Trump’s War Without Strategy: Why Iran May Come Out Stronger

I wrote in yesterday’s text that the expansion of Charlemagne’s empire "was possible because Charles was constantly at war and gave his enemies no time to recover." This came to my mind this morning when I read in the newspaper that the negotiations between Donald Trump and Iran’s leadership had come to nothing, because representatives of the latter had left the negotiation site.

However, the Americans had already received a new negotiation proposal, in which, according to Trump, Iran had "offered a lot, but not yet enough." Nor had he yet considered continuing the war.

In my view, this is foolish, because Iran’s tactics seem as if they were designed based on the history of Charlemagne’s empire. As a result—if and when it has survived the initial attack by the United States and Israel—the aim is to prolong the ongoing peace process in order to improve and develop its own military capability.

* * *

Iran’s leadership is undoubtedly encouraged by the fact that although their army was hardly able to defend itself during last summer’s attack by the USA and Israel, it has during the current military operations been able to cause considerable destruction—especially in countries allied with the USA, but also to the U.S. Air Force. This shows that Iran’s Islamist leadership has the ability to enhance the combat capability of its own army and to survive the current attack, if given the opportunity.

It therefore remains to be seen what the final outcome of the war will be. Will it turn out to be the strengthening of Islamist Iran, rather than the rise of a more moderate government or even a democracy?

* * *

That is why it has been sad to observe that Donald Trump clearly does not know world history and its lessons, but embarked on the war recklessly, without preparing for it to become bogged down in the way now seen. If this is the case, the greatest sufferers will be Iranian women, who will be subjected even more tightly to a medieval hell and killed if necessary.

But Iranians will not be the only ones to suffer; global security will also be among the losers. Iran has, after all, been known as the most significant driving force behind Islamic terrorism.

And there is no reason to doubt that it would continue on that path—indeed even more determinedly—if the political leadership of the United States and/or its military proves incapable of carrying its attack through to completion. In other words, the outcome of the war will be exactly what it currently appears to be.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony
Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?
Donald J. Trump 

The Forgotten Empire That Shaped Modern Europe

I would assume that most people have at least some idea of Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire, the Arab Caliphates, the British Empire, or Russia/the Soviet Union and their influence on the course of history. However, I suspect that not many are particularly familiar with the medieval Frankish Empire—let alone its significance for modern Europe.

The story of this realm truly begins in the early 8th century, when the Merovingian kings who ruled the Frankish kingdom began to lose their power to local leaders. One such figure was Charles Martel, whose son Pepin the Short inherited his position.

* * *

Pepin was not satisfied with merely holding actual power; he also wanted formal recognition in the form of a royal crown. Being a clever man, he turned to the Pope and asked: “Who is the true king—the one who has the title or the one who holds the power?” The Pope replied that the one who holds real power is the true king.

After this, Pepin deposed the last Merovingian king—who was sent to a monastery—and had himself crowned King of the Franks in 751. The new Pope Stephen II crowned him again in 754, granting him holy anointing, which made his rule religiously legitimate. At the same time, the idea began to develop that a king’s authority comes from God.

* * *

The coronation strengthened the alliance between the Pope and Pepin, which became concrete when the Lombards in Italy threatened Rome, the center of the Church. The Pope had no army of his own, so he made an agreement with Pepin, who would protect him militarily.

In return, the Holy See committed itself to supporting Pepin’s kingship. Pepin therefore invaded and defeated the Lombards and donated the territories he conquered from them to the Pope. Thus, the Papal States were established in central Italy under papal rule.

Pepin also cooperated closely with the Church in other ways: he supported monasteries, strengthened its position, and reformed religious administration. In addition, he waged wars in Aquitaine (modern southwestern France) against rebellious dukes and against Muslims in Umayyad-held territories, capturing, among other places, Narbonne in 759.

* * *

All of this laid the foundation for the future Carolingian great power, even though Pepin divided the kingdom between his sons Charles and Carloman. After the latter died in 771, Charles became the sole King of the Franks, and the wars of conquest began.

First, Charles—now widely known by the epithet “the Great”or "Charlemagne"—launched a war against the Saxons in 772. This was a long and brutal struggle in what is now Germany, motivated both by Charles’s desire to subjugate the Saxons and to spread Christianity. It also included the infamous Massacre of Verden (782), in which thousands of Saxons were executed.

The Lombard kingdom fell in 774 after Charles invaded northern Italy. He captured the capital, Pavia, and assumed the title King of the Lombards. Thus, his realm extended southward close to Rome.

* * *

Charles also fought Muslims along the Iberian frontier in Spain and in the Pyrenees, where he established a buffer zone against the spread of Islam. This is connected to the famous Battle of Roncevaux Pass (778).

