Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?

During World War II, Finland and the Soviet Union fought two wars. The first of these was the Winter War, which broke out as a result of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In that agreement, the foreign ministers of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler agreed to divide Eastern Europe between the socialist Soviet Union and the National Socialist Germany.

Despite receiving little help from abroad, tiny Finland managed to resist the Soviet Union’s massive army. Although the peace treaty forced Finland to cede territory far west of the prevailing front lines, the Soviet Union did not succeed in conquering its neighbor. This created a strong sense of injustice among the Finnish people.

After the Winter War, Finland sought a defense alliance with the other Nordic countries, but especially Sweden opposed the idea. Eventually, the whole concept became impossible when Germany, through its blitzkrieg strategy, conquered Norway, and the Soviet Union—pursuant to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact—occupied the Baltic states. As a result, Finland and Sweden became isolated from the Western powers, France and Britain. Protection against the Soviet Union now had to be sought either from Germany—or vice versa. Finland chose Germany, which at the time was considered militarily superior, even though Finland did not embrace Nazi ideology and remained a democracy throughout World War II.

This led to the so-called Continuation War, whose first military actions in Finland were Soviet strikes against Finnish targets. The reason for this was Hitler’s false claim that Finland had joined Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

* * *

The events described above are well known in Finland. Less known is the final battle between the Soviet army and Finnish forces. This took place in the Ilomantsi region, where the Soviets launched an attack with two divisions against the Finns.

The Finnish troops were led by Major General Erkki Raappana, who accepted the challenge and launched a bold counterattack based on a double envelopment maneuver. The Finnish forces surrounded both Soviet divisions in separate pockets in the areas of Leppävaara–Lutikkavaara and Vellivaara–Lehmivaara, then broke them down and destroyed them. The battle was fought over a 40-kilometer-wide and approximately 30-kilometer-deep area.

At the same time, three Soviet marine brigades, a tank brigade, and an engineer brigade attempted to come to the aid of the encircled divisions from the east, but they were repelled. Eventually, the encircled Soviet troops saw their situation as hopeless, and the remnants of the divisions broke out eastward—effectively fleeing the battlefield.

As a result of this crushing defeat of the Red Army, the Soviets left behind heavy equipment, including over a hundred artillery pieces and nearly a hundred mortars, which became Finnish war trophies. The battlefield was left in the hands of the victorious Finns. This defeat prompted Stalin to abandon his goal of conquering Finland. He began peace negotiations and redirected his forces to the front against Germany, aiming to reach Berlin before the Western Allies.

Due to this battle, along with the earlier failed Soviet offensives at Tali-Ihantala and the Bay of Vyborg, Finland remained an independent democracy—unlike other European countries with long borders with the Soviet Union: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why the Soviet Union Failed to Break Finland—And Why Russia Won’t Succeed Today 
Fear Lurks in Vladimir Putin's Mind as He Celebrates on the Wrong Date
When the War Comes Home to Moscow

A Night at the Opera

At the London opera, one performer decided to stage a protest. It involved bringing a Palestinian flag onto the stage and holding it up for the audience to see.

This demonstration had no impact whatsoever on the situation of Palestinians in their homeland, nor did it bring peace between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. It also did not undo the reasons why the Israeli army — in its search for Hamas terrorists — has extensively destroyed buildings in Gaza.

Instead, the performer in question demonstrated a lack of respect for his employer, the art form he practices, and his audience. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that he found satisfaction in getting his moment in the spotlight — at the opera, in London, in Britain, and in the global media. And even in this blog.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish Branch of Extinction Rebellion Faces Possible Ban 
In Finland, the Enemy Is Clear – and Now the Truth Is Emerging for the Palestinians Too
Does Germany’s Ban on Arabic-Language Posters Signal a CDU/CSU-AfD Coalition?

Jesuit Morality in Crime Reporting on Immigrants

Attitudes toward the problems of humanitarian immigration in the UK took a strange turn after Keir Starmer came to power. He began arresting people participating in protests and those complaining about abuses, and even started releasing criminals from prisons to make room for these political prisoners.

