Military Superiority Does Not Guarantee Victory

Nobody cares if a dog bites a man. Consequently, such incidents are not reported in the news, and they certainly do not make headline stories.

It is a different matter if a man bites a dog. That is unexpected and therefore the kind of event that makes headlines.

* * *

This came to mind when virtually all major Finnish media outlets (example, another) reported that Iran's armed forces had succeeded in killing two and wounding four American soldiers. The last time Iran managed to kill an enemy combatant was last March, and over the course of the current war it has reportedly killed a total of fifteen American soldiers.

According to Wikipedia, the Iranians have meanwhile lost 1,221 soldiers. That means the cost of one American soldier amounts to roughly 81 Iranian soldiers. In other words, one American is worth more than eighty Persian Muslims.

This figure can be compared, for example, with the Winter War, during which about five Red Army soldiers were killed or wounded for every Finnish soldier lost. This suggests that the Americans have been about sixteen times more militarily effective against the Iranians this year than the Finns were against the Soviets during the Winter War.

* * *

The essential question, however, is this: if the Finns' fivefold superiority was enough to halt the Red Army's offensive, will the Americans' superiority—sixteen times greater than that achieved by the Finns in the Winter War, amounting to an overall advantage of more than eighty to one—be sufficient to defeat the Iranians?

At the moment, it does not appear so, although the Americans have naturally launched retaliatory strikes in response to these events.

Such strikes, however, do not win wars, nor do they apparently succeed in toppling governments. That would require the deployment of ground forces, which would also mean a substantial increase in American military casualties.

Even President Donald Trump is unlikely to be willing to take that step, as he too remembers the war in Afghanistan, in which 2,328 U.S. soldiers lost their lives. That conflict ended, under pressure from the home front, in the defeat of the Americans—and the Europeans who had supported them.

* * *

Based on the above, it is likely that Trump's war against the Iranians will end in a humiliating defeat for the United States. The greatest victims will be ordinary Iranians, who had hoped to see their government—one guided by medieval values—overthrown. And, of course, people around the world will also suffer if the Strait of Hormuz effectively becomes a trade route controlled by Iran, with transit requiring the payment of tariffs or tolls.

Another significant consequence is that Iranian resistance has demonstrated that American military power may be less formidable than previously believed. This is something that has undoubtedly been noticed in Beijing, which has its own strategic interests in East Asia. For that reason, Taiwan in particular—but Japan as well—has good reason to prepare for the growing assertiveness of Chinese imperial ambitions.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Who Really Rules Iran?
Trump’s War Without Strategy: Why Iran May Come Out Stronger
Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony

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

When Social Media Stops Being Social

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

The Taiwan Question: A Conflict That Could Turn Nuclear

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Taiwanin kysymys uuteen vaiheeseen?

Venezuela, Antonio Guterres and the Nature of Great Powers

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

Perspectives on Immigration Restrictions in Finland and the U.S.

You don’t have to—nor is there any reason to—like Donald Trump or everything he has done. There is, however, one thing for which he must be given credit.

His administration has suspended the processing of immigration applications from citizens of Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Sierra Leone, Togo, Equatorial Guinea, the Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Chad, Sudan, Libya, Eritrea, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, and Laos. The reason for this is that an Afghan who had gained entry to the country recently committed an act of terrorism by shooting members of the National Guard.

* * *

Over the years, Finland has also learned that people with developing-country backgrounds commit more violent and sexual offenses than others. That is why it is good that Prime Minister Petteri Orpo’s (National Coalition Party) government has tightened immigration policy.

As a result, the number of immigration applications on the basis of international protection from citizens of countries with the highest crime risk has been clearly lower last year and this year than at any point since the major migration year of 2015.

* * *

One can only hope that this development continues in the coming years and that the next government of our country does not start dismantling the progress achieved. Instead, one may hope that future policymakers will find a philosopher’s stone for how to get the developing-country immigrants who have already arrived here to adopt Finnish culture and way of life, and thereby take responsibility for their own lives here under the North Star.