It began when the rear guard of Charles’s army, retreating from Spain, was ambushed in the Pyrenees at Roncevaux Pass. Local Basques attacked and almost completely destroyed it. Among the fallen was Charles’s commander Roland. The event was not militarily decisive, but it later gave rise to the famous epic The Song of Roland, in which the attackers were transformed into Muslims and Roland into a heroic figure.

* * *

Charles also expanded his realm eastward against the Avars, advancing as far as the Danube in present-day Hungary. In doing so, he acquired great wealth and strengthened his position.

As a result, Charlemagne’s empire—or its semi-independent vassal states—extended from the Pyrenees in the southwest to the borders of Denmark in the northeast, and from the Balkans to the English Channel. In other words, a vast empire had once again emerged in Europe.

* * *

All of this was possible because Charles was constantly at war and gave his enemies no time to recover. This, in turn, was made possible by his well-organized army, which was based on a feudal system: Charles determined how many and what kind of soldiers each region had to provide. The wealthiest supplied several warriors, while the poorest provided one.

Heavy cavalry was the most important force in the army. It consisted of nobles or wealthy men equipped with swords, spears, shields, and often chain mail. Their military service was tied to land ownership.

The infantry was composed of ordinary men with lighter equipment. They formed the majority but mainly supported the cavalry and participated in sieges.

* * *

Charles also developed battle tactics: campaigns were usually conducted in the summer, and the army was often divided into several groups that attacked from different directions, making defense difficult. He secured his conquests by building fortifications and supplying his army both from stored provisions and from resources taken from local populations.

Soldiers were motivated both by the fact that Charles often led campaigns personally and by the idea of spreading Christianity. Administration was organized by dividing the realm into counties, whose loyalty was overseen by royal inspectors.

All of this led to—and culminated in—his coronation as Emperor in Rome by Pope Leo III in the year 800.

* * *

A description of Charles survives, written by his courtier Einhard. According to it, he was tall and strongly built, about 190 cm in height, fair-haired, and dignified.

He reportedly ate moderately, favored roasted meat, and avoided excessive drinking. He valued learning, attempted to learn writing, spoke Latin, and understood Greek. He bathed in the Roman manner and often invited friends to join him. As a leader, he was both religious and practical, and he valued order and discipline.

* * *

After Charles, the empire was ruled by his son Louis the Pious, who emphasized Christian morality, repentance, and atonement for sins. He even performed public acts of penance and sought to live as an example. In church policy, he supported monasteries and the Church and worked to unify ecclesiastical discipline and monastic life.

Administratively, Louis followed in his father’s footsteps but was a weaker ruler. He did not carry out major conquests, though he defended the realm against rebellions and external threats. For example, he made an agreement with the Viking leader Harald Klak to secure the coastal regions.

* * *

Louis wished to divide the empire among his four sons. However, this did not suit his older sons—Lothair, Louis the German, and Pepin of Aquitaine—who had a different mother than Charles the Bald. As a result, the empire descended into prolonged civil wars, during which Louis himself was even briefly deposed as emperor.

The decisive battle in this power struggle was fought at Fontenoy in 841. It pitted Lothair, the eldest brother who claimed the entire empire, against Louis and Charles the Bald, who joined forces and later affirmed their alliance with the Oaths of Strasbourg (842), sworn in both a Romance vernacular and Old High German.

Both armies consisted of Frankish nobles and their forces, but neither side had a clear tactical advantage, so the outcome was decided in close combat. The battle became extremely bloody and claimed the lives of a large portion of the Frankish nobility, to the extent that it was regarded as a “tragedy of the nation.”

The result was the victory of Charles and Louis, which ultimately led to the Treaty of Verdun. The empire was divided into three parts, two of which gradually evolved into France (Charles’s share) and Germany (Louis’s share). Lothair received Italy and a central strip stretching to the North Sea, as well as the imperial crown, but his realm was eventually overshadowed by the other two and has no clear successor today.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Is French military history repeating itself in Ukraine?
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

When Social Media Stops Being Social

A Finnish political media, Verkkouutiset, had drawn attention to the fragmentation of political discussion on social media, resulting from the fact that many people follow only those whose opinions are close to their own. As a result, the term “social media” no longer really describes what it is; rather, it has become a platform for bubble formation or— as it used to be put— a like-minded circle jerk.

An excellent example of this is X, formerly Twitter, where discussion is almost unmoderated. However, there are several ways to shape one’s feed toward such a circle and eventually drift into a so-called rabbit hole, where a person is drawn ever deeper into one type of content.

As a result, the discussions one encounters on social media end up consisting almost entirely of messages representing a single worldview—one whose challenges remain unseen and perhaps even unrecognized.

