is important, however, in both cases we understood erstwhile to hang the white flag. We knew erstwhile to halt fighting and ask for peace. Meanwhile, as part of the current agreement of forces in Europe, it is absolutely clear that Ukraine lost the war. We do not have full cognition of the losses of Ukrainian troops, but it is known that they are huge, possibly even half a million soldiers. Even if that number was exaggerated, we're inactive talking about massacre and defeat. Independent reports confirm the degree of the damage, the failure of human strength, the full asymmetry of the conflict. Why, then, is pro-war policy continuing? It's not easy to answer that question. Finland appears to be 1 of the main elements of this strategy. We have a long past of very good and mutually beneficial relations with Russia and the earlier russian Union. After the lost wars, we built our own position in the vicinity of the military giant, the ZSSR, trying not to endanger him. Trade with the East drove Finnish industrialization and our fast economical growth. The russian Union was sanctioned by many Western countries, including the US. Finland did not, we traded freely with both parties. The export to Russia accounted for about 25 percent of all our abroad trade. This was the foundation of our relationship, erstwhile abruptly 1 war, in the far, southeast end of Europe, changed everything. But wars had already begun: in Georgia, Abkhazia, Chechnya, someway without problems. The Russians did the same for 500 years, protecting their borders and fighting, for example, on the Karel Pass, which was our way to St. Petersburg, at least from 1475 and later, as the Swedish and Russian empires clashed. Similarly, the United States is besides fighting with all country and anywhere that the US authorities consider important. And Americans, and Russians defend their borders.
Meanwhile, a fewer days ago the Finnish Prime Minister stated that Russia is preparing for a long war against Europe. These are words that have no precedent in the mouth of a politician in this position. Just 2 weeks ago, our defence Minister. Antti Häkkänen stated in turn that Russia is simply a threat to all democratic countries in Europe. That's full nonsense! Russia is not a major threat to Europe present than in the last 500 years. Nothing's changed but Russia. erstwhile the russian Union existed, it was actually able to invade and keep part of Europe. The fact is that they had military and economical possible to do so. However, erstwhile Russia mastered Crimea, it was forced to scope out to its deep reserves and empty 1 of the 2 large investment funds with nearly $500 billion. The war in Ukraine reduced the second 1 by half. There is no economical or even military anticipation for Russia to occupy most of Europe, nor would it make sense for leadership in the Kremlin and its back.
There is no point in creating Russia as an existential threat to Europe, although it should be understood that Russia is taking the chance to counter the attack on itself. That's how wars happen. Knowing how good Finnish-Russian relations were, the only explanation for specified a extremist change in the speech of speeches is someone's quest for escalation. There is simply a faction that cares about it, due to the fact that from a historical, economical and military point of view the conflict between Finland and Russia makes no sense.
Strongest artillery in Europe
KR: It is crucial that Poles realize this too. Without supporting the III Polish Government in any aspect of its activities, and especially in the east politics, I could realize that any Poles treat as a threat what is happening in our immediate neighbourhood, just beyond our borders, in Ukraine, even considering the size of this country. But why are Swedes and Finns drawn into the midst of an global conflict that does not even concern them at all?
As I realize from the statements of Finnish politicians, they want NATO installations in Finland, they would be willing to agree to deploy NATO atomic weapons on their territory, just 200 km from Petersburg. The Finnish government would so like Finland to become a threat to Russia. So do you truly fear war, or do you clearly miss war by bringing the threat of war to your borders. This is simply a very dangerous game...!
TM: That's right. But do you know that we have the strongest artillery in Europe? NATO needs Finland if it wants to start a war with Russia. We have the strongest army, much more effective to Polish, which is why NATO had to gain us by reasoning about fighting the Russians.
