Lukashenko Plays It Safe as Putin Fails in Ukraine

Belarus is one of the last dictatorships in Europe. The country is ruled by President Aleksandr Lukashenko, whose hold on power is supported by Putin’s Russia.

On the other hand, Lukashenko is trying to avoid getting entangled in Putin’s disastrous war in Ukraine, especially now that it is clear that no quick victory is forthcoming. And apparently for that reason – undoubtedly after carefully considering the matter – he congratulated Ukraine on the country’s 35th Independence Day.

* * *

This act appears, at least according to a Finnish political media, Verkkouutiset, to have been too much for many Russian so-called war bloggers. According to them, Russia’s main problem is not its enemies but its allies – who are unwilling to go along with all of Putin’s stupidities.

Lukashenko has acted in much the same way. In 2022, he understood that it was unwise to throw himself wholeheartedly into Putin’s three-day “special operation.” Whether the reason was a lack of capability, an understanding that Russia’s invasion would not go well, or something else, the failed attempt to seize Kyiv in the very first days of the war showed that this was fortunately the right decision for Belarus.

* * *

The war itself has produced no decisive outcomes since then, either. Of course, both sides have achieved small victories and suffered considerable losses. One such development is just unfolding north of the city of Lyman, where thousands of Russian troops are being encircled.

It is, of course, quite a catastrophe for the Russian army, but on its own it will no more decide the war in Ukraine’s favor than the much more devastating Battle of Raate Road decided the Winter War in Finland’s favor. For dictators like Lukashenko, however, it is a clear sign that they should not sink too deeply into Putin’s pocket, but instead try, as far as possible, to maintain some distance from their most important supporter.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?
Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?
Turning Points in the War in Ukraine: New Threats and Unexpected Allies

2,731 Years to Conquer Ukraine

At least for me, it has been difficult to understand exactly what has happened in the war between Ukraine and Russia during the current year. Of course, it is clear that the Ukrainians have destroyed Russian infrastructure with drone attacks, while the Russians have continued to destroy Ukrainian civilians in Kyiv and other major cities.

What I have seen less information about, however, is how the situation on the front has developed. Yesterday morning, though, I noticed on social media that Volodymyr Zelenskyy had said: “At the moment, the enemy has captured 990 square kilometres since the beginning of the year, while we have regained control of 820 square kilometres. By the end of 2026, however, we will achieve a balance between these areas.”

* * *

It therefore appears that the success of the two fighting armies varies across different parts of the front. In terms of the overall picture, however, the changes are small, if not downright minimal, since Ukraine has a total area of 603,628 km². In other words, the Russians have managed to capture 0.213 percent of the territory of their victim in just under eight months, while the Ukrainians have recaptured 0.177 percent elsewhere.

Thus, the net extent of Russian advances during this period amounts to 0.037 percent of Ukraine’s territory. Or, to put it another way: at this rate, it would take the Russians 2,731 years to take control of the whole of Ukraine—that is, until the year 3757. Admittedly, they would accomplish it “already” in 2495 if Putin’s army managed to prevent Zelenskyy’s forces from recapturing any territory.

* * *

In my view, all of this underscores the absurdity of the war that has been going on in Europe for years. The casualty figures of the armies involved provide equally stark evidence: according to Wikipedia, almost 1.5 million Russians have been killed or wounded, while the corresponding figure for Ukrainians is also close to half a million.

That means that more than one percent of both Russia’s and Ukraine’s populations have been killed or wounded as a result of Putin’s “special military operation.” The former while taking part in a raid on a foreign country, and the latter while defending their homes and families.

This raises the question: how on earth could Vladimir Putin be made to understand the horror of all this, when hardly anyone would dare—even in Russia, at least—to present him with the figures I have set out here? Would it even be enough if Zelenskyy’s prediction, mentioned at the beginning of this piece, that the situation would be balanced out by the end of the year were to come true?

* * *

The situation is not entirely hopeless, however. Perhaps the Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure will eventually lead—through the worsening everyday misery they cause—to a revolution in Russia. And surely it is not impossible that the relatives of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine will eventually have had enough of seeing their sons and other family members sent to their deaths.

