Hamtramck: A Test Case for Mass Immigration

Surrounded by Detroit, Hamtramck is America’s first Muslim-majority city, although as recently as 1970, Poles made up nearly 90% of its population. In other words, Hamtramck is an example of a European-descended population changing from Christians to Muslims.

This ethnic and religious transformation has not taken place without visible consequences. One example is the decision by the city council, consisting entirely of Muslim men, to rename Holbrook Avenue—one of Hamtramck’s main thoroughfares—as Palestine Avenue.

At the same time, the city’s streetscape has changed. Women no longer walk the streets in miniskirts or with their hair uncovered, but are instead covered from head to toe in black niqabs. Shop signs, too, are written in the scripts used in the new population’s countries of origin, and schools have replaced the Easter holiday with time off to mark the end of Ramadan. And, of course, the soundscape has acquired the Islamic call to prayer, heard several times a day.

The consumption of alcohol has also been banned, while the religious slaughter of animals at home is permitted. And something that members of Europe’s sexual minorities in particular might want to take note of: the all-Muslim male city council has banned the public display of the Pride flag.

* * *

It remains to be seen, then, whether Hamtramck is an example of the future of Western countries—including Europe, which readily welcomes immigrants—or merely a uniquely American curiosity. But whichever it turns out to be, people should be aware of the changes that have taken place there—especially when they support liberal immigration policies.

In Finland, the possibility of taking a position on a future like Hamtramck’s will next arise in the parliamentary elections next spring. After all, we will then have both candidates and political parties whose immigration policies will sooner or later lead to a way of life resembling that of present-day Hamtramck, as well as political movements opposed to such a future. The same applies to other European democracies as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Lessons from the Abdul Ballout Case
The Forgotten Empire That Shaped Modern Europe
Reflections on the Terrorist Attack in Australia

Military Superiority Does Not Guarantee Victory

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

Who Really Rules Iran?

The Finnish Broadcasting company Yle has closely followed the funeral of Iran’s dictator, Ali Khamenei. At the same time, it has reported that the new Ayatollah, Mojtaba Khamenei, did not appear at the funeral and has not been seen in public even once.

Messages purportedly issued by Khamenei have, however, been read out in Iran before. In addition, the United States and Israel are said to possess intelligence suggesting that Mojtaba is still alive.

That may, of course, be true—or it may not. What is clear, however, is that a head of state hiding like a rat cannot truly be the one exercising power—not even in Iran. If he remains in hiding, someone else must be wielding authority in his place: someone who does not want their own name mentioned publicly and instead issues orders in Mojtaba’s name.

If, on the other hand, Mojtaba has in fact died, it would be entirely understandable that the real holder of power would not want their own name splashed across the headlines. It would instead be far more advantageous for them to claim that Mojtaba is alive and governing the country from a secret bunker, much like Adolf Hitler was said to be doing in 1945.

* * *

I readily admit that what I have written above contains elements of a conspiracy theory. Time will tell whether Mojtaba returns as Iran’s visible religious leader and head of state once peace finally returns.

For my part, to borrow the late ski jumper Matti Nykänen’s famous expression, I would put the odds at no better than “fifty-sixty.”

Before that, it remains to be seen whether Donald Trump can ultimately disengage from Iran without being seen as having suffered a humiliating defeat.

At the moment, however, it appears that Iran has no intention of giving up either its enriched uranium or its Islamist system of government. Even restoring freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz seems unlikely.

* * *

Since I began with a conspiracy theory, it is perhaps only fitting to end with a dose of hindsight.

Trump and the United States would not be in their current predicament if the U.S. military had continued its extraordinarily successful offensive against Iran in the summer of 2025.

Trump, however, chose not to let it do so. Instead, he halted the offensive, giving Iran time to recover and learn from the experience—which it did. The result was a significant improvement in Iran’s military capabilities and the stalemate now taking shape, in which the Americans can hope, at best, to restore the situation that existed before the offensive began—and perhaps not even that.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Trump’s War Without Strategy: Why Iran May Come Out Stronger
Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony
Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program

Trump’s War Without Strategy: Why Iran May Come Out Stronger

I wrote in yesterday’s text that the expansion of Charlemagne’s empire "was possible because Charles was constantly at war and gave his enemies no time to recover." This came to my mind this morning when I read in the newspaper that the negotiations between Donald Trump and Iran’s leadership had come to nothing, because representatives of the latter had left the negotiation site.

