9b36a91b   
   XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi   
      
   In article , David Friedman   
    wrote:   
      
      
   >   
   > An interesting account, and for all I know a correct one. But it still   
   > leaves unexplained the particular feature I mentioned in my post.   
   > Wouldn't the arrangement have still been in the interest of both parties   
   > if the barter trade had been on terms no worse for the USSR than what   
   > they could have gotten elsewhere?   
      
   The USSR wanted Finland as a showpiece for its doctrine of peaceful   
   coexistence. Thus it was willing to shoulder the losses that came with the   
   barter trade. Additionally, its centralized economy was geared more to   
   five-year plans than to case-by-case trade. Profit was no their primary   
   motive.   
      
   > Indeed, wouldn't it have been still in   
   > the interest of Finland on terms even worse than that, given the   
   > alternative?   
      
   Perhaps. But once the ball got rolling, neither side was interested in   
   tweaking it.   
      
   > Or are you assuming that, once the system was going, Finland had a   
   > viable threat of dropping the relationship, joining NATO, and facing no   
   > serious risk of a Soviet attack--and the favorable terms were necessary   
   > to make that option not worth considering?   
      
   The Treaty on Friedship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance specifically   
   precluded the possibility of Finnish NATO membership. Neither did Finland   
   regard the USSR as such a threatening neighbor that NATO membership would,   
   if it had been possible, brought it any advantages. Even today Finnish   
   public opinion is solidly against NATO membership.   
      
   Regards,   
   Eugene Holman   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)