https://helda.helsinki.

fi

President Urho Kekkonen of Finland and the KGB

Rentola, Kimmo
University of Helsinki Department of Social Science History
2008

The Cold War and the Politics of History

http://hdl.handle.net/10224/4054

Downloaded from Helda, University of Helsinki institutional repository.

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.
Please cite the original version.
 President Urho Kekkonen
of Finland and the KGB

KIMMO RENTOLA

A major post-Cold War history debate in Finland has been over the role
of President Urho Kekkonen and his relations with the Soviet Union, in
particular with the Soviet foreign intelligence. No surprise to anybody,
variance of interpretations has been wide, fuelled by scarcity of sources
on the most sensitive aspects, by the unavoidable ambiguity of an issue
like the intelligence, and even by political leanings.1 As things stand now,
even a preliminary assessment of available evidence – viewed from a
distance – might prove useful.
The Soviet Union regularly tried to build back-channel contacts and
confidential informal links with the Western powers. On the Soviet side,
these contacts were usually conducted by intelligence officers, as were
those to Robert Kennedy on the eve of the Cuban missile crisis,2 and to
Chancellor Willy Brandt during his new German Ostpolitik.3 By far the

1 A good introduction to Finnish studies on Kekkonen in J. Lavery. ‘All of the

President’s Historians: The Debate over Urho Kekkonen’, Scandinavian Studies
75 (2003: 3). See also his The History of Finland. Westport: Greenwood Press
2006, and the analysis of D. Kirby, A Concise History of Finland. Cambridge
University Press 2006.
2 An account by G. Bolshakov, ‘The Hot Line’, in New Times (Moscow), 1989,
nos. 4-6; C. Andrew, For the President’s Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and
American Presidency from Washington to Bush. London: HarperCollins 1995,
278–80. The best known exception is the back channel to Kissinger, which was
not conducted by an intelligence officer, but by Ambassador Dobrynin.
3 W. Keworkow, Der geheime Kanal. Berlin: Rowohlt 1995.

269
Kimmo Rentola

longest relationship of this kind was established with Kekkonen, whose

contacts were keenly cultivated by both sides from 1944 right up to his
resignation in 1981.
On Kekkonen’s relationship with the KGB there is only a thin
sample of Soviet documents, complemented by memoirs, the most
informative of which are by the long-time Helsinki rezident Viktor
Vladimirov, published only in Finnish.4 The Finnish documentation is
more extensive now after President Kekkonen’s diaries were published
in four volumes.5 Kekkonen recorded his hundreds of conversations with
KGB representatives; at first shyly, calling his interlocutors a “Mr. X” or
a “Mr. Zh.”, but then unblushingly by their real names. The diaries were
not written for later publication, but for working purposes, to remember
who said what and when. Thus the main defect of the entries is brevity,
abridgment to barest essentials. During his numerous visits to the Soviet
Union, Kekkonen did not produce any entries; he was not so stupid as to
take a diary along.6

FINLAND AS A TARGET

According to a Soviet intelligence officer, Finland was a kind of great

power as far as intelligence was concerned.7 Finland became a major
intelligence target for the Soviets right after the Winter War (1939–
40), because Stalin’s decision to attack Finland as well as the one to

4 V. Vladimirov, Näin se oli… Helsinki: Otava 1993. Memoirs by other high KGB
officers (A. Akulov, F. Karasev, E. Sinitsyn) are much more tight-lipped and their
quality is lower. Only the posthumous (and confused) memoirs of Sinitsyn have
also been published in Russian.
5 Urho Kekkosen päiväkirjat, ed. by J. Suomi, vols. 1-4. Helsinki: Otava 2001–
04. The diaries cover the period from 1958 to 1981. The Finnish security police
archives are a first-rate source for other politicians’ contacts with the KGB.
However, the security police considered it prudent not to produce written reports
on the President’s contacts, despite the fact that they were noticed.
6 On some short trips, there are entries, probably written after returning home.
7 This was said to the author by Albert Akulov, who was a prominent KGB
political line officer in Helsinki. Of course, it is an exaggeration, but not totally
baseless.

270
 President Urho Kekkonen of Finland and the KGB

make peace had been based on fatally faulty intelligence,8 and he was
determined never again to repeat the catastrophe. By mid-1940, the
number of Soviet intelligence officers in Finland was second only to that
in the United States; even Germany hosted fewer.9 By May 1941, NKGB
resident Elisei Sinitsyn was able to procure first-rate information from
government sources, including the fact of the imminent German attack
and the Finnish participation in it.10
As soon as peace was again in sight, the Soviets focused on high-level
political contacts. In February 1944 in Stockholm, Soviet intelligence
established contact with Eero A. Wuori, the head of the Finnish trade
unions, who described the basic anti-Nazi stance of Marshal Mannerheim
to a charming female journalist, who happened to be working for Soviet
intelligence.11 After the armistice in September 1944, this effort was
revived in Helsinki by Sinitsyn, who again showed up, now as a political
counsellor in the Soviet Control Commission. Among the first to call was
Urho Kekkonen, 44, a fast rising Agrarian politician.12