However, the Americans had already received a new negotiation proposal, in which, according to Trump, Iran had "offered a lot, but not yet enough." Nor had he yet considered continuing the war.

In my view, this is foolish, because Iran’s tactics seem as if they were designed based on the history of Charlemagne’s empire. As a result—if and when it has survived the initial attack by the United States and Israel—the aim is to prolong the ongoing peace process in order to improve and develop its own military capability.

* * *

Iran’s leadership is undoubtedly encouraged by the fact that although their army was hardly able to defend itself during last summer’s attack by the USA and Israel, it has during the current military operations been able to cause considerable destruction—especially in countries allied with the USA, but also to the U.S. Air Force. This shows that Iran’s Islamist leadership has the ability to enhance the combat capability of its own army and to survive the current attack, if given the opportunity.

It therefore remains to be seen what the final outcome of the war will be. Will it turn out to be the strengthening of Islamist Iran, rather than the rise of a more moderate government or even a democracy?

* * *

That is why it has been sad to observe that Donald Trump clearly does not know world history and its lessons, but embarked on the war recklessly, without preparing for it to become bogged down in the way now seen. If this is the case, the greatest sufferers will be Iranian women, who will be subjected even more tightly to a medieval hell and killed if necessary.

But Iranians will not be the only ones to suffer; global security will also be among the losers. Iran has, after all, been known as the most significant driving force behind Islamic terrorism.

And there is no reason to doubt that it would continue on that path—indeed even more determinedly—if the political leadership of the United States and/or its military proves incapable of carrying its attack through to completion. In other words, the outcome of the war will be exactly what it currently appears to be.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony
Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?
Donald J. Trump 

The Taiwan Question: A Conflict That Could Turn Nuclear

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Taiwanin kysymys uuteen vaiheeseen?

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Väkivalta- ja seksuaalirikollisuuden seuraukset

Donald Trump Called a Shooter an Animal

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original blogposti in Finnish:
29-vuotias afgaani ammuskeli

Why Should Ukraine Trust Donald Trump After Being Let Down by Barack Obama?

The Trump administration has assured that a possible peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia would “fully safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty.” This is of course a good thing in principle, but it appears in a strange light given that Ukraine’s sovereignty was, in theory, already secured by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

In that agreement, Ukraine gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons stationed on its territory, and in return the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom promised not to use or threaten to use economic or military means to coerce Ukraine or alter its borders. France and China later joined them.

As a result of these great powers’ “commitment,” Ukraine interpreted the memorandum as guaranteeing its security and handed over the nuclear weapons in its possession to Russia. This led, in 2014, to Putin deciding to risk Western reactions and annexing Crimea to Russia.

* * *

Putin’s gamble paid off, as the Crimea operation—carried out by Russian soldiers known as “little green men”—did not lead to practically any consequences. This was despite Russia clearly violating the Budapest Memorandum, using as a pretext the obvious falsehood that Ukraine’s government was illegitimate.

At that time, the United States was led by Barack Obama, who did impose some sanctions on Russia but decided not to intervene further in the aggression. In doing so, he ended up convincing Vladimir Putin that no strong U.S. counterreaction should be expected from a military attack, even when he violated existing international agreements that were interpreted as security guarantees.

* * *

The question, then, is what now guarantees that Ukraine will receive sufficient Western support under a new agreement, should Russia at some point decide to continue its military campaign? Would Donald Trump or one of his successors act like Obama did in 2014? In other words, if a new attack occurred, would political condemnations combined with some sanctions and limited military aid again be considered sufficient?

Given all this, I fully understand why Trump’s assurances do not appeal to Zelensky and other Ukrainians. And instead of the agreement he is now proposing, Ukraine demands for its security NATO membership—which Trump’s peace proposal forbids—since it would at the very least significantly increase the risk for Russia that the West might use military force if it embarked on a new offensive.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?

Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin

The meeting between the Presidents of the United States and Ukraine led to some rather interesting perspectives, as Donald Trump called for an end to the war along the current front lines — and Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to accept the idea. According to the latter, “we must stop where we are — he is right, the President is right.”

At the same time, Trump announced that he was not ready to provide Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles, which could be used to destroy Russian military and infrastructure targets deep inside the country. Not, at least, before he meets with Vladimir Putin in Hungary.

