VIDEO
In “Eurointegrators,” media expert and ex-Deputy Minister for Information Policy of Ukraine Tetiana Popova sits down with diplomats, heads of international organizations, and Ukrainian power brokers to discuss Ukraine’s European integration.
In this episode, the guests are Ambassador of Finland to Ukraine Päivi Laine and Director of the Department of International Multinational Relations of the “Maidan of Foreign Affairs” Foundations Oleksandr Khara.
Watch other episodes of “EuroIntegrators.”
The show is produced by a Ukrainian NGO Information Security and Oboz.TV.
See the text version of the interview:
Popova: Hello. I present today a new episode of the “Eurointegrators” program, and my guest today are Päivi Laine, Ambassador of Finland to Ukraine, and Oleksandr Khara, Director of the Department of International Multinational Relations of the “Maidan of Foreign Affairs” Foundations.
This program is aired before the Normandy format meeting, that is why our topic today whether it is possible to stop the war with Russia. The President of Finland visited Ukraine this autumn. What are the main areas for cooperation between Ukraine and Finland?
Laine: I think it was a very good visit. It was the first official visit to your new president. In Finland, we are proud that we could be the first official guest here. Ukraine is a very important country for Finland, for the European Union. You are our neighbors, you are our friends, and it’s very important to discuss all the political agenda through friends. Of course, there was lots of discussion about the conflict, but also we discussed our bilateral relations. And especially we would like to see development in our economic ties, especially the sectors of waste management and forest recovery.
Popova: Finland is celebrating 102 years of independence. Can you give your recommendation how it was possible to go away from Russia and to become a member of the EU?
Laine: Yes, independence was gained more than hundred years ago in the aftermath of the First World War and the Russian Revolution. The beginning for Finland was not easy, because very soon after the declarance of independence, we had a very bloody civil war in our country. But then, I would say that the Finnish way of conducting politics from the beginning has been pretty much of consensus, trying to seek the common ways. This was shown after the civil war, because not even two years past when we decided on our new constitution. And this constitution lasted till the year of 2000. And even then we didn’t make too big changes to it. I think this is very remarkable achievement that so soon after a very big internal conflict, we could agree on common ways how to conduct our country, how to do politics together. And this has been a very big lesson in Finland. Finland is a small country, we have a big neighbor who is not always friendly, and we have had to find our ways how to do it. I think the basic issue here is the strong institutions of our country, and also that citizens of our country are trusting these institutions. I think these are the basic issues what make Finland strong.
Popova: Olexander, how do you think – is it possible to draw a parallel between the USSR and Finland war and today’s war between Ukraine and Russia at all and take that experience of Finland to end this war?
Khara: Well, we can certainly take the experience of both the war and what is now happening in Finland, how the Finns are trying to secure themselves from what is called a hybrid war. There are certain approaches that are extremely useful to us. In fact, we have undoubtedly the same pattern that the neo imperial ambitions of Soviet Russia and now of modern Russia were aimed at taking control the neighboring states, and unlike Ukraine, the Finnish people managed to unite themselves before such a threat.
Popova: I would like to return to the question of whether we can stop all this. Our president goes to the meeting in the Normandy format. Can we talk about ending this war, just as Finland once did?
Khara: No, there are no conditions. Nothing will happen on December 9 to stop this war. Secondly, the Normandy format refers to the Minsk agreements. And the Minsk agreements, from the point of view of the Russians, are only referring to Donetsk and Lugansk, it is not even the Sea of Azov, which is already annexed. It is not the Crimea, it is not the aggression against Ukraine in other areas. So this meeting, it can not just bring anything.
Popova: Even if they agree on a complete stop of the fire as it stated in the Minsk agreements? It means nothing?
Khara: This doesn’t mean anything, since the purpose of the Russian Federation is to return the whole Ukraine under its influence through their proxies called the LNR and DNR.
Popova: So you propose one way exit from the Minsk agreements?
