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

Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin

The meeting between the Presidents of the United States and Ukraine led to some rather interesting perspectives, as Donald Trump called for an end to the war along the current front lines — and Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to accept the idea. According to the latter, “we must stop where we are — he is right, the President is right.”

At the same time, Trump announced that he was not ready to provide Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles, which could be used to destroy Russian military and infrastructure targets deep inside the country. Not, at least, before he meets with Vladimir Putin in Hungary.

Before the meeting, Zelenskyy stated that security guarantees are the most important issue for Ukraine. However, Finnish media, the BBC, USA Today, and CBS did not report on what the presidents discussed regarding those guarantees. According to Finland’s President, Alexander Stubb, support for Ukraine remains strong and “includes military and economic assistance, security guarantees, a ceasefire, and a peace process.”

It therefore remains to be seen how Putin will respond in Hungary to a peace initiative that he could, if he wished, present to his people as some kind of victory. Yet compared with his previous statements, such an outcome would clearly be a failure — one that has already resulted in more than a million Russians being killed or disabled.

Thus, peace along the current front lines would be an obvious risk for Putin, since it is impossible to predict in advance which narrative — victory or failure — would ultimately prevail in the minds of Russians. And what might follow from that.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Ukraine’s Drones Fly 2,000 km, Putin’s Confidence Shakes
Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?
Ukraine Got Permission to Strike – But Where is the Target?

Finland and the U.S. to Launch Icebreaker Cooperation

President Alexander Stubb of Finland visits the White House today together with Prime Minister Petteri Orpo. There, he will sign a memorandum of understanding with President Donald Trump concerning cooperation on icebreaker technology.

This document lays the foundation for commercial agreements between the U.S. Coast Guard and Finnish companies. It is also the result of prior negotiations between the U.S. administration and Finnish shipbuilders.

The cooperation is based on the fact that Finnish expertise in icebreaker technology is unparalleled anywhere in the world — and that is why the Americans trust it.

Icebreakers are not ordinary ships; they represent a highly specialized technology mastered only within the Finnish “icebreaker ecosystem”, where the coordinated expertise of numerous companies comes together. In other words, the overall know-how is not the private property of any single company.

For this same reason, Finland’s core icebreaker expertise cannot simply be transferred abroad, even though the agreement includes an option for part of the shipbuilding work to be carried out in the United States. However, this would mainly involve the final outfitting of the icebreakers — work that does not significantly differ from any other type of ship construction.

In Finland, some concern has been expressed that these new deals might lead to the loss of icebreaker know-how from the country. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not share this concern. However, I do see great value in the fact that the construction of these vessels will also create jobs for American companies.

Such cooperation, if successful, could lead to a long-term partnership between Finnish and American companies — and thereby, in President Stubb’s words, “benefit both Finland and the United States.” After all, each icebreaker costs around two billion euros, so there’s a significant share for everyone involved.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland and the USA: Strong Allies with Shared Interests or a Trade Dispute?
Former President Donald Trump is Also the Upcoming President – But What Does It Mean?
Finland Will Thrive with Any US President, Trump Survived the Assassination Attempt

Donald Trump’s Meeting With Vladimir Putin: The Advice He Needs

The presidents of the USA and Russia, Donald Trump and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, will meet on Friday in Alaska. Initially, it was said that the meeting would seek a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, but later the U.S. president’s office announced that it was merely about Trump’s desire to listen to Putin.

In reality, no one can know what will happen in Alaska. In Europe, there are fears that Trump might agree to support Putin in annexing part of Ukraine to Russia. That is, of course, one possibility, but not necessarily what will happen in Alaska—unless Trump is, in one way or another, in Putin’s pocket.

Assuming what I just wrote isn’t the case, it could well be that Trump realizes Putin is merely toying with him and is in fact only trying to weaken U.S. and other Western support for the Ukrainians—thus turning the battlefield situation to Russia’s advantage.

That is why it was unpleasant to learn that, right during the Alaska talks, Russia has achieved success east of the city of Dobropillia, where its forces have managed to advance along a strip over ten kilometers long but quite narrow. The risk is that Putin will succeed in convincing Trump that this breakthrough shows Ukrainian resistance is collapsing.

On the other hand, I think Russia’s narrow attack wedge will remind all Finns familiar with World War II of our own country’s successful motti battles, in which much larger Soviet units were destroyed by encircling them and cutting off their supply and relief. Unfortunately, it may be that Ukraine’s terrain is not as favorable for such a solution as Finland’s was.

After Trump and Putin agreed to meet, European leaders decided to influence the situation. This will take place later today in a telephone conference attended not only by representatives of Germany, France, Britain, Italy, and Poland, but also by the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and Finnish President Alexander Stubb.

