Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?

As my esteemed readers know, yesterday the United States and Israel struck Iran, killing a large number of the country’s leaders, beginning with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran, for its part, has launched its own missiles at least toward the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, Syria, Iraq and Bahrain, as well as, of course, Israel. In addition, it has closed the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranians have reacted to the events—at least according to Iranians living in Finland—by celebrating in the streets. Women symbolically with their hair uncovered, and at least some shouting the name of Reza Pahlavi, the current head of the country’s former monarchical dynasty.

On the other hand, social media also contains video material of demonstrations supporting the Iranian government. Based on what I have seen, the crowds at these demonstrations appear to be quite large.

* * *

It remains to be seen, then, how the situation in Iran will develop from here. In this respect, the absolutely central factor is the Iranian army: will it remain loyal to the Islamist regime, or will it shift to the side of those demanding change? Or, as I could well imagine, will it split into two camps that begin to wage a civil war against each other?

In any case, it is clear that neither the United States nor Israel will send their ground forces into Iran. For that reason, the country’s future is still entirely open, and it would not be surprising if it were to continue its existence in a medieval atmosphere in the future as well.

This alternative becomes more likely the longer the people demanding liberation remain without military force—that is, the longer the country’s leadership is given time to recover from its losses.

* * *

In order to clarify the situation, I asked the Gemini AI for the very latest information. It replied that “there have been reports that parts of Iran’s regular army and local security forces have refused to follow orders or have even joined the side of the protesters. Wikipedia sources and news agencies now mention ‘armed civilians’ and ‘police and military defectors’ as part of the ongoing unrest.”

In addition, according to Gemini, “there have been reports of local clashes in the regions of Kurdistan and Baluchistan. In particular, Kurdish groups (such as PJAK and PDKI) have moved from a state of readiness to actively taking up positions in their own areas.” It also stated that “there have been reports within the country of arson attacks and assaults against symbols of the regime as well as local offices of the IRGC.”

I interpret this to mean that it is not yet possible to draw conclusions about Iran’s future. In any case, however, Iranians now have an opportunity to replace their Islamist theocracy with a more civilized form of government—but the window of time for doing so may not be very long.

* * *

Finally, one observation about the possible effects of a change of power on Finnish society. It may well happen that refugees set out from the country toward Europe.

In this sense, it should be understood that these people would not be ordinary Iranians, as such people would rather return to their homeland if conditions there were to normalize. Instead, those who may set out could be Islamists who have served and/or supported the country’s tyrannical regime.

For this reason, Finland should already now state very clearly that it will not grant asylum to potential Iranian refugees in the event of a change of government, but rather that Iran will be regarded as a safe country for all its citizens—and that this assessment will not be altered by possible reports of representatives of the Islamist regime being held accountable for crimes committed over the course of half a century.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
UN Congratulates an Executioner – Credibility in Free Fall
What’s Next, Iran?
Iran at a Crossroads: From Islamist Rule Toward Democracy?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Vaihtuuko Iranissa valta?

Is Female Genital Mutilation a Lesser Crime Than Rape?

The Finnish police have launched the first preliminary investigations into the genital mutilation of girls taking place within well-known immigrant communities. Hopefully, the cases will be clarified and those responsible will be punished.

According to a news report on the matter, a person guilty of mutilating girls’ genitals — that is, so-called circumcision — may be sentenced to imprisonment ranging from one to ten years. In other words, the scale is quite broad.

For my part, I would hope that the courts eventually handling the first cases will be up to their task and refrain from applying the lowest penalties on the scale. I justify this by noting that, according to the law, even basic-form rape must result in a custodial sentence of at least one year — and surely no reasonable person can consider the permanent damage of a woman’s genitals to be a lesser act than their forced use?

It is therefore also necessary to question the reasoning of lawmakers — that is, ministers and members of parliament — who have implicitly written into law the view that causing permanent bodily harm would be equivalent to causing temporary harm. This despite the fact that rape also has lasting and serious psychological consequences — but does not mutilation, which is considered particularly brutal violence, have many times more such consequences? And does the fact that it is typically inflicted on girls of growing age not make circumcision even more condemnable?