Since then, Starmer has changed direction and ordered investigations into the most serious crimes. From here in Finland, I can't say how seriously those investigations have been pursued.

* * *

In Finland, too, efforts were made to conceal the problems of immigration for a long time, but gradually this became difficult as the general sense of security—or lack thereof—became increasingly widespread. At some point, Finnish media decided that the names of criminals would be published if their sentences were at least two years long.

However, the fact remains that hardly anyone is interested in the names of those convicted. Rather, what is important—especially in terms of people's views on immigration policy—is that the ethnic background of those who commit crimes should be reported in all, or at least in more than minor, offenses.

* * *

Today’s crime news concerned a man about ten years older who had provided intoxicants and sexually exploited a girl who was originally 12 years old over a two-year period. Nothing is said about the man's ethnic background; instead, it’s stated that “the name of the convicted is withheld to protect the victim.”

This practice has become more common in most media in recent years. As a result, essential information about the perpetrators of sexual crimes—particularly those against teenagers—is increasingly being withheld. This is the case even though people aren’t interested in the offender’s name, as I stated earlier, but in whether the person belongs to the native or immigrant population.

This sharply contradicts the guidelines used by the Finnish press, which remind journalists that—quote—“journalism that strives for truth helps the public form a picture of society and the world.” Instead, it seems to follow the centuries-old Jesuit morality, in which "the end justifies the means."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Commission Should Take Migration and Related Crime Seriously
The Increasing Criminality Among Swedish Students Stems from Their Values
Is the UK's Democracy Facing an Existential Crisis?

Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program

Former Commander of the Finnish Defence Forces Jarmo Lindberg has commented on last night’s U.S. strikes on Iran. According to him, Trump likely achieved his objective: halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Lindberg stated that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, even though some have doubted its existence. This is because, “nuclear enrichment facilities are not needed for normal nuclear power plant operations. The type of nuclear material used in energy-producing power plants, like those in Finland, cannot be used to make bombs. Separate enrichment plants are required to produce material suitable for nuclear warheads.”

Regarding the U.S. Air Force strike itself, Lindberg said that “a very limited strike was carried out against three specific targets—bunkers located deep inside Iran. In addition, only a small number of precision weapons were used, such as B-2 stealth bombers, MOP bombs, and cruise missiles.”

Lindberg also noted that Iran had no real chance to defend itself from the strike because Israel had crippled its air defenses by destroying radar systems and surface-to-air missile batteries. Thus, “Iran essentially had no eyes to see it coming. And even if it had seen it, it wouldn’t have had the means to intercept it.”

As for Iran’s ability to respond to the U.S. strike, Lindberg sees it as limited. Furthermore, the U.S. has prepared for possible retaliation by moving its ships away from ports near Iran, meaning “there are currently few viable targets for the ayatollahs’ military or missiles.”

Iran could also “declare the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and threaten to attack maritime traffic passing through it. Since a significant portion of the world's oil supply flows through that strait, such a move would immediately spike oil prices, which the markets would then react to.”

However, it is also certain that closing the Strait of Hormuz would lead to retaliatory actions by the United States and likely also by the United Kingdom and France—actions against which Iran has virtually no effective weapon other than fanatical religious fervor. While that could result in some kind of suicide attacks, possibly against civilian populations, “from a military standpoint, their significance is negligible.”

For this reason, Lindberg believes the greatest focus now shifts to the future of Iran’s clerical regime. In other words, “what will their reactions and fate be in a situation where the United States has entered the war.”

For my part, I hope their reaction would be a flight to Moscow and leaving power to the Iranian opposition. Or alternatively, a revolution by the opposition, followed by proper punishment of the ayatollahs for the sins of past decades.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran Exposes the Finnish Green-Left as Intellectually Dishonest or Lacking Values
Will Power Change Hands in Iran?
A Quick Israeli Success in Iran Would Be Crucial for Ukraine

Why Is Keir Starmer Commissioning an Inquiry Instead of Taking Action?

