Who Really Rules Iran?

The Finnish Broadcasting company Yle has closely followed the funeral of Iran’s dictator, Ali Khamenei. At the same time, it has reported that the new Ayatollah, Mojtaba Khamenei, did not appear at the funeral and has not been seen in public even once.

Messages purportedly issued by Khamenei have, however, been read out in Iran before. In addition, the United States and Israel are said to possess intelligence suggesting that Mojtaba is still alive.

That may, of course, be true—or it may not. What is clear, however, is that a head of state hiding like a rat cannot truly be the one exercising power—not even in Iran. If he remains in hiding, someone else must be wielding authority in his place: someone who does not want their own name mentioned publicly and instead issues orders in Mojtaba’s name.

If, on the other hand, Mojtaba has in fact died, it would be entirely understandable that the real holder of power would not want their own name splashed across the headlines. It would instead be far more advantageous for them to claim that Mojtaba is alive and governing the country from a secret bunker, much like Adolf Hitler was said to be doing in 1945.

* * *

I readily admit that what I have written above contains elements of a conspiracy theory. Time will tell whether Mojtaba returns as Iran’s visible religious leader and head of state once peace finally returns.

For my part, to borrow the late ski jumper Matti Nykänen’s famous expression, I would put the odds at no better than “fifty-sixty.”

Before that, it remains to be seen whether Donald Trump can ultimately disengage from Iran without being seen as having suffered a humiliating defeat.

At the moment, however, it appears that Iran has no intention of giving up either its enriched uranium or its Islamist system of government. Even restoring freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz seems unlikely.

* * *

Since I began with a conspiracy theory, it is perhaps only fitting to end with a dose of hindsight.

Trump and the United States would not be in their current predicament if the U.S. military had continued its extraordinarily successful offensive against Iran in the summer of 2025.

Trump, however, chose not to let it do so. Instead, he halted the offensive, giving Iran time to recover and learn from the experience—which it did. The result was a significant improvement in Iran’s military capabilities and the stalemate now taking shape, in which the Americans can hope, at best, to restore the situation that existed before the offensive began—and perhaps not even that.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Trump’s War Without Strategy: Why Iran May Come Out Stronger
Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony
Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program

The Ukrainian Lioness Will Defeat Vladimir Putin’s Army

Happy Finnish Mother’s Day to all mothers!

People say that mothers fight for their children like lionesses. In the same way, the Ukrainians have acted by stretching Vladimir Putin’s three-day “special military operation” into a war that has now lasted for more than four years.

As a result, the Russian army had to settle for a rather modest Victory Day parade yesterday. Unlike in previous years, there were no missiles on display — nor even the T-34 tank designed in the 1930s, which was still present in 2023. Perhaps the last of those is already on its way to Ukraine as well?

* * *

In one respect, however, Vladimir Putin may well be right. In his speech, he stated that the war “is moving toward its conclusion, but it nevertheless remains a serious matter.”

Unfortunately for Putin, the war has reached its culmination point, and his army’s offensive has stalled much like Hitler’s forces at Stalingrad in 1942. Nor does the future appear any brighter for him, because Ukrainian technical ingenuity is set to reverse the course of the war: new drones and missiles are already pounding Russia’s arms and oil industries, while armed robots have begun supporting — and when necessary even replacing — Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield.

* * *

Many Russians who have supported Putin up to this point have noticed this as well. But for now, fear of failure has reportedly prevented a coup.

This too is familiar from Hitler’s Germany, where the Austrian corporal remained in power so long that he ultimately chose to end his own life. By then, the Red Army had already reached Berlin, meaning Germany’s defeat in the war had been obvious for quite some time.

Putin’s advantage, of course, is that he ultimately has nuclear missiles at his disposal, and fear of them undoubtedly prevents the Ukrainians from attempting to conquer Russian territory. Thus, he cannot end up in a situation similar to Adolf Hitler’s in 1945 — even though such an outcome would undoubtedly be viewed by many as roughly equally positive for humanity as a whole.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony
Russia’s Spring Offensive: Gains Unclear, Losses Undeniable
Concern About the Future Is Growing in Russia

Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?