If NATO were a defence alliance, it would not talk about the adoption of Ukraine, which for Moscow was an emergency signal or about the acceptance of Finland, which was always a kind of buffer zone, neutral between the West and the East. We played this function very well, so why should we change it? I think the only explanation is that NATO has become or most likely has always been an aggressor. It is comic that Finland became a full associate of NATO on 9 April, precisely the same day the first North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949. I don't think that's a coincidence. It's a signal that should make us think. Whoever actually directs NATO and its leaders is preparing a war against Russia, and this, as we know from history, has always been devastating to Europe. So it truly is time for average people to wake up. erstwhile we read comments, we hear the statements of politicians as the minister Antti Häkkänen We request to see something truly weird going on. If the public does not shake off, if we do not start talking about peace and disarmament, we will witness another major war in Europe, which will most likely turn into a planet war.
Of course, it is hard to identify motives and inspirers, but traces lead to a military-industrial complex, which president Eisenhower had already warned about in his celebrated 1961 speech. In the background there are powerful forces, it is adequate to realize how devastating the consequences of sanctions and trade wars with Russia were for Europe. While we have been saved by the weather gods, the last winters have been highly light, but we are at the brink of a gigantic energy crisis. Germany, the main European industrial centre, is experiencing a real decline due to uncertainty in the energy marketplace and the expected escalation of the conflict.
We besides request to realize precisely what the limits are. Ukraine is to Russia what Mexico is to the United States. 1 of my American colleagues, by no means leftist, admitted a year ago that if Mexico had joined the military alliance with Russia and started talking about the annexation of Texas – it would no longer be Mexico. 2 atomic superpowers work in a very akin way to defend their interests. They play the same geopolitical game. So if individual does not realize or accept what the U.S. would do erstwhile Ukraine and Mexico switched places – this 1 will not realize the essence of this conflict and is doomed to be an eternal pawn in an insane elite game aiming at another European war.
Review of the Cuban crisis
KR: We have specified analogies even in fresh months erstwhile the American administration has stated that Washington will never accept a Chinese base in the Solomon Islands, without retreating from any essential means, as the State Department euphemized. Reaching deeper, we remember Grenada, and the expected NATO installations in Finland remind us of the Cuban crisis of the 1960s.
TM: On the map I saw Mom, so far 1 base, on the very border with Russia, very close to Murmansk. Now the crazy thing has started, and I can't put it any another way, the discussion of bringing atomic weapons to Finland. As you mentioned, 200 km from St. Petersburg erstwhile it can be carried by the air force, fired by artillery and Russian defence systems would be helpless. Russia will never let that happen. If this were to happen – the Russians will act in advance.
This is indeed a repeat of the Cuban crisis. The deterrence doctrine consists of 2 components: atomic weapon transportation measures and the ability to defend its own country. They cannot be separated, they happen together, both in the US and Russia. If you don't understand, you don't realize what atomic deterrence is. Finland absolutely cannot have any atomic weapons. And if NATO tries to bring her here or even if our administration brings her here – it will be treason. It's treason due to the fact that there's a war going on here.
W Finland has quite a few talk about how Polish troops will be in Western Ukraine. It looks like Poland and Finland are already on the front line. Our fresh president said it directly: we are on the front line of the fight against Russia. Although we are not at war, there are no negative emotions between the Finns and the Russians. This is all the work of politicians. They're the ones who make the threat, they invented the war.
KR: Yes, we are to go to the first fire in the NATO war against Russia. Finns and Poles – due to the possible of our societies, for military capabilities, much higher in Finland. I would so like to ask about interior policy. I tried to follow the discussion about joining NATO in both Scandinavian countries, and I felt that... there was none. This was a completely one-sided message: "We gotta halt by due to the fact that Russia is aggressive.!’. The speeches of your politicians, including the recently elected president Alexander Stubb, are actually no different from speeches in Poland, your president could easy stand next to Jarosław Kaczyński with his rusophobia and even parties so far skeptical towards the West, as the Power for the People, now joined the choir of NATO devotees. Even in Sweden, with a low level of public debate, at least local pacifist environments, at least said anything against joining the Pact. The Swedish Green organization voted against, of course, immediately justifying itself that it would not call for leaving NATO. However, there was a complete silence in Finland. Do the Finns not truly see an alternate to the way to war?
