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?

Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?

Some Ukrainians have fled the war to other countries. As a result, there are also people in Finland who have escaped Russia’s invasion, and they have generally been well received. On the other hand, finding employment has been difficult: only about 30 percent of Ukrainians have jobs, while the rest depend on social security.

According to a recent survey, however, the majority of Ukrainians intend to stay in Finland even if the war raging in their homeland were to end. This group makes up about 70 percent of all Ukrainians in the country.

At the same time, Finland has tightened its immigration policy, so it remains to be seen what will happen to the Ukrainians currently in the country once peace returns and the need for humanitarian protection ends. In a way, Finland does need a solid workforce in the long term due to its low birth rate, even though unemployment currently affects as much as ten percent of the national labor force.

It should also be noted that the native population’s attitude toward Ukrainians is significantly more positive than toward many other groups who have arrived on humanitarian grounds. Likewise, it is clear that their readiness to earn a living through work is on a completely different level compared to those coming from developing countries.

In that sense, it would be reasonable for Finland to consider its immigration policy also from the perspective of the receiving society and to favor the settlement of Ukrainians over more problematic groups of newcomers. However, such arrangements face an obstacle in the form of so-called non-discrimination requirements—raised almost certainly by the political left—which aim to prevent immigration policy from taking advantage of recognized differences between population groups.

It therefore remains to be seen what will happen to the Ukrainians who have settled in Finland—and, along with that, whether Finns are capable of making sensible immigration policy or whether moral posturing will once again take precedence.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland to Tighten Citizenship Requirements Further
Blame the Philanthropist Or Understand the Facts
A Different Kind of Christmas

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

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

Patria TRACKX: Next-Generation Vehicle for Emerging Challenges

The war in Ukraine has undoubtedly been a shock to military leadership worldwide, as old doctrines of warfare have been put to the test there – and in many respects, outright discarded. As a result, every army’s leadership has been forced to consider how to respond to these newly emerged challenges. For arms manufacturers, the task has become figuring out how to meet these needs.

In this regard, an illuminating example is provided by Patria, a manufacturer of military vehicles, which has unveiled a new armored personnel carrier equipped with a machine gun – the Patria TRACKX. This is a next-generation vehicle that specifically incorporates lessons learned from the war in Ukraine.

One such lesson is the threat posed by drones, which until now has scarcely been taken into account in military vehicle design. TRACKX brings a change in this area, as its protection is designed specifically to neutralize drone attacks.

Another key issue highlighted by the war in Ukraine for military vehicle design is the requirement for high performance in challenging conditions. For this reason, TRACKX runs on rubber tracks but can also move at high speed when needed. This has been demonstrated in practice, as TRACKX set a new world speed record for tracked vehicles in the spring – 88 kilometers per hour.

Patria expects that, due to these innovative features, there will be significant demand for the vehicle both within the EU and beyond. According to the company, serial production will begin in 2027.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Palestine Action Suomi - a Bona Fide Actor or False Flag Organization?
Renaissance of the Finnish Defense Industry
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine

Oily Trap for Putin

Eight oil-producing countries have decided to increase their oil production by a total of 547,000 barrels per day. This amount is a significant addition to the market and is expected to lower the price Russia receives for its own oil.

If and when this happens, the change will have a crucial impact on the combat capability of Vladimir Putin’s army in Ukraine. This alone may influence the outcome of the war, but if U.S. President Donald Trump imposes the 100% tariffs he has threatened on countries that mediate Russian oil, the Russian dictator will face an extremely difficult situation as export revenues collapse.

Therefore, it is likely that in the near future, Putin will seek both a breakthrough on the Ukrainian front lines and a way to maintain his war chest. And of course, he cannot ignore the need to look after the standard of living of nearly 150 million Russians, since its collapse would increase the risk of revolution.

It remains to be seen whether significant changes will occur in the war between Russia and Ukraine during the current year, or whether its resolution will shift to next year or even further into the future. What is clear at this point is that the democratic world cannot accept a Russian victory in the war; it must end in a just peace—one that does not embolden Putin, or Moscow’s future rulers, to continue power politics against neighboring countries.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Growing Sino-Russian Threat to the West
AI Drones: Ukraine’s New Edge in the War?
Ukraine Risks Losing Western Trust by Muzzling Corruption Watchdog