During World War II, Finland and the Soviet Union fought two wars. The first of these was the Winter War, which broke out as a result of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In that agreement, the foreign ministers of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler agreed to divide Eastern Europe between the socialist Soviet Union and the National Socialist Germany.

Despite receiving little help from abroad, tiny Finland managed to resist the Soviet Union’s massive army. Although the peace treaty forced Finland to cede territory far west of the prevailing front lines, the Soviet Union did not succeed in conquering its neighbor. This created a strong sense of injustice among the Finnish people.

After the Winter War, Finland sought a defense alliance with the other Nordic countries, but especially Sweden opposed the idea. Eventually, the whole concept became impossible when Germany, through its blitzkrieg strategy, conquered Norway, and the Soviet Union—pursuant to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact—occupied the Baltic states. As a result, Finland and Sweden became isolated from the Western powers, France and Britain. Protection against the Soviet Union now had to be sought either from Germany—or vice versa. Finland chose Germany, which at the time was considered militarily superior, even though Finland did not embrace Nazi ideology and remained a democracy throughout World War II.

This led to the so-called Continuation War, whose first military actions in Finland were Soviet strikes against Finnish targets. The reason for this was Hitler’s false claim that Finland had joined Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

* * *

The events described above are well known in Finland. Less known is the final battle between the Soviet army and Finnish forces. This took place in the Ilomantsi region, where the Soviets launched an attack with two divisions against the Finns.

The Finnish troops were led by Major General Erkki Raappana, who accepted the challenge and launched a bold counterattack based on a double envelopment maneuver. The Finnish forces surrounded both Soviet divisions in separate pockets in the areas of Leppävaara–Lutikkavaara and Vellivaara–Lehmivaara, then broke them down and destroyed them. The battle was fought over a 40-kilometer-wide and approximately 30-kilometer-deep area.

At the same time, three Soviet marine brigades, a tank brigade, and an engineer brigade attempted to come to the aid of the encircled divisions from the east, but they were repelled. Eventually, the encircled Soviet troops saw their situation as hopeless, and the remnants of the divisions broke out eastward—effectively fleeing the battlefield.

As a result of this crushing defeat of the Red Army, the Soviets left behind heavy equipment, including over a hundred artillery pieces and nearly a hundred mortars, which became Finnish war trophies. The battlefield was left in the hands of the victorious Finns. This defeat prompted Stalin to abandon his goal of conquering Finland. He began peace negotiations and redirected his forces to the front against Germany, aiming to reach Berlin before the Western Allies.

Due to this battle, along with the earlier failed Soviet offensives at Tali-Ihantala and the Bay of Vyborg, Finland remained an independent democracy—unlike other European countries with long borders with the Soviet Union: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why the Soviet Union Failed to Break Finland—And Why Russia Won’t Succeed Today 
Fear Lurks in Vladimir Putin's Mind as He Celebrates on the Wrong Date
When the War Comes Home to Moscow

Are We on the Brink of World War III?

The Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), has given an interview in which he has, so to speak, painted devils on the wall. In other words, he has expressed fears that the Third World War may already be underway, but people are unwilling to recognize it.

According to him, the current situation is similar to the one leading up to the Second World War in the late 1930s. Therefore, I thought I would remind you, dear readers, of what happened back then.

* * *

One of the causes of the Second World War is considered to be the Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed after the First World War. Its terms were regarded as overly harsh in Germany. After all, German soldiers had still occupied enemy territories in both the east and the west at the end of the war, unlike at the conclusion of the Second World War.

In addition to territorial losses, Germany’s military was drastically reduced. However, Hitler disregarded this and began rebuilding his country's military strength in the mid-1930s. This went unchallenged; for example, Britain signed a naval agreement with Germany, allowing its navy to be 35% the size of Britain’s own – then the most powerful in the world.

The Second World War was preceded by the Spanish Civil War, which ended with General Francisco Franco coming to power by overthrowing the democratically elected left-wing government. In this conflict, Germany and Italy supported Franco, while the Soviet Union backed the Republicans. This war provided an opportunity for these powers to test their weaponry and assess their military needs.

In 1936, Hitler capitalized on Germany's increased military strength by remilitarizing the demilitarized Rhineland. France protested, but Britain accepted the action, and no military threat was posed to Germany. Instead, Hitler orchestrated a "referendum" in the Rhineland, where 98.8% of those who voted supported his actions.

