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”?

Finland’s Response to Unauthorized Aircraft Entering Its Airspace

On Monday evening, the airports of the capitals of Norway and Denmark – Oslo and Kopenhagen, respectively – were temporarily closed due to drones being flown nearby. It is clear that the drones were not flown by accident, but deliberately. Therefore, it was not hobbyists, but some actor or actors who wanted to cause disturbances.

Personally, I suspect it was the same party that shortly before had flown its fighter jets into Estonian airspace and its drones into Polish airspace. That is why this incident must be taken very seriously.

* * *

Norway also announced today that Russia has violated its airspace three times during the spring and summer. Two of the aircraft that entered the airspace without authorization were fighter jets, while the third was a small transport or passenger plane, mainly operated by Aeroflot.

According to Norway’s foreign minister, “if Russia deliberately challenges the airspace of multiple countries, this is extremely serious.” This is a view worth sharing, but at the same time it should be noted that even the most temperate cat may scratch if provoked enough – and it would be highly irresponsible if the aforementioned party were to cross NATO countries’ threshold of irritation.  

* * *

Today, information was published in Finland about how the country has prepared for the appearance of unauthorized aircraft crossing the border. Such an event cannot go unnoticed, as Finnish airspace is monitored by radar around the clock, and practically all incoming flying objects near Finland’s borders are detected well in advance.

If there is a risk that a device approaching the border might enter Finnish airspace without permission, Finnish fighter jets are dispatched. As the violations of Estonian airspace have shown, this does not take long. For example, Finnish jets arrived faster than the Italian ones, which took off from Estonia itself.

If Finnish airspace is actually violated, radio contact is first attempted with the intruding aircraft, if possible. If that fails, a fighter jet flies alongside the foreign aircraft to get the pilot’s attention, for example by rocking its wings. In addition, the intruder can be warned by firing flares, which demonstrates readiness to use weapons and makes clear that the fighter is armed.

In peacetime, a manned aircraft is only fired upon if authorization is given by the national leadership. However, this does not need to be awaited if a Finnish fighter itself comes under fire, or if the intruding aircraft uses its weapons against another Finnish target. In such cases, the pilot has the right to destroy the aircraft that has crossed the border at their own discretion.

Unmanned aerial vehicles, however, are always shot down immediately if they cross into Finnish airspace. Therefore, long drone flights from across the border, such as those seen in Poland, are not possible in Finland.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Russia’s Aging MiG Fleet vs. Finland’s Modern Air Power
Responding to Russia’s Challenges Is Essential
Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?

Responding to Russia’s Challenges Is Essential

This morning’s news reported that Poland’s air defense destroyed Russian drones. And this did not happen in Ukraine, but in the airspace of Poland, a NATO member.

Taking into account the recent interference with the aircraft carrying the president of the European Commission, as well as the earlier bombing of a factory in Ukraine owned by Americans and the damaging of EU and UK buildings, it is becoming clear that this is not about accidents but deliberate actions. And such actions can only have one purpose: to test the unity and readiness of Europeans and especially NATO.

At the same time, it is clear that the more loosely the West responds to Russian actions, the more certain it is that Russia will continue to challenge them. The only question is where and in what way.

In this situation, the greatest danger lies with the smallest border states, namely the Baltic countries. Estonia, for instance, has recently been subjected to several airspace violations, the latest just a couple of days ago.

Thus, the question arises: if the West responds weakly or not at all to Russia’s provocations related to the war in Ukraine, could a surprise attack be ahead? For example, a blitzkrieg directed at one of the Baltic states, with the goal of occupying the entire country so quickly that a reluctant NATO would not have time to intervene?

To prevent such a scenario, it is important that Western countries pull themselves together, recognize the obvious facts, and respond forcefully to Russia’s provocations in Ukraine and in its immediate border areas. In doing so, they would send Vladimir Putin the clearest possible message: that there are no easy victories for him in EU and NATO countries—only bitter defeat.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine’s Missiles and Russia’s Forced Recruitment Set to Topple Putin’s Regime
The War in Ukraine Came Close to Me
Donald Trump’s Meeting With Vladimir Putin: The Advice He Needs

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

Ukraine’s Former Foreign Minister Warns Against Another 1939

Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba gave an interview to the British magazine Metro, where he reminded mothers in Britain that they will soon have to decide whether they will send their sons to fight against Russian soldiers in Europe, or suffer the end of NATO.