8 K. Rentola, “Sovjetisk etteretning og Stalins beslutning om krig og fred

med Finland, 1939-1940”, in Motstrøms: Olav Riste og norsk internasjonal
historieskrivning, ed. by S. Holtsmark, H. Pharo & R. Tamnes. Oslo: Cappelen
2003, 188–17. The article is based on NKVD foreign intelligence documents.
For Stalin admitting the failure in the April 1940 post mortem session, see A. O.
Chubaryan & H. Shukman (eds.), Stalin and the Soviet-Finnish War 1939–1940.
London: Cass 2002, 196.
9 Introduction by O. I. Nazhestkin in Ocherki istorii rossiiskoi vneshnei razvedki,
vol. 3 (1933–1941), ed. by E. M. Primakov et al. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye
otnosheniya 1997, 17–8, quoting a report by the head of foreign intelligence P.
M. Fitin. In the US, there were 18 officers, in Finland 17, in Germany 13.
10 NKGB reports from Helsinki, 4 Jun 1941; 10 Jun 1941; 13 Jun 1941, in Sekrety
Gitlera na stole u Stalina: Razvedka i kontrrazvedka o podgotovke germanskoi
aggressii protiv SSSR. Mart-ijun’ 1941 g. Dokumenty iz Tsentralnogo arkhiva
FSB Rossii, ed. by V. K. Vinogradov et al. Moscow 1995, 140, 151–3, 157.
11 Venona decrypts, Razin to Fitin, Feb 1944. Wuori was mentioned as ‘Tsilindr’
in these telegrams. On the female agent ‘Klara’ (Gusti Stridsberg), see W. Agrell,
Venona: Spåren från ett underrättelsekrig. Stockholm: Historiska Media 2003,
302–28.
12 In 1943–44, Kekkonen developed a contact with the American intelligence in
Stockholm (Vilho Tikander of OSS), but he does not seem to have had contacts
with the Soviets (or the British) before the armistice.

271
Kimmo Rentola

Since Finland avoided occupation, instead of directly imposing

their will, the Soviets had to find ways of influencing those in power
in Helsinki. As for the Finns, they remained in the Soviet sphere of
interests, a fact acknowledged by the Western allies, and the leaders of
the country had to adapt to this. As usual in rapidly changing situations,
first something is done, and the theory justifying the action would be
formulated only afterwards. As for the Agrarian contacts with the Soviet
intelligence, Kaarlo Hillilä (Minister of the Interior, 1944 to 1945) wrote
later that it was vital to prevent the strong Finnish Communist Party from
having exclusive access to the Soviets. It was necessary to deal directly
with the Soviets on as high a level as possible, so the Communists could
not ‘fake out Russian support even when that did not exist at the moment,
and so obtain positions otherwise out of reach for them.’13
Stalin never believed what was said to him above the table; he wanted
to know what the other side was really up to. The Finns adapted to this.
Even old President Paasikivi understood the necessity of confidential
contacts, but would not deal personally with intelligence officers,
not wanting to touch ‘an ugly fish’, as he said.14 Instead, he relied
on middlemen and messengers, various left wing social democratic
politicians,15 and Kekkonen.
Kekkonen was qualified for this. In the 1920s, he had served as an
officer in the Finnish security police, and then prepared his doctor of law
dissertation on agent provocateur, a police agent inside revolutionary
ranks. On his study trips to Vienna and to Berlin he discovered that the
learned doctors in the security police of these countries ‘did not even
know as much as I know’, as he complained to his wife.16 He saw
Moscow for the first time as a counter intelligence officer, checking out
13 National Archives of Finland (KA), Paasikivi papers V: 35, Memorandum by
Kaarlo Hillilä, 31 Oct. 1950, attached in Kekkonen to Paasikivi, 11 Dec 1950.
14 Paasikivi’s diary, 15 Jun. 1946, J.K. Paasikiven päiväkirjat 1945–1956, vols.
1-2, ed. by Y. Blomstedt & M. Klinge. Helsinki: WSOY 1985–86.
15 The most important ones were Mauno Pekkala (prime minister, 1946–48),
Reinhold Svento (2nd Foreign Minister) and Eero A. Wuori (chairman of the trade
unions, then minister, in 1945 ambassador to London). In Sinitsyn’s memoirs,
they are mentioned under code names, and can be identified on the basis of
Paasikivi’s diary entries on their discussions with the Soviets.
16 Kekkonen to his wife Sylvi, 25 Jun. 1928. Kekkonen dropped this theme and
wrote his dissertation on local elections law.

272
 President Urho Kekkonen of Finland and the KGB

listening devices and security lapses in the Finnish mission. Although

his second visit in 1945 was in a friendship delegation, even then the
attendant Soviet lady watcher suspected that the Finnish Minister of
Justice, Mr. Kekkonen, was a spy. He was so curious, always asking
pertinent questions and very sensitive ones at that; at the kolkhoz he
wanted to know which of the men had fought on the Finnish front and
how many had fallen, and then he wanted to see the house of the poorest
kolkhoznik. On top of it all, he was capable of assessing the exact amount
of spectators in a football match in Moscow.17
Despite his background, Kekkonen did not immediately grasp every
peculiarity of his new friends, as can be seen from the letter in which he
described to his wife how Sinitsyn in June 1945 transferred him to his
successor, V. F. Razin.

Elisei is leaving for good; last Friday the Finnish-Soviet Friendship

Society threw a farewell dinner for him. There, he asked me to
dinner on Sunday. I believed a good many people would attend,
but there were only him, the newly arrived Razin, and me. When
the restaurant ran short of brandy, we came to our home, where I
invited [Kustaa Vilkuna], and he brought along [a female artist]
and we had a cozy night. Razin speaks good German. I think that
through Razin I can take care of my business.18

This was a routine transfer meeting of a Soviet intelligence contact, a

pattern Kekkonen did not fully understand at that time. But the full nature
of these new contacts was not easy to grasp for Razin either. A seasoned
intelligence officer, he tried to run agents according to official rules, and
(if we can believe Sinitsyn’s memoirs) at his first meeting with Kustaa
Vilkuna, he thrust him a brown envelope stuffed with money. Sinitsyn
had to go to great pains to explain the ‘misuderstanding’ to an offended
Vilkuna, who was an academic scholar and a personal intelligence hand
for Kekkonen. And when Kekkonen put out serious political feelers as if
joking, as he always did with the Russians (‘l’ll probably take over the

17 Russian Foreign Policy Archives (AVP RF), fond 012, opis 6, papka 85,
delo 273, ll. 11-13v, Report by T.Yu. Solovieva, official of the Soviet society for
cultural contacts (VOKS), 12 Oct. 1945. Kekkonen was a sports union leader, so
the number of spectators was routine for him.
18 Kekkonen to his wife Sylvi, 19 Jun. 1945.

