The Frog in the Pot: Russia’s Baltic Strategy

According to Ukraine’s intelligence chief, Putin is planning to seize the Baltic states as early as 2027. According to him, “the Russian Federation was supposed to be ready to launch operations in 2030. Now the plans have been adapted and revised so that the deadlines have been shortened to 2027.”

As Putin’s motive, the intelligence chief cited a somewhat undeniably mysterious idea that an empire must “always be moving somewhere in order to expand its influence and territories.” He believes the selection of the Baltics as the target of an attack, in turn, is due to their weakness in the Arctic region compared to the United States and China, which Russia would face in other directions.

* * *

The fact, however, is that all three Baltic states are members of NATO, and as such they enjoy the security guarantees of the world’s most powerful military alliance. According to Article Five, "the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all".

It further states that “each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence… will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”

* * *

However, Article Five does not define the level of force with which an attack against a member state would be answered. It therefore does not state that an attack on a member state would be met with sufficient force, or with NATO’s full military power, or that tens of thousands of NATO troops would be deployed to the Baltics after an attack.

Let alone that the attacker would be threatened with full-scale nuclear war in such a situation. Instead, Article Five merely states that the response will consist of actions deemed necessary.

* * *

Therefore, the key question from Russia’s perspective—if it wishes to attack the Baltics—is the nature and scale of the actions that NATO countries would deem necessary. And I do not consider it impossible that Russia might—most likely only after the war in Ukraine has ended—want to find out.

This could of course occur through a large-scale offensive or by carrying out—successfully—a blitzkrieg (“special operation,” po-russkii), in which the Baltics would be occupied in a matter of days. Such an approach, however, would involve enormous risks—even the possibility of nuclear war—which Russia would more likely seek to avoid by using the so-called “frog in a pot of water” method and increasing its power in small steps.

The beginning of such actions could already be seen in past hybrid operations exploiting migrants from developing countries, airspace violations, balloon flights, and most recently armed border guards entering Estonian territory. For this reason, especially in Europe, it is necessary to closely monitor whether increasingly serious border violations are directed at the Baltic states in the future. And if they occur, to raise the level of readiness.

In my view, the most sensible course for NATO would be to make it clear that it will use sufficient force in all attacks directed at NATO countries to stop the attacker’s army—i.e., that it would, if necessary, ensure by all available means that the attacker is halted.

* * *

Unfortunately, there are good reasons to doubt that all NATO member states—particularly the strongest one under its current administration, or the states of Westernmost Europe—are willing to make such a commitment. And even if they were, Putin’s Russia might still choose to observe how the “frog” reacts to cautious measures to heat the pot.

For this reason, the Baltic states, other countries bordering Russia, and—next in line to attract the interest of Russian dictators—their western neighbors must themselves ensure that any potential aggression by the Moscow regime is met decisively. And they must ensure that their military capabilities are sufficient for that purpose.

Only by acting in this way can it be made clear to Putin that Russia should not even consider taking the kind of risk that Ukraine’s intelligence chief spoke of.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Should Ukraine Trust Donald Trump After Being Let Down by Barack Obama?
Estonia Needs Its Own Air Force
Kremlin’s Provocations Echo Pre-War Rhetoric on Ukraine

Concern About the Future Is Growing in Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin held his annual media spectacle, the propagandistic rambling of which was reported with varying emphasis by the Finnish media (Yle, Helsingin Sanomat). This morning, I then came across a post on social media by the Ukrainian Anton Gerashchenko, who is known for sharing his views, and whose content may have been more important than any information conveyed by Finnish news organizations.

According to him, as many as eight percent of the questions submitted for the program concerned Russia’s economic crisis, making it the third most popular topic—previously it had not even made the top ten. People wanted to know when the “bad period” of the economy would end, when price increases would stop, and why the government is raising value-added tax.

Sixteen percent of Russians also wanted to know when their standard of living would improve, and 21 percent were interested in when the war would end. These are likely rather uncomfortable questions for Putin.

