Being close to Russian is a good indicator on how much you are willing to go to war.
So I agree with other comments, probably people that feels threatened read the question as "I'm willing to protect my country from an outside attacker". While people in "safer" places read it as "I'm willing to go to war with another country for some strategic/economic interest". (Judging by my own ethics, I guess)
I don't think its that simple. The question is "willing to fight a war". German people have learned that when Germany goes to war it is usually not for the best of the country. On the other hand, Germany had "the threat" next door for 40+ years and the willingness to defend was very high. So I think when you ask Germans this question, they will consider the question as if it were "Are you willing to fight an attack war?", not "... to defend your country".
Finland is probably exactly the other way around.
It should also be considered that central Europe has been a very stable place for some time, so somewhat similar reasons will probably apply to other countries as well; wars are not fought in the home countries of central Europeans any more; wars are in the east or south, so when a European country today starts a war, it's difficult to not consider it an attack war along at least one dimension.
Needless to say, "the aggressor in an attack war is practically always the bad guy" has pretty much become kind of a European core tenet.
What I found interesting is that Sweden, which has had peace for over 200 years, has a really high percentage.
For comparison: Ukraine has 77% Ukrainians Finland has 89% Fins
I couldn't find ethnic information by age group or how the question was exactly posed and who exactly was interviewed. Depending on each factor the results of this study might be heavily skewed for Latvia.
The number you present for Finland is highly misleading, by the way. We have around 6 % of Swedish-speaking Finns but they almost all speak Finnish, have very deep roots in Finland and certainly identify as Finns just as much as the rest of us -- and definitely not as Swedes. Swedish is even the second official language. As for the rest, I'm sure most of the citizens growing up in an Estonian, Russian, Somali etc. speaking household identify as Finns, too.
Japan with 11% is really amazing, and yet it's near real threats with China and North Korea.
It would seem, countries who remember what war is actually like, would rather not fight; that would explain the results of Japan, Germany, France, Spain, the UK. The only exception is Russia, who suffered immensely during WW2 and yet would apparently fight again?
Or does it have something to do with age?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Russo-G...
edit: also, your nickname seems very fitting. You a Stalin fan?
And that Boeing? Really? The evidence for this claim is even worse than for Saddam's WMDs. You didn't even ask yourself cui bono?
And Russia. Japan was the first industrial country to win a war with Russia, so there's some history there as well as with the rest of the Pacific.
At the dawn of WW2, Poles weren't innocent bystander either. They happily tooks parts of Czechoslovakia.
If you don't know, Lenin proclaimed that Bolsheviks aren't successors to Tsarist Russia.
Besides, as I said - Poland had the same rights to these territories, so it was a fair game of whoever captured them first.
And if we're talking about broken agreements - Bolsheviks broke that agreement first.
Nice double standards.
It is often used as an argument, that USSR invaded Poland (see above) and therefore they were literally Hitler.
What is forgetten is the B side of the coin, which is the content of this thread.
Keep telling yourself that. With a sufficient twist, you can rationalize anything!
Please, check your facts better.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJwoygYdTmY is an exchange between Tusk and Putin on the topic. I haven't found a better video.
About the Molotov negotiation, it is in the book by Nikolai Starikov, Who set Hitler against Stalin?, (ISBN 978-5-496-00332-2). It is in Russian, unfortunately. Excerpts have been translated to English, the part I was talking about is here: https://orientalreview.org/2015/04/18/episode-15-poland-betr...
Also that guy Starikov is nota a historian, but an ultra-right nationalist playing current Kremlin tune. So his "works" should be taken with a truckloads of salt.
Or you plan to detail the discussion by switching context to talking about far-right fiction?
Have a nice day.
[1]: Only one major Finnish city (Viipuri) was occupied by the USSR (after the civilian population of the city was evacuated).
Finland also lost Karelia and other territories in the Winter war. Nominally a different war, but for finns it's a one long conflict with Stalin's Russia.
I think other explanations (including geographically induced ways of interpreting the question) are rather more likely.
The most close to the threat is being the threat, so I'm not disagreeing.