Unfortunately, I always remember in this context the view expressed by an older Estonian colleague of mine: Russians will never rise up in rebellion. This is because they are far too accustomed to their poor living conditions, and because they have potato plots to ensure that they have at least the food they need to survive. Thus, according to my colleague, even Putin can count on the support of his people during his senseless military adventure, however long it may last—decades, centuries, or even thousands of years.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine: Putin's Waterloo, China's Opportunity—and Finland's Headache
Putin's Growing Crisis in Ukraine and an Uncertain Endgame for Russia
Russia's Predicament Awakened the Trolls and Increased the Risk of Nuclear War

Ukraine: Putin's Waterloo, China's Opportunity—and Finland's Headache

Putin's three-day "special military operation" has left Russians in dire straits. For example, motorists can obtain fuel only after waiting in long queues, as Ukrainian strikes on the country's oil refineries have significantly reduced Russia's refining capacity. In addition, the war has exacted a staggering human toll in the form of dead and wounded soldiers—leading to speculation that Putin may even be considering a new round of mobilization.

Yet these may not be the most significant consequences of the "special military operation." According to an article published by the Wall Street Journal, China is seeking to turn Russia into something of a vassal state. This would mean a situation in which Russia becomes dependent on China, more closely integrated with it, and increasingly looks to China as a model and a source of modern thinking.

According to the article, the Chinese have therefore been cultivating contacts with Russians whom they believe could rise to positions of influence after Putin. At the same time, they have been slow to accommodate Putin's wishes and have, for example, demanded that any agreement to build the long-discussed gas pipeline from Siberia to China include provisions allowing them to purchase Russian gas at Russia's much lower domestic prices rather than at international market rates.

When one also considers the halt in Russia's military advance—and, in some areas, even its retreat—Ukraine is increasingly emerging as Putin's Waterloo. And China is unlikely to have any qualms about exploiting the situation to the fullest.

* * *

If, as now seems increasingly possible, Russia ends up becoming a Chinese vassal state as a consequence of its war, Finland should finally begin asking what this would mean for Russia's northwestern neighbor. Would growing Chinese influence increase or reduce the security threat that Moscow poses to Finland?

It is, of course, clear that once peace returns, trade across the eastern border is likely to become easier again. But will it resemble the trade that existed before the "special military operation"? Or will it acquire a distinctly Chinese dimension? And if so, would that be beneficial or detrimental to Finland?

I have not noticed experts, civil servants, or politicians giving these questions the attention they deserve. I therefore urge them to do so without delay, so that we can make the most of the opportunities that may emerge while avoiding the pitfalls that lie ahead.

After all, politics is ultimately the art of the possible, where successful anticipation is already half the battle. This has always been especially true of Finland's policy toward its eastern neighbor.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's Endgame: Deception, Escalation, or Death?
Putin's Growing Crisis in Ukraine and an Uncertain Endgame for Russia
The Taiwan Question: A Conflict That Could Turn Nuclear

Putin's Growing Crisis in Ukraine and an Uncertain Endgame for Russia

The European Union has finally awakened to the fact that many Ukrainian men are using its refugee policy as a means of avoiding military service. For this reason, the Commission has proposed—according to the Finnish media—that Ukrainian men of military age should no longer be granted temporary protection in the EU.

One can only hope that the proposal will be processed by the EU's bureaucratic apparatus more quickly than, for example, the proposal to abolish changing the clocks. As a result, Ukraine's manpower shortage could be alleviated at a time when the military situation is otherwise turning so favorable for the Ukrainians that even Russian soldiers reportedly admit they are exhausted and wish to warn Putin of a possible "major catastrophe" ahead.

* * *

The emergence of Russian soldiers speaking out, along with the reactions of Crimeans to Ukrainian successes, suggests that the Moscow government has kept its citizens in an information blackout regarding the problems facing the "special military operation." This brings to mind the year 1940, when Finnish censorship ensured that the public had an overly optimistic view of the situation in the Winter War, and as a result, people experienced the outcome of the war as even more unjust than it actually was.

The same problem now confronts Vladimir Putin and his administration. It is genuinely difficult for them to explain to their subjects why the Ukrainians are capable of destroying Russian infrastructure to such an extent that ordinary people no longer even have fuel for their cars.

