Finnish researchers were pressured to limit their criticism of Russia
MIKA AALTOLAAccording to the director of the Foreign Policy Institute, Russia’s attack on Ukraine has brought about a strong change in what researchers can say about Russia in Finland.
“The acceptance rules have been very rigid at times when talking about foreign policy and Russia. Now the situation has changed and there are no more such restrictions, he stated For Helsingin Sanomat on Thursday.
“But you don’t have to go back too many months to when we still had them,” he added.
Aaltola said that the limitations have typically manifested as self-censorship, when researchers have had to think about what they can say without burning bridges due to future funding and the relationships of the interviewees.
There have also been public controversies.
The Foreign Policy Institute’s predictions about Russia’s geopolitical threats and demands regarding its sphere of influence were made in a study published in 2016. Aaltola reminded that the study received harsh criticism, and some of the decision-makers accused it of raising unfounded fears.
“It was seen as crossing the lines of acceptability in the public debate and by policy makers, although in retrospect it appears to be a very friendly and accurate report,” he said. “The dispute reflected the tail of the era of Finnishization.”
Another example he gave is a study where the word “invasion” referred to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine.
“At the time, it was felt that attack was too strong a term to describe the events of 2014. The study remained unpublished because the authors refused to remove the word,” he said, but declined to elaborate or reveal his possible involvement. In research.
Aaltola saw the cases as an indication of a climate where speculating on the threat of Russia was prohibited. However, the climate began to change within a couple of years after the annexation of Crimea.
“You didn’t know what this meant, and for a few years there was a debate about how this should be interpreted,” he said.
The decision-makers at the time also criticized researchers who, according to Aaltola, spoke too negatively about Russia. He himself received criticism, words of warning and even threats for his comments about NATO, Fennovoima’s recently abandoned nuclear power project and the downing of the Malaysian Airlines plane in Ukraine.
“You whispered in the corridors of power that you wouldn’t dare to invest in Finland if you paid attention to the threat of Northern Europe and the Baltic Sea. Or if energy dependence is viewed as geopolitics, Aaltola told Helsingin Sanomat.
The sea change took place in 2016–2017. The discussion about natural gas pipelines and energy dependence became more open and the political dimension of energy trade became more visible, whereas previously there had been attempts to separate the economy from geopolitics.
The events of last spring have made the discussion even more open and honest. According to Aaltola, the feedback has also been positive.
He stated that he wants to look forward, but would welcome a review of past mistakes.
– There had been signs of a wider war for a long time, and Russia’s rhetoric had changed strongly. It was treated naively by saying that Russia can talk tough but not act tough and that it can be taught to adopt European values. That’s not how it ended.”
Aleksi Teivainen – HT