From the perspective here in Finland, it seems strange that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, has decided to commission an investigation into grooming gangs. This is because the existence of these gangs and their ethnic composition have been known in Finland for a long time already.

For example, I first wrote (in Finnish) about the subject back in 2017, that is, about eight years ago. At the time, I specifically stated that "the worst known case is probably the Rotherham rape ring, which operated in the UK for 16 years and was covered up by the authorities for years out of fear of being labeled racist."

Since then, I have continued to write about the topic. The following year, in 2018, I brought up a prostitution ring that had operated in Telford, England, for decades, "which may have had up to a thousand child victims, mostly from the native population."

In other words, the Asian grooming gangs in the UK—and the related issues with authorities—have been quite well known to us Finns for a long time. And we are also aware that Keir Starmer's administration tried to sweep the matter under the rug by blaming those who aimed to draw official attention to child rapists.

An example of this is my own English-language article, in which I stated: "this is why it is necessary to ask the people of Britain and the world—especially those who see far-right extremism and racism everywhere—why they consider violent protests acceptable in the case of George Floyd, but not in response to the child murders that have shocked the United Kingdom?"

So, if there is no ambiguity here in Finland about the existence or composition of the UK’s grooming gangs, then why on earth is Keir Starmer only now—in the summer of 2025—starting to take action... excuse me, ordering an investigation into the matter? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to ensure that there is no room for such gangs in British society in the future?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Reform UK’s Landslide: Wake-Up Call for Labour and Tories Alike
Why Is the Case of Issam Rafil, Convicted of a Sexual Offense in Finland, Important for Britain?
Is the UK's Democracy Facing an Existential Crisis?

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

Police to Finnish Graduates: Leave Fireworks, Blades, and Booze at Home

As many know, Europe has changed rapidly in recent decades. In the United Kingdom, massive grooming gangs have come to light; France and Germany have experienced acts of terrorism; and in Sweden, there are residential areas where emergency vehicles will not enter without police protection.

In Finland, changes have so far been more modest, but today the police issued a statement concerning next weekend’s school graduation celebrations, advising: “Leave fireworks, bladed weapons, and intoxicants out of the festivities!” This is because — according to the police — “the past few years have shown that although celebrations have mostly gone peacefully, as night falls, party venues become unsafe.”

Of course, young people finishing school have known how to use intoxicants before, but new phenomena in recent years include threats — and even use — of bladed weapons, as well as firing fireworks directly at people. Everyone can speculate on the reasons, and many may even know the real cause behind the increase in these incidents.

Still, one can hope that graduation celebrations across the country will pass peacefully, without anyone suffering stab wounds — let alone losing their life — or burn injuries caused by fireworks. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Increasing Criminality Among Swedish Students Stems from Their Values
Finland to Tighten Citizenship Requirements Further
The Swedish Immigration Catastrophe – A Cautionary Tale

Reform UK’s Landslide: Wake-Up Call for Labour and Tories Alike

There was a revolution in Britain's local elections. I mean that Reform UK achieved a landslide victory, and the ruling Labour Party was reduced to a minor party.

The reason is not hard to guess. It is, naturally, Britain's difficulties with its immigrant-background population. And not just that, but also the inability of the police and the judicial system to maintain control of society.

However, it must be remembered that local elections do not decide national matters, let alone choose the prime minister and government. And the results we’ve just seen may have no effect at all on Keir Starmer’s government policy.

On the other hand, it would be wise for Starmer to take the result seriously and begin correcting the mistakes he has made. And in doing so—perhaps—save his and his party’s position as one of Britain's leading political forces.

Then again, the Conservatives also have reason to reflect, as their position as Britain’s second major party has now been called into question. And that’s why it will be interesting to see how the outcome of the local elections will affect their opposition strategy.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
UK Supreme Court Distinguishes Between the Rights of Women and Trans Women
Is the UK's Democracy Facing an Existential Crisis?
Why Were Violent Protests Acceptable for George Floyd but Not for the UK Child Murders?

