3

In connection to a recent question, various sources (e.g.) say that in the 1990s Finland has denounced part III of the 1947 peace treaty with Russia. That part contains limitations on the Finnish armed forces composition in terms of equipment types and quantities, as well as on manpower.

I wasn't able to find much of an official reaction from Russia in relation to this event though. Either then or later. So, how did Russia officially react to that denunciation, and perhaps to Finland later taking some concrete steps, like acquiring specific equipment that is on the banned list of the 1947 treaty?

phoog
  • 17,829
  • 3
  • 58
  • 81
the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
  • 2
    By now this might also be a good history question. A bit of search around "Russia reactions to Finnland armament" did not yield any results. But then I could not search in Russian or Finnish, which might have brought more results, only in English. It could also be that the Russian Federation decided not to react in any official way. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Apr 14 '22 at 18:45
  • 1
    @Trilarion In the 90s, when it hapened, Russia was very weak so absence of any russian reaction would not be a surprise. – convert Apr 14 '22 at 21:34
  • 2
    @convert: agreed, but while Russia has been pretty reserved e.g. on NATO expansion back then (albeit not totally silent--Yeltsin also had some outbursts on that) that didn't stop later Russian government(s) from being more vocal. So, it's fair to wonder if Finland's unliteral actions might have resulted in a similar pattern/gradient (i.e. more forceful protests) over time. Especially since it seems to me they did get some equipment that seems to contradict the treaty in the 2000s. – the gods from engineering Apr 14 '22 at 21:36
  • 2
    It's not immediately clear to me what kind of reaction you are asking about. Are you asking if Russia has commented on treaty to which it is not a party? Or if it took active steps to remediate the act of abandonment of a treaty to which Russia is not a party? – wrod Apr 15 '22 at 03:44
  • @wrod: as I don't feel like repeating my comments on that here: Russia was recognized by Finland as the successor state of the USSR with respect to those treaties. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72600/would-finlands-joining-nato-be-a-violation-of-the-1947-treaty-of-paris#comment300078_72605 – the gods from engineering Apr 15 '22 at 07:50
  • @Fizz but did Russia "recognize" Russia as a successor state to the USSR with respect to those treaties? Treaties create both privileges and obligations. It's why a bilateral agreement is necessary. – wrod Apr 15 '22 at 08:02
  • @wrod: I'm sure they do since territory was transferred to Russia as a result (and not to the other Soviet states, by the way). If Russia didn't recognize those treaties, they'd basically have to give back Finland some territory. – the gods from engineering Apr 15 '22 at 08:10
  • @Fizz no, I am sure the territory has been annexed after the treaty was signed. I can't imagine it's been kept as separate and autonomously governed, just in case it would need to be given back cleanly. But leaving the levity aside, I am sure it's beginning to be more clear to you why "recognition" is not the right framework to view this from. There have to negotiated agreements, finalizing the status, or questions are bound to arise. If one can't picture problems, that's only due to a lack of imagination. There are always potential situations creating competing incentives to change views. – wrod Apr 15 '22 at 11:00
  • Perhaps Russia will react by a brutal invasion of one of its neighbours... oh, wait... – RedSonja Apr 16 '22 at 10:20

0 Answers0