If I were a lawmaker myself, I would have started the penalty scale for mutilation from where it ends for ordinary rapes. I would also have added to the law the deportation of the parent or parents who decided on the mutilation, if they are not native Finns. After all, the intentional damage of genital organs is an act that demonstrates complete disregard for the values and legislation of Finnish society.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will European Culture Collapse Under the Weight of Islamic Immigration?
Finnish Society Adopts Medieval Characteristics
A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women

EU Carbon Sink Policy Lacks Cost-Effectiveness

Norwegian researchers Maarit Kallio and Elias Garvik published a study on the carbon sink policy of the EU and Norway (hereafter Europe), in which achieving forest sink targets would require an immediate and steep reduction in roundwood harvesting in Europe. This reduction could amount to 113–117 million cubic meters in the years 2030–2035 compared to a market-driven scenario, meaning that the costs of emission reductions would rise to more than €700 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

According to the researchers, this would simultaneously result in roughly two-thirds of Europe’s reduction in harvesting being offset by increased tree felling elsewhere in the world, particularly in North America, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia and Chile. In other words, restricting forest harvesting would ultimately lead to a massive transfer of income from Europe to the rest of the world without delivering significant climate benefits.

In addition, the researchers found that although harvesting restrictions would increase forest carbon sinks, their overall impact on the climate would remain limited because the climate benefits of wood products would simultaneously be lost. At the same time, economic activity in our continent would decline and significant income transfers to outside Europe would occur.

Thus, the cost per tonne of emissions saved—due to the economic burden placed on Europeans—would be many times higher than the prices used in the European Emissions Trading System.

This simply means that, in its current form, Europe’s carbon sink policy is not a cost-effective mitigation measure compared to other available options. Europe should therefore promptly abandon its current—naïve and ineffective—carbon sink policy, as it is simply irrational.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The EU Needs Innovations That Drive Climate Neutrality
Misleading Claims About European Forests
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Tuoreen tutkimuksen mukaan EU:n hiilinielupolitiikka on järjetöntä

UN Congratulates an Executioner – Credibility in Free Fall

As we all know, Iran’s Islamist regime brutally killed thousands of protesters at the end of last year and at the beginning of this year. In addition, it has financed and supported terrorist organizations operating in the Middle East, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which in turn have killed civilians in Israel. Nor should the regime’s role in forcing Iranian women into compulsory veiling—and the daily suffering caused by it—be underestimated.

All of this has not prevented Iran from being a member of the United Nations. Nor did it prevent UN Secretary-General António Guterres from sending a congratulatory letter to the Iranian government yesterday, on the anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution. In his letter, the Secretary-General congratulated Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian by name.

In his message, Guterres also described the day as an opportunity to reflect on the country’s path, role, and contribution to the international community, and invited Iranians to global cooperation to promote peace and security and to defend human rights—thus demonstrating a complete inability to act as the leader of the world organization.

Of course, António Guterres has previously shown himself to be unfit, but congratulating a terrorist regime that has just executed its own citizens en masse is downright disgraceful. At the same time, it strips the UN of the last remnants of its credibility as an actor in world politics.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Venezuela, Antonio Guterres and the Nature of Great Powers
The Cost of the East Jerusalem Attack for Palestinians — and Its Echo Worldwide
Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
YK:n pääsihteeri onnitteli Iraniin islamistihallintoa

When Free Speech Is Prosecuted: Päivi Räsänen’s Case Explained for Americans

In Finland, a big uproar has arisen over Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen’s (Christian Democrat) brief visit to the U.S. Congress, where she spoke about the attempts to restrict her freedom of speech. For this reason, it is worth reflecting on what happened in this blog as well. So let us start from the beginning.

It all began when Päivi Räsänen happened to write the words “a disorder of psychosexual development,” by which she meant a person’s sexual orientation toward their own sex. The Finnish prosecution service seized on this, interpreting the words as incitement against a group of people.

However, it is a biological fact that the sexuality of organisms has evolved precisely so that their genes can mix, that is, recombine, in their offspring. For this reason, sexuality is naturally directed toward the opposite sex, although behaviors related to one’s own sex are also common in nature.

In this sense, homosexuality—especially as the primary mode of sexual behavior—is indeed a kind of developmental disorder. However, that does not make a person better or worse than others, nor has Räsänen claimed so.