273
Kimmo Rentola

Ministry of Interior in the next government’), Razin was not at all on the
same wave length, but responded according to the official line only: ‘The
man there should enjoy the trust of the working class’ etc.19
During Razin’s tenure, 1945 to 1947, Moscow hoped that Finland
would also follow the path to a people’s democracy. Accordingly, their
intelligence activities concentrated on the communist control of the
security police (Valpo). When it turned out that Finland had a path of
its own, the significance of confidential contacts with non-communist
politicians rose again, and a pure national force like Kekkonen’s party,
the Agrarians, was much less suspected by the Soviets than the social
democrats, who were connected to an international movement.

THE NATURE OF THE BACK CHANNEL

Some characteristics of this relationship became evident early on.

First, the backdoor channel was useful in vital issues, as the Mutual
Assistance Treaty of 1948. Before and during the negotiations, Kekkonen
was in touch with Mikhail Kotov and others, explaining the utter limit the
Finns could accept, and painting in dark colours the threat of anti-Soviet
forces coming into power in Helsinki if these reasonable needs would
not be met by the Soviets. This and the information obtained from other
sources (in particular, the Finnish generals’ opinion that in a possible
world war Finland would need to take the Soviet side20) made it possible
for Stalin to accept a lesser treaty than the Hungarian and Rumanian ones
he first set as models. From the Finnish point of view, the most important
feature of the channel was where it led to: right to the top in the Kremlin,
and with reasonable speed. This function was underlined by the fact that
19 Paasikivi’s diary, 14 Feb. 1947.
20 The information on generals’ opinions was delivered by the Minister of
Interior Yrjö Leino (a communist) or by Finland’s ambassador to Moscow, Cay
Sundström. Kekkonen was careful not to divulge military secrets. In 1954, when
the KGB needed to know what the Finns would do in case of a Soviet attack on
northern Norway in a major war, Kekkonen did not say anything himself, but his
close female friend said to the KGB that Finland would not put up any resistance
in such case. AVP RF, fond 0135, opis 38 (papka 204), d. 6, pp. 177–8, Memo
of a conversation between Anne-Marie Snellman and Yu. V. Bakey, on 6 and 7
May 1954.

274
 President Urho Kekkonen of Finland and the KGB

discussions between state leaders were usually interpreted by the KGB

Helsinki resident and not by professional interpreters.
The 1948 pattern was to repeat itself in every major treaty concerning
the position of Finland. In particular, when Finland negotiated its Western
economic integration treaties, first with the EFTA and later with the EEC,
the Soviet ‘yes’ was obtained through patient background discussions
with the KGB representatives. In issues like these, the KGB tended
to ignore other Soviet interests not vital from their particular point of
view, so that an ambassador complained in his memoirs how the foreign
ministry often prepared complicated negotiation strategies only to find
out that the Finns had already agreed the main issue secretly through the
KGB, thereby getting benefits they would never have been able to pull
from diplomatic or foreign trade bureaucracies.21
Second, the back channel tended to reduce communist influence in
Finnish political life. The Communist Party, with a fifth of the popular
vote, was a formidable force, and one of Kekkonen’s main preoccupations
in his dealings with the Soviets was to use the contact to domesticate
the communists.22 In 1954, for instance, the Soviets compelled Finnish
communists to drop their resistance to military appropriations in the
Finnish budget.23
Third, it is not simple to establish, which side dominated. The Soviet
Union was a superpower, Finland a small neighbour, and the KGB
officers were trained to see their contacts as agents and as objects or
instruments in their operations. But there was more to it than that. In
1944, Kekkonen and Vilkuna were in their mid-40s, 10 to 15 years older
than Sinitsyn and Kotov, and with experience in counter-intelligence,
government, and academic life. Finland was their home turf and the
contact language was Finnish. According to Sinitsyn’s memoirs, his
meetings with Vilkuna always commenced with alternating Kalevala
verses: the folklore professor tortured a Smolensk country boy. Every
21 J. Derjabin, Omalla nimellä. Helsinki: Otava 1997.
22 This was noted and complained by the Foreign Ministry in Moscow:
‘Kekkonen often uses his contacts with Soviet representatives for various
political manoeuvres.’ AVP RF, f. 0135, op. 38 (papka 204), d. 8, pp. 16-27, ‘K
obstanovke v Finlyandii’, 24 Jun. 1954, a memo prepared by A. Aleksandrov and
I. Marchuk, signed by section chief G. F. Pushkin.
23 Details in K. Rentola, Niin kylmää että polttaa: Kommunistit, Kekkonen ja
Kreml 1947–1958. Helsinki: Otava 1997.

275
Kimmo Rentola

issue at hand always received full attention from the Finns, who knew all
details, but the Soviet leaders in Moscow could devote only a fraction of
their attention to Finland, and they mainly wanted to hear that everything
was proceeding as it should. In case of conflicts, the KGB in Helsinki
sometimes had incentives to smooth out chukhna peculiarities24, because
in case of escalation, they would have to answer to embarrassing questions
about their earlier reports. Of course, there were limits to this. With time
passing and experience accumulating, the roles were reversed, not with
Kekkonen so much as with the next generation, such as when Kotov in
the 1970s dealt with ambitious politicians thirty years his junior, like
Paavo Väyrynen.
Finally, the perennial question: what is in it for me? In addition to
high-level issues, the KGB always tried to collect small commissions,
their pounds of flesh, loose change, as it was described by Kissinger.
Even from Khomeini in 1979, the Moscow headquarters wanted
something specific, a gesture.25 An introduction, a juicy piece of news,
prevention of something to be published (or leak of another item), and
most desired of all, a person wanted by Soviet security.26 In April 1950,
when Kekkonen was appointed prime minister for the first time, his
government decided to hand over two Estonian anti-Soviet guerrillas,
who eight months earlier had succeeded in escaping to Finland. One was
actually delivered.27 Probably with this in mind, the following summer
Kekkonen told the Agrarian party congress: ‘I am affected neither by

24 ‘Chukhna’ is a pejorative Russian word for a Finn, in particular in the St.