Hitler also engineered Austria's annexation into Germany, despite this being prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles. He received support from Italy for this move.

Some Austrians opposed the loss of independence and organized protests. However, these ended when Austrian Interior Minister Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who facilitated the unification, invited Hitler's army to restore order.

The next step in Hitler’s march towards war was the annexation of the Sudetenland, the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia. The Czechs wanted to defend themselves, but their allies, France and the Soviet Union, refused to assist them. Thus, the issue was resolved through the Munich Agreement, led by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, which granted the Sudetenland to Germany.

After acquiring the Sudetenland, Hitler annexed the Czech region outright and reduced Slovakia to a puppet state. Shortly thereafter, Hungary annexed the Hungarian-speaking areas of Slovakia.

Following these events, Hitler demanded the transfer of Memel (now Klaipėda) to Germany. Once again, the victim, Lithuania, sought help from foreign powers, but assistance was denied.

It should also be remembered that before the Second World War, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Eastern Europe between them. Under this agreement, Hitler invaded Poland in early September 1939, and the Soviet Union occupied the eastern part of the country.

As a result, France and Britain eventually declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union. Thus, the Second World War had begun, even though little fighting occurred along the German-French border until May 1940. Before that, Hitler had already occupied Denmark and advanced into northern Norway, prompting a response from France and Britain – though, at this stage, they suffered defeats.

* * *

If we examine the events I described earlier in light of Halla-aho’s perspective, we can make the following observations.

Firstly, it seems that Putin views the collapse of the Soviet Union as a comparable event to the Treaty of Versailles for Germany. After all, Russia lost a vast portion of the territories it controlled, from the Baltic states to the newly independent nations of Central Asia.

Russia’s actions in Syria were successful and undoubtedly reinforced Putin’s perception of the effectiveness of his military, much like the Spanish Civil War shaped the views of Hitler and Mussolini. However, unlike Hitler’s army, Putin’s forces have not been able to use their experiences in Syria to improve their available weaponry. A particularly striking example of this is the widely advertised Armata tank, which has proven incapable of participating in the war in Ukraine despite being a flagship product of Russia’s defense industry.

We have yet to see an event analogous to the unification of Austria and Germany, but the recent discussions surrounding Belarus being integrated into Russia would correspond quite closely. Additionally, it seems to me that Russia’s annexation of Crimea mirrors the events in Czechoslovakia in 1938: Ukraine wanted to fight, but Western nations at the time denied it military support and left it just as isolated as Czechoslovakia had been.

Furthermore, parts of occupied Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk) were, for a time, turned into puppet states of Russia, much like Hitler had done with Slovakia. The West sought to legitimize all this through the so-called Minsk Agreement, which closely parallels the Munich Agreement of 1938, which sealed Czechoslovakia’s fate.

Hitler’s invasion of Poland can, of course, be quite effectively compared to Ukraine’s situation from 2022 onward. Western nations have not declared war on Russia, but then again, the Western Front of 1939 didn’t see much actual fighting either.

However, Western countries are providing Ukrainians with some military aid, which—alongside the courage of the Ukrainians themselves—has enabled them to defend their country, though not to drive the aggressor out entirely. Poland, on the other hand, received no such support during the rapidly progressing war and wasn’t even provided with weapons in time.

* * *

And is there a modern-day Chamberlain and a 1930s-style Britain? Isn’t this self-evident?

What else are we to think of Germany’s Olaf Scholz, who has done his utmost to minimize military aid to Ukraine, thereby playing into Russia’s hands in much the same way as Britain’s prime minister did back then?

What I’ve written above shows that the Speaker’s view of the similarities between the current situation and the events leading up to the Second World War is astonishingly accurate. However, I also see some differences.

The most significant of these is that Putin’s Russia is not a great power comparable to Hitler’s Germany. Certainly, Russia possesses nuclear weapons, but wars fought with them have no winners. At least not in a large-scale war, where a U.S. counterstrike would be inevitable and therefore too great a risk for the Russians.

* * *

On the other hand, we also have China, which is rising as an increasingly powerful military force. It certainly has its own interests, particularly regarding Taiwan, but would it go to war as Russia’s ally against the entire world?

