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

Nuclear Debate in Sweden and Lithuania’s Treaty Withdrawal

Donald Trump's foreign policy as the President of the United States is leading to an increase in Europe's defense capabilities. Two interesting news stories emerged on this topic yesterday.

The potentially more significant of the two was the report that Swedes are considering developing their own nuclear weapon—meaning a withdrawal from the international nuclear arms treaty. While the country's political leadership has denied such intentions, the discussion on the matter remains heated.

What adds credibility to this possibility is the fact that Sweden was developing its own nuclear weapon until the 1970s. This gives the country a significant scientific and technological advantage over many other nations. Therefore, it would not take long to produce the weapon necessary to secure peace in the Nordic region.

The other news concerned Lithuania, which today withdrew from the Convention on Cluster Munitions. As a result, Lithuania became the first country to exit the treaty, which has over a hundred signatories, and, more broadly, the first nation to withdraw from any so-called humanitarian disarmament agreement.

This, of course, is driven solely by the security threat posed by Russia, combined with uncertainty about U.S. support in the event of an attack. The same reasoning naturally applies to Sweden's nuclear debate as well.

All of this demonstrates that the grand political landscape in Europe, which had remained relatively stable since 1945, has been completely transformed by Russia’s war against Ukraine and Trump’s election. And the consequences are certainly not in line with the hopes of peace activists.

However, it remains to be seen whether, for example, France’s President Emmanuel Macron's promise of a nuclear umbrella will be enough for Sweden. A major issue with this, however, is the limited number of such weapons, meaning that the resulting destruction on enemy soil would still be relatively contained. And that could tempt a reckless dictator, in the vein of Joseph Stalin, into pursuing adventurist policies.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?
Will Russia Test NATO's Article Five?

Political Rhetoric Like Trump-Zelenskyi’s Has Deep Historical Roots

Volodymyr Zelenskyi's visit to the USA did not end well for the Ukrainians. Instead, it became an event that will be remembered even decades from now.

Finnish professor of American studies, Mikko Saikku from the University of Helsinki, assessed that Ukraine's President made "a tactical misstep. As I understand it, he had been warned not to publicly correct Trump’s statements, even if there was every reason to do so."

According to Saikku, Zelenskyi should have been more cautious in the meeting because the position of a petitioner is always inherently weak, and Trump clearly does not consider Ukraine's fate a personal concern. Furthermore, "Zelenskyi has long been an unpalatable figure to Trump because he is closely linked to Trump's first-term impeachment trial."

* * *

French President Emmanuel Macron stated that the one gambling with the outbreak of a third world war is Russian President Vladimir Putin, not Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyi, as Trump incorrectly claimed. He also expressed hope that the United States would remain committed to defending democracy, as it always has.

For my part, I suspect that the current U.S. president may have fallen into a Moscow honey trap long ago, as has been suggested for years. In this scenario, he would have ended up engaging in sexual activities with Russian prostitutes in front of hidden cameras and microphones. This would explain quite well the current U.S. president’s toothlessness regarding Vladimir Putin.

* * *

That said, the kind of political rhetoric witnessed in the U.S. is not new but rather quite old-fashioned. In fact, such an example was set as early as 1571 by Russia’s Tsar Ivan IV, known as Ivan the Terrible, and Sweden’s King John III Vasa.

It was initiated by Putin's distant predecessor, the Russian autocrat, who wrote to the Swedish king as follows:

"We, Ivan Vasilyevich, Lord and Grand Prince of all Russia, ruler of Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod, etc., write to John, son of Gustav, who, according to his own claim, is King of Sweden, the Goths, and the Wends, and who, on his father's side, descends from a certain village in Småland. You do not know at all how you should write to us."

He went on to state that Sweden was not "a vast kingdom capable of defending you against all your enemies."

Finally, the Tsar concluded: "In your last letter, you wrote that you wish to keep the peace with us. If you were wise, you would understand that the distance from the earth to heaven is long."