UK Supreme Court Distinguishes Between the Rights of Women and Trans Women

The United Kingdom's Supreme Court has ruled that not all women's rights can be granted unless one is biologically female. Such a right includes, for example, the use of women's restrooms, which are no longer accessible in the island nation to men with a feminine gender identity.

The court’s decision is, of course, appropriate and reasonable, and I have no objection to it whatsoever. What I do find strange, however, is that such self-evident matters need to be clarified in court. 

Then again, we all remember last year’s Olympics, where a person — at least partially biologically male — won in two women’s boxing divisions. Would it be wrong if the right of these winners to compete in the women's division were challenged in court, even retrospectively?

Time will tell how the UK’s decision will affect women’s rights in other countries. Will they also follow clear common sense, or is there still some corner of the world where women’s status is willingly undermined to appease the demands of people with differing sexual identities?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Javier Milei and the Great Western Opportunity
A Fair Game or Unfair Judgment?
Everyone has the right

Keir Starmer’s Message to Ireland, Spain, and Portugal: This Is About All of Europe

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, warned Europeans that Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, aims to disarm Ukraine in peace negotiations. If that were to happen, it would be significantly easier for Russia to launch a new attack on Ukraine and bring it under its control.

For this reason, he wants both Britain and the rest of Europe to act swiftly to ensure there is a counterforce against Russia, should a Trump-led USA concede to Putin’s demands. On this matter, Starmer is not only right but also highlighting an essential condition for all of Europe and its citizens to breathe freely once again.

Therefore, Europeans—including the Irish, Spanish, and Portuguese—must understand that this is not just an issue for Russia’s border states but a matter of the future of free Europe as a whole. That is why even the westernmost nations of the continent must participate in assembling military power against Russia, just as others do—because only in this way can Putin’s imperialist dreams be crushed.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Anyone Who Hired Steve Witkoff Should Be Fired for Incompetence
Ukraine's Struggle Is Also Our Struggle
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, told that he supports British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s initiatives for a new ceasefire plan in Ukraine. According to the president, Europe currently needs leadership, which Starmer is demonstrating.

Stubb also stated that the winner of Friday’s meeting between Trump, Vance, and Zelensky was Vladimir Putin. However, despite this, the relationship between the United States and Europe remains strong.

For this reason, he urged people to stay calm in a very Finnish way—by advising them to take deep breaths, have a cold plunge, go to the sauna, and think things through. He also promised to return to the matter later.

Beyond that, Stubb did not wish to give instructions to Volodymyr Zelensky either. Instead, Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (NCP) stated that all European countries must strengthen their defense capabilities to the maximum extent, with the goal of being able to defend themselves independently within ten years.

He also noted that Europe is unlikely to reach consensus on this matter, so responsible nations must be ready to make joint decisions—even without those who are unwilling to participate.

It remains to be seen whether Europe will succeed in finding its footing in this changing situation, where military security must also be considered alongside the challenges posed by weak economic growth and internal security. A positive signal in this regard, however, is that the European Commission has just decided to reduce internal EU bureaucracy and regulations to enable economic growth.

To me, it is clear that none of the above issues will be hindered by Finland’s current leadership. That is why it would be beneficial for progress to be made quickly, as democracy may once again bring forth political movements or other leaders whose understanding does not always suffice to recognize facts—let alone act accordingly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Political Rhetoric Like Trump-Zelenskyi’s Has Deep Historical Roots
President of Finland Asked Whether There Are Top Politicians With Serious Intellectual Limitations
Finland and the USA: Strong Allies with Shared Interests or a Trade Dispute?

Peacekeepers in Ukraine: A Rational Move After All?

It seems that deploying peacekeepers to Ukraine might actually be a reasonable course of action. This is because Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has expressed his frustration over the UK and France’s proposal to send NATO peacekeepers after a peace agreement is reached in Ukraine.

According to Lavrov, the deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine is completely unacceptable, as it would only escalate the war that Russia itself initiated. As if Putin’s army weren’t already doing everything in its power to win the war.