One way to advance this goal is to develop criminal law in a direction that reduces the interest of crime-prone newcomers in coming to Finland, while at the same time encouraging those who are already here to live in Rome as the Romans do. In these matters, it is worthwhile to follow practices that have proven effective in other countries—including the immigration policy measures of Donald Trump’s administration—and make use of their experiences in the development of Finnish legislation.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Donald Trump Called a Shooter an Animal
Finally, Honest Reporting on Immigration and Crime
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Väkivalta- ja seksuaalirikollisuuden seuraukset

Donald Trump Called a Shooter an Animal

This morning’s news feed reported that a 29-year-old Afghan who moved to the country in 2021 has shot two members of the United States National Guard. The incident took place in Washington, the capital of the USA – and reportedly very close to the White House.

President Donald Trump has called the event an act of terror and referred to the perpetrator as an animal. In addition, he has vowed that the Afghan will pay a very high price for his actions.

It remains to be seen what the criminal investigation will ultimately conclude regarding the shooting incident. However, it is already generally clear that the case can be linked to the broader issues associated with the migration of Muslim people from developing countries to Western democracies.

It is equally certain that this case will not halt the so-called humanitarian immigration policy, but that it will continue as before. As a result, Western culture will gradually transform into a more polarized society, in which the ethno-cultural character of the population differs significantly from what it was before the turn of the millennium.

It should be noted, though, that this development is ultimately the result of political decisions. Therefore, the development I described above is not a law of nature, but rather the choice of Western people themselves. And as such, it – and its outcome – can be changed, should that be desired.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Just Another Case of Multiculturality in Manchester, UK
The Cost of the East Jerusalem Attack for Palestinians — and Its Echo Worldwide
Understanding of European Terrorism by Left-wing and Value-liberal Politicians

The original blogposti in Finnish:
29-vuotias afgaani ammuskeli

Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?

Based on the latest news, it now appears that the EU will have to decide whether it is a significant actor or merely a paper tiger in world politics. I mean that the United States has pressured Ukraine to accept a peace plan dictated by Russia—or at least one that appears to be so—circulating under the name of Donald Trump.

According to media reports, the pressure has taken the form of threatening Ukrainians with a reduction in American military aid and intelligence support if the plan is not accepted. This is a serious situation, because—as I understand it—it is perfectly clear that Ukraine cannot continue the war in its current circumstances without U.S. intelligence assistance, when survival against the enemy is already hanging by a thread.

If Donald Trump is serious, Ukraine is left with two options: either to accept a peace agreement highly similar to the one effectively forced upon Finland in 1944, or for Europeans to step in and fully replace American support.

That does not mean that Germany’s Merz, France’s Macron, and Britain’s Starmer can simply continue to offer verbal reassurances of their support. The major EU countries must now genuinely commit to large-scale assistance for Ukraine, because the shoulders of the Baltic states and the Nordic countries alone are in no way sufficient to stop Russia. Otherwise, Ukraine will be handed over to the Russians.

Based on current information, a decision will be made by next Thursday, as Trump is waiting until then for Zelensky’s answer. After that, he—possibly due to some form of blackmail related to his past trips to Moscow—will abandon the Ukrainians to their fate.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?
Questionable Achievements of Donald Trump's Foreign Policy

Russians Turn to Museum Trains

A recent news report revealed that Russia is operating heavily armed armored trains. This is interesting, as I had thought such machines had long since become mere historical anecdotes.

At the beginning of the Finnish Civil War in 1918, the railway network in southern Finland and most of the railway workshops fell into the hands of the Reds. As a result, the revolutionaries began manufacturing armored trains and obtained practical knowledge from the Russians on how to use them.

The military usefulness of trains tied to railways turned out to be less significant than hoped, even though Bolshevik Russia sent skilled armored train operators who provided guidance and advice on their use. Nevertheless, they were not without importance, and the weapon system continued to be developed in Finland up until the Second World War.