It remains to be seen whether this distinguished group will be able to influence Donald Trump, or whether he will simply listen politely and then, in discussions with Putin, do whatever he wants—in the worst case trying to sell Ukraine’s independence cheaply, and then leading the USA out of the community supporting Ukraine.

Even though I am quite certain that Trump will not read this blog, I cannot resist offering him one piece of advice. It goes like this: Vladimir Vladimirovich is a tough and ruthless dictator who, like others of his kind, listens only to someone similar. That is why Trump should not try to appease him, but instead show — without hesitation — his place as the leader of a state far weaker than the United States, and tell him to end the war here and now by promptly moving the “special operation’s” soldiers back behind Ukraine’s eastern border as it stood before 2014.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Border Residents Concerned Over NATO’s Article 5 Interpretation
It’s Time to Teach Putin: The Age of Empire Is Over
When the War Comes Home to Moscow

When Should We Recognize the Independence of Palestine?

According to a recent opinion poll, 44 percent of Finns would like to recognize the State of Palestine. This group consists mainly of voters from the Left Alliance, the Greens, and the Social Democrats. On the other hand, on the political right, supporters of the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party are more opposed to the idea than others.

There are hardly any differences between age groups, but women are more inclined than men to support the establishment of a new state in the Middle East—despite the fact that women’s rights would likely not be realized there. Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, for his part, has stated that Finland should also recognize Palestine if the United Kingdom, France, or other major countries do so.

* * *

All of this reminded me of Finland’s own independence from Russian rule. The Declaration of Independence was approved by the Finnish Parliament on December 6, 1917, shortly after the October Revolution.

After that, Finland began seeking support for its independence from Western countries, but they were unwilling to recognize it. Support was first sought from Germany, which initially promised to raise the matter in the peace negotiations with Russia in Brest-Litovsk. However, this did not happen; instead, the Germans said they would wait for Soviet Russia to recognize the new state first.

Consequently, the Finnish government sent a request for recognition of independence to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, and Britain. Recognition was not requested from Russia, as it was thought that it would be more inclined to approve the matter once the Western powers had already done so.

This hope turned out to be in vain, as the Western countries urged the Prime Minister to turn to the Bolshevik government of Russia, led by Lenin. The Finnish Prime Minister, however, was reluctant to do so, as he did not want to acknowledge the Bolsheviks as the legitimate rulers of Russia.

Eventually, on December 22, the Finnish Parliament decided to seek recognition not from the Bolshevik government, but from the Russian Constituent Assembly, which was expected to convene soon and where the majority was made up of Russia’s more moderate left-wing parties. Germany, however, intervened and pressured the Finnish government to approach Lenin’s Council of People's Commissars instead.

This is what happened, and Lenin did recognize Finland’s independence. He did so because he believed that supporting the right of national minorities to secede would further the Bolsheviks’ main goal—the spread of the socialist revolution. In his view, the separation should only be temporary, as he assumed that the small nations breaking away from Russia would later voluntarily rejoin either the Russian socialist federation or a broader worldwide Soviet union.

* * *

As for myself, when it comes to recognizing Palestinian independence, I believe the time is not yet right. After all, there isn’t even a theoretically independent Arab state in the Holy Land that would meet the criteria for statehood.

However, I would be ready to recognize Palestine immediately after Israel does. In other words, I would act in the same way that the Western countries did when they eventually recognized Finland’s independence.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator
The Complete Demilitarization of Gaza: What Would It Mean for the Palestinians?
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

What Would It Take to Make Peace in the Holy Land?

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, wrote the following on social media regarding the situation in Gaza:

"The suffering of civilians in Gaza must end.

Finland calls on Israel to assume its responsibilities under international law and to ensure access for humanitarian aid. The UN and humanitarian aid organizations must be allowed to operate fully and impartially. Humanitarian aid must not be politicised. Forced displacement of populations is a war crime and cannot form part of any solution.

We call on Hamas to release hostages and encourage the parties to return to the ceasefire.

Israel's security must be guaranteed in accordance with international law. Peace negotiations must be started immediately on the basis of a two-state solution."

* * *

I am pleased with the President’s statement because he addressed both sides of the issue. And sadly, this stands in contrast to the remarks of nearly all other politicians who have taken a stance on the matter—especially those directly involved.

If the leaders and influential voices - as well as all ordinary people - within both Jewish and Palestinian communities of the Holy Land were to read Stubb’s comment and abide by it, the problem would be resolved. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe that this will happen. For the Palestinians, it would mean accepting Israel’s right to its current borders and ensuring that no more rockets are fired from Palestinian territories into Israel, nor any other terrorist acts committed.