* * *

In the same post, Gerashchenko also said that according to a recent opinion poll, 39 percent of Russians believe that the economic situation in their regions will worsen, compared to 33 percent a year ago, 34 percent in 2023, and 29 percent in 2022. The share of Russians who believe that life in Russia will deteriorate next year has also reached its highest level since 2022 (17%).

In other words, the consequences of the war in Ukraine are increasingly beginning to show in Russians’ everyday lives, even though—at least so far—there have been no visible (or at least serious) protests against the war. It remains to be seen at what point ordinary Russians’ concern about their own situation will lead to visible resistance against Putin’s war policy.

Or will it ever?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?

The Surprising Story of Europe’s Hippos

Hippopotamuses are the largest land animals living today after elephants and rhinoceroses. Today, the species occurs only in Africa, but remains have also been found in Europe.

They have been assumed to originate from the last interglacial period. This assumption is based on the fact that the hippopotamus is considered an indicator species of temperate climates and is thought to have gone extinct north of the Mediterranean at the onset of the Weichselian glaciation around 115,000 years ago.

* * *

A recent study by Patrik Arnold and his colleagues has now brought surprising new insights concerning European hippopotamuses. The researchers analyzed Central European hippopotamuses by sequencing the genome of one individual, which revealed a close genetic relationship between these animals and modern African hippopotamuses.

In addition, they determined six other partial mitochondrial genomes, which confirmed that the European fossils belonged to the same species as present-day African hippopotamuses. The species therefore once had a much wider distribution than today and was not always restricted to sub-Saharan Africa.

The researchers also conducted radiocarbon dating of the fossils and were greatly surprised to discover that they were much more recent than previously believed. The remains dated to the middle phase of the Weichselian glaciation, a period beginning before 47,000 years ago and ending around 31,000 years ago—that is, during the later stages of the last Ice Age.

Because radiocarbon dates of woolly mammoth and woolly rhinoceros fossils from the same sites fall within the same time range, these animals also inhabited Europe at that time. Consequently, the fauna of our continent was very different from what had previously been assumed or from what we know today.

The researchers also analyzed genetic variation in the now fully sequenced hippopotamus genome and found its genetic diversity to be low. It is therefore likely that this individual belonged to a small population that lived in isolation from other hippopotamuses.

Previous thoughts on related topics:
Deep Roots of Violence and Disregard for Human Dignity in History
The Dire Wolf and the Rights of Extinct Human Species
The Historical Merging of Human Groups

Is Hamas Running Out of Intelligent Leaders?

In my piece – written in Finnish – last year I was right in guessing that Israel has decided to eliminate Hamas leaders whenever possible. This time it was the turn of the head responsible for weapons production in the organization’s military wing.

It remains to be seen whether the Jewish state will succeed in withering the organization through this strategy. One would nevertheless assume that even if it fails to do so quantitatively, it would achieve results at least qualitatively. It is obvious that if and when assuming leadership positions in Hamas has turned into a death trap—rather than a path to ordinary enrichment—only the most thick-headed fanatics would seek them.

If I am right, this means a rapid decline in Hamas and its terrorist capabilities. And as a consequence, in the longer term—perhaps—also a decline in the organization’s popularity among ordinary Palestinians.

Thus the question is whether the logic I am applying from a Western frame of reference is correct. Or is the Muslim worldview so different that what I have written above does not apply?

In the latter case, Hamas will continue to succeed in attracting intelligent people to its leadership. If so, it leaves us Westerners to ponder what this says about Palestinians and their intellectual capacities.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland’s Foreign Minister Explained Why the States That Have Recognized Palestine Are Well-Meaning Fools
Optimism and Reality of the Gaza Peace Proposal
An Unexpected Endorsement of Professor’s Views

Reflections on the Terrorist Attack in Australia

Today in Australia, a terrorist attack was carried out against Jews celebrating Hanukkah. At the moment it appears that 12 people have lost their lives and 29 have been injured in this senseless act.

One of the attackers is a ‘Sydney man,’ Naveed Akram, which points to an Islamist motive. Of course, this can also be inferred from the choice of target.

