What are you supposed to do as Finland?

[DaleDVM]

If they actually had weather that changed the odds in favor of the defender instead of just slowing down the battle you would see a more accurate winter war. Also starting Finland with troops and generals that have the cold weather buffs. They may already have that? I don't play as Finland.

 

[Fulmen]

Although the Soviets refined their tactics and morale improved, the generals were still willing to accept massive losses to reach their objectives. Attacks were screened by smoke, heavy artillery, and armour support, but the infantry charged in the open and in dense formations.[159] Unlike their tactics in December, Soviet tanks advanced in smaller numbers. The Finns could not easily eliminate tanks if infantry troops protected them.[161] After 10 days of constant artillery barrage, the Soviets achieved a breakthrough on the Western Karelian Isthmus in the second battle of Summa.[162]"

After the Russians broke through the Mannerheim Line at Summa, the Finns on the western half of the Karelian Isthmus pulled back to the Interim and then the Rear Line, where the Russian advance was repulsed until peace was signed. The Russians tried flanking the Rear Line by attempting a crossing into the mainland over the Bay of Viipuri, but this too was repulsed.

Had the war continued for months longer, the Finns would've likely have been forced to pull back from at least the Western part of the Karelian Isthmus and set up positions to the west along the Kymi river (not visible on the map). The spring mud season would've given them some respite. The reason Stalin ended the war in March and settled for about 10% of what he desired, was that he feared an Allied intervention in Finland. A confrontation with the West would complicate Russia's position and was something Stalin did not want. Hence he signed the peace that gave Russia a chunk of Finland and aimed to take the rest later.

If the war somehow lasted until summer 1940, I wouldn't be totally surprised if Germany post-Fall of France got diplomatically involved on some level, telling the Russians to settle for what they had by then gained, similar to what happened in OTL when Molotov travelled to Berlin in November 1940 and essentially demanded the right to finish Finland off (by that point Germany had already taken Finland under her protection).

If they actually had weather that changed the odds in favor of the defender instead of just slowing down the battle you would see a more accurate winter war. Also starting Finland with troops and generals that have the cold weather buffs. They may already have that? I don't play as Finland.

It's not helped by the fact that the temperatures in the game are more akin to those of the 2000s, than of the 1930s and '40s.

The Winter Specialist and Winter Expert traits halve cold weather attrition and increase cold acclimatisation speed respectively, so effectively they do nothing, particularly if you're not marching divisions through the snow.

Then there's the Continuation War to tackle. The Finns won most of the battles in that war too, but they, with a few exceptions, happened during the summer.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

After the Russians broke through the Mannerheim Line at Summa, the Finns on the western half of the Karelian Isthmus pulled back to the Interim and then the Rear Line, where the Russian advance was repulsed until peace was signed. The Russians tried flanking the Rear Line by attempting a crossing into the mainland over the Bay of Viipuri, but this too was repulsed.

View attachment 580070

Had the war continued for months longer, the Finns would've likely have been forced to pull back from at least the Western part of the Karelian Isthmus and set up positions to the west along the Kymi river (not visible on the map). The spring mud season would've given them some respite. The reason Stalin ended the war in March and settled for about 10% of what he desired, was that he feared an Allied intervention in Finland. A confrontation with the West would complicate Russia's position and was something Stalin did not want. Hence he signed the peace that gave Russia a chunk of Finland and aimed to take the rest later.

Do you think that Finland could have held off Soviets indefinitely? On the diplomacy side, I believe Stalin has two possible reasons to take Finland. The first one, which he told FDR, is that Germany will attack USSR anytime soon, and he needs a strong buffer state (Karelia) so that Leningrad will not be taken too easily. Another reason, could be that Soviets wanted to restore the Imperial Russia's borders which included Finland as well. It was lost during the Civil War, along with Poland, Ukraine and Baltic States.

 

[Fulmen]

Do you think that Finland could have held off Soviets indefinitely?

Alone? Of course not. But long enough to get the Russians to rethink their strategy, as happened in 1940 and 1944 (EDIT: though in 1944 the country was no longer alone: Germany played an important role in the Finnish victories of 1944 by having sold to the Finns modern Bf 109 Gustav fighters, StuG assault guns, PaK 40 anti-tank guns, panzerfausts and -schrecks, and by sending aid in the form of Stuka/Jabo squadron Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey, the 122. Infanterie-Division and Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 303 (which despite its name was actually battalion-sized)).