The Ukrainian politician also painted a devil on the wall by predicting that “Putin may invade Nato territory soon – so now what? Is Nato going to send a division to fight back?”

According to him, “The first day the EU – which is no big bother to England – is going to spend discussing its response to Russia, is going to be the end of it,” and continued, “the real test will be whether British mothers will actually accept that their sons have to die for Finland or Estonia or Poland. If they don’t, there is no NATO.”

Kuleba also noted an analogy to the year 1939 by reminding that “This is how World War II started. 'Why fight for Danzig? Let’s give it to Hitler, it is just a city in Poland. Why should we die for it?’”

At the same time, the foreign ministers Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov had agreed on a pact according to which Finland, the Baltic countries, and the eastern part of Poland would be turned into Russian territory. As a consequence, all those areas ended up as parts of the Soviet Union for seven decades — except Finland, which decided to fight for its independence and saved 90% of its territory in the Winter War.

Even though that war is considered a miracle, it is not an honour for the French and the British, who had promised to help Finland in many ways. Namely, they made many promises but ended up fulfilling only a small fraction of them regarding military material, and completely refused to send armed forces despite talks that those would also be sent via Norway and Sweden.

Based on this history from my grandparents’ generation, I certainly hope that history will not repeat itself — but that the difference will be an active NATO upholding its Article 5, and accordingly taking care of the agreed arrangements. And that it would show Kuleba that today’s Western Europe and the USA are more reliable pillars of European security than the Western powers of the late 1930s.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans
Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

Polish Politics: A Quiet Success Story

Poland has in recent years served as an example for much of Europe in many respects. It has supported Ukraine almost unreservedly, developed its own defense capabilities through significant investments, and grown its economy at a rapid pace.

In terms of defense, Poland has, in a short time, become one of the strongest—if not the strongest—nations in Europe in terms of conventional warfare. Its army of nearly 300,000 troops has at its disposal, among other things, around 1,000 modern tanks, 600 howitzers, and nearly 50 American-built F-35 or F-16 fighter jets.

Poland’s economy, meanwhile, has grown so that its GDP per capita rose from $12,464 in 2016 to a notable $22,056 by 2023. Despite this, the average wage people earn from their work has fluctuated rather than risen in recent years.

Poland has in recent years been governed by the pro-EU, center-right Donald Tusk, while the presidency has been held by national conservative Andrzej Duda. Now, the presidential election has been won by Karol Nawrocki, who promotes a political agenda similar to Duda's, so no major changes in the country’s political direction are expected.

This is likely good news for all Europeans, even if many would have preferred that Nawrocki lose to his pro-EU opponent. In that case, the country would likely have shifted its policies to resemble those of its western neighbors—both for better and for worse.

However, the fact remains that the president does not have the power to steer Poland’s political direction; at best, he can only slow the developments driven by the government and parliament. And based on the developments of recent years—as outlined above—this arrangement has worked exceptionally well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?
Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare

Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?

A decision point has been reached regarding Russia's "shadow fleet" operating in the Baltic Sea. Estonia recently failed to stop one of the vessels after Russia offered it support from its air force. At the same time, two Portuguese F-16 fighter jets took to the skies from the nearby Ämari Air Base to support the Estonians—and in Finland, at least one F-18 fighter flew faster than the speed of sound for some reason, according to my own observation, although this has not been publicly acknowledged.

Fortunately, the incident did not escalate into an aerial battle, but it still shows that the risk of escalation over the Baltic Sea is very real. Thus, it is only a matter of time before some sort of confrontation occurs between Russia and NATO.

However, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk has now announced: "A Russian ship from the 'shadow fleet' that is under sanctions carried out suspicious maneuvers near the power cable connecting Poland with Sweden. After a successful intervention by our military, the ship sailed off to one of the Russian ports. The ORP 'Heweliusz' is en route to the site of the incident."

It remains to be seen whether the successful interception of the vessel is a sign that even the Russians may have realized that protecting shadow fleet vessels with air support poses an enormous risk. And therefore, for now at least, they may have decided to refrain from such actions. At least, one can hope so.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?
Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"
Sabotage in the Baltic Sea Sparks Calls for New Maritime Borders

Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"

The Finnish news outlet MTV3 relayed a story from The Wall Street Journal, according to which Russia plans to move tens of thousands of troops closer to the Finnish border. This is all part of a broader reorganization of Russian forces, focusing on the directions of Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Russia is also building a new railway near the borders of Finland, Norway, and Estonia, while simultaneously expanding existing routes. Naturally, this development is being closely watched in Finland.