For the Jews in the region, it would mean treating Palestinians—whether independent or part of Israel—as equal neighbors, with whom trade and interaction would be conducted as with any other people. Furthermore, it would require ensuring that no one—such as Jewish settlers in the West Bank—is granted any rights to touch Palestinian property, except through fair, voluntary transactions based on mutual agreement.

* * *

Regrettably, I doubt this will come to pass after nearly 80 years - with roots going even much further in history - of hostility. There always seems to be a small group of people who refuse to accept the status quo and take justice into their own hands, especially when they feel they have been wronged.

Of course, the problem described above would be “resolved” if Israel were to carry through with the idea of forcibly displacing the population of Gaza to completion. Or if the Palestinians, by some miracle, succeeded in destroying the Jewish state.

But the reality is that neither of these outcomes would be in accordance with international law, nor would they respect human rights, and therefore they are not justifiable in any way. And that’s why I fear that, despite Stubb’s principle—which, tragically, is disarmingly simple in theory—we are likely to witness another 80 years of hostility in the Holy Land. And the overwhelming majority of both Jews and Palestinians will continue to suffer because of it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Could Mohammed Sinwar’s Death Mark a Turning Point Toward Peace
Why Hamas Is Unwilling to Give Up Its Weapons
Understanding of Facts is Increasing in the Middle East

Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?

The American scholar John Mearsheimer has commented on Finland’s NATO membership in an extremely negative tone. According to him, joining the alliance has weakened Finland’s security situation, and furthermore, the decision was made at the worst possible time.

In Mearsheimer’s view, instead of joining NATO, Finland should have continued its post-World War II policy of "Finlandization," where the country refrained from criticizing the Soviet Union's actions, no matter what they were. During that time, politicians and the media lied directly to the Finnish people about the conditions, human rights issues, and ambitions of their eastern neighbor.

However, it is noteworthy that despite all this, most Finns lived in constant fear, day and night, that Russia would occupy the country — a country with no allies to come to its aid in times of crisis. In other words, people feared a repeat of the Winter War.

Mearsheimer has also stated that Finland joined NATO at a completely wrong moment, as the alliance is now facing deep problems. He even speculated that U.S. forces might withdraw from Europe and that NATO’s Article 5 — the obligation to assist a member state under attack — would lose its significance.

He further claimed that Finland’s President Alexander Stubb has been wrong about Ukraine from the very beginning because Stubb believes in discredited ideas promoted by Western liberal imperialists since the end of the Cold War.

* * * 

After reading Mearsheimer’s views, I found myself reflecting on his words. His credibility is bolstered by the fact that already in 1993, he predicted that Ukraine should not give up its nuclear weapons the following year.

First, I concluded that neither I nor almost any other Finn — except for some on the far left — want in any way to return to the era of Finlandization. That’s why I deeply support Finland’s NATO membership and the DCA agreement with the United States, to ensure we are never again left alone if Russia attacks.

Second, I fully understand that if NATO and the DCA were to lose their significance, it would be impossible for a country of five and a half million people to maintain its independence in the event of a full-scale Russian assault. Finland’s only option would be to make the price of conquest unbearably high for Russia — just as happened in the Winter War of 1939–40 (as a result of which Finland lost about 10 percent of its territory), during which Soviet casualties reached 321,000–381,000 in about one hundred days, despite Finland's lack of modern weaponry and allies.

* * *

In light of the threat posed by Putin, I have advocated here on this blog that Western European states must build sufficient military strength and commit — within the EU framework or otherwise — to each other’s defense. Many leading European politicians, including Germany’s new Chancellor Friedrich Merz, currently share this view.

Thus, it seems to me that by the time Russia and Vladimir Putin find a way out of Ukraine, Western Europe — including Finland — will have grown militarily strong enough that Russia will no longer have the capacity even to threaten its security. This is something Mearsheimer should be aware of as well.

Therefore, I found it puzzling and decided to look more closely into this scholar. I discovered that in 2019, he supported the far-left Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Considering the historical record of socialists worldwide, this revealed to me that Mearsheimer is completely incapable of rational thinking.

Thus, I asked myself how much weight should really be given to Mearsheimer’s views on Finland’s security policy — and I concluded: not very much after all.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
From Finnish Neutrality to Russian Ruins
Donald Trump’s Reliability as an Ally Has Proven to Be Questionable
Finally, Finland Speaks the Truth Without Fear!