If and when a rebellious spirit continues to spread among Russian soldiers, the government will face an acute crisis that will further undermine the operational capabilities of the country's military, and consequently weaken its military performance even beyond its current state.

* * *

All of this could have a truly dramatic impact on the ability of Putin's administration to function. At the moment, it seems to be protected by little more than the absence of a credible opposition—a factor that also makes Russia's future difficult to predict.

Consequently, the final outcome of Putin's special military operation could be anything from a palace coup to complete anarchy and even the disintegration of the Russian state. Of course, the first of these scenarios is the most likely, but then again, hardly anyone at the beginning of 1917 predicted that the Bolsheviks would overthrow and murder the Russian Tsar and his family.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Russia's Predicament Awakened the Trolls and Increased the Risk of Nuclear War
Russia’s Spring Offensive: Gains Unclear, Losses Undeniable

Russia's Predicament Awakened the Trolls and Increased the Risk of Nuclear War

Russia has found itself increasingly cornered in its three-day special military operation in recent days. Perhaps the most striking example of this is the destruction of oil industry facilities in the Moscow region—caused primarily by Ukrainian drones, but apparently also by Russian air defense systems themselves.

At the same time, the Ukrainians have extended their attacks as far as the Tyumen oil refinery, located some 2,500 kilometers away. Nor does the plight of the Crimean Peninsula, due to the vulnerability of its supply lines, make President Vladimir Putin's position any easier.

* * *

All of this has led to a counteroffensive by Russian trolls on social media. The strikes on Moscow are claimed to be a hoax, there are assertions that Russia is preparing a new offensive in Ukraine, and there are even threats of nuclear war being triggered by the destruction of the oil industry.

In fact, the outbreak of nuclear war as a consequence of Russia's deteriorating fortunes in the war may be a real threat if Vladimir Putin fears that his position could be endangered by a military defeat. From his perspective, defeat could mean being overthrown or even losing his life.

For this reason, it would be important for Western countries—and especially the United States—to state unequivocally that the use of a Russian nuclear weapon would, under any circumstances, cross the threshold for retaliation directed at wherever intelligence indicates Putin happens to be residing at the time. Hopefully, the fear resulting from such a declaration would be sufficient in all circumstances to keep Russian nuclear weapons on their launch platforms.

* * *

At the same time, it should be emphasized to Russia's dictator that he still has the opportunity to make peace. All that would be required is the withdrawal of his forces from Ukraine and the payment of compensation for the destruction caused by his special military operation.

And that Putin still possesses at least a small measure of common sense. On the other hand, it may be—as I wrote above—that Putin no longer has a future if Russia returns from Ukraine defeated. He is undoubtedly aware of the historical precedent of Russia's defeat in the First World War, which led to the murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his family.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Can Ukraine Create Its Own “Winter War Miracle”?
The Ukrainian Lioness Will Defeat Vladimir Putin’s Army
Russia’s Shadow Fleet Exposes Gaps in International Law

Vandals of Tampere’s Mannerheim Statue Reveal Their Ignorance

In Tampere, Finland, a statue of Marshal Carl Gustaf Mannerheim—who led the White forces in the Finnish Civil War of 1918 and served as Commander-in-Chief of the Finnish Army during World War II—was erected in 1956. The statue was created by Evert Porila before the Winter War and placed at a location from which Mannerheim himself observed the decisive battles of the Red uprising in 1918. The statue and its surroundings are impressive, and the historical insight behind its placement is excellent. I recommend visiting it to everyone traveling in Finland, as well as to our own citizens.

Iltalehti reported that this statue had—apparently two nights ago—been vandalized with red paint. Writings had been scrawled on the base and side of the statue, which shows poor judgment ability.

* * *

For these vandals, it would be instructive to watch the film “The Eternal Road” (Ikitie), available on the Finnish Broadcasting Company’s Areena service. The film, directed by Antti-Jussi Annala and based on a novel by Antti Tuuri, might help them understand the kind of fate from which the victory of Mannerheim’s White Army spared their grandparents and their ancestors. A “Red Finland” would most likely have been annexed to the Soviet Union, much like Ukraine, which went on to suffer the horrors of the Holodomor.

* * *

Still, every cloud has a silver lining. The Red uprising led to the development of a very strong executive branch within Finland’s democracy—something highly exceptional compared to other European states that gained independence after World War I.