Petersburg area. Mikoyan had a fine collection of chukhna jokes he said he first
heard from Sergei Kirov.
25 V. Kuzichkin, Inside the KGB: Myth and Reality. London: André Deutsch
1990, 271.
26 ‘Whatever is given to the KGB must be done secretly, deeply, and with
very strong precautions’, explained ‘General Marov’ to writer Norman Mailer;
see his Oswald’s Tale: An American Mystery. New York: Random House 1995,
405.
27 This man, Artur Löoke, was condemned to death in Tallinn, as can be seen
in the Estonian KGB archives. The other one, Herman Treial, was too sick to
transfer; an unsuccessful escape attempt made him an international celebrity
and drew e.g. Eleanor Roosevelt’s appeal, but soon after he died in a Helsinki
hospital. The documents in the case file (12 L Treial & Löoke) in the Foreign
Ministry Archives and personal file no. 11461 in the Security Police Archives.

276
 President Urho Kekkonen of Finland and the KGB

hate nor by love, when what is at stake is political action for the best of
the country.’28 In February 1956, five days before the electoral council
was to vote on the next President of the Republic, the Kekkonen camp
and the KGB busy making deals, an illegal Soviet intelligence officer
who had sat in a Finnish prison almost two years was suddenly pardoned
and ejected over the eastern border.29 Of course, there is no conclusive
proof of a connection between this pardon and the presidential deals.
Kekkonen’s special slice was career promotion. The main prize
was reaped in the 1956 presidential elections. To stop any anti-Soviet
candidate, the Soviets first wanted President J. K. Paasikivi to continue,
despite his advanced age (85 years); this was the official Soviet line as
late as five days before the crucial electors’ meeting.30 Then, however,
Kekkonen and Vilkuna sold their KGB contacts (Kotov and Vladimirov)
the idea that Kekkonen could also obtain a majority if the communists
were given detailed orders on how to use their votes and if some additional
measures were taken. Khrushchev, who liked risky ventures, gave his nod
on a dramatic day, when he delivered his secret speech to the 20th CPSU
Congress. So, the Soviets abandoned Paasikivi, the communists were
given orders (the party leaders needed to be shown the actual Moscow
cipher telegram to turn their heads), and Kekkonen was elected by the
closest margin possible.31 Had it failed, the two KGB officers would

28 That remained his credo: ‘I do not feel any feelings in this office.’ Kekkonen’s
diary 19 Dec 1963.
29 His name was K. A. F. Holmström, by birth a Swede; he had been watching
northern Norwegian defence facilities. The pardon was signed by the Police
Superintendent (an Agrarian close to Kekkonen) during a leave of the social
democratic Minister of Interior. The decision came as a surprise to the security
police, who were planning to let the man slip into Sweden. Documents in his
personal file no. 11524, Archives of the Security Police of Finland.
30 A memorandum for the Moscow top leadership on the presidential elections
in Finland, 10 Feb. 1956, by Ivan Tugarinov, deputy chief, KI pri MID, AVP
RF, f. 0135, op. 40, papka 215, d. 34, ll. 6-13. The ‘small KI’, a rump from
the intelligence conglomerate KI, remained in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
as an analytical centre. See V. Zubok, ‘Soviet Intelligence and the Cold War:
The “Small” Committee of Information, 1952–53’, Diplomatic History, vol. 19
(1995: 3).
31 A synthesis by T. Polvinen in his J.K. Paasikivi: Valtiomiehen elämäntyö 5,
1948–1956. Helsinki: WSOY 2003.

277
Kimmo Rentola

have found themselves far away, but as winners they were fast on their
way towards the rank of general. In 1957, at 41, Kotov was promoted to
deputy chief of foreign intelligence in charge of western Europe.32

PRESIDENT AND REZIDENT

A contradictory situation developed after 1956. On one hand, Kekkonen

was a pro-Soviet politician with close contacts to the KGB, and these
were continued. In 1958, he recorded eleven private discussions with
the KGB rezident, and in addition there were phone calls, meetings with
others present, and the rezident’s private meetings with Kekkonen’s
closest allies. On the other hand, he was now the head of a state which
had agencies that practised counter intelligence operations against the
very same KGB. Tracking a high KGB officer, Finnish security police
officials sometimes saw that the Finn the chekist was going to meet was
the President of the Republic himself.33
The KGB tried to find ways to use this to their advantage. Immediately
after the 1956 elections, Vilkuna travelled to Moscow to meet a senior
Soviet foreign intelligence official. ‘The guy’ wanted something in return
for KGB support: the Finnish Ministry of Interior should be taken over
by the Agrarian party, ‘to secure the security police and its surroundings
keep appropriately to the right line instead of the present bias. Otherwise
not possible to sleep in peace. [This is] no interference in Finnish internal
affairs, but the actions of the other side [the West] must also be under
decent control.’34
‘The guy’ asked for a lot. Kekkonen was able to deliver only after
the further shock of the ‘Night frost’ crisis of 1958.35 After that, the

32 Reports signed by him in the appendix in Ocherki istorii rossiiskoi vneshnei raz-
vedki, vol. 5, 1945–1965. Moskva: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya 2003, 690–97.
33 To avoid attention, Kekkonen sometimes met the KGB resident in the house
of his son or elsewhere.
34 Kekkonen Archives, 1/25, Vilkuna to Kekkonen, 25 Feb. 1956. ’The guy’
was higher than the KGB men in Finland, possibly A. M. Sakharovski, who was
responsible for Scandinavia and was promoted foreign intelligence chief in May
1956.
35 Preparing for that crisis, the KGB (Vladimirov) made a harsh attack against

