The Soviet Union was once seen as the ‘second world’, offering an alternative to the capitalist world. It presented very dogmatic claims about the socialist alternative and what it had achieved. Unlike many others, I did not see any reason to fully believe these arguments, but I was still very curious to see the reality behind them.  

Russia turned out to be a very interesting and sympathetic country, in the grip of a grotesque system. I understood that what was happening in Russia was not unique. Intellectual dishonesty played a large role in other places as well. In fact, the Russian intelligentsia appeared to be freer than that of the West.

So I became interested in the Soviet Union and the neighbouring image of my own country, as well as the intelligentsia and their role. The quick and dramatic changes in historical periods offered plenty of material for reflection and I understood how important it is to give up imagining that even a researcher could stand on neutral ground. The impact of history on how we understand things only comes to make complete sense through the actual manifestations of the views of different eras. Russia and Finland in the 1900s offered precisely such excellent material.

On the other hand, the preceding century also proved to be a very rewarding and interesting subject, providing as it did a different kind of point of reference on the reality of the grotesque, whose later manifestations were just in their infancy.

• Timo Vihavainen’s essays and the Russian language book Stoletija sosedstva (‘Centuries of neighbourliness’) can be found on his blog.