A Finnish major interviewed in the article noted that "there are about a dozen places along the Finland–Russia border where mechanized forces can cross... If Russia is building new railways or upgrading old ones, it is important to pay attention to these developments."

Major General Sami Nurmi, for his part, pointed out that for the Russian military, size always matters. It is therefore no surprise that the plans are large-scale, as Putin’s dictatorship anticipates some form of conflict with NATO. 

This was confirmed by Russia’s Defense Minister Andrei Belusov, who stated that Russia must be ready for conflict with NATO. However, it remained unclear who might initiate such a conflict, as President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly insisted that Russia has no plans to attack NATO countries - but that may well be a bluff.

On the other hand, Ukrainians and many Westerners — myself included — fear that Russia may test NATO’s capabilities if its invasion of Ukraine concludes — even by their own interpretation — with some form of victory. This is a concern also voiced by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi.

If the situation escalates, it must first be noted that Russian soldiers who have gained combat experience in Ukraine will form the new backbone of Russia’s army, which is a major advantage compared to the forces of Finland, Estonia, or the Baltic countries, who largely lack real combat experience.

Russian forces are also equipped with material that has been tested under real battlefield conditions, and it appears that their supplies are not running out, despite earlier assumptions. In fact, Russia was producing only about forty T-90M main battle tanks per year four years ago — today they are producing around 300 annually.

According to Finnish assessments, very few of these tanks are actually being sent to Ukraine. Even if they were, the current production lines would quickly replenish them, whereas European defense industries would first need to be rapidly scaled up before reaching comparable output levels.

* * *

Based on all this, it is clear that, first of all, European countries must come to an agreement on strengthening their defense capabilities. Not only that, but they must also prepare ready and functional plans for scaling up to mass production of military equipment if needed.

Secondly, EU countries and NATO should issue clear warnings to Russia against attacking their neighbors and commit to collective defense. This should be done both through NATO, emphasizing the significance of Article 5, and through bilateral agreements.

Finally, I would note that the Baltic countries are at the greatest risk, given their relatively weak military capabilities. In contrast, the armed forces of Finland and Poland are strong and serve as an effective deterrent against potential "special operations" across their borders.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Russia Test NATO's Article Five?
Duck emphasizing the urgency of the new border law
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

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?

Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine

Finland’s military self-sufficiency is increasing as a factory for producing TNT explosives is being built on the country’s western coast. This initiative also aims to address the shortage of explosives affecting Europe and the resulting problems in ammunition production. According to Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen (National Coalition Party), "the investment also enables the continued long-term support for Ukraine."

The factory will be the second large production facility in the EU for TNT explosives used in artillery and mortar shells, as currently, the only such facility is in Poland. Additionally, there is small-scale production in Serbia.

The project is being carried out by the Finnish explosives manufacturer Forcit, which expects production to begin in 2028. However, the initiative involves cooperation with Finland’s defense administration, authorities, and local communities. 

Its impact on Finland’s and Europe’s defense capabilities, military security of supply, and employment will be significant. No wonder Finland’s defense minister was excited about it.

* * *

Also, another interesting military news story was published today. According to it, Finland will deliver a defense equipment package worth nearly 200 million euros to Ukraine. The contents of the package have been planned in cooperation with the Ukrainians, taking into account both Ukraine’s needs and the Finnish Defense Forces’ resource situation. Beyond this, no further details about the package will be disclosed, as the information could also reach the Russians.

According to the Defense Minister, "We are providing exactly the kind of support that helps Ukraine defend itself in the acute situation on the front lines. Our resolve must not weaken—on the contrary, at this moment, support must be further strengthened."

This is easy to agree with. And one can only hope that other Western countries will also do their best to support Ukraine so that Russia, too, learns that it will not achieve its goals through military force but only destroy the future of its own society.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?
Rediscovered Relics: The Story Behind Finland's WWII Weapon Caches
A factory of five billion mosquitoes

Are We on the Brink of World War III?

The Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), has given an interview in which he has, so to speak, painted devils on the wall. In other words, he has expressed fears that the Third World War may already be underway, but people are unwilling to recognize it.

According to him, the current situation is similar to the one leading up to the Second World War in the late 1930s. Therefore, I thought I would remind you, dear readers, of what happened back then.