Meanwhile, Finland’s Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen announced that Finland is launching a new support program for Ukraine, focusing on domestic defense industry orders. The first decision involves a €660 million funding package, based on Ukraine’s critical needs, the suitability of products for transfer, and the production and delivery capacity of companies.

The equipment will be delivered to Ukraine as part of future military aid packages. According to Häkkänen, Finland’s defense sector will be modernized over the next 10 years, including the development of entirely new products.

It remains to be seen what Lavrov thinks about these plans. Or will he stay silent and hope that Russia doesn’t have to revert to 1950s technology in warfare?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
President of Finland Asked Whether There Are Top Politicians With Serious Intellectual Limitations
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine
Putin Set a Goal — Failure Would Be an Embarrassment

Europe Needs More Money—and More Will—to Defend Itself

The countries of Western Europe assumed that the collapse of the Soviet Union had made national defense unnecessary. However, the events in Ukraine have clearly shown that this assumption was, at best, naïve—if not outright foolish.

Recently, the issue has been brought back into focus, first by Donald Trump, who has demanded that NATO’s European members allocate as much as five percent of their GDP to defense. Yesterday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also weighed in, stating that European NATO countries must significantly increase their defense spending.

Trump and Rutte are, of course, right in their demands, but meeting them is difficult for most Western European nations. According to the annual report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), these targets are particularly challenging for countries whose economies are already struggling.

The least capable of meeting these demands are, naturally, those countries whose economies are not growing at all. Based on GDP figures, these include Moldova, Latvia, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Germany, and Austria. Additionally, economic growth has been extremely weak—below one percent—in Hungary, Italy, Finland, France, and the United Kingdom.

The fact remains that Europeans must recognize Russia as a lasting threat to Europe's security, even if it is currently tied up in Ukraine. Therefore, despite economic difficulties, they should find ways to strengthen their defense capabilities.

Many countries have, of course, already acknowledged this, as evidenced by the fact that the combined defense spending of EU nations increased by 30 percent between 2021 and 2024. Unfortunately, the starting level was so low that even a significant percentage increase has not yet led to a substantial improvement in military security. This is why, especially in the EU’s most strategically important large member states—Germany, France, and Italy—as well as in the United Kingdom, defense budgets must be increased rapidly, as both Trump and Rutte have demanded.

* * *

In addition to weapons, a strong will to defend one's country is also essential. In this regard, it was alarming to see that only one in ten Britons aged 18–27 would be willing to risk their life to defend their country in a war—while 41 percent would not be willing to defend it with arms under any circumstances.

This stands in stark contrast to Finland, where 79 percent of people believe that the country must be defended militarily in all situations—even if the outcome appears uncertain.

If the situation in other European countries is similar to that in Britain, politicians must recognize that perhaps their most important task is to change it. Otherwise, Europe will eventually become nothing more than an easy prey for imperialist Russia—and perhaps even China.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin, Trump, and the Prospect of Peace
Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?
Western Countries Must Stay United Against the Russian Threat

Why Is the Case of Issam Rafil, Convicted of a Sexual Offense in Finland, Important for Britain?

I begin this text with a court decision that I hope will gain attention in Britain, particularly at 10 Downing Street. The quote is from Finland's largest daily newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, and reads as follows: "Helsinki District Court sentenced Issam Rafil, born in 1984, to three years and four months in prison for two rapes."

I mention this because, although such crimes—occurring with increasing frequency—are often left unspoken in Finland, they occasionally make their way into the country's leading media outlets. This was also the case with the aforementioned rapist. In this matter, the real winner is, above all, freedom of speech, which the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has recently sought to curtail (see also this text).

More generally, Finland finds itself in a difficult position as sexual crimes are rising rapidly. According to the country's statistics agency, approximately 6,700 sexual offenses were reported between January and September 2024. Of these, around 1,400 were classified as rapes under the new sexual offense law, marking a 40% increase compared to the previous year.

According to a police inspector, the high numbers can partly be explained by the fact that sexual crimes occurring online easily create spikes in police statistics. On the internet, the number of victims can quickly rise to hundreds.