* * *

I do not know whether what I have written above has been understood in the district court and the court of appeal, but in any case it is right that they acquitted Räsänen of the charges. It seems clear, however, that the prosecutor has not understood the matter any better either before bringing the charges or after the court decisions, but is continuing the process to the Supreme Court while also continuing to violate Räsänen’s freedom of speech.

Thus, Päivi Räsänen and Finland have undoubtedly gained a bad international reputation among people who consider freedom of speech to be an important value. Such people are found especially in the United States, but of course also elsewhere, including Finland.

* * *

The case in question actually resembles a situation in which a woman living in a violent relationship goes public to tell about her husband’s actions, after which his relatives criticize her for sullying the honor of her family and spouse. In this analogy, “violent relationship” = “demands to ban freedom of speech,” “woman” = “Räsänen,” “man” = “the prosecutor,” “relatives” = “the media criticizing Räsänen.”

I do not believe that any reasonable person would think, in the above analogy, that the woman is the one sullying anyone’s honor. Nevertheless, the Finnish journalistic community has no difficulty accusing Räsänen of damaging our country’s reputation when she speaks in the United States about the continued attempts to restrict her freedom of speech.

I can only guess at the reasons for this, but I suspect that it has to do with a wokist worldview that has taken root in our journalistic community, which prevents our journalists from logical thinking, especially when a Christian worldview and a value-liberal worldview are in opposition. This view of mine is supported, among other things, by recent research findings.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Predictions Based on the Opinion Polls in the UK
Jesuit Morality in Crime Reporting on Immigrants
On Freedom, Debate, and the Murder of Charlie Kirk

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Onko Päivi Räsänen Suomen maineen likaaja?

The Taiwan Question: A Conflict That Could Turn Nuclear

At the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the army of the old regime led by General Chiang Kai-shek retreated to the island of Taiwan. The communists led by the victor, Mao Zedong, did not pursue them, and thus a new poor island state came into being.

At first, Taiwan was unequivocally a developing country, into which large amounts of development aid still flowed in the 1960s. At the same time, it represented the whole of China in the United Nations — and even held a seat on the Security Council — until 1971, when the Taiwanese were expelled from the entire organization and Mao’s communist government took their place.

Over time, Taiwan transitioned to democracy and adopted a capitalist economic model. As a result, the country has become a small economic giant with a significant position in the electronics and engineering industries as well as in petrochemical products — and in semiconductor components it even holds a leading position worldwide.

* * *

At the same time, with the support of the United States, the Taiwanese have armed themselves to the teeth. The reason for this is the threat posed by China, which continues to covet the island and which appears to be a more significant issue for U.S. President Donald Trump than the war in Ukraine.

For this reason, it was noteworthy that Member of the European Parliament and general Pekka Toveri predicted on social media that China would attack the island state in the near future. As a sign of this, he points to extensive purges carried out within China’s military leadership.

If Toveri is right, we will witness a clash between the two greatest military and economic powers of our time, in which the United States will side with Taiwan in a fight against Xi’s army. One can of course hope that this will not happen.

If it does, however, it is to be hoped that the confrontation would avoid the use of nuclear weapons and be limited to conventional warfare. This would certainly be the case at first — but would both sides refrain from nuclear weapons even if one of them were facing defeat?

For this reason, the Taiwan question is extremely important. So far, nuclear weapons have been used against people only at the end of the Second World War, but we do not know whether either Xi Jinping or Donald Trump would be willing to resort to them — if defeat were looming — in order to avoid losing face.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Former President Donald Trump is Also the Upcoming President – But What Does It Mean?
Military confrontation between China and USA highly probable in near future
Once upon a time in China and Taiwan

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Taiwanin kysymys uuteen vaiheeseen?

Jimmie Åkesson Is Sweden’s Most Widely Accepted Politician

Today I read an interesting piece of information on social media. According to it, Jimmie Åkesson (Sweden Democrats) is the most widely accepted politician in Sweden.

It therefore seems very much as if our western neighbor is beginning to wake up to reality. But the question is whether it is already too late.

This can be examined, for example, in light of the numbers of ethnic backgrounds residing in Sweden that have proven to be problematic.