Before the meeting, Zelenskyy stated that security guarantees are the most important issue for Ukraine. However, Finnish media, the BBC, USA Today, and CBS did not report on what the presidents discussed regarding those guarantees. According to Finland’s President, Alexander Stubb, support for Ukraine remains strong and “includes military and economic assistance, security guarantees, a ceasefire, and a peace process.”

It therefore remains to be seen how Putin will respond in Hungary to a peace initiative that he could, if he wished, present to his people as some kind of victory. Yet compared with his previous statements, such an outcome would clearly be a failure — one that has already resulted in more than a million Russians being killed or disabled.

Thus, peace along the current front lines would be an obvious risk for Putin, since it is impossible to predict in advance which narrative — victory or failure — would ultimately prevail in the minds of Russians. And what might follow from that.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Ukraine’s Drones Fly 2,000 km, Putin’s Confidence Shakes
Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?
Ukraine Got Permission to Strike – But Where is the Target?

Finland and the U.S. to Launch Icebreaker Cooperation

President Alexander Stubb of Finland visits the White House today together with Prime Minister Petteri Orpo. There, he will sign a memorandum of understanding with President Donald Trump concerning cooperation on icebreaker technology.

This document lays the foundation for commercial agreements between the U.S. Coast Guard and Finnish companies. It is also the result of prior negotiations between the U.S. administration and Finnish shipbuilders.

The cooperation is based on the fact that Finnish expertise in icebreaker technology is unparalleled anywhere in the world — and that is why the Americans trust it.

Icebreakers are not ordinary ships; they represent a highly specialized technology mastered only within the Finnish “icebreaker ecosystem”, where the coordinated expertise of numerous companies comes together. In other words, the overall know-how is not the private property of any single company.

For this same reason, Finland’s core icebreaker expertise cannot simply be transferred abroad, even though the agreement includes an option for part of the shipbuilding work to be carried out in the United States. However, this would mainly involve the final outfitting of the icebreakers — work that does not significantly differ from any other type of ship construction.

In Finland, some concern has been expressed that these new deals might lead to the loss of icebreaker know-how from the country. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not share this concern. However, I do see great value in the fact that the construction of these vessels will also create jobs for American companies.

Such cooperation, if successful, could lead to a long-term partnership between Finnish and American companies — and thereby, in President Stubb’s words, “benefit both Finland and the United States.” After all, each icebreaker costs around two billion euros, so there’s a significant share for everyone involved.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland and the USA: Strong Allies with Shared Interests or a Trade Dispute?
Former President Donald Trump is Also the Upcoming President – But What Does It Mean?
Finland Will Thrive with Any US President, Trump Survived the Assassination Attempt

Optimism and Reality of the Gaza Peace Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestine’s Statehood and International Law

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

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

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

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

Russia’s Aging MiG Fleet vs. Finland’s Modern Air Power

According to the Finnish Defence Forces Commander Janne Jaakkola, “three MiG aircraft would not stand a chance against F-35 fighters, JAS Gripens or FA-18s. In that sense, there was no military threat. A rapid kinetic response would have been a mistake.”

The statement referred to MiG-31 fighters that had entered Estonian airspace, and it is understandable insofar as this aircraft type is far from new: production began back in 1979, and the first planes were delivered to the Soviet military as early as 1982. In that respect, it is rather amusing that such aircraft are still part of Putin’s active air force inventory.

* * *

The most recent MiG fighter is known as the MiG-35, which, according to its manufacturer, belongs to the so-called fifth generation of fighters, featuring stealth characteristics designed to make radar detection more difficult. However, the aircraft deployed in the war in Ukraine have—at least according to Western sources—been said to be lacking compared to their American counterparts.

The Russians, however, claim that the MiGs flown in Ukraine are still undergoing testing, so that deficiencies can be identified and corrected before mass production begins. Until then, the bulk of the Mikoyan–Gurevich fighter fleet remains the outdated MiG-31s seen over Estonia—still the fastest fighter aircraft in the world.

* * *

The obsolescence of Russia’s aircraft is naturally good news for Finland, which will soon receive its first F-35 fighters. Even the current Finnish Air Force fleet—the F-18 Hornet—is, according to the Commander, superior to the MiGs in question. That said, the Hornet is roughly from the same era as the MiG-31, its maiden flight having taken place already in 1978.

On the other hand, the MiG-31 and F-18 Hornet have never faced each other in aerial combat, so Jaakkola’s statement about the latter’s superiority is not based on combat experience but most likely only on assessments derived from technical specifications. For that reason, it should be taken with a grain of salt—though I myself believe in the superiority of Western technology over Soviet-era production.