* * *

It does not necessarily have to be this way, even though X—like, as far as I understand, nearly all social media platforms—uses an algorithm that serves users content based on their past behavior, “inferring” what they want to read.

In addition, everyone can choose whose posts they follow: for many, this means people whose opinions align with their own. But one could just as well follow the entire political spectrum on X, from the far left to the far right, from Nazis to anarchists.

Likewise, those who prefer their own circle can choose to make their posts visible only to selected audiences, excluding those whose views they do not wish to engage with. In doing so, however, they also forgo those people’s comments—and the challenge those comments might pose to their own thinking.

Even this has not been enough for everyone. Politically liberal and left-leaning groups created their own platform, Bluesky, a few years ago. Similarly, U.S. President Donald Trump launched his own platform, Truth Social.

Thus, what was once a platform known for lively political debate among adults has evolved into something where the very “social” nature of social forums can be questioned—something that fosters people raised in rabbit holes, whose worldview grows narrower day by day.

* * *

Blogs are also considered social media, including this one, Thoughts of the Professor, whose subtitle emphasizes the importance of freedom of speech.

As long-time readers know, my own writings are also politically opinionated and express my views on the issues at hand. But that does not mean I would not want to see opinions differing from my own in the discussions following each post—even ones that challenge me radically.

On the contrary, such views are highly welcome, as they offer alternative perspectives and provide material for both myself and my readers to develop our thinking and worldview.

That is why I hope criticism does not disappear from discussions related to Thoughts of the Professor – or its Finnish equivalent, Professorin ajatuksia – but instead evolves into high-quality, serious argumentation. After all, the blog’s original purpose is ultimately to be part of the broader political conversation in our society.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Most Finnish Journalism Students Lean Toward the Ultra-Liberal Far Left
English or Finnish — That’s the Question
Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges

From Burden to Benefit: Reforming Immigration in Finland

The Finnish government led by Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party) submitted no fewer than three legislative proposals to Parliament for approval on Thursday. For this reason, Interior Minister Mari Rantanen (Finns Party), who led their preparation and presented the matter in Parliament, remarked that “we are having a kind of immigration super Thursday.”

The purpose of the legislative proposals is to streamline Finland’s immigration policy by introducing a citizenship test, intensifying the deportation and entry bans of those residing in the country illegally, and making use of the opportunities provided by the EU’s migration and asylum pact.

The aim of the citizenship test is to ensure that Finnish citizenship is not granted without the applicant having familiarity with Finnish society. However, the level of knowledge required to pass the test is not particularly demanding, as passing the multiple-choice exam only requires correctly answering seven out of ten questions.

According to the Interior Minister, the government “expects individuals seeking Finnish citizenship to be proactive in acting in the manner required by law.” For this reason, integration funding will in the future be more precisely directed toward teaching Finland’s national languages—which can only be welcomed.

Regarding deportations, the government aims to ensure that deportation decisions can be carried out more efficiently and quickly than at present. In addition, endangering national security will be added as grounds for an entry ban—this will also apply to individuals seeking to enter Finland from within the EU.

The third change is mainly technical. It implements the EU’s migration and asylum pact, which will in the future make it possible to transfer the asylum process to a country outside the Union. This too is an excellent development—provided the future arrives before it is too late.

* * *

In my view, all of the government’s proposals yesterday are good and necessary—if not outright essential—conditions for transforming immigration from its current burden into something beneficial for Finland. Therefore, it is worth observing how Parliament responds to them.

It is, of course, to be expected that members of Parliament from the far left will react negatively to at least some of the proposals. If and when this happens, it will not change the image already formed of the Left Alliance and the Greens as a “fifth column” marching within our country.

More interesting, however, is to see what happens within the government itself—especially within the parliamentary groups of the Swedish People’s Party (RKP) and the National Coalition Party—as well as within the main opposition parties, the Social Democratic Party and the Centre Party. Will there also be, and if so how many, individuals willing to participate in the activities of a “fifth column”?

* * *

As an aside, and loosely related to the topic: Member of Parliament Joakim Vigelius (Finns Party) made a rather apt remark on social media. He stated that “it is quite a paradox that first low-income people are attracted from around the world to Finland to be low-income, and then people wonder how much low-income status has increased.”

This observation also appears to be shared by Professor Heikki Hiilamo, who stated that immigration is “a significant factor” in the increase in poverty. “There has been a change in the labor market, with more and more immigrants working in low-wage occupations.”