Once the war began, however, it became clear that advances in air power had made armored trains highly vulnerable, rendering them practically obsolete by the 1940s. Consequently, as early as 1942, they were converted into anti-aircraft batteries defending key troop and material transports, unloading stations, and railway yards, by equipping them with anti-aircraft guns.

Apparently, this obsolescence has not been recognized in Russia, since armored trains are still in use there. Or perhaps the country’s military believes it controls the airspace so completely that these rail-bound “monster trains” can still operate effectively—at least to secure home lines far from the actual front.

There is, of course, another possibility: that the reappearance of armored trains in the Russian army merely reflects the growing difficulties it faces as losses in men and materiel increase, and as Ukrainians strike infrastructure targets ever deeper behind the front lines.

In this light, the situation of the army carrying out Putin’s “special operation” is not made any easier by the announcement from U.S. President Donald Trump that he will impose sanctions on Russia’s two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil. Nor is the effectiveness of this measure likely to diminish as Russia’s icy, dark winter approaches—a season when people are more dependent than ever on a functioning energy supply.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Patria TRACKX: Next-Generation Vehicle for Emerging Challenges
Rediscovered Relics: The Story Behind Finland's WWII Weapon Caches
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war

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

Optimism and Reality of the Gaza Peace Proposal

The terrorists of Hamas have accepted part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace proposal. First, they are ready to release their remaining hostages, and second, they agree to relinquish power in Gaza – though only in favor of an independent Palestinian leadership.

As a result, Israel has announced that it will scale back its operations in Gaza to a “minimum,” conducting only defensive missions in the area – something Trump himself encouraged them to do. Thus, with their statement, Hamas fighters have at least gained a brief respite.

At the same time, it is clear that Hamas has not committed to all parts of Trump’s peace plan. One particularly crucial element is the disarmament – or demilitarization – of this terrorist organization.

It remains to be seen how the situation in Gaza and the entire Holy Land will develop from here. In other words, will Hamas manage to evade the demands placed upon it – and if not, will hostilities with Israel resume immediately after the release of the hostages?

This also gives Hamas some room to maneuver; it might seek to delay the handover of hostages in order to reorganize and strengthen its military operations. And if that happens, one must ask: at what point will Israel and Trump lose their patience?

All in all, it would of course be best if Hamas accepted all the terms of the agreement. On the other hand, the most important thing for everyone – not least for ordinary Palestinians in Gaza – would be Hamas’s disarmament, which would in any case put an end to the fighting in the region.

However, I suspect that this is the last condition on Trump’s list that Hamas would ever agree to – if it agrees at all. And therefore, it remains to be seen whether this morning’s optimism will turn out to be merely an illusion, one that shatters as soon as we return to Gaza’s grim reality and the distorted worldview of the terrorists who sustain it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland May Recognize Palestine as an Independent State
Palestine’s Statehood and International Law
When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?

Ukraine Got Permission to Strike – But Where is the Target?

The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has given Ukraine permission to strike Russian territory with long-range weapons. According to the U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, there are no prohibited areas.

So now is a good time to guess where Ukraine will strike first. Could the target even be the Kremlin in Moscow? Or some distant, particularly significant arms factory or oil refinery? Or perhaps St. Petersburg — the former capital of the Russian tsars — which is actually quite close to Finland?

If I had to bet, I’d put my money on a fairly close target: namely the Crimean Bridge, the destruction of which would have major strategic significance in the ongoing war.

I don’t have any inside information, so after writing this I’ll be waiting eagerly for tomorrow’s news from Ukraine. Hopefully it will be good.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?
Russia’s Aging MiG Fleet vs. Finland’s Modern Air Power
Patria TRACKX: Next-Generation Vehicle for Emerging Challenges

Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?

Last night, Russia struck with great force against civilians in Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv. It remains to be seen, however, how this will affect U.S. President Donald Trump.

