von Adlercreutz,
First you need to understand that the topic of war in Russia is now heavily politicized. Russia had a national identity crisis after the fall of USSR and current national elite tries to rebuilt it around the "Great Patriotic War" (Russian name for the battles at the Eastern Front of WWII). This produces a very glamorized version of the events of the war which isn't much interested in historical truth but mostly serves as an instrument of propaganda.
In this picture there is a very limited place for the history of Russian - Finish relations. Objectively speaking, in relations with Finland Stalin and his cabal demonstrated cruelty and stupidity well beyond any possible human measure and failed miserably in all their schemes. This is a very straightforward story and it is really difficult to twist the facts in such a way to conceal it. That's why, yes, wars with Finland are usually marginalized and pushed to sidenotes. Sometimes you may hear extravagant claims like "Red Army perfomed better in Winter War than any other army would do in these conditions", "Finns were evil, they wanted to conquer Korelia" or even: "we only wanted to move the border away from Leningrad, why Finns were so pricky about this!?" (the official version of the Winter War in Soviet times, btw.). Saner heads, however, prefer to downplay the issue: "well, there was some local war; but, well, everyone was at war at this time, SU and Finns felt kind of left out; why couldn't they have their share of good fighting? what's even your point?" In a popular view Soviet - Finnish wars tend to be merged into a general narrative of a heroic war against a Nazi invasion.
Of course, there is also a contrarian literature: after all, not everyone is eager to build national identity around glorifying bloodbath. These authors aren't especially interested in truth either and mostly want to dig every possible fact (or slender) which portray Soviet Union in the worst possible light. For these guys wars with Finland are a goldmine and they write extensively about them. They rely on Finnish sources a lot (incuding, I think, some obvious war propaganda) and present a very pro-Finnish version of events. I can't trust them but they at least have some genuine interest in the subject.
On a personal note, I always deeply admired how Finns fought for their liberty and independence at seemingly impossible odds and prevailed in the end. Even when Soviet Union was installing puppet governments all over the Eastern Europe, Finland remained independent - in a large part due to ferocity of Finnish soldiers in 1944. And make no mistake, you, guys, have avoided a truly terrible fate: ask any person from the Baltic states to the south of you which have chosen to just surrender. Sacrifices which you made to fight back the Soviets were entirely worth it.
First you need to understand that the topic of war in Russia is now heavily politicized. Russia had a national identity crisis after the fall of USSR and current national elite tries to rebuilt it around the "Great Patriotic War" (Russian name for the battles at the Eastern Front of WWII). This produces a very glamorized version of the events of the war which isn't much interested in historical truth but mostly serves as an instrument of propaganda.
In this picture there is a very limited place for the history of Russian - Finish relations. Objectively speaking, in relations with Finland Stalin and his cabal demonstrated cruelty and stupidity well beyond any possible human measure and failed miserably in all their schemes. This is a very straightforward story and it is really difficult to twist the facts in such a way to conceal it. That's why, yes, wars with Finland are usually marginalized and pushed to sidenotes. Sometimes you may hear extravagant claims like "Red Army perfomed better in Winter War than any other army would do in these conditions", "Finns were evil, they wanted to conquer Korelia" or even: "we only wanted to move the border away from Leningrad, why Finns were so pricky about this!?" (the official version of the Winter War in Soviet times, btw.). Saner heads, however, prefer to downplay the issue: "well, there was some local war; but, well, everyone was at war at this time, SU and Finns felt kind of left out; why couldn't they have their share of good fighting? what's even your point?" In a popular view Soviet - Finnish wars tend to be merged into a general narrative of a heroic war against a Nazi invasion.
Of course, there is also a contrarian literature: after all, not everyone is eager to build national identity around glorifying bloodbath. These authors aren't especially interested in truth either and mostly want to dig every possible fact (or slender) which portray Soviet Union in the worst possible light. For these guys wars with Finland are a goldmine and they write extensively about them. They rely on Finnish sources a lot (incuding, I think, some obvious war propaganda) and present a very pro-Finnish version of events. I can't trust them but they at least have some genuine interest in the subject.
On a personal note, I always deeply admired how Finns fought for their liberty and independence at seemingly impossible odds and prevailed in the end. Even when Soviet Union was installing puppet governments all over the Eastern Europe, Finland remained independent - in a large part due to ferocity of Finnish soldiers in 1944. And make no mistake, you, guys, have avoided a truly terrible fate: ask any person from the Baltic states to the south of you which have chosen to just surrender. Sacrifices which you made to fight back the Soviets were entirely worth it.