Nor, judging by history, is there reason to doubt that Finnish pilots would be more skilled than their Russian counterparts.

* * *

Finally, it should be noted that the most well-known Russian next-generation stealth fighter is the Sukhoi-57, which has been used—and also shot down—in the war in Ukraine. In 2019, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that a total of 76 such aircraft would be procured for the country’s air force by 2028.

It would be interesting to know whether our Defence Forces’ Commander also regards the newer Sukhoi and MiG-35 fighters as clearly inferior to their Western counterparts—or whether he sees them as being capable of holding their own in combat against American and European aircraft.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?
Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?
Finns - Among the World’s Best

Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?

Vladimir Putin’s three-day “special operation” in Ukraine is becoming ever more visible in Russia. Fresh examples of this include the derailment of two trains in the Leningrad region and a drone strike on the Primorsk (Koivisto) oil terminal, which has left Russian oil exports from this port still suspended.

According to a social media account called The War Action, during the past August Ukraine struck 22 oil- and gas-related facilities, 12 railway infrastructure targets, six defense industry companies, three ports and warehouses, and two airports. As a result, this month ten Russian regions have faced such severe fuel shortages that some independent gas stations shut down entirely—and where operations continue, gasoline prices have risen.

At the same time, the balance of power on the battlefield has shifted. For instance, near Dobropillia, Ukrainian armed forces units have advanced west of Volodymyrivka. Several Russian detachments remain encircled near Kucheriv Yar—and even the reinforcements sent to assist them are themselves facing encirclement.

If these developments continue, it is clear that Vladimir Putin’s position as Russia’s dictator will begin to weaken. His situation is made no easier by the fact that Donald Trump has called on all NATO countries to stop buying oil from Russia, to impose tougher sanctions against it, and to levy 50–100 percent import tariffs on China.

As a carrot, Trump has offered that if all his demands are met, the United States will also be ready to impose major sanctions against Russia—thereby forcing Vladimir Putin to end his special operation, or at least compelling the Russian people to rid themselves of their dictator.

Putin’s difficult situation is also evident from the fact that even Belarusian dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenko has begun to distance himself from his regime. This was seen, for example, when Belarusian authorities warned the Poles about drones that had recently crossed the border through Belarusian airspace.

Or what do you think, my dear reader? Could all this be a sign that Vladimir Vladimirovich’s countdown has now begun? Or am I just dreaming?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Responding to Russia’s Challenges Is Essential
Russian Oil Giants Suffer, But the Real Reasons Remain Hidden
Ukraine’s Missiles and Russia’s Forced Recruitment Set to Topple Putin’s Regime

Challenging What We Think We Know: Wildfires Reveal the Power of Science

Large wildfires make headlines that spread across the world. This certainly does nothing to lessen the negative stigma attached to them.

That is why it was so interesting to come across a study examining the impact of wildfires in the western United States on air quality in other parts of the country. The researchers’ hypothesis was that wildfires would worsen air quality simply because of smoke transport.

However, the hypothesis turned out to be incorrect. Ma and colleagues showed that extreme wildfires in the West actually reduce fine particle concentrations in the eastern United States by roughly the same amount as they increase them in the West.

This surprising result was explained by the fact that heat-induced convection from the fires weakens eastward transport of smoke and enhances the removal of air pollutants through precipitation. In fact, this mechanism reduces human mortality and economic losses nationwide!

Of course, it is welcome news that the health effects of wildfires may not be as dramatic as feared. Yet in my view, the real lesson of this study lies elsewhere. It once again demonstrates that ordinary and seemingly logical assumptions people make do not necessarily correspond to reality. At the same time, it helps to highlight why systematic science is very likely one of humanity’s most important institutions.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Control of Douglas fir beetles by woodborer beetles
Forests in Indonesia and Finland
Scientific misconduct on prevailing theories is too attractive

On Freedom, Debate, and the Murder of Charlie Kirk

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Unintended Consequences of Modern Value Shifts
Freedom of Speech in Danger
Finland Will Thrive with Any US President, Trump Survived the Assassination Attempt

Putin on His Knees Before Xi — and Running Out of Money

The Finnish Institute of International Affairs’ senior researcher Jussi Lassila commented on Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s trip to China, and in doing so, he also summarized his position in world politics remarkably well. He noted that “Putin is on his knees before Xi, which suits China. Xi can present agreements to Russia that greatly benefit China, while Russia is forced to accept deals that are unfavorable to itself.”