Ukraine's Struggle Is Also Our Struggle

As I write this, President Volodymyr Zelenskyi is having a phone conversation with the U.S.'s Donald Trump. Hopefully, the two men will this time find common ground on how to achieve a just peace in Ukraine—one that does not encourage Vladimir Putin, who mocked Trump yesterday, to continue his military campaigns in Ukraine or elsewhere in Europe.

With this in mind, it was promising to hear from Finland's President Alexander Stubb that the situation on the Ukrainian front is much stronger than one might assume from the news flow. At the same time, he stated that he trusts Zelenskyi more than Putin.

Zelenskyi also just announced on social media that: "We are grateful that the voice of Finnish parliamentarians in support of Ukraine within the European institutions and in the international arena is pro-Ukrainian and loud." This was nice to hear, as the vast majority of Finns, due to our own history, can relate to the situation of the Ukrainian people—and understand that Ukraine's struggle is also our struggle as Finns.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia
Questionable Achievements of Donald Trump's Foreign Policy
Finnish weapons are being tested against the Russians in Ukraine

Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, told that he supports British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s initiatives for a new ceasefire plan in Ukraine. According to the president, Europe currently needs leadership, which Starmer is demonstrating.

Stubb also stated that the winner of Friday’s meeting between Trump, Vance, and Zelensky was Vladimir Putin. However, despite this, the relationship between the United States and Europe remains strong.

For this reason, he urged people to stay calm in a very Finnish way—by advising them to take deep breaths, have a cold plunge, go to the sauna, and think things through. He also promised to return to the matter later.

Beyond that, Stubb did not wish to give instructions to Volodymyr Zelensky either. Instead, Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (NCP) stated that all European countries must strengthen their defense capabilities to the maximum extent, with the goal of being able to defend themselves independently within ten years.

He also noted that Europe is unlikely to reach consensus on this matter, so responsible nations must be ready to make joint decisions—even without those who are unwilling to participate.

It remains to be seen whether Europe will succeed in finding its footing in this changing situation, where military security must also be considered alongside the challenges posed by weak economic growth and internal security. A positive signal in this regard, however, is that the European Commission has just decided to reduce internal EU bureaucracy and regulations to enable economic growth.

To me, it is clear that none of the above issues will be hindered by Finland’s current leadership. That is why it would be beneficial for progress to be made quickly, as democracy may once again bring forth political movements or other leaders whose understanding does not always suffice to recognize facts—let alone act accordingly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Political Rhetoric Like Trump-Zelenskyi’s Has Deep Historical Roots
President of Finland Asked Whether There Are Top Politicians With Serious Intellectual Limitations
Finland and the USA: Strong Allies with Shared Interests or a Trade Dispute?

President of Finland Asked Whether There Are Top Politicians With Serious Intellectual Limitations

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, outlined today in Kyiv the facts that must be realized in any potential peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. They are as follows:

1. Ukraine’s EU membership is for the European Union to decide, not Russia.

2. Ukraine’s NATO membership is for NATO to decide, not Russia.

3. Russia cannot decide on territories that belong to Ukraine or define its borders.

4. Russia cannot determine Europe’s security order, as it already exists.

All of these are, of course, self-evident facts that no serious politician would dispute. And that is why bringing them up would be unnecessary if every relevant party had common sense.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case, and even the most obvious facts must be reiterated time and time again. It remains to be seen whether the so-called top politicians of the world still include those with severe shortcomings in their understanding, revealing their intellectual limitations by advocating ideas that contradict the Finnish president’s list.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finally, Finland Speaks the Truth Without Fear!
Trump’s America: Criminal or Benefactor?
Putin, Trump, and the Prospect of Peace

Finland and the USA: Strong Allies with Shared Interests or a Trade Dispute?

Finland has always had excellent relations with the USA. As a sign of this, President Alexander Stubb has refrained from criticizing Donald Trump’s administration and has instead sought to understand its actions—even to the extent that some have speculated he is overly deferential to it.

There is, of course, an excellent explanation for Stubb’s and Finland’s approach: as a neighbor of Russia—and following the era of Finlandization, when the country had to be cautious in its dealings with the Soviet Union—Finland is now heavily dependent on NATO and, consequently, the USA to guarantee its military security. Nevertheless, Finland will remain a state governed by the rule of law, firmly committed to defending the inviolability of national borders against all major powers. This applies to Denmark as well.

In this context, it is extremely unfortunate that President Trump is threatening the EU—and, by extension, Finland—with trade tariffs that would hinder transatlantic commerce. Such measures would be particularly harmful to open economies like Finland’s, whose prosperity relies heavily on foreign trade. It would not be beneficial for the United States either, as it could negatively impact the very positive attitude that Finns generally have toward Americans.