I believe this explanation is accurate. Nevertheless, I also think that certain cultural factors play a role in this issue. For this reason, I find it highly necessary that Petteri Orpo's government program for 2024–2027 includes as many as 32 measures. These include learning the Finnish language, gaining employment, familiarizing oneself with Finnish society, and learning to adhere to its rules. In relation to the theme I am addressing here, the last of these is the most important.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges
Finnish Immigration Policy Aims to Maximize Benefits and Minimize Drawbacks
The UK Prime Minister Took a One-Sided Stance on the Country's Protests

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

Finnish Immigration Policy Aims to Maximize Benefits and Minimize Drawbacks

The Finnish Immigration Service is planning a new detention center near the country’s largest prison, located between the German Military Cemetery and the Guide Dog School. The center will accommodate foreign individuals if it can be assumed that they are hiding or attempting to evade decisions affecting them or the enforcement of their deportation.

This is one indication that Finland’s immigration policy is being shifted from allowing all kinds of entry to one that serves the needs of the country. In practice, this means stricter adherence to the conditions for humanitarian protection and improving the prerequisites for labor-based immigration. This approach aims to maximize the benefits of immigration while minimizing its adverse effects.

The need to change immigration policy has become apparent in Finland following Sweden’s humanitarian immigration policy, which has been a complete failure. Reports of large-scale grooming gangs targeting British girls from the UK have further underscored the issue.

As a result of the changes currently underway, Finland hopes to attract more educated and work-motivated immigrants from traditional Western countries, India, Vietnam, Brazil, and the Philippines. From the latter, Finland has already received a significant number of diligent workers to address labor shortages in the country’s public healthcare system.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Immigration Policy Should Be Based on Evidence
Nordic Police Announce: Spread of Gang Violence Cannot Be Stopped
Immigration Policy Must Take Artificial Intelligence and Robots into Account

Western Nations Should Act Decisively On Two Fronts Against Russia

The CEO of Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, stated that the country's economic outlook is weak. According to him, "we see significant signs of an economic slowdown."

The reason for Russia's economic woes is Vladimir Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine, which has resulted in enormous amounts of money being spent on military expenses. Additionally, foreign trade has become significantly more difficult due to sanctions imposed by Western countries.

According to the CEO, the weakening of Russia's economy is particularly evident in the construction sector. Inflation is also at a high level, leading the country’s central bank to raise the interest rate to as much as 21%.

Moreover, it is expected to continue raising interest rates later this year. However, the Sberbank CEO emphasized the need for caution in these adjustments to allow for the possibility of boosting economic growth.

It remains to be seen, however, whether—and at what point—Russia's economic troubles will hinder Putin's war efforts in Ukraine. Therefore, it is crucial for Western nations to act decisively on two fronts in this situation.

The first is to more resolutely support Ukraine's military efforts, and the second is to accelerate measures that contribute to Russia's economic decline. Hopefully, this approach is understood by the leaders of the world's largest economies—namely the USA, Germany, the UK, and France.

This is particularly important right now, as Russia's own economic developments are providing an opportunity to significantly impact its war-making capabilities. This, in turn, could pave the way for peace, not only for Ukrainians but also for the hundreds of thousands of Russians who have lost family members to the war's grinding machinery.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
It Is Time for Vladimir Putin to Acknowledge the Facts and Do Dmitry Medvedev a Favor
Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization

Is the UK's Democracy Facing an Existential Crisis?

In the UK, a petition was launched to call for a General Election. Its proposer believes that "the current Labour Government has gone back on the promises it laid out in the lead-up to the last election." The Government needs to respond to the request because it has obtained more than 2.6 million signatories in just a few days.

This is a peculiar case, as the election that transferred power from the Conservatives to the Labour Party took place only last July 4th — just four and a half months ago.

This demonstrates that Keir Starmer is facing exceptional dissatisfaction in the UK. One likely reason is the heavy-handed manner in which his government dealt with Britons protesting against criminal immigrants in late summer. It even released actual criminals from prison to make room for political detainees.