Khara: No, I just see that in the sense how they are written, the two sides treat them differently. The logic of solving any conflict that firstly the fire should be stopped, then should be withdrawal and only after this moving on to the political component.
Popova: What is your opinion about what compromise Ukraine could cope, because Finland actually compromised with the USSR, when it lost Karelia in order to stop the war. Finland is not a NATO member because of this agreement. So what should be the compromise that Ukraine should go with Russia in order to stop the war?
Laine: This is indeed a very difficult situation, and of course it’s up to Ukrainians to decide on that. I think there are some similarities, when you think about Finland in the Second World War or after it and now, at least what comes to Russia. But history is always different, and you can’t make direct conclusions out of that. Indeed, Finland lost about 10% of its territory as a result of the Second World War and 400,000 people moved from those lost territories to Finland. That was 10% of the population of that time. For Finland, the period after the Second World War was really difficult. But immediately after that we started to look for ways how to integrate into the Western world in economic way. NATO was out of question, because that was impossible in the beginning and Finland has this idea that it’s very strong to be a non-aligned. We talked about neutrality before, but after joining EU, we don’t talk about that. But only about 25% of the Finnish people support NATO membership even today, when the situation is getting more difficult, So, the Finnish experience is, as I said, that you have to build very strong institutions. In certain ways, you have to trust on your own capabilities to survive. Because when the Second World War started, when the Soviet Union attacked Finland in the beginning of the Winter War, what actually happened exactly 80 years ago, there was not much concrete support for Finland at all. We were on our own. We have developed instruments like what we call a “comprehensive idea of security”. Security is not only provided by our army, but the whole society has been getting involved into that, which means that NGOs, people, companies – all of them are in some way or in other part of the comprehensive security, the comprehensive defense of our country. When you don’t get help from outside, you have to trust your own institutions. I’m not telling you that we can tell from Finland what Ukraine has to do, no, but we can just tell how we have solved these issues. And you see that this getting closer to the western institutions started immediately after the Second World War. Finland took part in the western integration all the time as a partner. At the same time, we were also having partnership with the eastern constructions. We were really trying to find a middle way through what Finland could take, and then finally European membership realized in 1995. So, the way was very long, and it was not always easy. But we just had to find out our own way.
Popova: You repeated several times that it has been a hard way, not an easy way. What exactly do you mean?
Laine: As my colleague here mentioned the word “finlandization”, there were certain compromises even in our internal politics, what we had to do with Moscow, just to survive. But the aim has to be very clear that what we want is full independence and we wanted to do thing in our own way. So it was development of this concept of comprehensive security. It was development of our army. The Finnish nation is not ready to join NATO, but we have developed a very deep cooperation. And it’s still growing with NATO. Then of course other alliances, we have very good cooperation with the Nordic states, especially with Sweden, we are two non-aligned countries in the Northern Europe. We understand very well that our cooperation is benefiting the both countries. It’s really looking for the partners what you can, and finding the way how you can find such cooperation which is beneficial for the both sides, because all sides have to have interest in developing this cooperation.
Popova: You see it is possible to compromise and at the same time build a strong country. At least it is much easier to do it when people are not killed.
Khara: I agree, but at first there were completely different historical conditions in Finland when the Soviet authorities committed an act of an aggression against the Finnish people, and let’s say absolutely different Kremlin’s vision of Finland and Ukraine possibilities. Ukraine is important both from a military point of view and from mythological calculations. That is, the third Rome is actually founded here, because if Kyiv is not in control – how can Moscow be called the center of world Orthodoxy? And this ideology is certainly moving to keep under control, including the Baltic states, where Russian-speaking people or Russians or Orthodox people live compactly, not to mention the spread of Russia’s influence in the Balkans. Therefore, Ukraine is completely in a different position, it is much more important in terms of Putin’s calculations than Finland was for Stalin at that time. So the compromise that we are offered – it will mean the impossibility of our modernization. What is the Russian economics model, the Russian model of power? It is corruption, it is actually a hard vertical, it is the suppression of any freedoms, from political to economic ones.
