Putin's Endgame: Deception, Escalation, or Death?

According to Finnish media, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters yesterday evening that Russia had completely captured the Ukrainian city of Kostiantynivka. Meanwhile, the U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) disputed the claim, stating that while Russian forces have made tactical gains in Kostiantynivka, "the majority of the Russian presence in the town consists of small infiltration groups scattered among Ukrainian positions."

ISW argued that Peskov's exaggerated statements were intended to shape Western media coverage of the war over the weekend, when the United States is celebrating its 250th anniversary. It therefore remains to be seen whether Russia's so-called "special military operation" has genuinely advanced or whether the claims about capturing Kostiantynivka are simply another example of Kremlin propaganda.

* * *

Columnist Lauri Nurmi, for his part, speculated that Vladimir Putin could ultimately meet the same fate as Nicolae Ceaușescu. In doing so, he echoed a point I made some time ago when I argued that Putin would have no political future if Russia were to return from Ukraine having suffered defeat.

Admittedly, it is difficult to follow developments in the war in Ukraine—as the Kostiantynivka case illustrates—because both sides are accompanied by actors spreading disinformation. This is particularly true on social media, where anyone can publish virtually anything.

In any event, it has long been evident that Putin's three-day "special military operation" has fared no better than Stalin's Red Army's planned "two-week march to Helsinki" in 1939. For that reason, it is possible—perhaps even likely—that Putin will eventually have to announce at least a partial mobilization.

The consequences can only be guessed. What is certain, however, is that if compulsory mobilization is implemented, many more Russian families will lose sons, husbands, and fathers. It is difficult to imagine that those affected would thank their country's leader. At the very least, many of them might privately entertain thoughts similar to those expressed by Nurmi—or by myself.

* * *

This may also help explain why the Russian dictator has reportedly been pressuring his Belarusian counterpart to join the war. Such a move could serve two purposes at once: perhaps fewer Russians would be killed in combat, while Ukraine's military position would become more difficult as the front line expanded.

On the other hand, President Alyaksandr Lukashenka undoubtedly understands that Ukrainians would not simply surrender. They would resist with everything they have, increasing the number of Belarusian families mourning fallen relatives.

That, in turn, would heighten the risk of a coup—or at least serious unrest—in a country where dissatisfaction with his rule has existed for years. For that reason, he is likely to continue accommodating Putin in almost every respect except one: sending Belarusian troops across the southern border into Ukraine.

If Putin ultimately succeeds in forcing Belarus into the war, Europe would face a serious test. Would we merely express outrage, or would we take concrete action? Something more substantial than words and continued deliveries of material assistance to Ukraine?

* * *

Adding to these concerns are speculations that the Russian military could launch a strike against Poland via Belarus or Kaliningrad, disguising it as an "accidental" incident. Such scenarios make the overall situation appear even more serious and Europe's security environment increasingly precarious.

The most troubling question is that we do not know how nuclear-armed Russia would respond if it continued to struggle in conventional warfare. Could it resort to its most powerful weapons if its position in Ukraine deteriorated further and Belarus refused to intervene on its behalf?

And what if Polish forces were to destroy a Russian unit that had crossed the border under the guise of a "mistake"? How would Russia respond? And how would Western leaders react?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's Growing Crisis in Ukraine and an Uncertain Endgame for Russia
Russia's Predicament Awakened the Trolls and Increased the Risk of Nuclear War
Can Ukraine Create Its Own “Winter War Miracle”?

Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?

Vladimir Putin’s three-day “special operation” in Ukraine is becoming ever more visible in Russia. Fresh examples of this include the derailment of two trains in the Leningrad region and a drone strike on the Primorsk (Koivisto) oil terminal, which has left Russian oil exports from this port still suspended.

According to a social media account called The War Action, during the past August Ukraine struck 22 oil- and gas-related facilities, 12 railway infrastructure targets, six defense industry companies, three ports and warehouses, and two airports. As a result, this month ten Russian regions have faced such severe fuel shortages that some independent gas stations shut down entirely—and where operations continue, gasoline prices have risen.

At the same time, the balance of power on the battlefield has shifted. For instance, near Dobropillia, Ukrainian armed forces units have advanced west of Volodymyrivka. Several Russian detachments remain encircled near Kucheriv Yar—and even the reinforcements sent to assist them are themselves facing encirclement.

If these developments continue, it is clear that Vladimir Putin’s position as Russia’s dictator will begin to weaken. His situation is made no easier by the fact that Donald Trump has called on all NATO countries to stop buying oil from Russia, to impose tougher sanctions against it, and to levy 50–100 percent import tariffs on China.

As a carrot, Trump has offered that if all his demands are met, the United States will also be ready to impose major sanctions against Russia—thereby forcing Vladimir Putin to end his special operation, or at least compelling the Russian people to rid themselves of their dictator.

