1c8c9205   
   XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   From: ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com   
      
   In article ,   
    holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:   
      
   > > That was a political bribe USSR chose to pay to Finland. Whether it   
   > > was worth it or not, it worked.   
   >   
   > Agreed. It worked to benefit Finland far more than it did the USSR, thus   
   > my claim of economic colonialism. Colonialism is an asymmetrical   
   > relationship in which one party exploits the other, with the exploited   
   > party being unwilling or nable to improve its position by leveling the   
   > playing field.   
   >   
   > > Kekkonen and all that - you should know.   
   > >   
   > > >In the longer term, the situation collapsed due to its own impossibility.   
   > >   
   > > Right. Neocons claim it was Reagan who brought about the collpase   
   > > of the USSR and Eugene Holman claims that it was Finland that   
   > > involuntary did it to its economic colony.   
   >   
   > No. I do not make anything like so strong a claim. My claim is simply that   
   > so-called Finlandization was not simply a matter of a small and weak   
   > country being forced to dance to the tune of a far larger and stronger   
   > country. Finland and the Soviet Union struck a deal that would allow   
   > Finland to function and prosper in its front yard as an example of the   
   > kind of peaceful coexistence the USSR hoped for on a far wider global   
   > scale. The price that Finland paid for playing this role was to minimize   
   > its criticism of Soviet policies and promote Soviet initiatives if they   
   > were consistent with Finnish interests. The USSR, in turn, allowed Finland   
   > privileged access to its captive and virtually insatiable market for   
   > consumer goods.   
      
   Earlier, you seemed to be arguing that the Finns simply fooled the   
   stupid Russians into selling cheap and buying dear. Now you appear to be   
   supporting the bribe theory.   
      
   If the Soviets were bribing the Finns, why do you conclude that "it   
   worked to benefit Finland far more than it did the USSR?" How can you   
   tell whether the price the USSR was paying for Finland's politial   
   support was more than that support was worth?   
      
   Consider the case of foreign aid during the cold war, by both the U.S.   
   and the Soviet Union. The U.S. gives some African kleptocrat fifty   
   million dollars in order to buy the UN vote of the country he controls.   
   That looks like the same pattern you describe for the Soviet Union and   
   Finland, in a somewhat simplified version. Do you conclude that the U.S.   
   was the colony and the African state the colonialist?   
      
   --   
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/   
    Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.   
    Published by Baen, in bookstores now   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)