It remains to be seen whether Trump and his administration understand this and seek to balance trade between the USA and the EU through other means. Moreover, in the end, high US tariffs would be paid by ordinary American voters, which is unlikely to increase Trump’s popularity in his own country.

After all, there are plenty of people in the US who struggle to cover their daily expenses. And they certainly did not vote for Trump so that he would plunge their personal finances into even greater hardship.

* * *

Finally, I would like to share a message with my American readers from my country’s Minister for Foreign Trade, Wille Rydman (Finns Party). At the end of last week, he made the following remarks:

"The United States has been focused on utilizing Alaska’s mineral resources. Here, Finland’s world-class geological expertise can offer significant contributions. The U.S. plans for Alaska have also emphasized the development of basic infrastructure, particularly in telecommunications, an area where Finland has strong capabilities."

"The U.S. has also prioritized improving its situational awareness in the Arctic. There is room for development in sensor technology, measurement and monitoring systems, and the utilization of space technology. Finland has expertise in all these fields."

"We are working to open markets through ICE Pact cooperation, which could allow Finnish shipyards to contribute their capacity to icebreaker construction. North America faces a shortage of shipbuilding capacity, making this a fantastic opportunity for our shipyards... We have the knowledge and capability to build the best icebreakers quickly and at a competitive price. Finnish maritime industry companies have supplied icebreaking technology for the most powerful polar icebreakers, Baltic Sea escort icebreakers, as well as smaller river and port icebreakers. Our expertise is extensive, and the industry operates on a global scale."

I sincerely hope that these considerations reach President Trump’s administration and encourage it to foster cooperation between Finland and the EU—natural allies of the United States—rather than risk a trade war that would harm all parties involved.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Trump’s Tariff Weapon Worked, but Will Finland’s Development Aid Strategy Succeed?
Putin, Trump, and the Prospect of Peace
Greenland's Future: A Battleground of Global Powers?

Putin, Trump, and the Prospect of Peace

President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, suggested recently that peace between Ukraine and Russia could be achieved in less than six months. This is because Russia’s economy is currently in a rather dire situation.

The situation in Russia is not helped by the fact that Donald Trump, the newly elected President of the United States, aims to lower global oil prices. This would further diminish the revenue available to Putin’s dictatorship. Most importantly, it would lower the standard of living for people living in Russia, potentially increasing their opposition to the war and even leading to rapid radicalization.

One can look to Russia’s own history for parallels in this matter—specifically the February and October Revolutions.

In the former case, the public’s dissatisfaction with Russia’s losses in war (during World War I) led to power being transferred from the Tsar to the Mensheviks. However, the Mensheviks continued the war, which prolonged the burdens it inflicted on the population. Additionally, the government’s actions caused rapid inflation, making it unprofitable for peasants to sell grain to the cities.

As a result, food supply in urban areas worsened continuously, while living costs rose rapidly, and unemployment began to increase. Ultimately, the Bolsheviks launched another revolution, taking control by promising work and bread—and an end to the war that was devastating the population.

* * *

All of this is undoubtedly known to both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. This is why the former has good reasons to carefully listen to what the newly elected U.S. president offers him.

It is also worth noting that if a significant portion of the Russian population turns against the war, the situation will become untenable for Putin, much like what happened to the Germans at the end of World War I. At that time, a revolution began in the navy and quickly spread among the people.

In Germany, too, the rebellion was fueled by war fatigue and economic difficulties. The difference compared to Russia was in the outcome—Germany avoided the yoke of socialism, and the deposed Kaiser survived, unlike in Russia.

The question remains whether President Stubb is correct—can Donald Trump push Putin into a corner from which there is no way out other than agreeing to peace? It will also be interesting to see what terms are set for peace.

In this regard, the Russian revolutions of 1917 and the German revolution of 1918 provide fascinating points of comparison. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia’s territory was significantly reduced as several states—including Finland—gained independence. Similarly, Germany lost territory as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I.

* * *

It remains to be seen, however, whether Trump is willing to push Putin’s Russia into a position as desperate as that of the Tsarist Empire in 1917, forcing it to withdraw entirely from Ukraine. Or will he ultimately offer Putin an opportunity to retain at least part of the territory he seized in and after 2014?

If it is true, as Trump has claimed, that Ukraine is ready to “make a deal,” the terms are unlikely to be favorable for Putin. And they will certainly not improve if Russian public support for the war vanishes.

And what about Putin’s own position? If and when he is forced to negotiate a peace that is a loss for Russia, will he suffer the same fate as the Russian Tsar or the German Kaiser in the revolutions of just over a century ago? Or will he somehow manage to retain his grip on power?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors
Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?