Thanks to its strong executive power, Finland remained a democracy while many other post–World War I democracies—where parliamentary power was emphasized—drifted into right-wing dictatorships. Things were different here under the North Star: communists were banned, and the far-right Lapua Movement remained a historical curiosity.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Politics in Brigitte Bardot’s Obituary on Finland’s Public Broadcaster Yle
Demonstration Demonstrated the Selfishness of the Demonstrators
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war

Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony

The Iranian government threatened to destroy water desalination plants in the Persian Gulf countries if the United States begins destroying its energy facilities. As a result, millions of people would face a horrific situation—assuming water production were severely disrupted—since the region’s natural water resources are insufficient to meet their needs.

With this threat—or at least by carrying it out—the Iranians would violate international agreements that prohibit attacks on infrastructure vital to civilians, such as drinking water systems and dams. In doing so, they would act just as the Russians have in Ukraine—without facing any particularly serious consequences. And they continue to do so.

Thus, in Putin’s “three-day special operation,” a precedent has been created that encourages the Iranians to act in a questionable manner. At the same time, it demonstrates the toothlessness of international law when it comes to protecting civilians.

* * *

The Houthi rebels in Yemen are one of the most significant proxy actors of Iran against other states and their governments in the region. However, they have been remarkably passive during the attack against their “patron”—perhaps purely out of self-preservation.

Now, however, the Houthis have announced their intention to join the war on the side of the Iranian government if the United States or Israel use the Red Sea against it. In practice, however, the Houthis’ capabilities would likely be limited to harassing ships traveling by sea.

Unfortunately, even that alone would have significant economic consequences for global trade. And therefore—if that were to happen—the rest of the world might have to consider whether the time has finally come to take real action to dismantle the terrorist Houthi regime.

* * *

If the two threats discussed above are extremely serious, the third case that caught my attention is rather amusing. I am referring to Russia’s threat to halt gasoline exports abroad. This comes after its oil infrastructure has been repeatedly destroyed—most recently even in ports along the coast of the Gulf of Finland.

Of course, the Russian threat shows that they have understood how to make use of the situation. They are scoring points by turning necessity into a virtue. It remains to be seen, however, whether this threat will have any impact on the course of the war, in which Ukraine has clearly gained the upper hand this year and now appears likely to emerge as the victor.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Houthi Leaders Risk Their Lives to Cling to Power

Russia’s Spring Offensive: Gains Unclear, Losses Undeniable

Russia’s “three-day special operation” came close to us Finns two days ago, when Ukrainians caused destruction at the port of Koivisto (Primorsk in Russian) on the Karelian Isthmus. Otherwise, however, the war in Ukraine has in recent weeks been overshadowed—even in Finnish media—by the war being fought in Iran.

That is why it was interesting to note that, according to the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, General Oleksandr Syrskyi, Russia has intensified its ground assaults over the past week—effectively launching what has already become its traditional spring offensive.

According to him, this is reflected in the number of Russian attacks: over the course of four days, there were as many as 619 attacks across different parts of the front.

Even before these assaults, Russia’s military leadership had increased its heavy equipment and ordered its troops to move to the front line. As a result, tens of thousands of soldiers took part in the attacks.

* * *

However, not everything has gone like clockwork in recent days. According to Ukraine’s military leadership, more than 6,000 Russian soldiers were killed or wounded in just four days—an average of about 1,520 casualties per day.

This means that Russians are now dying faster than they can be recruited. Thus, Ukraine’s military leadership estimates that Russia will not be able to sustain large-scale offensives like those seen now for very long.

* * *

This assessment can be examined, for example, in light of the losses suffered by the Red Army during the Winter War. At that time, over a period of 105 days, Stalin’s army suffered daily losses ranging—depending on the source—between 1,500 and 3,000 casualties. That is to say, on the same level as or higher than those seen in Ukraine during the four days mentioned above.

In other words, Stalin’s brutal regime was able to continue its war for over three months despite horrific losses, even though it only managed to occupy a small part of Finland. In the peace negotiations, however, they gained more, and Finland lost over ten percent of its territory.