The first one, which he told FDR, is that Germany will attack USSR anytime soon, and he needs a strong buffer state (Karelia) so that Leningrad will not be taken too easily.

This really makes no sense as Finland was no threat to Russia, nor was there a threat of Germany ever being able to attack through Finland, had the Russians left the Finns alone.

Another reason, could be that Soviets wanted to restore the Imperial Russia's borders which included Finland as well.

This coincides with the preparations for the occupation of Finland that the Russians had been making for a long time, which they planned to carry out regardless of how negotiations with moving the border away from Leningrad turned out.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Alone? Of course not. But long enough to get the Russians to rethink their strategy, as happened in 1940 and 1944 (EDIT: though in 1944 the country was no longer alone: Germany played an important role in the Finnish victories of 1944 by having sold or supplied to the Finns modern Bf 109 Gustav fighters, StuG assault guns, panzerfausts and -schrecks, and by sending aid in the form of Stuka/Jabo squadron Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey, the 122. Infanterie-Division and Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 303 (which despite its name was actually battalion-sized)).



This really makes no sense as Finland was no threat to Russia, nor was there a threat of Germany ever being able to attack through Finland, had the Russians left the Finns alone.



This coincides with the preparations for the occupation of Finland that the Russians had been making for a long time, which they planned to carry out regardless of how negotiations with moving the border away from Leningrad turned out.

Interesting, I will be leaning more towards the second reason.

Edit: Though, for the first reason about Finland being of no threat to Russia, it is a bit iffy. In WW1, the USA was already suspicious of Mexico collaborating with Germany, despite the fact that it was a much weaker neighbor and hence used it as a pretext to enter war.

 

[Fulmen]

Edit: Though, for the first reason about Finland being of no threat to Russia, it is a bit iffy. In WW1, the USA was already suspicious of Mexico collaborating with Germany, despite the fact that it was a much weaker neighbor and hence used it as a pretext to enter war.

OK, that's not how the world works: just because some nation somewhere was perceived by its stronger neighbour to be a possible threat, doesn't mean every minor nation bordering a stronger country is automatically a threat to them. Furthermore there's no comparison between Mexico-USA and Finland-USSR.

Also the reasons for the US entry into WW1 are a lot more complex than that.

 

[Palaiologos]

It was as much as Russians fucking up operationally as the Finns fighting valiantly. If the Russians had taken the matter seriously from day 1 then they would have steamrolled over the Finns. Thats essentially what happens in your game. Am waiting for Finland/Soviet revamp to try Finland myself.

 

[Fulmen]

It was as much as Russians fucking up operationally as the Finns fighting valiantly. If the Russians had taken the matter seriously from day 1 then they would have steamrolled over the Finns. Thats essentially what happens in your game. Am waiting for Finland/Soviet revamp to try Finland myself.

This argument comes up fairly often but it doesn't really hold water against the failure of the Russian offensives in 1940 and 1944, when they were taking the war very seriously indeed (see my post on page 1 on Russian frontline strength 13.3.1940), and were no longer advancing in human waves against machine gun nests, as they had initially in the Winter War. By 1944 the Red Army was a whole different kind of beast. No, the reason for the Russian failure wasn't lack of trying, or down to mere incompetence in leadership, rather the Finnish Defence Forces were a better trained, led and motivated military that was fighting in defensively advantageous terrain, for the survival of itself and of its nation, which can be quite the spirit unto itself in stirring up resistance against a foreign invader.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

OK, that's not how the world works: just because some nation somewhere was perceived by its stronger neighbour to be a possible threat, doesn't mean every minor nation bordering a stronger country is automatically a threat to them. Furthermore there's no comparison between Mexico-USA and Finland-USSR.

Also the reasons for the US entry into WW1 are a lot more complex than that.

Because USSR has reason to fear an expansionist Germany. And in preparation for the incoming war, it is good to annex minor countries bordering you (not only additional factories, but also a good buffer zone). Better to grind the Germans down in a foreign land than your own where your core industries are at stake. Ask the French why they wanted to move into Belgium as soon as Germany invades.