Putin’s difficult situation is also evident from the fact that even Belarusian dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenko has begun to distance himself from his regime. This was seen, for example, when Belarusian authorities warned the Poles about drones that had recently crossed the border through Belarusian airspace.

Or what do you think, my dear reader? Could all this be a sign that Vladimir Vladimirovich’s countdown has now begun? Or am I just dreaming?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Responding to Russia’s Challenges Is Essential
Russian Oil Giants Suffer, But the Real Reasons Remain Hidden
Ukraine’s Missiles and Russia’s Forced Recruitment Set to Topple Putin’s Regime

Human Rights Judge Pauliine Koskelo Questions Asylum Interpretation That Ignores the Threat of Hybrid Warfare

The immigration of people from developing countries has become a major problem for EU countries, as a large proportion of them have not wanted to adapt to the European way of life. Regarding Eastern EU countries, it must also be noted that Russia seeks to use people of developing country backgrounds as a tool of hybrid warfare by transporting them to its own or Belarus's eastern border to attempt to cross into the West.

For this reason, Finland has enacted a temporary border security law, based on which the border with Russia has been closed to traffic. Therefore, it was interesting to note that former European Court of Human Rights judge Pauliine Koskelo commented on the ongoing parliamentary debate about extending Finland’s border security law.

According to the judge, it is evident "that with respect to border situations, the only scenario considered in interpretive practice is that anyone attempting to cross the border outside normal passport control, appearing to be a 'civilian', is a potential asylum seeker who must be allowed into the country so that they have an opportunity to seek asylum. The question is, how far can such an approach based on a single fundamental assumption — one that leaves no room for, for example, the protection of national security — be extended?"

She continued that "this alone should require that the contracting state retains a real possibility to repel actions by a third state that would unlawfully funnel unknown people with unknown intentions across its border... The idea that the need to protect national security should have no significance even when a foreign state begins to 'push' unknown individuals across the border — while at the same time controlling who these people are, how many there are, where they may come from, what their intentions are, and the risk situation posed on their side of the border — seems difficult to defend, especially if there are signs of hostile state motives behind the circumstances."

She concluded her view by stating that "if even in such a scenario the contracting state would have to allow free entry to anyone solely on the basis that they declare themselves as asylum seekers or create a first impression suggesting so, it could be reasonably assessed that the limits of interpretative acceptability would be seriously tested."

Koskelo’s view matches my own and undoubtedly also that of almost all other people. Therefore, it is astonishing that there are still people in Finland who seem to firmly believe that Vladimir Putin has the right to push as many people as he wishes across the Finnish border, simply because international human rights treaties could be interpreted that way. Not long ago, even Finland's Constitutional Law Committee included three such individuals: one from the Left Alliance, one from the Greens, and one from the Social Democrats.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:

Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?
Finland to Tighten Citizenship Requirements Further
Duck emphasizing the urgency of the new border law

Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

The defense ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland have recommended in a joint statement to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, which bans anti-personnel mines. The reason cited is the increasing security threat posed by Russia.

Finland is also expected to join this group soon, as discussions have been ongoing about reintroducing anti-personnel mines. According to Jukka Kopra (National Coalition Party), chairman of the Defense Committee, Finland could withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty within the next few months.

This would enable the eastern border states of Russia, from Lapland to the Belarusian border, to defend themselves better against potential Russian aggression. And considering Belarus as a puppet state of Russia, this extends further down to Ukraine’s border.

Finland and Poland, in particular, have strong and well-equipped armies, which are undoubtedly capable of independent defense long enough for other NATO countries to come to their aid. If necessary, they can also help counter an attack against the Baltic states.

Since this text may be read in Putin’s dictatorship, it is important to state that none of the aforementioned NATO countries—let alone NATO as a whole—are planning any military operation on Russian soil. Any claims by Putin’s administration suggesting otherwise, now or in the future, are nothing but attempts to mislead ordinary Russians, much like Stalin’s administration did in 1939–40 when it ordered its army to occupy Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and eastern Poland, as well as launch an unsuccessful invasion to occupy Finland, which resulted in approximately 350,000 casualties for the Red Army in just three months.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?

Donald Trump’s Reliability as an Ally Has Proven to Be Questionable

According to Financial Times, the U.S. will stop providing Ukraine with intelligence support. This comes at a time when the Ukrainian Army is once again gaining the upper hand in the war against Russia. Meanwhile, Ukraine has just expressed gratitude to Trump and announced that it will sign a mineral agreement.

This strongly supports the idea that the Russian government has some means of blackmailing Trump. Whether it’s compromising erotic video material or something else—I don’t know—but either way, Trump's position as Vladimir Putin’s pocket rat seems increasingly obvious.