TM: I think, and many Finns, along with me, that we have been deceived, drawn into NATO by the fear industry. erstwhile president Sauli Niinistö He said in February 2022 that membership of NATO was a substance so serious that we should ask the public about it. In the meantime, after a fewer months alternatively of asking the Finns, alternatively of discussing, we had only one-sidedly targeted momentum for NATO. Anyone who tried to express uncertainty was immediately attacked on social media, categorized as Russian troll, Putin agent etc. This was clearly controlled centrally, this action was controlled. My old colleague, abroad Minister Elina Valtonen, erstwhile individual asked her about NATO in April 2022, she said it had already been decided. Well, Elina has a method education, we've known each another for years, so I know it just happened to tell her the truth, in engineering. It's been decided, so there's nothing to discuss.
I do not know what faction is behind this in Finland and Europe, but it is at this level that has been decided behind our backs. It was akin earlier with the reconstruction fund against which we campaigned and which was pushed by the centre-right, leading a very restrictive policy during the COVID-19 period. These issues prove to be predestined above our heads, so erstwhile we could not ask out loud, we must now think: why NATO needs Finland in the Pact now. I am afraid that the answer can only be one: NATO intends to declare war on Russia.
Worst scenario
KR: Here we get your excellent analysis, I encourage our audience to read it all on your blog on Substack. This is well-developed material, transparent and understandable for people without the preparation of the economical situation of global markets. I virtually just finished reading the scenarios you predicted for developments in Ukraine...
TM: I expected this...
KR: ...and I found very good summaries, material for further reflection. So, what do you think are possible scenarios for Ukraine?
TM: The first part of the entry did not primarily concern Russia and NATO. How Russia actually works is very predictable, and an inconsistent, dangerous actor is now NATO. It comes down to 4 options. So option 1 is the overwhelming majority that leads to peace. I mean, people wake up and see the threat presently posed by NATO, and as a consequence besides by Russia. The point is to realize that NATO at least makes apocalyptic mistakes, intentionally or without exceeding the next red lines outlined by Moscow. As a result, the public turns against instigators of war, declaring that no war with Russia wants. The second script is the passive majority, which is the concept Nasima Nicholas Taleb, according to which there is simply a tiny percent of the population completely incapable to change its position and thus able to dominate the decision-making process. Throughout Europe, there is simply a comparatively low proportion of instigators and rusophobes, but if they dominate NATO policy, whether it is the accumulation of errors or deliberate action, there will be an extension of the conflict. Finally, the next 2 real scenarios explain to any degree the motives of NATO. The first is simply a game of government change in Russia. NATO is systematically expanding its presence in Ukraine, as is its investment there. The accumulation was a summertime counteroffensive and attempted coup Yevgenija Prigozhina Russia. And it seems to me that the thought was that the Ukrainian army would strike a devastating blow to the Russian forces, and Prigozin would start a march on Moscow, justified by mistakes in command, large losses, etc. As you know, the plan failed, but erstwhile you're preparing a coup, at any point you can't halt it. You gotta go all the way and Prigojin has passed it, at the expense of his own, in my opinion supported, if not led by any officers or Western intelligence institutions. So I think that if you look at all the elements and put them together, this is the most likely script that NATO is inactive planning.
What else can that lead to? NATO can truly start the arms race. Just as in the 1980s, they effort to pull Russia's resources out and teardrop it from within, and besides exploit its possible with a series of wars along the Russian border, in the hope of destabilising at least part of the state, which would lead to Putin's overthrow
And of course there is the 4th worst scenario, which is the 3rd planet war and the eventual atomic holocaust that will most likely bring. So these are 2 equal options that NATO aggressively uses to take control of Russian resources. planet war can so be the consequence of a miscalculation, an overly aggressive play. Or that's the most dangerous thing, in NATO or in the back, there's a very powerful faction that deliberately goes into atomic confrontation. I don't think it's possible, but it's possible. individual in his madness may have concluded that he was able to control the atomic war, that there was an acceptable level of destruction. This makes this script the most insane, improbable scenario, but we must besides consider this scenario.
Of these 4 scenarios, which I encourage you to read in detail, it is adequate to enter my name in Google, only 1 leads to peace, the 1 in which most emergence and say: No, we do not want destruction. But if this does not happen, we will see another European war.