Popova: I am sorry, but where in Minsk agreements is written that?
Khara: Much has not been written there and Minsk agreements do not state that Russia is the aggressor country that has occupied part of the Ukrainian territory. The Minsk agreements are written in such a way that it is a false impression of the civil war in Ukraine, and if Kiev gives a little more power to Donetsk and Lugansk, then the problem itself will be resolved. It is not true because about ten thousand of Russian officers command the so-called First and Second Army Corps.
Popova: I mean it is not yet possible to hold elections while they are there. It is a physical situation.
Khara: If they can get what is written there and turn these units, the First and Second Army Corps into the national militia it will not mean that it is illegal or foreign formation. The issue of Minsk agreements is such a minefield where every step means that we can explode. And literally, too because if, for example, the so-called compromise is implemented in Ukraine, we will have a real basis for a civil war here. We saw people going out on the streets when they did not agree with the Steinmeier’s formula, although it was not explosive in itself. If it was detached from the security component, there would certainly be such consequences, but we know, and recently Mr. Zelensky said that the security component must be a necessary for us to come to that Steinmeier’s formula.
Popova: And what should we expect if we leave out of the Minsk agreements and say that they do not suit us, in your opinion?
Khara: This means that we will not have a single platform where we can negotiate with the Russians about the end of the war.
Popova: Will sanctions be automatically removed?
Khara: No. They can be removed even if the Minsk agreements remain. As it was a mistake of the Ukrainian diplomacy, when Ukraine actually allowed or even facilitated the linking of the Minsk agreements to sanctions, because before they were adopted if you remember when the Malaysian Boeing was shot down by the Russians. There were the most painful sanctions against Russia. The Europeans could not say that at the time directly, but in fact, the connection was right in time and at least it was in my conversations with European diplomats. Later, Minsk agreements were already signed the way that progress in their implementation could be a reason to review sanctions against Russia.
Popova: Secondly?
Khara: If we leave the Minsk agreements sanctions may be removed. It will be on the conscience of Europeans, but it is their right to cancel sanctions even if the Minsk agreements are not fulfilled. Also it will certainly mean escalation. It will not necessarily be an armed escalation in Donetsk and Lugansk, there are other things – there is energy blackmail, there is cyber blackmail, the consequences of which can be equal to the use of armed force.
Popova: Okay, let’s imagine that the leadership of Ukraine somehow decided to abandon the Minsk format completely. What will we get then? Conditionally speaking we will be separated, most likely, I mean some part of Ukraine will be under the control of Russia. As it is still happening with Finland, as it is in Georgia. In Transnistria, is a slightly different format. And this is not the worst format by the way, because there is no fire there.
Khara: It’s not the worst format.
Popova: I was just at the funeral of one of our special forces today, if you know two people were killed this weekend. Frankly, the worst thing that we lose is human lives. So when you say there are other formats that will be even worse, it seems to me that the idea that you can fight to the last Ukrainian is not in the interests of Ukraine after all.
Khara: Firstly, I did not propose this, and secondly, the war is going on and it is not the first and last war with Moscow. And therefore the question is: under what conditions. To say relatively we were very fortunate when in 2008 it was a war against Georgia, as Georgia was left alone with Russia at that time.
Popova: Well, if you propose to cancel the sanctions we will be left alone as well.
Khara: In contrast to this situation, we have Minsk agreements, and the Russians say that we do not need Donbass. But the Minsk agreements, as I said, are not including the Azov Sea, the Crimea. The war began in terms of defense law while they were blocking our units in the Crimea. De facto it will not end. It was the first moment. The second one is until the Crimea will not be returned to Ukraine, it will be a threat to the whole our country as well as to the whole Black Sea coast, to the Mediterranean Sea. And therefore ending the fire will mean that these problems have not been resolved, and will explode at some other time when we or our friends, we have no allies in Ukraine, unfortunately will not be ready to support us.