I ask this because President Trump has recently seemed, at long last, to have grown weary of Vladimir Putin and his army’s actions in Ukraine. And now there has been a large-scale attack against Ukrainian civilians – which in itself constitutes a war crime.

For my part, however, I doubt that Trump is still a man capable of putting Putin in his place – that is, of showing Russia to be nothing more than a second-rate vassal state to China. Nor do I think he is the man who could end a war that has already claimed 1,1 million Russian lives, a war which Moscow’s elite continues only to preserve its own grip on power.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?
Donald Trump’s Meeting With Vladimir Putin: The Advice He Needs
Oily Trap for Putin

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

On Freedom, Debate, and the Murder of Charlie Kirk

As my esteemed reader surely knows, on Wednesday in the United States, Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, was shot. The identity of the shooter is not yet known for sure, although one suspect, Tyler Robinson, has been named and arrested. Based on images released to the public, he appears to be a young white man.

The weapon used in the murder has apparently been found, but the shooter’s identity has not been established—or at least it has not been disclosed. Instead, engravings were found on the bullets in the gun, expressing transsexual and antifascist ideology.

On this basis, it has been suspected that the shooter’s motive was left-liberal or at least ideological in nature. Nevertheless—or perhaps precisely for that reason—President Donald Trump has urged his famously right-wing conservative supporters to respond peacefully.

* * *

For my part, I see that although the violent ending of a human life is already in itself an extremely serious crime, the saddest long-term consequence of the murder is its effect on freedom of speech, and through that, on the future of American society. This is because Charlie Kirk was known as someone who was willing to engage in public debate with people whose worldview differed radically from his own.

Thus, despite belonging to the most conservative end of the political spectrum, he maintained cross-party debate in a country where the lines of polarization between people have tightened considerably in recent years. And as a result of this activity, he was killed—instead of rising to become a nationwide political figure.

The risk in this situation is that, as a consequence of the murder, other people who bravely voice their views—that is, those who take part in societal discussion—will also fall silent out of fear, thereby narrowing the dialogue between extremes even further. At the same time, the polarization of American society will deepen, and in the worst case we may end up in a situation where the political movement in power at the time—or at least its supporters—are left without the healthy societal criticism they need.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Unintended Consequences of Modern Value Shifts
Freedom of Speech in Danger
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

Border Residents Concerned Over NATO’s Article 5 Interpretation

According to a Polish news site, U.S. President Donald Trump intends to make a six-point proposal to Russian leader Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. Under this plan, the first step would be to agree on a ceasefire, after which Russia would be allowed to keep the territories it has seized from Ukraine for at least the next 49 years.

Once the ceasefire had taken effect, the U.S. government would remove most of the sanctions imposed on Russia and, after some time, once again permit the export of Russian oil and gas. In return for these concessions, Trump is also expected to present demands to Putin.

The first of these would require Russia to accept the further enlargement of NATO beyond its current membership. In addition, military aid to Ukraine would continue.

The claims made by the Polish news site have not been confirmed by other sources, but neither have they been denied. Therefore, for the time being, they should be taken seriously.

* * *

As a citizen of a country bordering Russia, Trump’s plan concerns me, as it would result in Vladimir Putin being rewarded for his aggression against Ukraine. In other words, it would support his policy that any geographical areas once under Russian control should belong forever to Moscow’s sphere of influence.

In Europe, this particularly concerns Finland and the Baltic states, all of which have at some point in their history been part of Russia (or the Soviet Union). In Finland’s case, this was from 1809 to 1917, when my homeland formed an autonomous grand duchy ruled by the Russian tsar.

The fear, then, is that once Russia has recovered from the war in Ukraine, Putin or his successor might decide to see whether the West — and especially the U.S. — would also be willing to accept possible conquests from a future military campaign against a NATO country. That is, for example, the subjugation of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania to Moscow’s power, either partially or entirely.