Information on this is provided, for instance, by Wikipedia, according to which in 2023 Sweden was home to, among others—by country of birth—approximately 200,000 Syrians, just under 150,000 Iraqis, 86,000 Iranians, 68,000 Somalis, 67,000 Afghans, 56,000 Turks, 49,000 Eritreans, 29,000 Lebanese, and 28,000 Pakistanis. And, of course, all of their descendants.

Out of the total population of 10.5 million people, around 7.6 million are ethnically Swedish, and the rest were born in countries other than those mentioned above, the most significant of which are Finland, Poland, the countries of the former Yugoslavia, and India. Of children, only about two thirds are still ethnically Swedish.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Two Men Sentenced for Raping Underage Girls
Is Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle Using Taxpayer Money to Mislead?
The Left Wants to Grill a Swedish Minister Over His Son’s Past – What’s Really Behind It?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Åkesson on hyväksytyin ruotsalaispoliitikko

To Be or Not to Be Woke – A Question of Worldview and Mental Health

In Finland’s largest daily newspaper there was an article that discussed right-wing and left-wing “wokeness.” According to the interviewed specialist researcher from the University of Turku, Oskari Lehtinen, right-wing woke activists (which, to be honest, I had never heard of before) were united by the views that their country’s population is being deliberately replaced, society discriminates against white people, a good ruler breaks rules in order to safeguard national interests, conservative values should determine which forms of expression are permitted and which are forbidden, and ordinary people know better what is good for the country than educated experts.

Left-wing woke activists, in turn, were united by views according to which income differences between white and non-white people are explained mainly by racism, trans women should be allowed to compete in women’s sports categories, society should have more safe spaces, racism is more of a structural phenomenon than something visible in individuals’ actions, and focusing on skin color is generally necessary for advancing human rights.

The newspaper article included a link to a test from a few years ago that allowed you to measure your own level of wokeness. As a curious person, I took it, and my result was 3/30 points along with the comment that “you are not very woke.” This did not surprise me.

* * *

In connection with that test, some interesting things were reported. One of them—though less surprising—was that among university students, the strongest woke attitudes were found in the humanities and social sciences as well as psychology. Among students, wokeness was least common among those studying the natural sciences, while among teachers the least enamored with this ideology were business scholars.

It was also not a surprise to me personally that people who hold a woke worldview are more depressed and anxious than others. In addition, they are less happy than others. According to the woke researcher, however, this is a correlation rather than a cause-and-effect relationship, so we do not know whether wokeness leads to mental health problems or vice versa.

* * *

It would be great if Lehtinen’s future research were to produce information about the causal relationship between a woke worldview and mental health, as that would be quite useful. It is clear that if wokeness produces mental health problems such as depression and anxiety and, in addition, reduces people’s happiness, that would be a justified reason to stop presenting this ideology in a positive light in media.

If, on the other hand, further research were to show that the causal relationship runs the other way—that is, that wokeness is a way of identifying people suffering from mental health problems—then its supporters could be easily identified and directed to mental health services, and, if necessary, provided with psychiatric support that would help them live happier lives than they do now.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gender identity and the future of Finnishness
Sex and Gender Identity in Skiing
Unintended Consequences of Modern Value Shifts

The original blogpost in Finnish: 
Tieteellistä tietoa wokelluksesta

What’s Next, Iran?

In public discussion, surprisingly little attention has been paid to what would happen if Iran’s Islamist regime were to collapse as a result of the ongoing uprising of its own citizens. Would power be taken—at least temporarily—by the son of the late shah, who ruled the country dictatorially, Reza Pahlavi? And if so, would he, as he has promised, organize free elections, allowing Iranians to establish a democratic system of government? Or would he instead follow in his father’s footsteps, becoming an undemocratic but Western-aligned leader?

Or would the country descend into civil war, with various political groups engaging in armed conflict with one another—an outcome determined partly by Iranians themselves, but also by the amount of support the different sides receive from rival great powers? That is, from Trump’s United States and Xi’s China—but hardly from Russia, bogged down in its own “special operation,” or from a Europe that is disarrayed in every respect.

* * *

Of course, it would be wonderful if Iranians were able, in free elections, to choose an enlightened father of the nation under whose leadership a modern constitution would be created and, on that basis, the rest of the legal system reformed as well. At the same time, religion would be defined as a private matter for each individual, as has been done, for example, here under the North Star.