What makes the incident unusual is that an Australian in civilian clothes took a weapon away from one of the terrorists. After that, another person even threw something at him—apparently a stone. Well done to both, although such civilian bravery cannot be recommended to anyone, as it can turn out badly.

On a general level, this case once again demonstrated the risk posed to the native population by the Muslim population living in Western countries. At the same time, it reinforced the negative stigma often attached to all Muslims. For this reason, it would be sensible and wise, for the sake of the Islamic community living throughout the West, to ensure that such attacks no longer occur.

Therefore, the lesson of the Australian case is clear from Europe’s point of view: it is not advisable to increase our country’s Muslim population beyond its current size. This is not changed by the fact that Australian Muslim communities have condemned the attack, because the act seen here was unfortunately not an isolated case, nor was the group of perpetrators random.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Donald Trump Called a Shooter an Animal
Just Another Case of Multiculturality in Manchester, UK
Understanding of European Terrorism by Left-wing and Value-liberal Politicians

The Outbreak of the Continuation War Between Finland and the Soviet Union

In recent days, Finland has been engaged in a discussion about the outbreak of the Continuation War between Finland and Russia as part of the Second World War. The debate began when Finland’s largest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat (HS), published an article with a headline claiming that “Elina Valtonen forgot the Continuation War on television.”

It claimed that Finland had attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, at the beginning of the Continuation War. This stirred up a lot of debate—and perhaps even some lipstick-splashing—because it is an indisputable fact that the Soviet Union initiated the hostilities of the Continuation War.

* * *

The Finnish-language Wikipedia states the matter—immediately under the subheading “The war begins”—as follows:
“The Soviet Union’s attacks against Finland began on 22 June 1941 at 6:05 a.m., when the Soviet Union opened artillery fire from the Hanko base at Finnish targets in the archipelago and on the mainland, and launched air raids against Finnish ships at sea. On the same day, the Soviet Union carried out several artillery strikes on the eastern border.

According to the same source, ‘after this, on the same day Finland participated in the mining of the southern Gulf of Finland. Germany had launched Operation Barbarossa at 3:00 a.m., and German aircraft that had conducted mine-laying flights from East Prussia to the Leningrad region landed at the Utti airfield on their return journey to refuel. The Soviet Union continued its air and artillery strikes against Finnish military targets in Finland. Finland refrained from returning fire and attempted to assert its neutrality in the new war.’”

And again, quoting Wikipedia:
“On 25 June 1941, the Soviet Air Force bombed Helsinki, Turku, Heinola, and Porvoo as well as a dozen other localities with about 500 aircraft, of which 27 were shot down over Finnish territory. Based on these bombings and previous events, in a communication submitted to Parliament the government concluded that the country had entered a state of war. Parliament accepted this position. Later that same day, 25 June, Prime Minister Jukka Rangell stated on the radio that Finland was once again at war with the Soviet Union…. War was declared on 26 June 1941. The Finnish Army and German troops stationed in Finland began the land offensive.”

* * *

HS has later attempted to correct its mistake with an addition stating that “Finland declared a state of war only after the Soviet Union had bombed Finland, but Finland had already before this made extensive offensive preparations to join the war alongside Germany. Finland’s objective was to occupy large areas of the Soviet Union beyond those that had been lost in the Winter War.”

This correction is indeed in the right direction, but it is still misleading. It was the Soviet Union that unambiguously initiated the Continuation War. And, incidentally, it committed what would today be considered a serious crime against humanity, since terror bombings—even against countries allegedly preparing for war—aimed at civilian populations are indisputably such acts.

The Red Army Air Force bombings of 25 June were unquestionably exactly that—state terrorism. And it is equally indisputable that Finland began its own offensive operations only after those attacks.

For the first three days of the war, all Finnish military operations had been defensive. And that’s not all: as can be seen even from the Wikipedia excerpts I cited above, Finland had refrained even from some defensive actions.

* * *

It must of course be acknowledged that German soldiers had arrived in Finland. It is also well known that many of Finland’s political leaders at the time wished to avenge the defeat of the Winter War.