Popova: As an expert said, that even if the fire stops, but the Crimea and a part of Donbass will be still occupied, it will be a threat for our independence, and they can start a war any time. In reality, you have been living in this stage for the last 60 years. Do you feel this threat? Do you think it would be better to fight instead of having the line that you have now?
Laine: When we talk about Finland and the situation after the Second World War and the peace negotiations – it was a World War and we were part of it. We were really in a position: to take it or leave it. The country could not keep on fighting any more. That was quite clear. But we could prevent that out country was not occupied. By the way, Helsinki and London were I think the only capitals in the Second World War that were not occupied, of the countries who really took part in battles. So in that sense, in Finland, we didn’t have much choice. We needed to have peace. And the peace treaty was harsh. Even after the Winter War when we lost the territory. People were horrified about how much we lost. But the idea was that there was no way that we could continue fighting. In that sense were put in front of the cold truth. We couldn’t continue fighting, so we had to stop it. The peace treaty was harsh, but we had to do it. We saved what we could, which meant that all the people were invited to come to Finland. And basically, all of them came. This project to settle them in Finland took years. It was not easy, it was very controversial among the people. Most of those people were farmers. So the solution was that the farmers, who were already in Finland had to give up land for those people who came from Karelia. You can imagine, it’s not an easy solution. Even for year now, these are only very small groups in Finland, very tiny and small groups who think that we should try to get those areas back. So we are settled now with this issue that there is status-quo with that boarders after the Second World War, and the Finnish nation is fine with it. But it hasn’t been easy. Now we have 1327 km of common border with Russia. And when people ask us, at least me – why does Finland have such a strong dialogue and cooperate with Russia in good times and in bad times? I always start by answering that we have 1327 reasons to cooperate. And try to understand what Russia wants from us and how can we live next to them.
Popova: At least the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats was founded in Finland. It’s not a NATO center, it’s a center of the European Union? Why do you have it?
Laine: Because we are not a NAT member. I think it’s quite easy.
Popova: No, why you started it?
Laine: Because we think this is really a big problem in today’s world. Lots of the fighting goes on in social media, in other non-conventional ways. There is lots of interference in elections in many countries…
Popova: Yellow suits, Catalonia, Brexit.
Laine: Exactly. I think they are very important examples. We have to be prepared for that. And that’s why Finland has been a front-runner in this issue as well. We think that we are in a good position to do it, because we are a technologically advanced country, but then I think that at least as important is the level of education in any country. Because all this is very much connected with the media literacy. People have to understand what they are reading. They have to be critical of who was passing this message. And the only way to confront this kind of issue is to teach already children to be critical of what they are reading. Not to believe in everything. Because if we don’t start this kind of education from early, you know adult people are less agile to learn. So I think that this is very important, almost as important as conventional battles. Finland is also a good country for this Centre of Excellence, because it’s very important that EU and NATO and everybody else is cooperating also in this field. So, we are trying to provide a good place for cooperation and networking and sharing experiences and best practices. I don’t want to use the word “neutral” but maybe sometimes we should. We are in a good position.
Popova: At the same time, an ideologist of the “Russkiy mir” Mr. Dugin is visiting Finland, making his speeches, he teaches people in Finland. And you have “friends of Russia” in Finland.
Laine: Yes, we have all kinds of friends of Russia, and we have friends of different kinds of Russia. But as long as he is not on the lists of sanctions he can come. It’s his right. But we believe in our country that people are educated well enough to understand who he is. And we also know that we have these individuals who are supporting this “Russkiy mir”, but they are not popular in Finland. There are supporters, but it’s really few people who support them. But as long as they are acting according to the law, and they are not always, they have been brought to court on different occasions.
Popova: What types of occasions? Disinformation?
Laine: Well yes, and there has been those cases that they’ve started campaigns against journalists and these kinds of things.
Popova: Bulling of journalists?