Stalin is playing with his options. If it is cheap to just grab the whole of Finland like he did with Baltic states, why not? If it is not, then at least settle for some land that forms a buffer between Leningrad and foreign interventionists.

Stalin does have the ambition to annex all of Finland as part of the Soviet Republics. That I have no doubt. But he is also a pragmatist and knows when to draw the line.

The telegram is a catalyst for American declaration of war on Germany, just like Pearl Harbor in WW2.

" Revelation of the contents enraged Americans, especially after German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann publicly admitted on March 3 that the telegram was genuine, helping to generate support for the United States' declaration of war on Germany in April.[1] The decryption was described as the most significant intelligence triumph for Britain during World War I,[2] and one of the earliest occasions on which a piece of signal intelligence influenced world events.[3]"

Why should Americans be worried about Mexico? Germany did not have the capabilities to help the country, especially when it was under naval blockade by the Brits. And the country is weak militarily. Is America paranoid about Mexico possibly attacking itself, despite it being a weaker country that poses no real danger. Unless there is a hidden motive -- Germany is backing it and it needs to be stopped. So the argument about "Finland being no threat - hence no need to attack" rings hollow for me. Just because your neighbor is small does not mean that it is not associated with a stronger enemy.

 

[Fulmen]

Because USSR has reason to fear an expansionist Germany. And in preparation for the incoming war, it is good to annex minor countries bordering you (not only additional factories, but also a good buffer zone). Better to grind the Germans down in a foreign land than your own where your core industries are at stake. Ask the French why they wanted to move into Belgium as soon as Germany invades.

Stalin is playing with his options. If it is cheap to just grab the whole of Finland like he did with Baltic states, why not? If it is not, then at least settle for some land that forms a buffer between Leningrad and foreign interventionists.

Stalin does have the ambition to annex all of Finland as part of the Soviet Republics. That I have no doubt. But he is also a pragmatist and knows when to draw the line.

The telegram is a catalyst for American declaration of war on Germany, just like Pearl Harbor in WW2.

" Revelation of the contents enraged Americans, especially after German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann publicly admitted on March 3 that the telegram was genuine, helping to generate support for the United States' declaration of war on Germany in April.[1] The decryption was described as the most significant intelligence triumph for Britain during World War I,[2] and one of the earliest occasions on which a piece of signal intelligence influenced world events.[3]"

Why should Americans be worried about Mexico? Germany did not have the capabilities to help the country, especially when it was under naval blockade by the Brits. And the country is weak militarily. Is America paranoid about Mexico possibly attacking itself, despite it being a weaker country that poses no real danger. Unless there is a hidden motive -- Germany is backing it and it needs to be stopped. So the argument about "Finland being no threat - hence no need to attack" rings hollow for me. Just because your neighbor is small does not mean that it is not associated with a stronger enemy.

What is Finland a buffer against? Germany's not coming through Finland, not in a world where Stalin leaves the country alone. Heck, even in OTL where the Finns allowed the Germans to base troops in Lapland out of necessity, the German zone of operation was restricted to the north and they weren't allowed to attack until Finnish towns and cities all over the south of the country were bombed by the Soviet Air Force.

EDIT: Just to clarify: there's no way Germany is successfully naval invading Finland*, nor successfully invading through Norway**, let alone Sweden***.

*Finland had a powerful coastal defence network, and the Germans lacked the capacity to try this anyway. Also the Red Banner Baltic Fleet and the Russian air arm would doubtless get involved.

**No infrastructure, no supplies, no avenues of advance. They'd end up worse than the German attempts of taking Murmansk.

***Same as above but less severe. Would also require the occupation of Sweden, which means the Swedes blow up their ore mines that are vital to Germany's war effort. Ain't happening.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

What is Finland a buffer against? Germany's not coming through Finland, not in a world where Stalin leaves the country alone. Heck, even in OTL where the Finns allowed the Germans to base troops in Lapland out of necessity, the German zone of operation was restricted to the north and they weren't allowed to attack until Finnish towns and cities all over the south of the country were bombed by the Soviet Air Force.

EDIT: Just to clarify: there's no way Germany is successfully naval invading Finland*, nor successfully invading through Norway**, let alone Sweden***.

*Finland had a powerful coastal defence network, and the Germans lacked the capacity to try this anyway. Also the Red Banner Baltic Fleet and the Russian air arm would doubtless get involved.