I personally find Heikki Ylikangas’s view quite plausible—that this idea had been adopted, as a result of Hermann Göring’s persuasion, already at the end of the Winter War.

However, this does not change the truth that Finland was not the aggressor in the Continuation War; it was Stalin’s Soviet Union. It is also a fact that since history is not an experimental science, we cannot turn back time and see whether Finland would have attacked the Soviet Union without the war initiated by Stalin.

Furthermore, one should understand about the nature of the Continuation War that although Finland’s offensive into the Soviet Union—beginning several days after the Red Army’s military actions—was undeniably a war of conquest, it was not an existential threat to the communist state. This is because Commander-in-Chief Carl Gustaf Mannerheim refused to launch an active offensive against Leningrad and did not order the continuation of the conquest beyond the three isthmuses stretching from the Gulf of Finland through Lakes Ladoga and Onega to Lake Seesjärvi. Yet conditions would have been favorable for such an advance at the time.

* * *

Based on all this, I must deeply wonder why HS, even while correcting its article, failed to present an accurate picture of the events of June 1941. Instead, it gave support to the false propaganda spread across social media in recent times by Putin’s Russia and its trolls (example), claiming that Finland was a Nazi state that attacked the innocent Soviet Union. The fact is that Finland never had a Nazi party in its Parliament; the only far-right party represented there, the Patriotic People’s Movement, was relatively small and not a Nazi party.

* * *

At the same time, it is necessary to correct the notion—indeed, an urban legend—that the Soviet Army was not prepared for Germany’s attack. In fact, its forces had been massively strengthened after the Winter War, so that in the summer of 1941 it was—at least on paper—much stronger than the German armed forces. And Hitler’s intelligence had failed to discover this fact.

I even consider it possible that this very fact—the presumed strength of the Soviet Army—explains the Red Army’s attack on Finland immediately after the start of Barbarossa. It is, after all, irrational that Stalin opened a new front—against a new enemy—after being forced into a defensive war against the Germans.

I justify this by arguing that Stalin may have imagined his unprecedentedly strong Red Army capable of stopping and destroying the attacking German forces, unlike the French the previous year. And as we know, that is ultimately what it did—although only after years, and with the support of massive American aid packages.

The Finnish Army, on the other hand, Stalin failed to defeat, and Helsinki remained unconquered. And therefore our history does not include a 50-year period of misery under communist dictatorship.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

Free School Education for Foreigners Ends in Finland

The Parliament of Finland approved the government’s proposal according to which students from outside the EU and EEA will in the future pay an annual fee in upper-secondary schools (lukio) and vocational institutions corresponding to the actual cost of their education. We are not talking about small sums: for example, the cost of one year of upper-secondary school can exceed 10,000 euros.

According to Statistics Finland, in 2022 there were about 35,000 foreign nationals studying in vocational education and about 3,400 in upper-secondary schools. These figures also include people from EU and EEA countries, to whom the legislative change does not apply. The largest groups in vocational schools were Estonians (around 4,500), Russians (around 4,500), Iraqis (around 3,500), Afghans (around 2,200) and Filipinos (around 2,000).

In Parliament, the proposal was opposed not only by the left-wing parties—the Greens and the Left Alliance—but also by the Centre Party. It would be interesting to know what the party’s voters think about the matter at a time when public services have been cut and will continue to be cut drastically—if not from foreigners’ services, then from Finns’.

This was also noted by MP Joakim Vigelius, who additionally stated—quite correctly—that "Finland cannot be the world’s educational hub, nor a global social service office, health centre, care home or prison. The money will not be sufficient if the number of those to be served expands to everyone crossing the border without conditions, fees or responsibilities."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Attitudes Toward Immigrants Are a Problem in Schools
Has Modern Education Strayed Too Far — and Is It Time to Change Course?
Marx in the Classroom: How Ideological Education Shaped Careers and Values

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Laitavasemmisto ja Keskusta haluaisivat Suomesta koko maailman ilmaisen koulutuskeskuksen

Independence and the Sword of Damocles

Finland became independent exactly 108 years ago. Has that been a long or a short time?