There is also data to back this up. According to surveys, a majority of the public was already dissatisfied with Starmer’s administration by September. In a recent poll, 28% of the public hold a favourable view of Labour, compared to 49% who view the party unfavourably.

However, other parties are not faring well either. Reform UK has the highest favourability rating of any party, with 27% holding a favourable view of the party and 46% unfavourable, while the figures for other parties are even worse.

It is therefore necessary to ask whether the UK's democracy is facing an existential crisis where no political solution satisfies the citizens. And one must hope — if this is indeed the case — that the politicians of the island nation find a way to address the situation while respecting the principles of democracy.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Predictions Based on the Opinion Polls in the UK
Why Were Violent Protests Acceptable for George Floyd but Not for the UK Child Murders?
Elections in the UK: A Shift Toward Hand-Waving Politics?

Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?

According to BBC, a former adviser to President-elect Donald Trump - Bryan Lanza - says the incoming administration will focus on achieving peace in Ukraine rather than enabling the country to regain territory occupied by Russia. Furthermore, he stated that "if President Zelensky comes to the table and says, well, we can only have peace if we have Crimea, he shows to us that he's not serious, Crimea is gone."

However, Lanza no longer works for Trump, so it's difficult to say if his words carry much weight. Still, it’s always permissible to speculate.

In my opinion, it has long been clear that Russia—at least under Vladimir Putin's rule—will not stop if it can gain advantages through military actions. And turning Crimea over to Moscow’s control would indeed be one such advantage in the highest degree.

Thus, it seems likely that once peace is achieved, Putin would first focus on rearming his military and would use it in the future when a suitable target appears. That target could be one of the neighboring countries in either Europe or Asia.

For Ukrainians, the problem is also the fact that Russia has not kept its promise to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia, along with a few other countries, made this promise when the government in Kyiv surrendered Soviet-era nuclear weapons to Russia.

The treaty text states: "The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine."

As my esteemed reader has noticed, the United States would also be breaking its promise if the Trump administration acts as Lanza predicts. It is clear that if this happens, international treaties and their significance will become even less meaningful. And this does not benefit relations between states.

One can only hope that this will be understood within the Trump administration as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Former President Donald Trump is Also the Upcoming President – But What Does It Mean?
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization
Ukraine’s Situation Mirrors Finland in 1944

Predictions Based on the Opinion Polls in the UK

The elections in the United Kingdom gave the Labour Party virtually unlimited power with around one-third of the vote. This was due to the electoral system, but at the same time, it was obviously contrary to the general idea of democracy, where every political movement should have representation in the decision-making bodies—parliaments—that reflects their share of the vote as accurately as possible.

Thus, Keir Starmer became Prime Minister, and his government has "distinguished itself" by violently suppressing protests and restricting freedom of speech. You might expect this to be reflected in post-election party support polls.

Interestingly, according to Politico's published tracking, Labour's support has remained unchanged, as has the Conservatives'. However, the support for Nigel Farage's Reform UK and the Greens has increased by several percentage points, even though the latter, in particular, has no realistic chance of becoming a significant political player due to the peculiarities of the UK's electoral system.

Let’s consider what would happen if this trend continued until the next elections. In that case, Reform UK would surpass the Conservatives in support and perhaps even challenge Labour. However, this party differs from the other two in that its support is distributed much more evenly across the population and geography. Therefore, far fewer of its candidates would be elected in the UK’s single-member constituencies than would happen under a proportional electoral system.

Thus, Labour might continue to hold power in Britain even if its vote count ended up being smaller than that of Reform UK. Only a true landslide victory could make Farage the Prime Minister.

For this reason, it is not insignificant how the British people react to Starmer’s government policies. Will censorship of opinions and turning a blind eye to the behavior of immigrants cause Labour supporters to abandon Starmer, or will they see these—odd from a Finnish perspective—actions as reflecting their will as expressed in the elections?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Swedish TV Did Not Learn Anything From the Riots in the UK
Why Were Violent Protests Acceptable for George Floyd but Not for the UK Child Murders?
Elections in the UK: A Shift Toward Hand-Waving Politics?