Message from Finland's President to Vladimir Putin

The Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is a UK-led international rapid response force focused on crisis management, involving ten nations. The assembly of the forces began in 2012, and currently, besides the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, and the Netherlands contribute troops to the initiative.

Currently, a summit of JEF member state leaders is underway in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia. Topics on the agenda include supporting Ukraine, increasing defense spending, and enhancing defense cooperation.

According to Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, “Before we can start discussions on peace negotiations and a ceasefire, we must continue to support Ukraine. And the support must be very practical. This means providing weapons and ammunition so that Ukraine can win the war on the battlefield.”

He also added, “As Finns, we know what we are talking about. After the Winter War and Continuation War, we paid the price for our independence, losing territory and sovereignty. We must ensure that this does not happen in Ukraine.”

Reporters also asked Finland's president for a message to Russian President Vladimir Putin. His response was brief and to the point: “Withdraw!”

President Putin, however, is unlikely to heed his Finnish counterpart’s advice. This makes it all the more significant that Ukraine’s security service recently reduced the ranks of Putin’s army by one general—right in Moscow. This demonstrates that even Russia’s military leaders must fear for their safety while moving around the nation’s capital, and it may well leave them privately hoping that Putin unexpectedly orders the lowering of arms.

At the same time, ordinary Moscow residents who support the war are forced to confront the reality that Ukraine can now strike even their home city. For the smartest among them, it might occur that Finland’s president’s advice was unusually spot on.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
On the Consequences of Russian Inability in Syria
Anecdotes and Jokes About Vladimir Putin
Ukraine can and will stop Putin

Former President Donald Trump is Also the Upcoming President – But What Does It Mean?

Former U.S. President Donald Trump (Rep) won the election against his opponent Kamala Harris (Dem) and is now also the upcoming president. This offers Europe some food for thought.

In economic terms, Trump is expected to strongly advocate for the interests of American businesses and workers. This will likely manifest in the form of increased tariffs, making it harder for other countries to export their products to the U.S.

Europe – and other regions as well – will thus need to consider whether to respond with their own tariffs or simply criticize the Trump administration for its anti-free-trade stance. The former seems more likely, which could ultimately slow down global economic growth.

Trump is also expected to take a firm stance on the humanitarian migration flow from Mexico to the U.S.. This aligns with policies in some EU countries aiming for similar goals. However, it remains to be seen whether either will ultimately succeed in halting the flow of people from developing countries, driven by rapid population growth and a large standard-of-living gap with destination countries.

It is important to note here that, in the U.S., one must work to get by. In many European countries, on the other hand, it's been sufficient to collect social benefits and live off them comfortably.

In military terms, Trump’s overall stance is clear. He demands that NATO’s European members increase their defense spending, without which he won’t commit to guaranteeing their security in the same way the U.S. has done for decades.

Taiwan and Ukraine, of course, are special cases, and I haven’t quite grasped Trump’s stance on them. However, I assume he won’t leave Taiwan at China’s mercy, though Ukraine remains a bigger question mark.

My dear readers will undoubtedly recall that Trump promised to bring peace to Ukraine within a day. However, it’s unclear how he could even achieve that. Unless Trump issues Vladimir Putin an ultimatum to withdraw his forces from Ukraine or face the U.S. military.

Such an approach might indeed work, but in that case, there would be a risk that Russia’s cornered dictator would resort to nuclear weapons. And that would be disastrous for everyone in this world.

Be that as it may, Donald Trump is taking responsibility for U.S. policy, and others must accept that. For Finland’s part, President Alexander Stubb summed up the situation by stating that Finland will get along with the U.S. regardless of who leads the country. On this, I have no further comments.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Message From and To Vladimir Putin
Finland Will Thrive with Any US President, Trump Survived the Assassination Attempt
Trump is leaving Africa

 

Meretricious Democracy

Yesterday's news revealed the world's most popular president by far. He is Paul Kagame, who rose to power after the Rwandan genocide and received 99.18 percent of the votes in the recent elections. In other words, his two competitors together received just under a percent of the votes.

The achieved election result was also Kagame's personal record, as the same news report indicated that he previously only reached a 98.8 percent performance. Or were the competing candidates more popular in the past elections than in the recent ones?

It was also interesting to note that a few days ago, when the US President Joe Biden stepped aside, Vice President Kamala Harris raised $230 million for her campaign in two days. This means nearly $115 million per day.

With this money, she will certainly get a good start, especially as Biden's already collected $96 million will likely end up at her disposal. And perhaps those who have already offered Biden a $700 million support package will transfer their promises to the Vice President.

