An editorial in the Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat:

The difficult history of postwar relations between Finland and the Soviet Union can be described as a success story for Finland, but its many traumatic experiences continue to be reflected in relations between the neighbours. Getting rid of them is not helped by the manifestations of Russia’s great power bravado, which has gained in strength. From the note crisis of the early 1960s, words such as "diplomatic note", "military consultations", and "joint military exercises" have caused shivers among Finns regardless of how routine the contexts were in which they were used.

On the other hand, ever since Finland became a member of the European Union, we have become very sensitive to statements from Russia containing criticism, to say nothing of admonitions. Three years ago an official at the Russian Embassy in Helsinki caused a good deal of controversy in a television programme, and later in a newspaper interview, by expressing disappointment at how mild official Finnish reactions were to the terror attack in Beslan.
He also had the temerity to question Finland’s ability to act as a bridge-builder between the EU and Russia. The Russian Embassy had to distance itself from the statements of its diplomat.

This time the controversy arose from the views expressed in front of a TV camera by Vladimir Kozin, a "PhD and elder researcher", at the Russian Embassy. He painted a picture of NATO as a growing military threat to Russia, and advised Finland to think three times before it decides to join NATO. He said that Finland should postpone any plans for membership by at least 15 years. He believes that Vladimir Putin will remain the real leader of Russia through 2023 - 2025.

How should one evaluate this kind of talk? At least the news and current affairs departments of the Finnish Broadcasting Company considered the statements to be major news. They sought to get as prestigious experts as possible into their various broadcasts, after failing to get the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to come. Initially, it was the neighbouring channel MTV3 which first made public the views on NATO, which were expressed at a closed seminar. The culture of debate has expanded in Russia, and especially at experts’ seminars people now dare to air different points of view in a quite high-spirited manner. The views expressed at the seminar by Vladimir Kozin on the concerns raised by the United States and NATO also reflect the changed situational assessment, which has been manifested in various connections in recent months, including Putin’s speeches. Russia feels that the West has not kept the promises that it made when NATO expanded to the east.

What was new was the undiplomatic character of the views expressed by the Russian diplomat on Finland’s relationship to NATO. They undoubtedly represented a way of thinking that has broad support in Russia, but not the official point of view of the Russian Foreign Ministry, as the Russian Embassy hastened to underscore. Already before that, President Tarja Halonen had pointed out that Russia’s attitudes toward Finland’s NATO membership were not reflected in Kozin’s speeches. Halonen was referring to her personal meetings with President Putin.

Criticism of the government of the country that a diplomat is stationed in, or the giving of even good advice, are not part of the code of behaviour of diplomats - especially not in matters where there are different views inside the parties of the government. However, sometimes breaking this rule can be seen to be appropriate for getting a message through. However, the impact could be different from what is desired. The allergy that Finns feel toward warnings or good advice from Moscow could well increase Finnish support for NATO membership, which has been weak up to now.

Finnish expat blogger Tero Paananen of The Mad Finn has this to say about the ridiculous notion that there is some "third way" for Russia (in short, he sees it merely as the enabling of dictatorship and failure):

The situation of NGOs has gone from bad to worse in Russia during President Vladimir Putin’s reign. The authorities are doing their utmost to eliminate the emergence of a free civil society. The government is trying to subjugate any signs of civil expression, subordinate public opinion to state interest, and incorporate civil society into the government’s statial strategy.

Many NGOs in Russia defend those most vulnerable, and it is exactly these organisations that suffer the most from government repression. Those at the receiving end of this repression are thus the weak and the helpless. If we close our eyes from this, and choose to cooperate with “front” organisations enjoying state blessing, we are not only wasting our financial support, but are doing real damage to the very people we wish to help.

Stating a few obvious facts: The Russian Federation is a state, which engages in an open war of terror against its own citizens. Authorities at both federal and local level attack, terrorise, and kill their own fellow citizens. Russia is no state governed by law.

Government pressure on NGOs does not depend on the NGOs themselves, but on the political and economic interests of the ruling elites. Authorities do not react to the actions of NGOs, but create themselves the conditions, in which NGOs are left with no way out; in which NGOs cannot avoid an open confrontation.

It is the moral duty of Finland and other free nations, especially in the EU, to help our partners in Russia to survive. We cannot let the authorities intimidate our friends, drive them into a corner, and destroy everything we have achieved together in the past ten years. It is vital to continue the work and support one another.

Finnish experts often highlight the “uniqueness” of Russia’s development; most likely, this is because we wish to monopolise the expertees on Russia. It seems that Finns have stressed Russia’s uniqueness for so long that we have begun to believe in it ourselves. The end result of this is that the average Finn has a very hazy knowledge of our eastern neighbour; even those who have visited Russia only see what they want to see.

Many are simply unable to regard Russia with common sense, according to the same human standards that we regard other states and cultures. Instead, many choose to spread all sorts of fictitious legends and metaphysical constructions about Russia. It often seems that economists have the clearest idea of what is going on in Russia, because they usually understand the value of money. And money is the only thing Russia’s ruling elite is ever interested in.

The uniqueness of Russia’s development, the so-called “Third Road”, is the artificial ideological construct that the notion of a “Sovereign Democracy” that Putin’s regime has declared is based on. This “Sovereign Democracy” is ruled by the “Power Vertical” — the authoritarian power apparatus of Putin’s presidential administration. By stressing Russia’s uniqueness, we are, in fact, lending support to the development of authoritarianism that lies behind the troubles Russia is facing today.

FINNISH-RUSSIAN CITIZENS’ FORUM ESTABLISHED

A group of persons worried about the development of democracy and the state of human rights in Russia has established a non-governmental organisation, Finnish-Russian Citizens’ Forum.

The organisation’s aim is to “promote cooperation between citizens and different peoples in Finland and the Russian Federation by supporting non-governmental organisations in their effort to strengthen democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech in Russia”.

The murder of the Russian journalist and civil rights activist, Ms Anna Politkovskaya, acted as a catalyst for establishing the Citizens’ Forum. This sad event served to consolidate cooperation between people concerned about Russia’s current development, prompting several appeals, public discussions, and demonstrations in autumn 2006.

The Citizens’ Forum supports Russian non-governmental organisations, which are now facing difficulties in their work due to Russia’s new draconian law on NGOs. The Citizens’ Forum will invite representatives of Russian organisations to Finland, organise visits to Russia, and distribute information about the situation in Russia.

The Citizens’ Forum will soon open its web site at www.finrosforum.fi.

The Chairperson of the Finnish-Russian Citizens’ Forum is Ms Heidi Hautala, MP (The Greens). The organisation’s Deputy Chairman is Mr Jukka Mallinen, Chairman of the Finnish PEN Club. The Citizens’ Forum has a nine-member Board. Mr Mikael Storsjö, entrepreneur, serves as the board’s Secretary, and Ms Iida Simes, producer, as the Board’s spokesperson.

The name of the new organisation translates into Swedish as “Finsk-ryska medborgarforumet”, and its domicile is in Helsinki. The Citizens’ Forum carries an unofficial name in Russian: “Finsko-rossiyskiy grazhdanskiy forum”.