World War to hide the global crisis?
KR: I'm afraid there are factors that make war scenarios more likely. We are facing another major financial crisis, much more dangerous than that from 2008 to 2011. Following your financial analysis, I can see the confirmation: banks that were “too large to fall” 15 years ago – present are even bigger. Today, not only is the bubble of the banking system, but the bubbles have become almost all sectors of the current digital phase of capitalism. And this time the collapse will not only affect the banking sector, but all global finance, inactive based on the dollar and the national Reserve securities. So it's going to be more like the large Depression of the 1930s. How real is this?
TM: At GnS Economics we are investigating the threat of another credit crisis. The point is that the banking strategy is highly leveraged in terms of both deposits and loans. Deposits under the banking strategy in the U.S. grew truly high, and their escape could destruct banks. In addition, there is the issue of massive losses on credit that are presently being revealed in the commercial real property marketplace in the United States and which can spread like immediately in the US banking system, leading to its collapse.
The European banking sector has besides not been in good form for a long time, as large European banks were allowed to hide toxic assets, CDO instruments in balance sheets during the fresh crisis. They don’t even gotta guess their marketplace price, they can simply usage their balance sheet positions by pretending to have any value. These assets have been rotting in the European banking strategy for rather a long time. And at the top of the system, we have China, which is the most leveraged economy in human history. Large amounts of debt are being held in the banking sector and China's collapse is already ongoing. They are inactive trying to hide it, primarily with a large debt stimulus, which cannot work anymore. There's no control over these processes, we're already in a phase of collapse, the question is, how long will it last? How long can governments halt this? Of course, the full process can be amazingly long. There are symptoms of a crisis in the banking strategy all month, but inactive the national Reserve or the European Bank can take action to counter this. But this is besides where politics come in. Therefore, Biden's administration runs a large-scale fiscal stimulus programme. The question is, how long will it last?
If Joe Biden lose to Donald Trump, which is very likely in November, the full program can be completed, and then the American economy will collapse. Another thing is that during COVID, immense amounts of what we in the manufacture call excessive savings, collected by households in closed economics erstwhile there was no way of consummating them, nor investing and backing from the national government. The savings rate increased importantly above the long-term trend. But then the resources began to decline, households began to consume these savings, and according to fresh estimates, they are gone. The American economy was so powered by surplus savings, at a different height, from respective 100 billion even to a trillion dollars – which are already ending. So we are dealing with a phase of decline on a global scale, due to the fact that the global economy has been fuelled by mass debt and financial leverage for a long time. So we're getting closer to the end. And if we wanted to enter conspiracy theory, we could presume that due to the fact that governments and elites know that the fall is coming – they could intentionally make a threat to start a war.
You make a threat, and you can inactive owe yourself by preparing society for hard times, due to the fact that After all, all the evil of this planet must be eradicated And as it goes on. This might look like it, given the events of the last 5 years, but of course we don't know that for sure. We can't say there's 1 large conspiracy that's so high. I inactive do not consider it the most probable option, but I admit that we must at least consider the anticipation that global elites are plotting against us.
And there is simply a historical example. In the 1920s, the German elite was truly worried that it would lose its power to a recently invented social strategy called democracy. We request a leader to take over. - They thought. They found 1 and started supporting it. It was Adolf Hitler. So the elites can besides make truly catastrophic mistakes, and we truly request to think about what they are planning now, due to the fact that looking at what happened in Finland, what happened in Poland, what happened in Ukraine, what is happening in the US – we are not looking at any good.
KR: This may not sound besides optimistic, but I think that many of our viewers, especially after the COVIDa period, already realize perfectly that the conspiracy theorists present are those who are right a fewer months before others. So we don't should be optimistic, we just should be realistic, trying not only to foretell the future, but to argue the worst options.
It was a pleasance to have you here, prof. Malinen. I hope we return to our discussion in the future, besides during the debates on our channel.
TM: Thank you.
KR: See you later, let's make better scenarios for the planet together.