From all this, we can see that democracy in the great West is not cheap, as the other candidate - Donald Trump - will undoubtedly raise a substantial amount for his use as well. For comparison, it should be remembered that presidential candidate Alexander Stubb collected a modest €2.7 million for his use in the last elections.

Unfortunately, the media has not reported the size of Kagame's campaign fund. But if I may guess, it probably does not contain a very large stack of bills, as he likely had more effective means at his disposal. So much so that Rwandan democracy could be considered meretricious.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The British human rights decision led to unwarranted calls
Biden's Withdrawal Opens a New Possibility for Democrats!
Finland Will Thrive with Any US President, Trump Survived the Assassination Attempt

Finland Will Thrive with Any US President, Trump Survived the Assassination Attempt

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, was interviewed on the Fox channel, which aligns with the US Republicans. However, he did not comment on the relative merits of the presidential candidates but stated that regardless of who leads the United States, Finland will get along with him.

Stubb also noted with satisfaction that an increasing number of NATO member countries have invested the agreed two percent of their GDP in defense. He gave credit for this to the former US president who brought up the issue at the time.

Instead of addressing specific issues, he mentioned that the political discourse in the US has become toxic, and he does not want the free world to emulate it. This can also be interpreted as a comment on Finland's domestic political debate, which also has become unnecessarily polarized in recent years.

He also suggested that the US and Finland could deepen their defense cooperation, for example, in the field of icebreakers, as 80 percent of the world's icebreakers are designed and 60 percent are manufactured in Finland. However, it remains to be seen whether the Pentagon will take up this offer.

Overall, I was quite skeptical of Alexander Stubb's ability to serve as president after he was elected. Therefore, I am very pleased to see that, in my view, he has performed his duties very well thus far, as also evidenced by the interview seen on Fox.

One can only hope that this continues in the future. And that the US also gets a political leader in the upcoming elections who exceeds the expectations of the voters.

* * *

At the same time, the presidential race in the United States is intensifying. The latest development was an assassination attempt on a candidate, resulting in the death of one likely Donald Trump voter, as well as the shooter. Additionally, at least two people were seriously injured.

However, it is likely that Trump's support among voters has rather increased than decreased as a result of the assassination attempt, given that Trump himself sustained a minor injury. This is partly because, during the heated campaign, some Democrats have carelessly expressed wishes for violence against Trump - a fact his supporters are not shy to highlight.

The incident is also serious in terms of freedom of speech. The central question is whether last night's shooting would have occurred without the Democrats' violent rhetoric. Or were those statements ultimately irrelevant, with the shooter's motive emerging from "ordinary" political discourse, which is, in any case, extremely polarized in the United States.

We will never get a definitive answer to these questions, as the shooter is not here to tell. And this will not change, no matter how much the background of the incident is analyzed by any group of political commentators.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine can and will stop Putin
Finns want a border law
Biden's dementia and Trump's speeches may improve European security

Ukraine can and will stop Putin

Finnish President Alexander Stubb said yesterday, during the NATO summit, that Ukraine will leave the meeting satisfied. One reason for this is that the United States, Germany, Romania, and the Netherlands confirmed in a statement released at the NATO summit that they are providing Ukraine with Patriot air defense systems.

This comes at a more than opportune time, as Russia has shown that it aims to destroy the entire Ukrainian society instead of just the Ukrainian army by launching missile attacks on a children's hospital. This is, of course, such a war crime that overlooking it with a shrug would be almost a crime against humanity in itself.

This was also noted by US President Joe Biden, who stated that "Putin wants nothing more than the complete defeat and erasure of Ukraine from the map." Additionally, he was pleased to note that NATO countries have invested more in their defense forces in recent years.

However, the most important outcome of the meeting was the agreement to grant a 40 billion aid package to Ukraine for next year. It is hoped that this will help Ukrainians protect themselves from Russia's war of destruction against civilians and, at the same time, turn the tide of the war permanently against Putin's army.

Biden also believed this, stating that "Ukraine can and will stop Putin."

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Finnish military intelligence: the Russian army is at the limits of its operational capability
Finnish weapons are being tested against the Russians in Ukraine
Technically backward, miscellaneous group of gunmen

Finns want a border law

According to a recent opinion poll, a clear majority of Finns support a new border law that would better counter Russia's hybrid warfare. The idea was backed by 62 percent of respondents, while only 17 percent opposed it.

This means that of those who expressed an opinion in the poll, 78.5 percent were in favor of enacting the law. And this is a very large majority. In other words, Finns want a new border law.

President Alexander Stubb also supported the law, stating that "according to our intelligence, Russia is capable of moving migrants to our border who are not traditional asylum seekers but people used as weapons and instrumentalized. Over a thousand in a few hours."