* * *

It remains to be seen whether Putin’s dictatorship can send its citizens to their deaths in Ukraine at the same pace as Stalin’s regime did in Finland in 1939–40. At the very least, Putin faces pressure to do so, as Russian authorities have already set expectations for their citizens in domestic messaging.

For example, it was stated in the Russian Duma on March 23 that all wars have casualties, but Russian forces are trying to minimize losses by advancing “at a calm pace” toward Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. The speed of that pace, however, remains a mystery.

In any case, the reality is that this spring, before advancing “at a calm pace,” Russian forces must first be able to regain control of the areas that Ukraine has retaken in recent weeks—and that will not happen without heavy losses, perhaps not at all.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Concern About the Future Is Growing in Russia
Why Should Ukraine Trust Donald Trump After Being Let Down by Barack Obama?
Ukrainian and Finnish Cases of Desertion

Concern About the Future Is Growing in Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin held his annual media spectacle, the propagandistic rambling of which was reported with varying emphasis by the Finnish media (Yle, Helsingin Sanomat). This morning, I then came across a post on social media by the Ukrainian Anton Gerashchenko, who is known for sharing his views, and whose content may have been more important than any information conveyed by Finnish news organizations.

According to him, as many as eight percent of the questions submitted for the program concerned Russia’s economic crisis, making it the third most popular topic—previously it had not even made the top ten. People wanted to know when the “bad period” of the economy would end, when price increases would stop, and why the government is raising value-added tax.

Sixteen percent of Russians also wanted to know when their standard of living would improve, and 21 percent were interested in when the war would end. These are likely rather uncomfortable questions for Putin.

* * *

In the same post, Gerashchenko also said that according to a recent opinion poll, 39 percent of Russians believe that the economic situation in their regions will worsen, compared to 33 percent a year ago, 34 percent in 2023, and 29 percent in 2022. The share of Russians who believe that life in Russia will deteriorate next year has also reached its highest level since 2022 (17%).

In other words, the consequences of the war in Ukraine are increasingly beginning to show in Russians’ everyday lives, even though—at least so far—there have been no visible (or at least serious) protests against the war. It remains to be seen at what point ordinary Russians’ concern about their own situation will lead to visible resistance against Putin’s war policy.

Or will it ever?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?

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?

Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?

Based on the latest news, it now appears that the EU will have to decide whether it is a significant actor or merely a paper tiger in world politics. I mean that the United States has pressured Ukraine to accept a peace plan dictated by Russia—or at least one that appears to be so—circulating under the name of Donald Trump.

According to media reports, the pressure has taken the form of threatening Ukrainians with a reduction in American military aid and intelligence support if the plan is not accepted. This is a serious situation, because—as I understand it—it is perfectly clear that Ukraine cannot continue the war in its current circumstances without U.S. intelligence assistance, when survival against the enemy is already hanging by a thread.

If Donald Trump is serious, Ukraine is left with two options: either to accept a peace agreement highly similar to the one effectively forced upon Finland in 1944, or for Europeans to step in and fully replace American support.

That does not mean that Germany’s Merz, France’s Macron, and Britain’s Starmer can simply continue to offer verbal reassurances of their support. The major EU countries must now genuinely commit to large-scale assistance for Ukraine, because the shoulders of the Baltic states and the Nordic countries alone are in no way sufficient to stop Russia. Otherwise, Ukraine will be handed over to the Russians.

Based on current information, a decision will be made by next Thursday, as Trump is waiting until then for Zelensky’s answer. After that, he—possibly due to some form of blackmail related to his past trips to Moscow—will abandon the Ukrainians to their fate.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?
Questionable Achievements of Donald Trump's Foreign Policy

Ukrainian and Finnish Cases of Desertion

Financial Times published a report on Ukrainian soldiers deserting the front. According to it, as many as 60,000 charges have been filed this year alone against soldiers who have abandoned their posts.

For this reason, I would like to remind you – my esteemed readers – that Finns faced similar problems in 1944. However, they were resolved swiftly and effectively, which demonstrates that desertion can be brought under control quite quickly – if there is the will to do so. Undoubtedly, this applies to Ukraine as well.

* * *

During the Winter War, Finnish soldiers held their positions admirably, and morale remained high. But when the Karelian Isthmus front collapsed in 1944 under the pressure of the Soviet Union’s massive offensive, many Finnish soldiers also abandoned their posts. As a result, it was estimated in June 1944 that around 30,000 soldiers had gone missing from their units – some lost, but many deliberately fleeing.