That’s why Ukrainians and Europeans must now, at the very latest, ask whether there is any motivation behind Trump’s actions other than attempting to influence the war in a way that allows Putin to get what he wants—ultimately leading to Ukraine losing its independence. Or at the very least, turning into a Russian puppet state like Belarus.

* * *

Many Finns would prefer that we refrain from criticizing Trump’s actions, while many others would like us to return to the era of Finlandization, when Finns did everything they could to avoid provoking the eastern superpower.

However, the Finnish government has taken a clear stance: we aim to support Ukraine in its war. The reasons for this are both the moral obligation to stand by a country that has been subjected to an illegal invasion and the fear that a Russian victory in Ukraine could lead to an attack on other neighboring states—including Finland.

Of course, Finland’s NATO membership alleviates some of this fear, as it ensures U.S. and other allies’ support in the event of an attack. But if the U.S. government is in Putin’s pocket, the situation looks entirely different. In that case, can Finland truly rely on U.S. assistance when it matters most?

In this regard, there is one crucial point that not all Finns have grasped: Russia is not actually competing with the U.S. for global dominance—China is. It may be that Trump wants to get the Ukraine issue off his hands as quickly as possible to focus on China, even if he isn’t directly controlled by Putin.

For Finland, this means that the only even somewhat reliable support against Russia will come from Europe—especially the Nordic countries—whose military capabilities, however, have been allowed to deteriorate almost completely. That is why Finland must be highly proactive in pushing for European rearmament. And fortunately, the Finnish government has recently been doing exactly that.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:

Donald Trump Has Unleashed a Dangerous Development
Too Many Finns Share Trump’s Inability to Comprehend
Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions

Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?

The American think tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW) speculates in its latest publication that Russia may soon absorb Belarus into its own territory. This would significantly expand Russia's border with NATO countries, thereby heightening tensions between Western Europe and Russia.

Today, Belarus is particularly known for its dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka and his close ties with Russia. Despite this, Belarus has not participated in Russia’s war against Ukraine but has remained separate from it.

The fact remains, however, that little is known about Belarus in Finland—or, as far as I can tell, elsewhere in the world. That’s why I thought I’d share a few words about its history.

Belarus is a region inhabited by a Slavic people who have their own language, spoken by about 85 percent of the country’s citizens. In other words, Belarusians are not Russians, nor do they wish to be.

Belarus also has a long history, although for most of it, the rulers have come from outside its borders. Between 1068 and 1069, the Belarusian Prince of Polotsk ruled the entire Kievan Rus for a few months, but the tables turned in 1129, when Kievan Rus subjugated the region. In 1240, it became part of Lithuania, and in the 16th century, it fell under the rule of the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth.

In the 18th century, it was incorporated into Russia during the partitions of Poland and remained under Russian control until the First World War. During the war, the Germans occupied the area and established the short-lived Belarusian People's Republic, which quickly became part of the socialist Soviet Union after the war, though Poland seized about half of it in 1921.

At the beginning of the Second World War, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact resulted in Belarus once again becoming fully part of Russia. The war swept over the region in both directions, and afterward, most of Belarus remained part of the Soviet Union. It declared independence once more in 1990 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In summary, what I have written above means that if Russia were to annex Belarus once again, it would return to its historical "normal" of being subjugated by others. However, it remains to be seen whether the Belarusian people will find the will and ability to avoid this fate and—contrary to my own expectations—retain their independence and keep their future in their own hands.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Elections in Georgia and Japan: The Future of Democracy on Different Paths
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

Elections in Georgia and Japan: The Future of Democracy on Different Paths

In Georgia, it is very likely that the elections were rigged. At the same time, the country's attempts to distance itself from Russia seem to be coming to an end—unless a popular uprising or some other unexpected event occurs in the future.

Another set of elections is also underway, where power may change hands. This time it's Japan, and there is no doubt that the election results can be trusted—not even by the politicians who lose the election.

There are two major differences between Georgia and Japan. First, their political positions are entirely different. Japan has been a stable democracy supported by the United States since the end of World War II. Georgia, on the other hand, has experienced at least a tumultuous path since its liberation from the Soviet Union, colored by Russia's presence.

However, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, for example, also freed themselves from Soviet rule in the early 1990s, and a significant portion of their populations are Russian. In these countries, the native populations—Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians—quickly took control of the state apparatus and shut down Russian attempts to influence.

Even the Russian minorities in these countries no longer wish to be under Russia's control—although they may not fully adapt to the majority ways of life in their own countries either. In any case, all three countries share a strong consensus among their citizens that Russia will not be allowed to interfere in their affairs.

For this reason, it is important to note that all the Baltic states, after gaining their independence, integrated as quickly as possible both economically and militarily with Western nations. Accordingly, they shaped their societies to meet the standards required for such integration.