One way to look at it is that Finns of my age have lived through and experienced most of the country’s independence. And our grandparents were born in the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland within the Russian Empire.

On the other hand, Finland’s independence has lasted as long as the time it spent as part of Russia. The Finnish War was fought in 1808–09, and in the ensuing peace agreement the eastern parts of the then Kingdom of Sweden—those along the Gulf of Bothnia and in the north along the Tornio and Muonio rivers—were ceded to Russia.

During its 108 years, the autonomous Grand Duchy had only five grand dukes. The first was Alexander I, who decided to make Finland autonomous and incorporated into it the territories east of the Kymi River that Russia had previously conquered. Our last grand duke was Nicholas II, who set out to dismantle Finland’s autonomous status—something that caused widespread dissatisfaction and ultimately led to Finland’s independence.

Independent Finland has had thirteen presidents and seventy-seven governments. At the beginning of independence, strong powers were granted to the president because there was considerable monarchist sentiment among the people. Since the 1980s, however, constitutional reforms have made the government and its prime minister the country’s de facto wielders of power—excluding foreign policy, where strong presidents Sauli Niinistö and Alexander Stubb have kept the reins firmly in their own hands.

* * *

History belongs to the past, and although it is pleasant to recall, the fate of our people will be decided in the future. And so our descendants will see whether Finland is still Finnish after another 108 years—that is, in 2133.

As history shows, a great deal can happen over such a long span of time, and predicting the outcome is impossible—just as it was in December 1917. Few people back then could have imagined our life as members of the European Union and of the Western defence alliance 108 years later. And such long-term foresight is hardly possible today either.

Nevertheless, there is reason for confidence in the future, because Finland is a democracy, and as such the country’s fate lies in the hands of its people. Yet hidden within this fact is a kind of Sword of Damocles: with good decisions, the future of Finns can be at least as bright as the past 108 years, but poor decisions could lead to national decline and a harsh future for generations to come.

That is why we—and future Finns—must exercise our rightful power with care and wisdom: to secure the success of our homeland and its Finnish people.

Despite all this — or perhaps precisely because of it — I wish all of you, my esteemed readers, a very happy Finnish Independence Day!

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gender identity and the future of Finnishness
Finns - Among the World’s Best
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Itsenäisyys ja Damokleen miekka

Perspectives on Immigration Restrictions in Finland and the U.S.

You don’t have to—nor is there any reason to—like Donald Trump or everything he has done. There is, however, one thing for which he must be given credit.

His administration has suspended the processing of immigration applications from citizens of Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Sierra Leone, Togo, Equatorial Guinea, the Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Chad, Sudan, Libya, Eritrea, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, and Laos. The reason for this is that an Afghan who had gained entry to the country recently committed an act of terrorism by shooting members of the National Guard.

* * *

Over the years, Finland has also learned that people with developing-country backgrounds commit more violent and sexual offenses than others. That is why it is good that Prime Minister Petteri Orpo’s (National Coalition Party) government has tightened immigration policy.

As a result, the number of immigration applications on the basis of international protection from citizens of countries with the highest crime risk has been clearly lower last year and this year than at any point since the major migration year of 2015.

* * *

One can only hope that this development continues in the coming years and that the next government of our country does not start dismantling the progress achieved. Instead, one may hope that future policymakers will find a philosopher’s stone for how to get the developing-country immigrants who have already arrived here to adopt Finnish culture and way of life, and thereby take responsibility for their own lives here under the North Star.

One way to advance this goal is to develop criminal law in a direction that reduces the interest of crime-prone newcomers in coming to Finland, while at the same time encouraging those who are already here to live in Rome as the Romans do. In these matters, it is worthwhile to follow practices that have proven effective in other countries—including the immigration policy measures of Donald Trump’s administration—and make use of their experiences in the development of Finnish legislation.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Donald Trump Called a Shooter an Animal
Finally, Honest Reporting on Immigration and Crime
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Väkivalta- ja seksuaalirikollisuuden seuraukset