This led Parliament to enact a law strengthening the military penal code, allowing for the death penalty for “cowardice in battle,” that is, desertion. This resulted in summary judgments by field courts and, in some cases, officers taking justice into their own hands. Consequently, roughly fifty Finnish deserters and war resisters met their end at the hands of their own countrymen.

* * *

These events have later been condemned with the infallible morality of hindsight – or, as Veikko Huovinen put it, with the “sweetest and most self-satisfied kind of wisdom.” The fact remains, however, that it was precisely those summary punishments – and the word of them spreading rapidly through the ranks – that brought desertion among Finnish soldiers under control.

Thus, swift and sufficiently firm action against desertion made possible, among other things, the defensive victory at Tali–Ihantala – the so-called Miracle of Ihantala, which stopped the Red Army’s great offensive and saved Finland’s independence. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Ukrainalainen ja suomalainen rintamakarkuruus

Ukraine Must Defeat Corruption Before Joining the EU

In addition to waging war, Ukraine is also striving to root out the rampant corruption in the country. And no wonder — in 2024, the nation ranked as low as 105th on an index measuring corruption levels. That means Ukrainians are slightly more corrupt than those in Morocco, the Dominican Republic, or Serbia, but still less prone to bribery than people in Algeria, Brazil, or Malawi.

Incidentally, the least corrupt countries in the world were Denmark, Finland, Singapore, and New Zealand. At the very bottom of the list — in positions 178 to 180 — were Venezuela, Somalia, and South Sudan.

* * *

Let us return, then, to Ukraine, which is fighting desperately for its independence against the Russians, with strong support from Western nations. Its leadership has also expressed a firm desire to join the European Union.

In my view, the EU — which itself struggles with corruption — must, despite all sympathy toward the Ukrainians, firmly maintain that this goal cannot be achieved unless corruption is thoroughly eradicated from the country. In this respect, Ukrainians are on the right path, but unfortunately still far from the finish line.

It was therefore rather foolish that President Volodymyr Zelensky tried during the summer to limit anti-corruption investigations — a move that raised doubts, both in me and surely in many others, about whether Ukraine can ever leave behind its Slavic legacy of corruption and one day embrace a Western way of life. 

To be sure, he quickly reversed course, but it is clear that the damage was already done and the stigma of corruption attached to Ukrainians only grew stronger. Erasing that image will not be easy — it will require revelations and punishments that may also reach into Zelensky’s own apparently corrupt inner circle.

It remains to be seen how Ukraine will tackle corruption in the future — and whether the problem can ever truly be brought under control so that the country’s EU membership might one day become even theoretically possible.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine Risks Losing Western Trust by Muzzling Corruption Watchdog
A New Beginning: Economic Independence in the Hands of Developing Nations
Can Trump Resist the Kremlin’s Lure?

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?

When Ukraine’s Drones Fly 2,000 km, Putin’s Confidence Shakes

According to the Kyiv Post, Ukraine has carried out a drone strike more than 2,000 kilometers beyond its border. The target was an oil refinery in Tyumen, Russia, which was reportedly damaged in the attack.

Regardless of the extent of the damage, the incident is significant in that it demonstrates that Russian infrastructure is increasingly within Ukraine’s reach. Consequently, Russia’s war economy is becoming ever more vulnerable — just as Vladimir Putin turns 73.

For example, fuel shortages in many regions of Russia are already severe and are making civilian life difficult. One can only imagine how the situation will unfold in the coming months, with homes left unheated as temperatures drop to –20 or even –30 degrees Celsius.

For this reason, there now appears to be considerable potential in the air for an uprising to ignite. And this seems enough for Putin to be paying very close attention to his own security.

This is underlined by reports that even Vyacheslav Leontyev, the 87-year-old former publisher of Pravda, the leading newspaper of the Soviet Union, is said to have fallen from the window of his fifth-floor apartment in western Moscow. The man is believed to have been well informed about the secret wealth of Russia’s elite — undoubtedly including Putin himself — the existence of which is unlikely to provide much comfort to ordinary Russians facing the coming winter’s cold.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?
Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?

Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?

Ukraine has sought to undermine Vladimir Putin’s “special operation” by bringing the war into Russians’ homes, namely by destroying infrastructure. As a result, there are occasional shortages of fuel for cars, and home heating does not always function.

The Ukrainians’ tactic seems sound in itself, but Pekka Toveri (National Coalition Party), former Chief of Intelligence at the Finnish Defence Command and now a Member of the European Parliament, reminded of one problem. According to him, “in a dictatorship, the risk of going out into the streets is great, because if you are not shot, you will spend decades in a prison camp.”

For this reason, Russians can endure the kind of misery that would lead to massive riots in Western countries. The choice is easy, since—as Toveri put it—“the alternative is a bullet in the forehead.”

It remains to be seen what the winter will bring. In the best-case scenario, heating failures and cold homes will eventually lead to a popular uprising and the collapse of Putin’s regime—along with peace for Ukraine. In the worst case, Russians will direct their anger toward Ukraine, and the people will unite more firmly than ever behind Putin’s “special operation.”

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine Got Permission to Strike – But Where is the Target?
Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?

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

Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?

Last night, Russia struck with great force against civilians in Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv. It remains to be seen, however, how this will affect U.S. President Donald Trump.

I ask this because President Trump has recently seemed, at long last, to have grown weary of Vladimir Putin and his army’s actions in Ukraine. And now there has been a large-scale attack against Ukrainian civilians – which in itself constitutes a war crime.

For my part, however, I doubt that Trump is still a man capable of putting Putin in his place – that is, of showing Russia to be nothing more than a second-rate vassal state to China. Nor do I think he is the man who could end a war that has already claimed 1,1 million Russian lives, a war which Moscow’s elite continues only to preserve its own grip on power.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?
Donald Trump’s Meeting With Vladimir Putin: The Advice He Needs
Oily Trap for Putin

Kremlin’s Provocations Echo Pre-War Rhetoric on Ukraine

Vladimir Putin’s Russia once again tested Estonia’s air defense by sending fighter jets flying “dark” – that is, without transponders – toward Tallinn. However, the planes turned back after first Finnish and then Italian fighter jets appeared to meet them.

The details of the encounter have not been made public, so we do not know whether the mere appearance of NATO aircraft was enough to make the Russians retreat, or whether the jets had to make it clear in some way that they were serious—perhaps using some kind of signaling, or even weapons, to drive the message home.

In any case, this was the fourth such incident this year, so it cannot be dismissed as a navigational error. Rather, it was a deliberate action—and therefore a dangerous game that relies on the assumption that airspace violators will not be shot down.

* * *

The situation is, of course, extremely difficult for Estonia and for NATO’s defense as a whole. Previous airspace violations have lasted around a minute, but this time the incursion was stretched to four times that length. And as noted above, the course was set toward Tallinn.

The obvious question is whether NATO has agreed on some kind of threshold after which Russian fighters will be actively intercepted—that is, shot down, as happened recently with drones flying in Polish airspace.

Naturally, the threshold for such an action is very high, since downing aircraft would almost certainly trigger extreme military and political tension. At the same time, it is equally clear that Russian fighter jets flying dark and without permission cannot be allowed over Tallinn; they must be stopped in time, and by any means necessary if required.

* * *

It remains to be seen whether these Russian violations of Estonian airspace will continue and lengthen in the coming days and weeks—and whether they might extend into Finnish airspace as well, testing Finland’s readiness in the same way.

This possibility may be hinted at by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s claim that the Finnish government’s “façade of neutrality has fallen away,” and that a politics of retribution has “literally arisen” in our country. A similar goal also seems to be served by statements from Russia—apparently aimed at undermining Finnish unity—suggesting that Finland’s population is dissatisfied with the government, and that the absence of Russian tourists in eastern Finland has led to “population decline” and economic weakening in Southeast Finland.

According to the American think tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW), these narratives resemble the kind of rhetoric the Putin regime used to justify its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. That is why Finland’s—and NATO’s—communication toward Russia must be firm and unequivocal, making it clear that Russia has nothing to gain beyond its northwestern borders.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The War in Ukraine Came Close to Me
Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?
Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?

Responding to Russia’s Challenges Is Essential

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

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

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

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

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

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

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