278
 President Urho Kekkonen of Finland and the KGB

Ministry of the Interior was headed by Agrarians for eight years36, and
the security police controlled by the president. But this did not mean
cessation of Finnish counter-intelligence activities. The change consisted
of the fact that from that point on, everything was done quietly, in the
dark. Emphasis was put on preventive action; espionage cases37 were
usually not brought to court, double agents were no longer used to trap or
provoke the KGB,38 no KGB diplomat was declared persona non grata.
Many were quietly asked to leave, sometimes by the president himself,
when he was seeing his good friend, the local KGB chief. When the
president met the resident, between smiles and assertions of trust, crude
raw truths were said, as if joking, and somewhere in the shadows their
subordinates quietly clashed, and both knew that this was the case. The
most famous non grata case was that of a high-level political line officer,
Albert Akulov, who was asked to leave in 1973, when he not only tried
to recruit Finns, but also spied on the Japanese embassy. Reportedly,
Kekkonen said that this man would not be seen in Finland as long as he
was the President of the Republic. The Soviets took this literally.
Kekkonen knew which agency his Soviet friends served; he wanted
the guys sitting as close to the Devil’s right hand as possible. But he was
kept in the dark about the full extent of the activities of his friends. He did
not ask, not liking being lied to.39 His best contact Mikhail Kotov, who

the Finnish security police, wanting Kekkonen take action to set a limit to their
activities. Kekkonen Archives, Karjalainen file, Ahti Karjalainen to Kekkonen,
13 Jun. and 24 Jun. 1958.
36 In 1966, when the Agrarians finally had to give the Ministry of Interior to the
Social Democrats, police issues were transferred to the minister of defence, who
was an Agrarian.
37 In some trials since 1953, even Russian intelligence officers caught on illegal
reconnaissance missions in Finland had been condemned to prison.
38 In 1958, the Finnish security police was, after four years of action, preparing to
reap the benefits of a complicated double agent operation, which was planned to
lead into expulsions of first-rate KGB diplomats (e.g. Zhenikhov and Vladimirov).
The plan was quietly dropped. Supo Archives, personal file no. 11572; the file on
Soviet espionage, no. XXIII E 1 – 26.
39 Immediately after the occupation of Czechoslovakia, Kekkonen was most
upset and offended by the fact that the Soviets had blatantly lied to an old
customer like himself right to his face. Kekkonen’s diary, 22 and 23 Aug. 1968.

279
Kimmo Rentola

used to show up in Helsinki to explain some unexcepted turns of events,40

was not available after the occupation of Czechoslovakia. He was busy in
Prague as the chief KGB foreign intelligence representative there. Back
in Helsinki in 1971, he did not mention this komandirovka to Kekkonen.
Nor did V. M. Vladimirov say, showing up again in 1970, where had he
been meanwhile. This British style gentleman had been the head of the
KGB department responsible for sabotage, assassinations and the like.
Probably he told Kekkonen as much as he wrote in his memoirs: in the
meantime, he had been involved in ‘some issues in Soviet-Chinese and
Soviet-Czechoslovak relations.’
Most of the prominent Helsinki KGB hands worked almost their
whole career in Finnish affairs. Many were involved with Finland for
more than thirty years. The language effectively chained an officer to
Helsinki. Foreign intelligence insiders believed that members of their
‘Finnish mafia’ looked like Finns, dressed like Finns, behaved like Finns.
They were reticent, phlegmatic, and slow, liked the sauna, skiing, hard
drinking and even weather ‘almost as their own.’41 On some occasions it
is plausible that KGB officers could see where the situation would lead to
sooner and better than their superiors in the Kremlin. When Finland’s free
trade agreement with the EEC was negotiated, Kotov said to Kekkonen
that he ‘disagrees with the Soviet leadership’ and thinks that the official
(strictly negative) Soviet line was faulty. He said he believed that in the
end Moscow would allow the Finns to sign up with Brussels.42

WESTERN ATTITUDES

Western intelligence knew about the close relations between Kekkonen

and the KGB. The most critical moment came after 15 December 1961,
when KGB major Anatoli Golitsyn (in Finland Klimov) defected from
Helsinki to the CIA. The Soviets told Kekkonen that Golitsyn was ‘a very

40 E.g. the defection of Golitsyn, the assassination of Kennedy, the dismissal of

Khrushchev, the foreign political turn of the SDP right wing leader Leskinen.
41 As described by Gordievsky in O. Gordievsky and I. Rogatchi, Sokea peili:
Ihmisiä vallan ja vakoilun puristuksessa. Helsinki: WSOY 1997, 166.
42 Kekkonen’s diary, 3 Jan. 1973.

280
 President Urho Kekkonen of Finland and the KGB

low-level official and knew almost nothing’,43 having served in Helsinki

only for a short period and against the main enemy, not in Finnish affairs.
But it turned out that he had picked up more than gossip about KGB
political operations. He told the Americans about the prevalence of the
political field in the Helsinki KGB operations, and gave several names
and code names for Soviet ‘agents of influence’ in Finnish political life,
and even a list of restaurants used for meetings.44
Americans discussed the revelations with Kekkonen himself. The
president ‘received the information calmly, and with keen interest, and
did not contest it’. He ‘also mentioned that some people, because of the
positions held by them, were required to be in regular contacts with the
Soviets and might give an impression they were being used.’ Thanking
the Americans for the information, the president said that he would now
be able to warn the next prime minister to be careful when appointing
new Cabinet ministers.45
Despite this last rather comical remark and his outward calm,
Kekkonen was nervous. As a cautionary measure, for two years he did
not meet directly with the new KGB resident, Yuri Voronin.46 It seems,
43 Kekkonen’s diary, 13 Jul. 1963. The information had been given at some point
earlier, but Kekkonen recalled it here in connection with the West German Felfe
case.
44 According to the list received by Finnish military intelligence, Eero A. Wuori
was ‘Moses’, the splinter social democratic leader Aarre Simonen was ‘Sika’
(Swine), but Kustaa Vilkuna was under a neutral name ‘Ville’. P. Salminen,
Puolueettomuuden nimeen. Helsinki: Suomen mies 1995, 146, 189. In the Supo
Archives, file amp XV U 1 b, there is a list of 28 KGB and GRU officers, written
down by and by the Finnish security police chief Armas Alhava, no title, no
signature, no date, but late 1962.
45 A memo from the US Government to the Swedish Prime Minister Tage
Erlander, given on 20 Jan 1962, published as an appendix in J. Widén, Notkrisen
och dess efterspel: USA:s relationer med Sverige under en av kalla krigets
höjdpunkter, oktober 1961-mars 1962. Stockholm: Forskningsprogrammet
Sverige under kalla kriget 2004.
46 In Kekkonen’s diaries, no private meetings with Voronin are recorded, except
one, on 5 Apr. 1964. Of course, there could have been meetings not recorded
by him, but this seems improbable, because he eagerly recorded (and directed)
meetings with Voronin by others close to him, as Ahti Karjalainen or Arvo Korsi-
mo (19 Jan. 1963, 19 Mar. 1963, 8 Nov. 1963 and several others). During this
period, Kotov frequently visited Helsinki to consult Kekkonen in case of important