In my view, the answer is unequivocal. And it is a resounding "no"—especially regarding direct warfare. China will not engage in a large-scale war against the West, at least not as long as it can gain power and wealth through other means.

However, the question remains whether China might exploit Russia’s weakness and seize old Chinese territories in East Asia. Since the situation is quite similar to Taiwan, the answer is "possibly yes." But in that case, we are no longer talking about a Third World War but rather localized military actions.

Finally, I want to emphasize that although I do not believe, for the reasons outlined above, that a Third World War is about to break out, I do agree with Speaker Halla-aho (and many others) that it is better to prepare for war before it begins than to be naïve.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?
Strategic Experts Predicted Russia’s Collapse but Fell into Wishful Thinking
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization

The Social Democrats of Germany Supporting Putin

Germany, led by Social Democrat Olaf Scholz, plans to halve its support for Ukraine in order to get its debt under control. In doing so, it will also end up supporting Vladimir Putin's dictatorially ruled Russia.

This is happening at a time when Ukraine has just demonstrated its ability to surprise the Russian army after receiving a large aid package from the United States. In other words, it has shown that with the support of Western countries, it can change the course of the war.

Arkady Moshes of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs mentioned that "it is visible that Ukraine's Western allies are steering Ukraine towards a ceasefire or peace," because "some Westerners are no longer worried that Ukraine's collapse would lead them into a risky situation."

This statement immediately brought to my mind British Foreign Minister Neville Chamberlain's 1938 declaration of "peace for our time," after he and his Western colleagues had forced Czechoslovakia to cede part of its territory to Adolf Hitler's Germany. "Our time" lasted less than a year back then.

Of course, Scholz is just a Social Democrat, and perhaps for that reason, we cannot expect much understanding from him. Or at least, his Finnish ideological counterpart Timo Harakka does not possess such understanding, as journalist Ulla Appelsin just reminded us.

The fact remains, however, that if Western countries allow Russia to benefit from its attack on Ukraine, not only will Putin take note of it, but so will many other rulers of undemocratic states. The most notable of these is China, which has an obsession with incorporating Taiwan, but also has ambitions in the vicinity of the Himalayan mountains.

By saying all this, I do not mean that the end of the war in Ukraine is not a good and important goal. Rather, I remind you that peace at any cost is not reasonable.

And European politicians should therefore avoid making Chamberlain-like mistakes and ensure that the democratic world does not allow the use of military force to redraw national borders—not in Ukraine, not in Taiwan, and not at the borders of Finland or the Baltic States.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine can and will stop Putin
Putin's understanding and the battle between the gods
A gift from the free world to Ukraine

90 years ago in Germany

Exactly ninety years ago president Hindenburg of Germany nominated a new chancellor for his country. The name of the new leader was Adolf Hitler, who was the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), that had a bit earlier become the biggest party in the parliament. 

After those developments a Dutch communist set on fire the Parliament building of the country which probably helped NSDAP to gain such popularity that in Elections in March the Nazi Party's share of the votes increased to 43.9 per cent, and the party acquired further seats in the Parliament. 

Thereafter Hitler was able to rise to a position of a true dictator of Germany via a "law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich" with the help of the small Centre Party. Today it is politically correct to call all of this a mistake and a huge disaster to the whole world - which I believe we all agree on - and not to think about anything about the alternatives of that time.

In order to consider alternatives, we should understand that Hitler started his political life in the Weimar republic, established after the loss of Germany in World War I. That suffered on many problems before mid-1920´s, but the society settled by the end of the decade, until the Great depression changed everything.  

According to Wikipedia: "the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), until then a minor far-right party, increased its votes to 19%, becoming Germany's second largest party, while the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) also increased its votes; this made the unstable coalition system by which every chancellor had governed increasingly unworkable. The last years of the Weimar Republic were marred by even more systemic political instability than previous years, as political violence increased."

And in another Wikipedia chapter: "from 1928 onwards (after Stalin reinstated Thälmann as KPD leader against the majority of the KPD central committee..., the party followed the Comintern line and received funding from the Comintern... the party was closely aligned with the Soviet leadership headed by Joseph Stalin; Thälmann has been described as ´the driving force behind Stalinization´... and ´Stalin’s right hand in Germany´. 