Hopefully, this information will sway those Social Democratic MPs who have so far opposed the law change, and perhaps even some representatives of the Greens or the Left Alliance.

Of course, there are no guarantees, but at least I wouldn't want to be the MP who ended up supporting Vladimir Putin's efforts to use masses of people from developing countries as a hybrid weapon by flooding them across our eastern border. And in doing so, helped one of the cruelest dictators of our time to undermine our organized society and its security.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's useful idiots in Finland
Immigration issue
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth

The root causes of racist violence

In the editorial of the Finnish afternoon newspaper Ilta-Sanomat, the stance of President Alexander Stubb and Petteri Orpo's (National Coalition Party) government was discussed, which stated that Finland's greatest challenge is Russia and its grandiose president Vladimir Putin. This is especially true if his army were to succeed in winning in Ukraine.

There is nothing special about bringing up this topic as the subject of the editorial, since the threat from Russia is well known. What was more surprising, however, was that the editorial writer moved on to the problems related to immigrants from developing countries at the end of the text.

The text went exactly as follows: "An even greater threat feeding citizens' sense of insecurity is brewing in racist violence, social exclusion, and growing gang violence. The stabbings that occurred in a shopping center in Oulu should wake up decision-makers – even without reports."

Highlighting the two native perpetrators of the stabbings in the Oulu shopping center suggests that, in the editorial writer's opinion, the problem lies particularly with the racist crimes committed by native people against immigrants. On the other hand, it is probably well known that, according to statistics, Iraqis and Somalis living in our country commit crimes against life and health more than three times as often as Finns, relative to their age and number.

Indeed, their contribution to assaults has an even slightly greater overrepresentation. And sexual crimes much more commonly – Iraqis with even over 12 times the likelihood compared to the native population. Nor is their overrepresentation in violent and drug-dealing youth groups and gangs unknown.

Therefore, I consider it likely that the racism directed towards immigrants by the majority population has not arisen out of nowhere but, as the old Finnish saying goes, "so the forest answers as you call into it." This is not a defense speech for the Finns guilty of violence – for they have shown by their actions to be on the level of the worst idiots from the developing countries – but a remark on the actual state of affairs.

Therefore, the editor-in-chief of Ilta-Sanomat should also present the entire issue comprehensively, taking into account all the factors influencing the whole situation.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Immigration issue
Will the multinational force led by Kenyans help?
An immigrant who stands out from the average has been taken into custody

Biden's dementia and Trump's speeches may improve European security

The world is in a dire situation, as the upcoming president of the United States appears to be either Donald Trump or Joe Biden. The latter's signs of dementia have become increasingly apparent and have become a hot potato in the politics of the Western superpower, particularly with the so-called Hur report bluntly stating the matter.

Of course, Biden's supporters have launched a counterattack, assuring that the president's memory functions flawlessly and attempting to demonstrate that the report is politically motivated. However, it is clear that the doubt it brings will linger in people's minds, and any minor public slip-up by Biden will significantly affect the less fanatical part of his voters in the future.

However, this does not mean that Donald Trump is returning to the White House. Firstly, he needs support from the U.S. Supreme Court, and secondly, he must somehow convince his voter base throughout the entire election campaign that the undoubtedly fierce accusations of inciting rebellion during the previous elections by his opponent are untrue.

From the perspective of us Europeans, the problem lies in the difficulty of determining which option is better for us - the inherently unpredictable Trump or Biden, who seems physically elderly and appears to be suffering from dementia. And the situation is not improved by Trump's advance mention of his reluctance to unconditionally support Europe if Russia were to invade Ukraine and then shift its focus to another bordering country.

Regarding the latter, I was pleased to note that our future president, Alexander Stubb, understood Donald Trump to be "essentially right" in suggesting that Europe needs to take more responsibility for its own security. While Finland's defense capability is in order, Russia's brutal aggressiveness ultimately cannot be restrained without significant support either from the United States or through a much greater investment in military capability by the major Western European countries - Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.

In that sense, the competition between the two elderly men in the United States for leadership of the country may ultimately awaken decision-makers on our continent and thereby enhance Europe's security. And in the best-case scenario, Biden may have to withdraw his candidacy and be replaced by a younger and hopefully capable alternative who can defeat Trump in the election and, while in office, even reduce the extreme internal division within the Western superpower.

The result could be a militarily strong Europe, supported by a security-conscious United States.

The original thought in Finnish:
Bidenin dementia ja Trumpin puheet saattavat parantaa Euroopan turvallisuutta

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Risk of dementia in the U.S. presidential elections
Military confrontation between China and USA highly probable in near future
Erdogan wants fighter jets, and uses Finland and Sweden to get them