* * *

One of the causes of the Second World War is considered to be the Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed after the First World War. Its terms were regarded as overly harsh in Germany. After all, German soldiers had still occupied enemy territories in both the east and the west at the end of the war, unlike at the conclusion of the Second World War.

In addition to territorial losses, Germany’s military was drastically reduced. However, Hitler disregarded this and began rebuilding his country's military strength in the mid-1930s. This went unchallenged; for example, Britain signed a naval agreement with Germany, allowing its navy to be 35% the size of Britain’s own – then the most powerful in the world.

The Second World War was preceded by the Spanish Civil War, which ended with General Francisco Franco coming to power by overthrowing the democratically elected left-wing government. In this conflict, Germany and Italy supported Franco, while the Soviet Union backed the Republicans. This war provided an opportunity for these powers to test their weaponry and assess their military needs.

In 1936, Hitler capitalized on Germany's increased military strength by remilitarizing the demilitarized Rhineland. France protested, but Britain accepted the action, and no military threat was posed to Germany. Instead, Hitler orchestrated a "referendum" in the Rhineland, where 98.8% of those who voted supported his actions.

Hitler also engineered Austria's annexation into Germany, despite this being prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles. He received support from Italy for this move.

Some Austrians opposed the loss of independence and organized protests. However, these ended when Austrian Interior Minister Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who facilitated the unification, invited Hitler's army to restore order.

The next step in Hitler’s march towards war was the annexation of the Sudetenland, the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia. The Czechs wanted to defend themselves, but their allies, France and the Soviet Union, refused to assist them. Thus, the issue was resolved through the Munich Agreement, led by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, which granted the Sudetenland to Germany.

After acquiring the Sudetenland, Hitler annexed the Czech region outright and reduced Slovakia to a puppet state. Shortly thereafter, Hungary annexed the Hungarian-speaking areas of Slovakia.

Following these events, Hitler demanded the transfer of Memel (now Klaipėda) to Germany. Once again, the victim, Lithuania, sought help from foreign powers, but assistance was denied.

It should also be remembered that before the Second World War, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Eastern Europe between them. Under this agreement, Hitler invaded Poland in early September 1939, and the Soviet Union occupied the eastern part of the country.

As a result, France and Britain eventually declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union. Thus, the Second World War had begun, even though little fighting occurred along the German-French border until May 1940. Before that, Hitler had already occupied Denmark and advanced into northern Norway, prompting a response from France and Britain – though, at this stage, they suffered defeats.

* * *

If we examine the events I described earlier in light of Halla-aho’s perspective, we can make the following observations.

Firstly, it seems that Putin views the collapse of the Soviet Union as a comparable event to the Treaty of Versailles for Germany. After all, Russia lost a vast portion of the territories it controlled, from the Baltic states to the newly independent nations of Central Asia.

Russia’s actions in Syria were successful and undoubtedly reinforced Putin’s perception of the effectiveness of his military, much like the Spanish Civil War shaped the views of Hitler and Mussolini. However, unlike Hitler’s army, Putin’s forces have not been able to use their experiences in Syria to improve their available weaponry. A particularly striking example of this is the widely advertised Armata tank, which has proven incapable of participating in the war in Ukraine despite being a flagship product of Russia’s defense industry.

We have yet to see an event analogous to the unification of Austria and Germany, but the recent discussions surrounding Belarus being integrated into Russia would correspond quite closely. Additionally, it seems to me that Russia’s annexation of Crimea mirrors the events in Czechoslovakia in 1938: Ukraine wanted to fight, but Western nations at the time denied it military support and left it just as isolated as Czechoslovakia had been.

Furthermore, parts of occupied Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk) were, for a time, turned into puppet states of Russia, much like Hitler had done with Slovakia. The West sought to legitimize all this through the so-called Minsk Agreement, which closely parallels the Munich Agreement of 1938, which sealed Czechoslovakia’s fate.

Hitler’s invasion of Poland can, of course, be quite effectively compared to Ukraine’s situation from 2022 onward. Western nations have not declared war on Russia, but then again, the Western Front of 1939 didn’t see much actual fighting either.

However, Western countries are providing Ukrainians with some military aid, which—alongside the courage of the Ukrainians themselves—has enabled them to defend their country, though not to drive the aggressor out entirely. Poland, on the other hand, received no such support during the rapidly progressing war and wasn’t even provided with weapons in time.

* * *

And is there a modern-day Chamberlain and a 1930s-style Britain? Isn’t this self-evident?