At the same time, Lassila reassured ordinary people worried about the growing closeness between China and Russia. He pointed out that “Of course, opposition to the United States remains the common denominator here, but I don’t see any truly unified anti-Western alliance emerging between China and Russia”—and he explained, quite rightly, that “China has benefited enormously from the prevailing global order, which is why its continuity is in its interest.”

Lassila’s comments are both credible and fact-based—and therefore most likely accurate.

Another recent piece of news certainly does nothing to improve Putin’s situation: Russia’s state coffers are beginning to run dry. The liquidity of the National Wealth Fund, calculated in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), has fallen below 155 billion euros. At the central bank, the state has net reserves of 200 billion euros (PPP). In other words, Russia’s assets are sufficient to cover the budget for only about one year—until August 2026.

In that situation, hard facts will catch up with Putin’s so-called “special operation.” After all, you cannot draw something out of nothing, and waging war is not free. It may, therefore, very well be that the fate of Tsar Nicholas II will begin to haunt the dictator who imagines himself omnipotent—sooner or later.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Free World Needs America’s Leadership Now
Number of Predators is Increasing in Russia
The Price of Xi´s and Putin's Game Is Paid by Ordinary Russians

Houthi Leaders Risk Their Lives to Cling to Power

Last Thursday, the Israeli armed forces killed Yemen’s Houthi administration Prime Minister Ahmed Ghalib al-Rahawi, Foreign Minister Jamal Amer, and ten other ministers — more than half of Yemen’s government members — in a precise airstrike. Such an outcome is undeniably impressive, and it could not have arisen by chance as if in a fairytale.

In this case too, the strike was preceded by weeks of intelligence gathering involving around 200 military intelligence professionals. The group worked in a secret bunker located in Israel and also included representatives of the United States military.

The actual attack was carried out by Israeli fighter jets just a few hours after the intelligence team had confirmed the meeting place of the Yemeni government. At that moment, the Yemeni ministers had just gathered to listen to the speech of spiritual and military leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi, who, fortunately for him, was speaking via remote connection and thus preserved his life.

For the time being, the broader impact of the successful strike remains uncertain, but it seems that the Houthi administration is trying to hold on to its position. In doing so, its members are taking an enormous risk of another Israeli and U.S. strike, which, if successful, could cost them their lives. In any case, it is clear that the intelligence services of these states will do their utmost to succeed again.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Power Change Hands in Iran?
The End of the Holy Soldier of the Arabs
Religious authority and the Iran strike on Israel

Stalled Melting of Northern Polar Ice Buys the West Time to Strengthen Arctic Capabilities

One of my greatest interests is the visibility of predicted climate change in the surface area of northern sea ice. Therefore, dear readers, allow me to return once again to this topic, as I have not reported on it for some time in this English-language blog.

According to the August statistics, the average surface area of northern sea ice last August was the seventh smallest in its recorded history, which began in 1979. This was because, over the past year, the ice cover was larger than in August of 2024, 2020, 2019, 2016, 2012, and 2007.

This fact fits well with the already established picture that northern sea ice shrank rapidly from the 1990s until 2007, after which its surface area has shown nothing more than random variation. This reality is also illustrated in the figure I have drawn below, where the X-axis shows the ice area in millions of square kilometers and the Y-axis shows the years.

The maximum extent of Arctic sea ice is usually reached in September, so later this month we will see whether the amount of navigable, ice-free water in the Arctic Ocean exceeds that of previous years. Based on the above statistics, this does not seem likely—but neither does it seem entirely impossible.

The size of northern sea ice naturally has its own scientific significance, particularly in the context of the threat of climate change. In addition, it carries major practical geopolitical importance, since during President Trump’s administration the United States has observed that Russia is clearly ahead of others in this respect.

In this sense, the slowdown of ice melting is very good news for the free Western world, as it gives the U.S. and other nations interested in northern maritime regions more time to build up their own capacities for operating in the Arctic. At the same time, this particularly benefits my home country of Finland, which is indisputably the world leader in building icebreakers and stands ready to offer its expertise to other nations as well.

Previous thought on the same topic:

Big Deal in the Cold North: Finland vs. Canada
Northern Sea Ice Area Has Not Responded to Exceptionally High Temperatures
Ice Sheet Losses in Antarctica and Greenland