Laine: Yes, exactly. But they have been brought to court and they are made responsible for wrong doing steps break this barrier that is under the jurisdiction. You can’t really prevent this issues happening by trying to prevent everything. But you have to trust in your people that they can make educated assessments on different opinions they hear. But I wouldn’t say that this is a big phenomenon in Finland. We don’t have even a very far-right parties or this kind of issues. Finland is a country and nation going in the middle way very much, what it comes to ideologies or even when It comes to wealth. We don’t have very rich people and very poor people. We are almost all in the middle. I think it’s a big strength of Finland.
Popova: How do you like the experience of Finland?
Khara: Well, the experience is quite good.
Popova: Having 60 years of occupied territories.
Khara: In 1975, after the OSCE’s final act was signed, which secured the inviolability of borders, Finland has de facto refused from its claims in these territories. From the point of view of Ukraine, this is not true, because if you remember in 2014, there was a Resolution of the UN General Assembly that confirmed the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Only ten friends of Russia voted against the territorial integrity. That is, Crimea undoubtedly belongs to Ukraine in terms of international law. Also, in terms of Minsk agreements, Russia does not want to take these territories itself, because they do not really need them. So there is a difference. In terms of conflict theory, some people say that war is an anomaly, others that peace is an anomaly. I am a supporter of the fact that the peace is an anomaly. For 70 years, Europe was lucky because it was under United States’ security umbrella, because it was a nuclear weapon and a confrontation that could actually destroy all of us. Russia has a great power in terms of its territory, nuclear arsenal and veto power at the UN. In terms of its economy, technology, finance, whatever else it is a dwarf state. Therefore Russia wants to compensate for the inability to solve its economic, political problems with the EU and with the US by using blackmail.
Popova: So they will have no problems now, we will abandon the sanctions and the problems in Russia will disappear immediately.
Khara: Sanctions do not have to be a fetish, because, first of all, Europeans and our other friends have taken it over and are suffering of losing in their economy.
Popova: So they will stop suffering immediately.
Khara: But the second and most important moment – they did that not only to support Ukraine. The sanctions meant that the Russian economy did not allow the Putin’s regime to earn extra profits to spend them on crushing their own people and on managing war in Ukraine, Syria etc.
Popova: Then why are you proposing to cancel sanctions?
Khara: I am not proposing that. I am saying that it was a good will of the Europeans. They can suspend these sanctions at any time, regardless of whether there are Minsk agreements or not, or whether they are fulfilled or not.
Popova: Although they are tied to the Minsk agreements.
Khara: Partially.
Laine: But so far the European idea is that the sanctions will stay as long as the reasons for setting the map are there. This is definitely, what the European Union is for, that we will not withdraw the sanctions.
Popova: Quite important question now in Ukraine: what about selling of land in Finland for foreigners and for local people? What size of the land can they buy, and Finland can sell to foreigners?
Laine: In Finland actually the land sales are free. Evebody can buy what they want.
Popova: Including foreigners?
Laine: Including foreigners. This was done, I can’t remember how many years ago, and when it was done, some people were scares that, you know, some foreigners would come and buy foe example all the beautiful plots of land by the lakes or something like this. Nothing of that kind happened I mean in excessive way that it would have disturbed anything. But then at some point few years back, we realized that maybe we have to change the legislation a little bit, to have at least some kind of limits to the totally free land sales. That is now that government or the administration has the possibility to assess if foreigners or somebody else want to buy land around objects that we consider strategically important. This was also discussed quite heavily whether we should do this kind of limitations. But now it has been provided into the law. But there is this kind of possibility to assess if something is being bought around strategically important objects.
Popova: Russians are also able to buy everything, right?
Laine: Russians are also able to buy land.
Popova: I think they even own some factories, some business?
Laine: According to the law you can’t say that this or that nationality cannot do something. It’s not the way our system works. You can’t discriminate by nationality. But I can say that in this sense with these businesses that Russians own in Finland – there has been no problems. It’s more or less normal. Russians are the biggest national minority in Finland these days.