In this matter, the key question becomes NATO’s commitment to defending the sovereignty of its northeastern members. The central issue here is how to interpret Article 5 of the treaty, which states that "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

What especially concerns me here is the interpretation of the above-emphasized word “necessary.” Does it mean that the amount of assistance is to be calibrated so that the aggressor is certain to be defeated? Or can it also be interpreted — as the Polish news site claims is now happening in Ukraine (which is not a NATO member) — to mean that, as a war drags on, hostilities could be ended in such a way that the conqueror gets to keep the territories it has occupied?

For this reason, I believe it would be good for NATO and its member states — especially the United States — to clarify this interpretation and reassure those of us who live next to Russia that aggression against NATO member states would under no circumstances be allowed to result in rewarding the aggressor — as in the case of the war in Ukraine — but that NATO would, in every case, use sufficient force until the situation between Russia and the victim of its attack had been restored to what it was before the war, and the Muscovite army had returned behind its own borders.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Oily Trap for Putin
A Growing Sino-Russian Threat to the West
AI Drones: Ukraine’s New Edge in the War?

Oily Trap for Putin

Eight oil-producing countries have decided to increase their oil production by a total of 547,000 barrels per day. This amount is a significant addition to the market and is expected to lower the price Russia receives for its own oil.

If and when this happens, the change will have a crucial impact on the combat capability of Vladimir Putin’s army in Ukraine. This alone may influence the outcome of the war, but if U.S. President Donald Trump imposes the 100% tariffs he has threatened on countries that mediate Russian oil, the Russian dictator will face an extremely difficult situation as export revenues collapse.

Therefore, it is likely that in the near future, Putin will seek both a breakthrough on the Ukrainian front lines and a way to maintain his war chest. And of course, he cannot ignore the need to look after the standard of living of nearly 150 million Russians, since its collapse would increase the risk of revolution.

It remains to be seen whether significant changes will occur in the war between Russia and Ukraine during the current year, or whether its resolution will shift to next year or even further into the future. What is clear at this point is that the democratic world cannot accept a Russian victory in the war; it must end in a just peace—one that does not embolden Putin, or Moscow’s future rulers, to continue power politics against neighboring countries.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Growing Sino-Russian Threat to the West
AI Drones: Ukraine’s New Edge in the War?
Ukraine Risks Losing Western Trust by Muzzling Corruption Watchdog

Hamas at a Crossroads: Are Weapons More Important Than Gaza Belonging to the Palestinians?

The Haaretz newspaper, published in Tel Aviv, has reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced his intention to permanently annex parts of Gaza to Israel if Hamas refuses to agree to a ceasefire. According to him, this plan has the support of the U.S. administration under President Donald Trump

The annexation of parts of Gaza is to continue as long as Hamas refuses a ceasefire – or until the entire area has become part of Israel. However, according to Haaretz, which is known for its left-wing and socially liberal stance, Netanyahu’s plan would only lead to more Western countries recognizing the State of Palestine – something France has already announced it is considering. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s government aims to pressure Hamas into abandoning its armed resistance.

From here in Finland, it is interesting to observe how the situation unfolds. Will Hamas – and its leadership – acknowledge that it has reached a dead end, or will it continue armed resistance, thereby placing the entire population of Gaza in a situation where they permanently lose their homes?

It also remains to be seen what France and its president, Emmanuel Macron, will do if Hamas refuses to lay down its arms and recognize Israel – conditions he has previously stated are prerequisites for recognition. Or will the potential annexation of Gaza areas lead him to forgo even these conditions before recognizing Palestine?

More broadly, I find the entire recognition debate absurd. After all, Palestine does not exist as a state, so its recognition would change the very definition of an independent state. It would therefore be more of a disingenuous political gesture than a serious acknowledgment of a state-level reality.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Hamas Continues the Suffering of Gaza's Civilians
A Night at the Opera
When Demands Become Damage