This has not been the case in Georgia, where a large portion of the population wishes to keep the country within Russia's sphere of influence. Even by conservative estimates, around 40% of the population supports this view. 

As a result, Georgia's future does not seem very promising. At best, the country appears to be on a path that will lead to the loss of its true freedom and its transformation into a Russian vassal state, much like Belarus.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?
Putin´s Russia got mad about the Finnish chairman of the Parliament
Daniel Freund demanded a ban to Viktor Orbán

Turning Points in the War in Ukraine: New Threats and Unexpected Allies

Ukraine's successful offensive against Russia has undoubtedly caused headaches for Putin's administration. And it is not impossible that the Russians might decide to do something extraordinary to rid themselves of this embarrassing situation.

One possibility, of course, would be to divert the Ukrainians' attention elsewhere. This could happen in cooperation with Belarus, for example, by inciting Lukashenko to involve his army in the war.

Such a move would obviously not be in Belarus' best interest, especially given that its military is weak compared to Russia and even Ukraine. However, the fact remains that Belarus has gathered a large contingent of troops near the Ukrainian border.

The most likely reason for this, however, is not an attack on Ukraine but the annual joint military exercises held with Russia. This would also explain the presence of Russian units in the area, such as the Wagner Group.

From the Ukrainians' perspective, it is clear that the troops gathering in the north cannot be ignored, and Zelensky will need to deploy his own military units in response. Therefore, Lukashenko will end up assisting Putin’s army, even if the Belarusians do not carry out a single operation across the Ukrainian border.

One can only hope that this doesn’t halt Ukraine’s well-advanced progress on the Russian side of the border. This is important because the further they advance, the more they will affect Russia in the same way that the Belarusian troops are affecting Ukraine: by forcing Putin to halt his own sluggish but progressing offensive operations in eastern Ukraine and relocate his units away from Ukraine.

There is a fourth card in this game as well—one that has remained hidden so far—namely Poland. Militarily strong, Poland could, if it chose to, significantly alter the military balance in Ukraine. That’s why the recent incursion of a Russian drone into Polish airspace was extremely bad news for the Russians, as it gives the Poles a legitimate reason to intervene in the war in Ukraine.

One clear reason for such an intervention could be the resolution of World War II, in which Poland was shifted about a hundred kilometers westward. The lost territories likely still stir strong emotions among many Poles, which might lower the threshold for seizing the opportunity to right the wrongs experienced by their grandparents. Especially when Russia's army in Ukraine has proven to be more of a paper tiger than a real military force.

It remains to be seen how the war in Ukraine will continue from the current situation, and whether a resolution will eventually be reached that all parties can accept. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukrainian Offensive Encircles Russian Forces, Echoes of Past Defeats
Ukraine Gives Kursk Residents a Clear Choice: Russia or Refuge
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare

How naive can the world's most intelligent people be?

The most prestigious - and the only one known to the general public - recognition for scientific work in the world is the Nobel Prize. These prizes are awarded in Stockholm, Sweden, with the exception of the Peace Prize, which is awarded in Oslo, Norway.

The award ceremony in Stockholm is a solemn event attended by the cream of Sweden's society. This year, the Nobel Foundation, which organizes the award ceremony, announced a few days ago that it would invite all the ambassadors from every country to the event.

Even politically neutral King Carl XVI Gustaf expressed his surprise at the invitation extended to the Russian ambassador. Consequently, the Nobel Foundation announced yesterday that it would not invite the ambassadors of Russia, Belarus, or Iran after all.

Of course, this incident is not inherently significant enough to warrant a blog post. However, I brought it up because it demonstrated how naive even the world's most intelligent people can be (assuming that the members of the Nobel Committee fall into that category).

The committee had justified inviting the Russian ambassador by stating that they wanted the values underlying the Nobel Prize to reach even those who do not share those values. As if Vladimir Putin, Alexander Lukashenko, or Ali Khamenei were unaware of these Western values and ideas.

I can tell the esteemed Nobel Committee that they are indeed aware of them. Moreover, they deliberately disregard these values.

That's why I can only imagine how amusing it must have been in Moscow, Minsk, and Tehran as the aforementioned trio observed the incredible naivety and idealism of the Nobel Committee. In that sense, the farce we witnessed was not very surprising, given that it was the Swedes who, through equally naive and idealistic immigration policies, destroyed their own extremely prosperous and secure welfare state at the turn of the 21st century.

The original thought in Finnish:
Kuinka naiiveja voivat olla maailman älykkäimmät ihmiset?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Hussein Al-Taee, an Islamic militant and a member of the Social Democratic Party of Finland
Most useless organisations of our time
Pacifism - a respectable tool to support inhumane dictators and warlords