What else are we to think of Germany’s Olaf Scholz, who has done his utmost to minimize military aid to Ukraine, thereby playing into Russia’s hands in much the same way as Britain’s prime minister did back then?

What I’ve written above shows that the Speaker’s view of the similarities between the current situation and the events leading up to the Second World War is astonishingly accurate. However, I also see some differences.

The most significant of these is that Putin’s Russia is not a great power comparable to Hitler’s Germany. Certainly, Russia possesses nuclear weapons, but wars fought with them have no winners. At least not in a large-scale war, where a U.S. counterstrike would be inevitable and therefore too great a risk for the Russians.

* * *

On the other hand, we also have China, which is rising as an increasingly powerful military force. It certainly has its own interests, particularly regarding Taiwan, but would it go to war as Russia’s ally against the entire world?

In my view, the answer is unequivocal. And it is a resounding "no"—especially regarding direct warfare. China will not engage in a large-scale war against the West, at least not as long as it can gain power and wealth through other means.

However, the question remains whether China might exploit Russia’s weakness and seize old Chinese territories in East Asia. Since the situation is quite similar to Taiwan, the answer is "possibly yes." But in that case, we are no longer talking about a Third World War but rather localized military actions.

Finally, I want to emphasize that although I do not believe, for the reasons outlined above, that a Third World War is about to break out, I do agree with Speaker Halla-aho (and many others) that it is better to prepare for war before it begins than to be naïve.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?
Strategic Experts Predicted Russia’s Collapse but Fell into Wishful Thinking
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization

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

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

Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth

Finnish political media reported that a survey conducted in March revealed that the greatest concern among European youth is the mass migration directed towards our continent. This is considered the biggest worry by 36 percent of the 5,874 German, French, Polish, Greek, Spanish, and Italian youths aged 16-26 who responded to the survey.

The concern over mass immigration is particularly high in Germany, where it is the biggest worry for half of the survey respondents. The restriction of immigration, on the other hand, was most supported by Polish and Greek youths.

Although the survey included many other questions, I highlight only immigration here. This is because it shows that the planned tightening of asylum policies by Finland's current government aligns with the views of the continent's youth.

This is a good thing in itself, but it also shows that the ideologies of young people continue to change from generation to generation, just like other fashions. The key point here is to understand that the prevailing fear of the future will - for the next ten years only - guide population policy in the same way that the previous generation's fear of climate change and its consequences has shaped political actions in recent years.

On this basis, the demographic future of the European Union - and consequently its societal development - looks somewhat brighter than before. In the best case, the youth's concern, combined with the weakening dependency ratio, may even lead to a long-term increase in the currently low birth rate.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A woman's logic, Putin's test, and the Netherlands' change
The Finns rewarded a mass murder with 213,000 euros
Getting asylum in Finland becomes significantly more difficult

Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare

Radosław Sikorski, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, gave an excellent speech at the UN Security Council. In his speech, he pointed out that Ukraine is fighting to be independent of anybody – not only Russia – and has a democratically elected government, including a Jewish president and a Muslim defense minister, and no political prisoners.

He also reminded us that Russia tried to exterminate Ukraine in the 19th century, again under the Bolsheviks, and during the last ten years. He explained that people in Western countries are being threatened almost every day by Putin's propagandists with nuclear annihilation, and therefore causes Russophobia in western countries.

Then he said that we are not denying Russia's security interests, but we only started rearming ourselves when Russia started to invade her neighbors. He reminded us that the Soviet Union attacked Poland together with Nazi Germany and even held a joint Victory Parade in September 1939.

Then he advised Putin's regime to withdraw his troops from Ukraine to the international border and reminded us that there was no coup in Ukraine in 2014. Instead, the former president, Yanukovych, was removed from office by a democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, including his own party.

He also pointed out that Russia didn't win the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, World War I, the Battle of Warsaw, in Afghanistan, or the Cold War. Fortunately, however, there were reforms in Russia after each failure.

Mr. Sikorski's view is historically correct and should be carefully dispersed, taught and learned in Russia. If that happened, it might finally encourage Russians – with the greatest natural resources in the world as well as relatively well educated and talented people – to change their political attitude now directed towards the rest of the world and become a superpower with economic, spiritual, and civilized culture instead of the nightmare they have lived for at least half a millennium since the Tsardom of Moscow was established.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: Desperate cry of Russians Victims of Russian leaders Should Putin´s regime be overthrown by supporting Russian opposition?