The question, however, is whether this is what all Iranians actually want. Or do they have different aspirations? Or might the great powers—or neighboring countries, for that matter—have their own spoons in the pot, stirring it in such a way as to push Iranians from a religious dystopia into a secular tyranny?

Unless, of course, the current Islamist regime manages after all to retain its position and continues at the helm of the ship of state, using even harsher methods than before to subjugate its citizens. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran at a Crossroads: From Islamist Rule Toward Democracy?
Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program
Will Power Change Hands in Iran?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Mitä seuraavaksi, Iran?

Recent Arctic Sea Ice Decline Is Not Accelerating

It is time to return to examining the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and the average surface area of northern polar ice in September of the previous year. I therefore once again conducted a regression analysis of the relationship between these two variables—over the period from 1979 to 2025—using carbon dioxide concentrations measured at Mauna Loa and ice area data from the NSIDC.

Since 2018 (using data from 2017), the basic idea underlying the analysis I have carried out annually is derived from the following premises: (1) according to the climate change hypothesis, climate change is an accelerating process; (2) models predict that temperature increases in the Arctic will be faster than in the rest of the globe; and (3) changes in polar ice area serve as a good proxy for temperature changes in the northernmost parts of the Earth.

In the figure below, the years marked in blue indicate those starting points from which annual measurements have demonstrated the existence of such a relationship according to the criterion I use (P < 0.01 in two consecutive years). The height of the bars shows how many years after that starting point this statistical significance was achieved.

The years marked in red are those for which no such statistical significance has been found. In these cases, the height of the bars indicates the number of years available for the analysis.

As my esteemed reader notes, during the early years of the time series the minimum extent of polar ice decreased in such a way that—according to the regression analysis—it exhibited a clear statistical cause-and-effect relationship with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Moreover, this relationship strengthened almost year by year up to the time series beginning in 2001.

After that, however, a change occurred: although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations continued to rise steadily, the change in ice area did not reach statistical significance until last year. At that point, the observational series beginning in 2002 also became statistically significant, but only on the basis of an observational record twice as long as that required for the series beginning in the previous year.

This year, what was new was that the time series beginning in 2003 also reached statistical significance. It can therefore be concluded that northern sea ice has indeed melted in a statistically significant manner in recent years as well, but that the process—at least as measured by its annual minimum extent—has not been accelerating, as climate models have predicted.

* * *

In this respect, it is also interesting that although Arctic sea ice reached a larger minimum extent this year than in six other years (2007, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2003, and 2024), it melted rapidly in October, November, and December, and its surface area reached the smallest December average in the measurement record last month. This is shown in the figure below (the early part of which admittedly raises questions, but for which I am unable to provide an explanation).

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Observations on Arctic Sea Ice Challenge the Notion of Particularly Rapid Melting
Exceptionally Warm July Falls Short of Records
Exceptionally Warm July Falls Short of Records

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Pohjoinen merijää sulaa sittenkin

Venezuela, Antonio Guterres and the Nature of Great Powers

The United States removed Venezuela’s socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro from power and transported him to the United States to await trial. There, the deposed tyrant will be charged, among other things, with narco-terrorism and the possession of machine guns and other weapons of destruction against the United States.

In Venezuela, power was transferred to Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, and there are reportedly no longer any American soldiers in the country. Hopefully, the country’s new leader understands the situation and moves swiftly to arrange honest elections.

In those elections, whoever the majority of the Venezuelan people express their support for should win. And whether that is last year’s Nobel Prize winner María Corina Machado or someone else, may that person receive American support in restoring the country to democratic governance, rebuilding its economy on market-based principles, and orienting its foreign policy toward Western democracies instead of China.

Under Maduro, however, Venezuela has accumulated many serious problems. These include an economic collapse over the course of the 21st century, increased drug-related crime, and now—after the operation just carried out—possible claims by Trump on the country’s oil reserves. For Venezuelans, it is therefore crucial to find solutions to all of these issues that are effective and that enjoy public support.

* * *

In this context, it is worth noting the incomprehensible reaction of UN Secretary-General António Guterres to the events. Instead of expressing satisfaction at the fall of a dictator, he saw fit to be deeply concerned about the U.S. strike on Venezuela, because it does not respect international law.

