Palestine’s Statehood and International Law

Many European states have recognized or are in the process of recognizing the State of Palestine. Finland is not among these countries but is instead waiting to see how the situation develops, together with, among others, the USA, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

This is reasonable in the sense that, from the perspective of international law, the existence of a state requires four basic elements – a permanent population, clearly defined borders, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Of these conditions, especially the second, third, and fourth are not met, so a rational person would sooner question the logic of the states that have recognized Palestine than that of the states that have chosen to wait.

Therefore, Palestine should be recognized as a state only when – or if – it one day fulfills all four conditions. In the meantime, every country – regardless of its stance on recognizing Palestine – can act in support of a just peace between Jews and Arabs living in the region.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?
An Unexpected Endorsement of Professor’s Views
Abu Obaida’s Death Brings Palestine One Step Closer to Peace

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?

António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might

UN Secretary-General António Guterres made an appeal to countries planning to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty and reintroduce anti-personnel landmines. Among these countries, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland are neighbors of Russia.

Their departure from the treaty is justified precisely by this geographical fact — and by the fact that Russia is an aggressive and imperialist great power that has invaded the territory of several of its neighbors. There is no doubt that its current regime might also decide to test the security guarantees NATO has given to these countries — once it is done with Ukraine.

That is why it is fair to ask Mr. Guterres how he intends to prevent Russia’s intentions, should it decide to attack, for example, my own homeland. And whether, in such a situation, he would take responsibility for the Finnish lives that would have been saved by effective mining.

I do not expect an answer from the UN Secretary-General, but I remind him that Finland once sought help — in vain — from the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, before the Winter War that began in 1939. No help came then, and I do not believe Guterres would be able to provide any in the 2020s either, should Russia’s Putin choose to repeat Stalin’s move and order his army to seize Helsinki and strip Finland of its independence.

For this reason, I believe the UN Secretary-General would do well to keep quiet about the affairs of Eastern Europe, and instead focus on achieving a just peace in Ukraine, resolving the conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and ensuring that Iran does not continue its nuclear weapons program after its war with Israel comes to an end.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia
Highlights of the BRICS Meeting in Kazan, Russia
United Nations, corruption and terrorism

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?

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?

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

No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors

Russia’s attack on Ukraine has raised concerns among European nations. As a result, they are striving to rapidly enhance their defensive capabilities.

The latest news concerns Sweden, which has ordered 44 new Leopard 2A8 tanks from Germany. In addition to purchasing new tanks, the Swedish Armed Forces have agreed to modernize approximately 70 tanks that have been in service since the 1990s.

These numbers can be compared to the Finnish Defence Forces’ equivalent arsenal. Finland’s inventory consists of 100 Leopard 2A6 and 139 Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks, as well as 102 CV9030 and 110 BMP2 infantry fighting vehicles. In other words, this new investment is a significant boost to the combat capability of the Nordic countries and NATO.

Another recent development involved Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda, who proposed that the country allocate at least 5.5% of its GDP to defense in the future. Even with this increase, Lithuania would still spend less than five billion euros on its military preparations, compared to Russia’s defense budget of a staggering 122 billion euros.

Purchasing weapons is not enough; they must also be used effectively. That’s why it was welcome news that the Finnish Air Force is sending four F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets and 50 soldiers to Iceland to monitor its airspace. This allows Finland to develop its cooperation with NATO and ensure its capability to deploy a fighter detachment to an allied nation’s base if needed.

These actions have undoubtedly been noticed in Putin’s Russia. However, it remains unclear how they will respond. Will they resort to reckless countermeasures? Or will they finally acknowledge that Russia poses no real threat to NATO?

Unfortunately, it seems that the military objective of Vladimir Putin’s regime, even in Ukraine, is not to win the war, but to divert the public’s attention from the activities and failures of his administration. This is why it is absolutely crucial that neither Putin nor his successors see any so-called low-hanging fruit in neighboring countries—targets that might appear easy to seize.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?
Message from Finland's President to Vladimir Putin
Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?