Let's have an open and objective look at these factors, but also discuss them in a friendly and respectful atmosphere. There will be views that many will not sympathise with, but then there is a chance here to point out where they might be going wrong.
The above is from your opening post. I am more than willing to discuss critcal opinions but currently your comments in this thread come very close the following: the war was hopeless thus Finnish leaders must have made big mistakes, please tell me what they were.This does not sound like wanting to learn/discuss the issue, more like a desire to strengthen an attitude.
If we cannot understand the framework in which decisions were made, it is going to be very difficulty to discuss critical opinions and point out where they might be going wrong or why they are correct. If we accept the view that you expressed earlier on about winning wars, discussing critical opinions is pretty worthless. Finland was at the end of the day prepared to fight a war that could not be won and it was known from the beginning. So we can just state that it was all a colossal mistake, end of critique. If on the other hand we accept the idea that the basis of decision making was something else than winning, situation changes considerably.
Critical voices were expressed already before the war. Mannerheim was certain that the policy Finnish government had adopted would lead to war with Soviet Union, a war which Finland could not win. So he saw winning in the same manner as you do. Still his strategy was not based on winning. Interesting contradiction, wouldn't you say?
Paasikivi called Winter War "Erkko's war" and thought already before the war that the mandate he got for the Moscow negotiations was unrealistic. This he also told to Erkko and got some support from Mannerheim. Both Paasikivi and Mannerheim were willing to give the Soviets what they wanted. Paasikivi in the name of "real politik" and Mannerhein in order to buy time to build up the army and getting allies. But was their thinking correct? President Kallio, of whom you pointed out that he was out of touch of foreign policy issues, stressed right and wrong as basis of decision making. But did he read the situation better than those who knew more about foreign policy?