Did this creep placed at the head of the world organization really imagine that Maduro’s regime did?

The silver lining is that the UN has no real means to influence the Venezuelan case, nor does there appear to be support in Western countries for Guterres’s absurd “concern” or for Maduro’s regime. And even if there were, Donald Trump would hardly care about it any more than about the shit-flies tormenting cattle on American ranches.

All in all, the future of Venezuelans looks—despite Guterres—reasonably bright, at least compared to a few days ago. Of course, dismantling the misery caused by a long-standing socialist dictatorship will take time, but with determined effort the people can get what they deserve.

For now, however, we do not know what that will mean. And so we can only wait to see what the Venezuelans themselves want—once the Trump administration first restores to them the right to decide on their own affairs.

* * *

Finally, it should be noted that some have viewed the transfer of power in Venezuela as some kind of grand conspiracy in which the United States, China, and Russia seek to divide the world among themselves. 

I do admit that in this case certain features of such a scenario can be discerned, but there is nothing fundamentally new about it. Great powers have always sought to maximize their influence—sometimes more openly and sometimes more covertly, but always using the means they have considered most effective at the time.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Elections in Venezuela Do Not Offer Reason for Optimism
Does China prove the superiority of market economy?
Lessons from Venezuela

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Maduron kausi loppu, eikä sen perään jäänyt haikailemaan kuin YK:n Antonio Guterrez

Russia’s Shadow Fleet Exposes Gaps in International Law

A ship that had been dragging its anchor – Fitburg – damaged a cable running along the seabed of the Gulf of Finland yesterday. The Finnish Border Guard acted with its customary efficiency, documented the dangling anchor with photographs, and took the vessel into custody.

The case will next proceed to a more detailed investigation and, in due course, undoubtedly to court. This in itself sounds good, but I would like to draw your attention, dear readers, to what happened last October.

At that time, the Helsinki District Court announced that it would not examine the charges – in a similar case – against the vessel Eagle S, which belongs to Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, nor the compensation claims based on those charges. The court held that Finland’s Criminal Code could not be applied to the case.

The matter was commented on at the time by Member of Parliament Jarno Limnéll (National Coalition Party), who stated that “clearer legislation and international agreements are needed that give states the ability to deal with acts of this kind also in exclusive economic zones and international waters.” However, no such measures have emerged during the past couple of months.

For this reason, it seems clear to me that the Fitburg incident – quite evidently a cable sabotage operation ordered by Russia – is, logically speaking, a consequence of the Helsinki District Court’s decision and the shortcomings of international legislation. It is obvious that if breaking cables carries no consequences, Putin’s administration can continue sabotaging them without concern.

It is therefore easy to predict that cables running along the seabed of the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea will continue to be damaged – so to speak, “by accident” – in the future. And this will likely continue until the necessary provisions are enacted in international law, despite the expected opposition from Russia and its proxies.

* * *

If one wishes to see something positive in the Fitburg case, it is undoubtedly the efficiency of the actions taken by the Finnish authorities. The cable damage was investigated quickly, and the perpetrator was also stopped.

Because of the legislative problem mentioned above, the only sanction available against the ship’s owner and/or crew will likely be to look for deficiencies in the vessel’s condition, thereby delaying its departure. In this way, the crew would at least be forced to loiter for a while off the coast of Kirkkonummi.

It would be interesting to know whether the shipowner and/or its crew have made an agreement with Vladimir Putin’s administration regarding compensation for those days in rubles or in some stronger currency. The exchange rate of the ruble has recently been in a decline reminiscent of that famous cow’s tail, so the value of days compensated in Russian currency decreases over time.

In any case, any deficiencies found on the vessel must be investigated before it is allowed to leave Finnish territorial waters. And, of course, even the smallest faults discovered on the ship should be required to be carefully repaired before departure clearance is granted – to the vessel and its crew alike.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is Cable Cutting a Crime Without Punishment?
Sabotage in the Baltic Sea Sparks Calls for New Maritime Borders
Finland Detains Russia-Linked Ship Suspected of Cable Damage

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Kansainvälinen lainsäädäntö kannusti Fitburgin kaapelisabotaasiin