281
Kimmo Rentola

however, that the main Western conclusion drawn from Golitsyn’s

revelations was that the West must take a more positive and constructive
attitude to Kekkonen to avoid pushing him completely to the Soviet side.
The Swedish Prime Minister Tage Erlander was urged by the US to pay
more attention (in a positive sense) to Kekkonen. This he did.
In August 1963, Rex Bosley of the British intelligence showed up
in Helsinki to talk with Kekkonen about the revelations. He said that on
Golitsyn’s list of top Finns ‘in Soviet service’ were the two leaders of
the splinter social democratic party (Emil Skog and Aarre Simonen), the
commander of the Helsinki City Police (Erik Gabrielsson), and last but
not least, Urho Kekkonen himself. ‘Was there really “in Soviet service”?
Kekkonen asked. ‘That’s what he said’, Bosley responded, but then
explained that the West considered the president as a mysterious political
figure, close to Khrushchev, but not ‘in service’. Kekkonen was relieved.
In his diary he pondered the proper way to get it known in Moscow
that he was considered mysterious, ‘even suspected’ by the West. This
information ‘would strengthen my position in the Soviet Union.’47
Here, Kekkonen reaped the fruit of sharing of his assessments of
Soviet leaders with Western intelligence circles. His most important
Western contact was Reginald ‘Rex’ Bosley, whom he for an unknown
reason called ‘Art Dealer’ (Taulukauppias).48 Bosley, who had served in
Finland in the 1940s, showed up in 1957 to say that there was a group
in the British government willing to keep up unofficial contacts with
the Finnish president.49 By the mid-60s, Bosley had visited Kekkonen

developments. Voronin’s predecessor V. V. Zhenikhov, whom Kekkonen met

frequently, lost his job because of the defection of his subordinate.
47 Kekkonen’s diary, 29 Aug. 1963. Bosley also told about the case of Penkovsky,
‘the biggest spy that can be imagined’. Due to him, the West saw that the Soviet
Union is not as strong as it was trying to make others believe. The damage he did
to the Soviets was irreparable. Years later, Bosley said that Golitsyn had claimed
that Kekkonen was ‘a spy hired by them’, but the SIS had rejected the accusation
‘by saying that UKK [Kekkonen] is their spy.’ Kekkonen’s diary, 5 Nov. 1975.
48 Information about the nickname given to the author by Gen. Urpo Levo,
who was the president’s aide-de-camp and organized many of his clandestine
meetings.
49 J. Suomi, Kriisien aika: Urho Kekkonen 1956–1962. Helsinki: Otava 1992,
108.

282
 President Urho Kekkonen of Finland and the KGB

more than 20 times.50 In the US archives there is a memo on a frank and

detailed discussion between Kekkonen and ‘a British friend’ at the height
of the Note Crisis in 1961.51
If we can infer from topics discussed, the Swedish industrialist Marcus
Wallenberg might have served as Kekkonen’s intelligence channel to
some circles in the West.52

THE BREZHNEV PERIOD

Three weeks after Khrushchev’s fall, the new Soviet leadership restored
the direct KGB contact with Kekkonen. The new resident in Helsinki,
V. S. Stepanov, was of Karelian (or Finnish) origin and had a perfect
command of language. Immediately on arrival he wanted to meet in the
presidential sauna, to declare that he, unlike the ambassador, had direct
contact with Brezhnev. ‘Has he?’ Kekkonen pondered, and had his close
ally ask Albert Akulov of the KGB political line if this was really the
case. Envious of his new boss, Akulov declared that it was he who had the
direct link to Brezhnev and not Stepanov, ‘at least not yet’.53 This incident
shows a new feature: the Soviets, including KGB officers, slandered
each other and even criticized their top leaders. Early on, after the Cuban
missile crisis, Kotov had said that ‘some people in the USSR, he among
them, had considered Khrushchev’s policy towards the US too soft. But
the decision had to be made quickly and the other line would probably
have led to the occupation of Cuba [by the US].’54 When Brezhnev came

50 Kekkonen’s diary, 9 Jul. 1965. On this visit, Bosley said that Shelepin would
take over the Soviet leadership.
51 National Archives (US), Record Group 84, Box 7, folder 320, Finland-USSR
1959–1961, Memo on a discussion between Kekkonen and a friend on 6 Nov.
1961, 8 Nov. 1961, published by J. Aunesluoma in Finnish in Historiallinen
Aikakauskirja, vol. 100 (2002: 2). Nothing has so far turned up in the British
archives.
52 When the KGB Helsinki rezident gave Kekkonen a rather extensive account
of Soviet leaders’ thinking on the war in Vietnam, the next day Kekkonen told
Wallenberg about it. Kekkonen’s diary, 27 and 28 Mar. 1965.
53 Kekkonen’s diary, 7 and 10 Nov. 1964.
54 Kekkonen’s diary, 9 Jan. 1963.