In addition, the professor noted that the situation is also affected by the fact that immigrants largely live in big cities, such as Helsinki, where housing costs are relatively high. What more is there to add, except that public authorities in Finland actively encourage this by offering various non-reciprocal benefits to citizens of other countries as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Perspectives on Immigration Restrictions in Finland and the U.S.
Finland to Cut Off Taxpayer Money for Immigration
Can Europe Learn from Finland´s and Spain’s Contrasting Immigration Policies?

Murder Case Paused Because of Language Barriers – Who Pays the Price?

The Finnish media outlet MTV3 reported that the trial of a relative of an immigrant living in Finland, who had resided in the country for two years, was suspended because, according to the presiding judge, “the interpretation is too inaccurate, so we cannot continue. However, the charges are very serious.”

According to the report, the homicide discussed in court took place in Suurpelto, Espoo, in August 2025, when the accused shot his ex-wife in the back in the stairwell of an apartment building. There are witnesses to the case, as the children of the killer and the victim saw the act, and the suspect himself has not denied taking the woman’s life.

The motive is suspected to be related to the perpetrator’s family honor – or rather the shame allegedly caused to it by the divorce. However, both the accused and the person suspected of assisting him have denied this.

There is essentially nothing unclear about the case: the killer and the murder weapon are known, and the victim is dead. Therefore, instead of determining guilt, the court is considering whether the act constitutes murder or manslaughter.

This is despite the fact that a male relative of the accused, initially suspected of supplying the weapon, denied doing so and instead claimed to have found it in an ordinary cardboard box in the basement of a pizzeria owned by the accused. Furthermore, a Turkish man closely related to the suspect and allegedly involved in the plot is known to have sent messages to the victim referring to a primitive concept of honor and low intelligence.

* * *

This case became the subject of a blog post because a man who has lived in our country for two years has required an interpreter in court and is unable to communicate in Finnish or Swedish, the official languages of the country. Nor is he able to understand the court’s informational needs even through an interpreter.

This inability costs real money, and neither of the previously linked news articles states who pays for it. I therefore asked an AI about this, which informed me that “if an interpreter is needed in court proceedings (for example, if the accused, a witness, or another person does not know Finnish or Swedish), the court will provide one,” and that the costs “are covered by state funds and are not directly payable by the parties.”

* * *

This is not a small matter, as interpreters are widely used in court proceedings. For example, the Helsinki police have reported that a couple of years ago, foreign suspects accounted for about 33 percent of all sexual offenses in the capital, and about 40 percent of rape cases.

I am not, of course, calling for trials to be conducted in a language that the accused do not understand. Instead, I would like to see more common sense in Finnish immigration policy. Above all, there should be strict requirements related to language learning for those immigrants who remain in the country for a longer period.

I am convinced that the costs of language proficiency testing would be offset for society through reduced interpretation expenses and—above all—through better integration of immigrants into society and the resulting higher employment rate. Nor do I see any sustainable reason why improved language skills would not also be beneficial for the immigrants themselves.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Perspectives on Immigration Restrictions in Finland and the U.S.
Finally, Honest Reporting on Immigration and Crime
Two Recent Life-Threatening Crimes in Finland

Gender Reassignment May Not Help—and Could Even Worsen Mental Health

According to a recent Finnish study, adolescents referred for care due to gender identity exhibited significantly higher psychiatric morbidity than controls both before referral (45.7% vs. 15.0%) and at least two years after referral (61.7% vs. 14.6%). In addition, those referred after 2010 had greater psychiatric care needs than earlier cohorts both before referral (47.9% vs. 15.3%) and at least two years after referral (61.3% vs. 14.2%).

Among adolescents who underwent medical gender reassignment, psychiatric morbidity increased markedly during follow-up—rising from 9.8% to 60.7% in feminizing gender reassignment and from 21.6% to 54.5% in masculinizing gender reassignment. After adjusting for prior psychiatric treatment, all adolescents referred for gender identity-related care had similarly elevated risks of psychiatric morbidity, with hazard ratios approximately three times higher than female controls and five times higher than male controls.

* * *

Based on the study, the authors—Sami-Matti Ruuska and his colleagues—concluded that adolescents referred for gender identity-related care exhibit a high level of psychiatric morbidity. In addition, gender differences and mental health trajectories after medical gender reassignment remain poorly understood.

A particularly notable observation was that adolescents referred for gender identity-related care had clearly higher psychiatric morbidity than controls, and this did not change as a result of treatment. On the contrary, the need persisted and often even intensified after medical interventions, some of which appeared to have even negative effects.

The researchers therefore emphasized the need for thorough psychiatric assessment and continuous treatment throughout the process of medical gender reassignment. However, they did not go so far as to state that the entire process is—at least generally—unnecessary or, at worst, even harmful.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Sex and Gender Identity in Skiing
Javier Milei and the Great Western Opportunity
A Fair Game or Unfair Judgment?