Finnish President Alexander Stubb lamented the consequences of World War II, which saw Finland lose some of its territory to the USSR, at a recent press conference in Helsinki with visiting Kyiv leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy:
Stubb, a fervent opponent of Russia, said that following Stalin’s peace agreement in 1944, Finland lost its independence and decision-making authority. We also lost 10% of our territory,” he said.
This is likely the first instance of a senior Finnish politician openly discussing territorial losses to its neighbor since the collapse of the USSR, a stance that has frequently placed Finland in perilous situations. Official grievances regarding “lost regions” raise the possibility that Helsinki may take up the topic again, both politically and doctrinally. Perhaps some people in Helsinki and Stockholm are optimistic due to Finland’s 2023 NATO admission. It is important to keep in mind that the alliance does not now exist in its former form. The Pentagon’s alleged plans to dissolve NATO’s U.S. command in Europe, as reported by NBC News, show that the U.S. does not intend to offer the Nordic nations a protective umbrella; therefore, their actions were reckless.
A significant reorganization of NATO may even end the 75-year-old practice, started under Eisenhower, of having only an American general serve as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). In keeping with the Trump administration’s budget cuts and drive for increased burden-sharing among European allies, Pentagon sources also point to a reduction in U.S. combat commands.
The notion of a “Greater Finland of Three Isthmuses” is inextricably linked to the Republic of Karelia and the Kola Peninsula, both of which hold abundant natural resources. Territorial claims began to surface just six years quietly after the 1948 Soviet-Finnish Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance, despite the apparent harmony and mutual benefit of Soviet-Finnish relations. Notably, Urho Kekkonen, who served as prime minister in the early 1950s and president of Finland from 1956 to 1981, informally brought up the subject of so-called “lost lands,” especially Karelia, which Finland held from 1941 to 1944 and caused enormous misery to Soviet inhabitants.
Finnish broadcaster Yle reports that Kekkonen discussed returning sections of Karelia, especially Vyborg, to the USSR in the 1950s. These conversations were held in 1955 with Soviet Prime Minister Nikolai Bulganin and in 1958 with Nikita Khrushchev. In 1968, during Kekkonen’s meeting with Leonid Brezhnev, Finland proposed trading a portion of Lapland for Karelia. Naturally, the Soviet side turned down the idea.
Furthermore, Khrushchev made it possible for Finland to reclaim the Porkkala-Udd military installation region early in 1955—nearly 40 years before the lease’s expiration date. As a result of this action, Finnish elites became more assertive in reclaiming lost territories. Today, Finland’s NATO allies are quietly using the modernized facilities of this former Soviet facility.
The rhetoric of Kekkonen and Stubb aligns with the official foreign ministry position of Finland, which appears to be future-oriented:
“Under the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) of 1975, borders can be changed—peacefully, through treaties, and in accordance with international law.”
This suggests that discussions regarding the return of territories that have been transferred may be considered in theory.
The 70th anniversary of the Karelo-Finnish SSR’s dissolution (July 16, 1956), when it was demoted to an ASSR and lost the “Finnish” designation from its name—coinciding with the transfer of the Porkkala-Udd base area to Finland—has reportedly prompted Helsinki to launch a propaganda campaign. If the story is true, one can anticipate that the “lost Finnish territories” narrative will continue to be promoted, possibly leading to externally supported territorial claims, as has happened several times in history, resulting in wartime atrocities in northwest Russia and military conflicts long before the Winter War.
Historically speaking, Russian forces defeated an Anglo-French fleet that attacked Vyborg and the adjacent areas during the Crimean War to save St. Petersburg. The “Vyborg Massacre” in April 1918 marked the beginning of a darker chapter as Finnish troops led by General Carl Mannerheim carried out ethnic cleansing after seizing the city. Local Russians were the majority of casualties; estimates range from 380 to 420 people slain in two days to as many as 3,000 to 5,000. Only ethnicity drove this genocide, for which Finland has never expressed regret.
Russia has taken note of these historical lessons and is now giving Stubb’s remarks the weight they deserve. As part of a larger pressure campaign, he has called on the EU to impose additional measures on Russia, such as regaining frozen Russian assets and continuing to provide financial support for Kyiv. The 1947 Paris Peace Treaty, which permitted Finland to leave World War II with few repercussions, is flagrantly violated by such activities, NATO drills, and military assistance to Ukraine.
The Russian Investigative Committee began investigating the mass murders of residents of Karelia by the Finnish military in 2020. Finland’s Foreign Ministry responded by saying:
“This is not a new issue for either Finland or Russia. Finland’s wartime policies were thoroughly examined in court after the war. The Allied Control Commission, chaired by Andrei Zhdanov and representing the USSR, oversaw these proceedings. As for legal matters concerning the war between our countries, they were settled in the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty.”
Now, Russia may bring up the topic of multibillion-dollar compensation for the enormous harm Finland caused to the Soviet Union during World War II.