283
Kimmo Rentola

to power, the KGB channel produced a frank assessment about the new
leader: ‘That’s a stupid guy.’55 Kekkonen probably agreed.56
Through the new rezident, Kekkonen first tried to promote ideas
developed during the Khrushchev era, such as the exchange of Finnish
recognition of the German Democratic Republic for the return of the
city of Vyborg (in Finnish, Viipuri) with surroundings, lost in the Second
World War.57 Initially, the KGB man was eager, but the new ideological
climate in Moscow did not turn out to be favourable. After the occupation
of Czechoslovakia, Kekkonen dropped the idea.
KGB efforts to influence Finnish political life were facilitated by the
fact that, hoping for entrance into the government, traditional anti-Soviet
parties were changing their line and beginning to strive for Soviet contacts,
the Social Democrats from the mid-60s and then also the Conservatives.
Kekkonen thus lost the argument that if the Russians did not deal with
him, worse forces would take over in Finland. On the other hand, Soviet
positions were weakened by electoral losses suffered by the traditional
customer parties, the Agrarians and the Communists, and by currents
inside these two parties which favoured distancing themselves from the
Soviets. On the surface, all relevant forces took their oaths of loyalty
to friendship and the ‘Paasikivi-Kekkonen line’, but deeper and hidden
forces were fiercely competing with each other, and on both sides.
Around 1970, the Soviets were even afraid of ‘losing’ Finland. A silent
crisis developed, when the CPSU International Department – backed by
Suslov and, to an extent, Brezhnev – were trying to introduce a more
distinct left-wing domination in Finnish political life after Kekkonen, who
was believed to be retiring. Deputy head of the international department,

55 Kekkonen’s diary, 17 Oct. 1964. Which one of the Soviets said this is not
written down. The entry was written on the basis of the discussions Kekkonen’s
close ally Korsimo had in Moscow with the former Helsinki resident Zhenikhov
about the reasons for Khrushchev’s dismissal.
56 When British Prime Minister Harold Wilson suggested that Brezhnev would
do as a secretary general for the Transport Workers’ Union, whereas Kosygin
could be an excellent chairman for the Imperial Chemical Industries, Kekkonen
agreed, but did not offer further criticism of Brezhnev. Instead, he gave his
thoughts on how this kind of a man had been able to come to power. The National
Archives (UK), Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) 33/724, Record of
conversation between Wilson and Kekkonen, 17 Jul. 1969.
57 Kekkonen’s diary 19 Oct. and 16 Nov. 1965.

284
 President Urho Kekkonen of Finland and the KGB

Aleksei Belyakov, was appointed ambassador to promote these ideas. The

KGB, however, wanted to continue business as usual with Kekkonen and
after him with his more docile pupil, Ahti Karjalainen.58 Kekkonen and
the KGB prevailed, the ambassador was pulled out after seven months
in office.
During this crisis Kekkonen showed an additional feature in his
dealings. Aware of the fact that the KGB would not trust his word only,
Kekkonen wrote memorandums about what the president was believed
to be thinking, and these were then given to the KGB by his personal
intelligence chief, Professor Kustaa Vilkuna, who was a long-time regular
agent in the KGB books.59 So, the KGB obtained both the president’s direct
views and secret agent information about these, both of which had been
carefully prepared by Kekkonen himself. In the agent reports, the Soviets
were sometimes criticized rather sharply for their insufficient support
for the president in his difficult task. The president was described to be
very depressed because of the Soviets having let him down, ‘completely
alone (…) without the slightest help from any of yours.’60 The brightest
KGB chiefs in Helsinki possibly guessed that also this agent information
originated from Kekkonen, but they could not afford to destroy a pattern
certainly appreciated by the Centre. Of course, the KGB probably had
also real (but weaker) agent sources around Kekkonen.
KGB purists accused the Helsinki political line of becoming a branch
of diplomacy. Where were actual agents, meeting in secret, taking orders,
doing as they were told to and getting paid for it?61 The Helsinki hands
responded by inflating numbers and by recording contacts as agents,62 and
58 A detailed description and assessment of this crisis in K. Rentola, Vallan-
kumouksen aave: Vasemmisto, Kekkonen ja Beljakov 1970. Helsinki: Otava
2005, part of which published as ’Der Vorschlag einer europäischen Konferenz
für Sicherheit und die stille Krise zwischen Finnland und der Sowjetunion’, in
Neutralität – Chance oder Chimäre? Konzepte des dritten Weges für Deutsch-
land und die Welt 1945–1990, Hrsg. D. Geppert u. U. Wengst. München: Institut
für Zeitgeschichte 2005, 177–202
59 This kind of ploy is mentioned in Kekkonen’s diary on 7 Dec. 1970.
60 Kekkonen Archives, Yearbook for 1971, P.M. on 1 Apr. 1971, no signature,
Kekkonen’s note: ‘Vilkuna to Vladimirov’.
61 O. Kalugin, Proshchai, Lubyanka! Moskva: Olimp 1995, 225.
62 According to Gordievsky (1997, 124–6) the KGB political line in Helsinki
in the 1970s had 33 actual agents, 33 confidential contacts, and 25 targets under