John, son of Gustav Vasa, responded to the Tsar’s diplomatic phrasing in a letter dated April 18, 1573, as follows:

"What absurd and boorish arrogance, lies, and belittlement you direct at us. Surely, your father must have been some monk or peasant, since you write so incompetently, as if you had grown up among peasants and vagrants who understand nothing of honor."

John further continued:

"We thank God that all Christian kings have given us the respect we deserve, except for you, who possesses only the intellect of a pig."

Finally, John emptied his verbal arsenal by stating:

"May you yourself become a mere 'stratnik' (low-ranking servant), a dishonorable slave, an unchristian chief liar, and a tyrant, which you already truly are, since you do not value promises, honor, seals, letters, or truth, as has been well proven."

I leave it to you, my esteemed readers, to assess whether this distant historical example is fitting for Donald Trump and his administration. To my ears, at least, it did not sound civilized.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Trump’s America: Criminal or Benefactor?
Is President Putin on his way to repeat the destiny of Czar Nicholas II?

The future of all Europe is at stake

Europe has long been undergoing significant change. Amid their prosperity, the continent's original inhabitants have had fewer children, while at the same time, a diverse array of people have been flooding in from developing countries.

As a result, numerous political parties have emerged in European democracies that are critical of the ongoing changes. These include parties like Finland's Finns Party, Sweden's Sweden Democrats, Germany's Alternative for Germany, and Italy's Brothers of Italy.

Many of these parties performed exceptionally well in the recent EU parliamentary elections. This was also the case in France, where the success of the National Rally prompted President Emmanuel Macron to call for new elections.

The first round of those elections takes place today and could have a significant impact on Europe's future. The latest opinion polls predict that the National Rally could garner as much as 35-37% of the vote, while Macron's forces could come in third with about 20-21%. The united left is positioned in between.

If the election results follow the polls, it would mean significant polarization in French society, where these forces, unwilling to cooperate with each other, would try to find a solution on how to move the country forward.

Thus, it remains to be seen – if the election results match the predictions – how French politics will shape up in the coming years. Will they take examples from countries like Finland, where immigration criticism has been included in the government program by building effective cooperation among the right-wing parties in parliament, especially the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party?

However, France's situation differs from Finland in two ways. Firstly, its Muslim population is significantly larger – around ten percent – and secondly, it has not been customary to seek pragmatic consensus between different political forces.

It is already clear at this stage that the immigration policies practiced in Europe have led to a new political situation in France – and the entire continent – which will ultimately define the kind of world the descendants of the cradle of Western culture will live in the future. Therefore, it can be rightly said that the stakes of the French elections are the future of all of Europe.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Marxist far-right and bullies
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth
Prediction: Sharia law in force in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France by the year 2044

Finnish general to Scholz and Macron: no reason to negotiate with a terrorist

A former oligarch,  Mikhail Khodorkovsky, tweeted that "Putin stole (1) part of Ukraine´s territory. He got sanctions for that. To remove them, he stole (2) more, killing thousands of people. Got sanctions. Then he stole (3) all the grain, blocked the ports & threatened to create a famine, demanding the sanctions be lifted. Am I getting this right?"

A retired Finnish general commented on Emmanuel Macron´s and Olaf Scholz´s request to warlord Vladimir Putin about serious negotiations. According to him, there is no reason to negotiate with a terrorist. In his opinion "the only correct solution is to send the sixth fleet of the US navy reinforced by Allied units to escort grain ships and at the same time detain Russian ships carrying stolen Ukrainian grain".

To me it is unbelievable that it takes a Russian refugee and a Finnish general to clarify facts about the dictator of Russia to the two most important leaders of the West-European countries. That is: facts about a  dictator, who has just violated all possible agreements between sovereign countries and is responsible on a disgusting neglect of human rights by his army. 

I think Scholz and Macron should take a look at a mirror, and recognize ugly faces of thoughtless puppets of the most dangerous dictator of our time.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Tractor course for Ukrainians
Place of the Free Ukraine
Military specialist: Russian plan in Ukraine was incredibly poor