**No infrastructure, no supplies, no avenues of advance. They'd end up worse than the German attempts of taking Murmansk.

***Same as above but less severe. Would also require the occupation of Sweden, which means the Swedes blow up their ore mines that are vital to Germany's war effort. Ain't happening.

They want Karelia as a buffer state for Leningrad. Russia defensive policy has always been defense in depth, meaning important cities are far away from the border as possible. I guess that's why they have Belarus and Ukraine too. The Moscow in the Central Russian region is quite close to the border (once smolensk is taken, it is within reach).

Getting the whole of Finland is probably the secondary objective -- a bonus if the initial attack succeeded. But the Winter war would have started anyway, whether or not Stalin is eying the whole of Finland. Because the Fins would have fought to keep Karelia -- it is an important economic region. Losing it would probably be equivalent to Czech losing Sudetenland. If the Fins let the Russia have their way, it would eventually lose their sovereignty.

The end result would be this: both sides got a minimal of what they want -- Russia has Karelia while Finland kept its sovereignty.

 

[Fulmen]

They want Karelia as a buffer state for Leningrad. Russia defensive policy has always been defense in depth, meaning important cities are far away from the border as possible. I guess that's why they have Belarus and Ukraine too. The Moscow in the Central Russian region is quite close to the border (once smolensk is taken, it is within reach).

Come now, Stalin surely was paranoid but he knew fully well the Finns posed no threat, yet he clearly wanted to occupy the entire country multiple times throughout 1939-44, including after both peaces (1940, 1944). Buying into the whole "he just wanted to secure Leningrad" is playing right into the Russian state propaganda machine and analogous to believing something like Hitler starting WW2 because he "just wanted Danzig and a corridor to East Prussia".

Losing it would probably be equivalent to Czech losing Sudetenland.

Militarily-speaking it was similar, maybe not quite as bad since Finland has a lot more depth than small Czechoslovakia, or Czechia rather, as the Slovaks wanted to break free and form their own Slovak state. Economically and culturally however, it was far worse.

I suggest you read up on the Russian demands of 1938-39 though, since you seem to not know about the details (I'd assume you're basing your knowledge on this off HoI4, but I could be mistaken) because they only included a portion of the territories they took in the the peace treaty in 1940. However accepting their demands would've likely led to a summer war in mid-1940, instead of a winter war in late-1939, one that Finland might've well lost, as in truly lost and become a part of the USSR as the Karelo-Finnish SSR, as per the Russian plan (no winter, no Mannerheim-line, more time for Russia to prepare, 2-pronged attack over land from Hanko in the west and likely the sea, and a land invasion across the eastern frontier...)

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Come now, Stalin surely was paranoid but he knew fully well the Finns posed no threat, yet he clearly wanted to occupy the entire country multiple times throughout 1939-44, including after both peaces (1940, 1944). Buying into the whole "he just wanted to secure Leningrad" is playing right into the Russian state propaganda machine and analogous to believing something like Hitler starting WW2 because he "just wanted Danzig and a corridor to East Prussia".



Militarily-speaking it was similar, maybe not quite as bad since Finland has a lot more depth than small Czechoslovakia, or Czechia rather, as the Slovaks wanted to break free and form their own Slovak state. Economically and culturally however, it was far worse.

I suggest you read up on the Russian demands of 1938-39 though, since you seem to not know about the details (I'd assume you're basing your knowledge on this off HoI4, but I could be mistaken) because they only included a portion of the territories they took in the the peace treaty in 1940. However accepting their demands would've likely led to a summer war in mid-1940, instead of a winter war in late-1939, one that Finland might've well lost, as in truly lost and become a part of the USSR as the Karelo-Finnish SSR, as per the Russian plan (no winter, no Mannerheim-line, more time for Russia to prepare, 2-pronged attack over land from Hanko in the west and likely the sea, and a land invasion across the eastern frontier...)

For some reason I feel, the priority of Stalin when he came to power was to rapidly industralised USSR. According to him, if the country did not industralise quickly, they would lose to the capitalist west. USSR was already a big country and there was still so much room for development. Why do I want the entire of Finland when I only ended up grabbing more forests -- more trouble for development? Karelia, I remembered, seemed to be rather an economically viable region. And holding Finland might be quite troublesome politically since the people do not accept Soviet rule.