And somewhat later continues: "in February 1932, Thälmann argued that ´Hitler must come to power first, then the requirements for a revolutionary crisis [will] arrive more quickly´. In November 1932, the KPD and the Nazis worked together in the Berlin transport workers’ strike."

The question arising is: what was the alternative for Hitler in the Germany of 1930´s. Was it a democracy or was it a communist revolution supported by Josif Stalin. People of 2020´s probably think only about the first option, but in reality, it could as well have been a stalinistic Germany. 

What happened in early Soviet Union in 1930´s was not much different from what happened in Hitler´s Germany. People were massacred and both countries acquired military power. And it is also probable, that Stalin was planning on an attack towards the West in early 1940´s but Hitler started his operation Barbarossa before him. 

The question is that if such an attack would have occurred in collaboration with stalinistic Germany, would Western Europe have lost the war, and stayed under the occupation of Russian communists until the late 1980´s? And if so, would that have been better or worse than the German occupation for few years in 1940´s?

 

Naturally I have no answer to this question, because history is an invalid research topic where no repeated experiments can be organized. However, we may be happy to celebrate - instead the Hitler´s rise to the power 90 years ago - his loss of life in May 1945. And again, we can rejoice in the 70th anniversary of Josif Stalin's death on the fifth of March, just a bit more than a month from now.  

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago
Tradition of low professional ability among Russian security agency and dictators
An ignorant mediahouse failed again in historical facts

Finland and NATO - problems to be solved

Right now the most important news from Finland is the future of our security policy. Should we join the NATO or remain a kind of a neutral country we have been since the second world war - also before the WWII? 

The change in the attitudes of our citizens has been quick. Before the Russian attack to Ukraine a vast majority of Finns supported neutrality, but now more than 60 percent of us support allying with the Western defense system.

The most important issue to us will be the delay between the submission of the application and the decision by NATO. During that time Russians will most probably use all possible hybrid means to press Finnish politicians. And actually, that has already started, as the embassy of Russia asked Russian speaking people in Finland to inform them about their possible experiences of discrimination in our country. 

Russia also mentioned that Ukraine could be a similar neutral country as Austria or Sweden but remained quiet about Finland. So, that raised a question we Finns have been thinking thereafter. That is, what does that mean? 

More specifically, does Mr. Putin have other thoughts on us - perhaps something similar Mr. Stalin had in 1939, when he - with the support of German Nazi-leader Adolf Hitler - tried to occupy us in a winter war, where at least 200 000 soviet soldiers were killed and even more injured. Many of them Ukrainians.

* * * 

This note is a landmark of the Thoughts of the Professor blog. I have previously published translations of my Finnish blog here, but it turned out that my motivation quickly decreased to zero. Therefore I decided to give up with translations, and write also in this blog unique texts, that are independent of my national blog. I hope you will find this interesting. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
It takes heroes to avoid genocide

Why a journalist was unaware on the number of Stalin´s victims?

The main newspaper in Finland, Helsingin Sanomat, published a correction by telling  that "in Tuesday, October 30 on page A24,  it was claimed that ca. one million people died during Stalin´s progroms in 1930´s. This number refers to those executed. The total number of dead people due to Stalings pogroms was tens of millions."

To me it was extremely surprising that a journalist of the main newspaper in the country had made such a mistake. This is because one might have imagined that Stalin´s achievements are generally known here in Russia´s neighborhood - or at least their order of magnitude.

I wrote this short note, because I suspect that the mistake was not made by chance, but due to the willingness of our media to hide the magnitude of destruction and human suffering due to the big socialist experiment during the last century. This becomes understandable by thinking, whether such an order-of-magnitude mistake could even be imagined to be made in the number of Jewish victims of the Hitler´s regime.

Therefore I consider it possible, that it is exactly this reason - hiding the bloody footsteps of sosialism - why we have not demonized the use of hammer and sickle in clothes or demonstrations in a similar way as the use of swastika. And noticeably, we have even in our parliament a political party that cherishes the legacy of this ideology.

The original story in Finnish:
Miksei toimittaja tiennyt Stalinin kymmenien miljoonien uhrien määrää?