285
Kimmo Rentola

by trying to prove that operative conditions in Finland were extremely

complicated and very difficult.63 Operatives with experience of big
powers ridiculed this: how come a tiny security police with a hundred
officers could create difficult conditions? But the Helsinki hands did not
bow down. On the contrary, V. M. Vladimirov proved ‘scientifically’
in his dissertation in the KGB Academy that in specific (and difficult)
operative conditions it was necessary to shift emphasis from traditional
agent operations to modern contact network, through which all necessary
information could be obtained.64
By the 1970s, the Brezhnev stagnation began to take its toll on KGB
operations in Finland. Discipline was slackening, there were instances
of corruption and various side efforts. In 1973, the former KGB resident
to Helsinki, V. S. Stepanov, asked Kekkonen to propose to Brezhnev
and Podgornyi that he, Stepanov, be appointed as Soviet ambassador
to Helsinki.65 After some hesitation, Kekkonen agreed, fearing that the
arrogant Karelian might get his appointment even without his support.
Kekkonen might have been tempted to play various Soviet interests and
bureaucracies against each other in order to gain more latitude; he was
aware of intense rivalry between Soviet actors, but that was a dangerous
game and uncertainties were huge. In any case, Stepanov was appointed,
but forced to resign from the KGB.66 In Helsinki, his arrival made a
mess of the KGB high level network and in particular of relations with
Kekkonen. As ambassador and ‘Vice President of Finland’, as he liked to
present himself, Stepanov was in charge of official relations, but he also
development. The total figure corresponds with the records of the Finnish security
police, where the KGB political line officers in Helsinki in 1970 had 101 recorded
contacts persons who were met more or less regularly. However, it seems absurd
that 33 of these could have been agents in any meaningful sense.
63 Estonian State Archives (ERAF) library, KGB collection, Memo by Capt.
A.P. Akulov, ‘Agenturno-operativnoe obstanovki v Finlyandii: Obshchii obzor’
(KGB copy, secret, no. 55), 1968.
64 Kalugin (1995, 225) says that Vladimirov’s conclusion was strongly supported
by Kryuchkov, new head of foreign intelligence from 1971.
65 V. Stepanov to Kekkonen, dated 20.9. but should be 20.11.1973, published in
Kirjeitä myllärille 1956–1981, ed. by P. Lähteenkorva & J. Pekkarinen. Helsinki:
Otava 2000, 369.
66 Kalugin, Proshchai, Lubyanka!, 224. The English translation does not include
passages on Kekkonen.

286
 President Urho Kekkonen of Finland and the KGB

wanted to control his old area of confidential contacts, despite the fact
that the KGB was represented by a very senior officer, Mikhail Kotov.
‘Kotov mildly criticized Stepanov’, Kekkonen noted.67 The two Soviets
‘seem to be on bad terms. K. of course is jealous of S.’68
After Kotov, the Helsinki residency was taken over for two years by a
son-in-law to somebody high up, a completely incapable know-nothing,
not even able to speak Finnish, Swedish or German, the three languages
Kekkonen knew. The president did not even get his name right. ‘Kotov’s
successor’, he noted in his diaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Some preliminary conclusions can be drawn.

First, the information currents. By 1970, there could not be any
significant political secrets in Finland for the Soviets. Discussing the
fate of the presidency and the successor problem with Kotov, Kekkonen
noted that the KGB resident ‘knew everything, even things I did not
know.’69 In political terms, Finland was transparent to the Soviets and
their network enabled them to influence matters heavily. Kekkonen for
his part received every kind of Moscow rumour and unique information
on Soviet leaders, their way of thinking, even hidden motives,70 and their
pecking order, although even he was often surprised and disappointed by
their actions.
Second, it is possible that Soviet intelligence operations in other areas,
such as traditional military intelligence, were a bit neglected in Finland.

67 Kekkonen’s diary, 15 Jul. 1975.

68 Kekkonen’s diary, 25 Nov. 1975.
69 Kekkonen’s diary, 23 Oct. 1972. Earlier, Kotov had a more traditional boast
that ’we know better than you, what the people of Finland are thinking and talking
about in railway carriages, restaurants, officers’ clubs….’ Kekkonen’s diary, 25
Nov. 1963.
70 On the Soviet leaders’ concerns inside the Socialist camp, Stepanov said
that the situation in Poland was becoming better and Gomulka’s position was
strengthening, whereas in Czechoslovakia the new leadership was losing control.
‘In both countries, the Zionists are guilty.’ Kekkonen’s diary, 6 Apr. 1968.

287
Kimmo Rentola

Not that there was much to hide, but this was quite a difficult terrain to
penetrate into, as were some other ‘hard’ branches of the Finnish state.
Third, for political reasons and to boost their network, the KGB
regularly helped Kekkonen and Finnish industries to get huge profitable
deals, which they in purely economic terms would probably not have got.
What was even more important, through his contacts Kekkonen was able
to obtain Soviet approval for Finnish participation in Western economic
integration. Thus, KGB contacts strengthened capitalism in Finland.

CODA

Kekkonen was as skillful an operator as anybody connected with the KGB,

but his last days in office were unavoidably melancholic. In June 1981,
Brezhnev informed the CPSU politburo that because of his worsening
health, Kekkonen is thinking of withdrawing from office rather soon. (In
fact, he had two months to go.) As for the successor, he no longer repeated
his earlier negative views of his former protégé Ahti Karjalainen, but
the latter had meanwhile acquired a notorious reputation, drinking too
much and getting involved in scandalous situations. Kekkonen had said
to the KGB resident – now again a competent officer, V. M. Vladimirov
– that his most suitable successor would be Jaakko Pajula, director of the
National Pension Fund.
This was an ‘utterly unexpected turn’ for the KGB. Pajula was not
generally known, and lacked a strong political base. The KGB was
astray, in this decisive moment they could not offer any advice at all
to the Kremlin, nor were they able to assess how the situation would
develop in the nearest future.71
Kekkonen did not record anything of this in his diary; possibly he
did not remember the details afterwards. It is difficult to believe that
such a renowned tactician could produce such a silly and unrealistic idea.
As loyal supporters of Kekkonen, Pajula and his friend Olavi J. Mattila
(whose name was mentioned in an earlier KGB-inspired successor
plan) had been promoted to high positions in state-controlled parts of
economic life, but they did not carry any political weight of their own.

71 Russian State Archives for Contemporary History (RGANI), f. 89, per. 42, d.
44, str. 5, Zasedaniya politburo TsK KPSS, Rabochaya zapis’, 18 Jun 1981.

288
 President Urho Kekkonen of Finland and the KGB

In the last instance, both Kekkonen himself and the KGB lost control of
the most important lever of Finnish-Soviet relations, that of the Finnish
presidency. The limits of the KGB influence were shown by the fact that
Kekkonen’s successor, social democrat Mauno Koivisto, was elected
without clear Soviet support, even against their wishes.72

72 Koivisto preserved the KGB contact inherited from Kekkonen and took care
of many vital issues through that channel. Only at the collapse of the Soviet
Union, he informed the last KGB resident Feliks Karasev that this system was
now over and henceforth issues between the states would proceed through regular
diplomatic channels.

289