Wikipedia
From the very outset of the war, working-class Finns stood behind the legitimate government in Helsinki.

Stalin is an imperialist (debatable) and has the ambition to spread socialist rule in Europe, this I have no doubt. But if I were him, I would have played it smartly. The Germans were at the border. If I had the ambition to eventually conquer Europe, it is better to first defeat Germany by concentrating my forces at the western border, rather than spreading myself unnecessarily thin. Having divisions guarding the north is akin to Germany garrisoning large number of forces in Norway -- inactive and play little part.

Edit: another interesting thing to note that in the second half of 21st century, Soviet Union did not actually occupy the eastern European lands they "won" in WW2. Instead they create a group of socialist puppets. USSR to me, is a bit like USA -- they go to war in other countries to spread their ideologies (socialism, instead of democracy). For example, they intervene in Afghanistan because they were afraid of islamic fundamentalism that seeks to supplant socialism. They seem to understand that as long as you do not have the popular mandate, people's power will eventually overthrow their oppressive rule.

USSR is not Imperial Russia where they occupy foreign land for the sake of expanding their empire. They came to power because of people's will (Lenin was a man of people who promises bread). Those eras were over. People are awakening to national identity (I would think that WW1 is the end of all imperialism -- four great empires collapsed and gave way to people's rule).

Nazi germany goes to war because of similar reason -- ideology of lebensraum. They attacked and occupied France because they had no choice -- to avoid second front. Their real goal was Russia. To liquidate the Slavs. Hitler was honest about his goal and made it clear from day 1 (his book Mein Kempf, the rally speeches in a democratic Germany). Nazi Germany is not Imperial Germany whose militarism is for the expansion of empire. There is no aristocrat like the Kaiser or Tsar who wore fanciful uniform, and the commoners workshipping blindly. Hitler and Stalin were always down to earth in public appearance.

 

[RMD Angel]

I really like Finland's position in WW2. They fought like hell and inflicted severe damage on the Soviet invaders. David versus Goliath situation. In the Winter War they ended up losing and having to give up more territory than the Soviets even asked for in the first place. But in the Continuation War they initially took back all their territory plus Soviet territory and helped the Germans surround Leningrad, though they refused to attack it. Finland's impressive performance in the Winter War made the Germans think the Soviets were weak.

So I was hoping to play as underdog Finland and refuse their demands and do a lot of damage to the Soviets as they invaded and hold out for a while like in real life. I built up my defenses and had at least two Divisions for every tile. And at first the war seemed to be going well for me. But then my Air Force was wiped out because my numbers were too small and there's no way to choose the intensity of their attacks. And my Air Bases were destroyed and there's no way to hide my aircraft in the forests like they did in real life.

And then what really ended my fun is that the Soviets sent an absolutely ridiculous amount of Divisions to my borders and attacked the whole frontline. I mean they must have had like 60 Divisions or something on my borders. And there's really no way for me to fight against that. They quickly overran my forces and the war was over very quickly. In real life the Soviets only had like 20 Divisions or so in Finland I think. Probably too hard to supply any more than that in real life in Finland.

So it's just doesn't seem possible to have a historical Winter War with the way the game works right now. The Soviets just send too many Divisions your way to have a fighting chance. Which makes it not fun.

The point of the game is to play as ahistorial as possible. Try annexing Sweden or something before the Soviets attack, that should give you a decent amount of manpower and equipment. If you're feeling confident, form Scandinavia to get even more manpower. Build lots of arty, AA and forts on the Soviet border and watch as they send their men to their deaths. Only fight back once they have 500k casualties or so.

 

[Palaiologos]

This argument comes up fairly often but it doesn't really hold water against the failure of the Russian offensives in 1940 and 1944, when they were taking the war very seriously indeed (see my post on page 1 on Russian frontline strength 13.3.1940), and were no longer advancing in human waves against machine gun nests, as they had initially in the Winter War. By 1944 the Red Army was a whole different kind of beast. No, the reason for the Russian failure wasn't lack of trying, or down to mere incompetence in leadership, rather the Finnish Defence Forces were a better trained, led and motivated military that was fighting in defensively advantageous terrain, for the survival of itself and of its nation, which can be quite the spirit unto itself in stirring up resistance against a foreign invader.

Bro they didnt try the human wave in 1939 as well. Thats generally a sensational myth. The biggest problem was that they sent their penal battalions and fresh conscripts out of the boot camp, they thought it would be a walk in the park and wanted to bloody their men a bit. In 1944 Finland and generally the remnants of Army Group North were a tertiary front-Ukraine Buellorussia, and later Poland and Romania were their focuses. The Russians were in a very bad situation manpower wise by the end of the war themselves.

 

[Palaiologos]

Come now, Stalin surely was paranoid but he knew fully well the Finns posed no threat, yet he clearly wanted to occupy the entire country multiple times throughout 1939-44, including after both peaces (1940, 1944). Buying into the whole "he just wanted to secure Leningrad" is playing right into the Russian state propaganda machine and analogous to believing something like Hitler starting WW2 because he "just wanted Danzig and a corridor to East Prussia".

Well thats what the Germans actually wanted though. The first peace treaty offer came by the Germans to the Brits in October 1939 and it was a "status quo" offer. They had no navy, reserves, raw materials or colonies with which to fight a world war(unlike the first one). Their strategic situation was hopeless and they knew it. They only gave out the impression of being able to win because of the French collapse. They should have lost the war by 1941, realistically.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Well thats what the Germans actually wanted though. The first peace treaty offer came by the Germans to the Brits in October 1939 and it was a "status quo" offer. They had no navy, reserves, raw materials or colonies with which to fight a world war(unlike the first one). Their strategic situation was hopeless and they knew it. They only gave out the impression of being able to win because of the French collapse. They should have lost the war by 1941, realistically.

I doubt imperial Germany was in any way better strategically. Yes they have colonies but they were pathetic compared to the Allies. Not to mention Japan later joined the world. The German navy was strong but not built to police the empire unlike Royal Navy. In fact they were bottled up in Baltic. The defeat of Central powers was a matter of time unless they could subjugate Russia (same for Nazi Germany).

In fact, I would argue that Nazi Germany did better considering the fact that they held off the world for 6 years, as compared to 4 years for Imperial Germany.

 

[CrazyZombie]

This really makes no sense as Finland was no threat to Russia, nor was there a threat of Germany ever being able to attack through Finland, had the Russians left the Finns alone.

Su-u-u-ure, noone said anything about Greater Finland all those previous years and there was no "undeclared war" on the Soviet-Finnish border all the 20-s and 30-s... Also, it is just a great idea to have your second of importance industrial hub in the range of artillery.

Bro they didnt try the human wave in 1939 as well. Thats generally a sensational myth. The biggest problem was that they sent their penal battalions and fresh conscripts out of the boot camp, they thought it would be a walk in the park and wanted to bloody their men a bit. In 1944 Finland and generally the remnants of Army Group North were a tertiary front-Ukraine Buellorussia, and later Poland and Romania were their focuses. The Russians were in a very bad situation manpower wise by the end of the war themselves.

^This.

I really like how Finns are so proud of their separate peace in 1944, like if they have managed to stop nothing less than full Ukrainian and Belorussian fronts combined, and not the front of way lesser importance, assembled from what could be "sacrificed" by not taking part in "major business".

 

[I had a bad name 99]

I really like how Finns are so proud of their separate peace in 1944, like if they have managed to stop nothing less than full Ukrainian and Belorussian fronts combined, and not the front of way lesser importance, assembled from what could be "sacrificed" by not taking part in "major business".

They have help from the Germans though. They were equipped with really good AT units like Panzerfaust and Stugg assault guns.

 

[Spelaren]

Su-u-u-ure, noone said anything about Greater Finland all those previous years and there was no "undeclared war" on the Soviet-Finnish border all the 20-s and 30-s... Also, it is just a great idea to have your second of importance industrial hub in the range of artillery.



^This.

I really like how Finns are so proud of their separate peace in 1944, like if they have managed to stop nothing less than full Ukrainian and Belorussian fronts combined, and not the front of way lesser importance, assembled from what could be "sacrificed" by not taking part in "major business".

It'd have been best if the Russians never had attacked Finland and annexed one of its most important regions and only access to northern sea, or occupied the baltics, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Czechoslovakia. But Russian imperialism is always the same, no matter the century.