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

Donald Trump’s Meeting With Vladimir Putin: The Advice He Needs

The presidents of the USA and Russia, Donald Trump and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, will meet on Friday in Alaska. Initially, it was said that the meeting would seek a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, but later the U.S. president’s office announced that it was merely about Trump’s desire to listen to Putin.

In reality, no one can know what will happen in Alaska. In Europe, there are fears that Trump might agree to support Putin in annexing part of Ukraine to Russia. That is, of course, one possibility, but not necessarily what will happen in Alaska—unless Trump is, in one way or another, in Putin’s pocket.

Assuming what I just wrote isn’t the case, it could well be that Trump realizes Putin is merely toying with him and is in fact only trying to weaken U.S. and other Western support for the Ukrainians—thus turning the battlefield situation to Russia’s advantage.

That is why it was unpleasant to learn that, right during the Alaska talks, Russia has achieved success east of the city of Dobropillia, where its forces have managed to advance along a strip over ten kilometers long but quite narrow. The risk is that Putin will succeed in convincing Trump that this breakthrough shows Ukrainian resistance is collapsing.

On the other hand, I think Russia’s narrow attack wedge will remind all Finns familiar with World War II of our own country’s successful motti battles, in which much larger Soviet units were destroyed by encircling them and cutting off their supply and relief. Unfortunately, it may be that Ukraine’s terrain is not as favorable for such a solution as Finland’s was.

After Trump and Putin agreed to meet, European leaders decided to influence the situation. This will take place later today in a telephone conference attended not only by representatives of Germany, France, Britain, Italy, and Poland, but also by the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and Finnish President Alexander Stubb.

It remains to be seen whether this distinguished group will be able to influence Donald Trump, or whether he will simply listen politely and then, in discussions with Putin, do whatever he wants—in the worst case trying to sell Ukraine’s independence cheaply, and then leading the USA out of the community supporting Ukraine.

Even though I am quite certain that Trump will not read this blog, I cannot resist offering him one piece of advice. It goes like this: Vladimir Vladimirovich is a tough and ruthless dictator who, like others of his kind, listens only to someone similar. That is why Trump should not try to appease him, but instead show — without hesitation — his place as the leader of a state far weaker than the United States, and tell him to end the war here and now by promptly moving the “special operation’s” soldiers back behind Ukraine’s eastern border as it stood before 2014.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Border Residents Concerned Over NATO’s Article 5 Interpretation
It’s Time to Teach Putin: The Age of Empire Is Over
When the War Comes Home to Moscow

Ukraine Risks Losing Western Trust by Muzzling Corruption Watchdog

The Ukrainian parliament decided yesterday to approve a law that limits the independence of the country's anti-corruption bureau and the anti-corruption prosecutor's office. The law came into force immediately with the signature of President Zelensky.

In practice, this means that corruption investigations will now fall under the authority of the Prosecutor General – who is appointed by the President – thereby stripping the investigation process of its independence from the country’s top leadership. As a result, it effectively prevents any meaningful investigation into corruption linked to Zelensky and his administration.

The change is reportedly driven by suspicions of collaboration between anti-corruption bodies and Russian operatives. If these allegations are true, the matter is of course extremely serious and cannot be ignored. This is the case even though, from an external perspective, the measures taken by the administration appear questionable.

On the other hand, it is clear that – as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe – Ukraine has no place in the European Union until its deeply rooted “customary” corruption has been thoroughly eradicated. Therefore, this decision may seriously damage the country’s aspirations to become part of the Western community. And if the new law is found to enable corruption within the top leadership, it is highly likely that it would also collapse the EU countries' willingness to continue military support for Ukraine.

For this reason, perhaps the most important domestic political task for Zelensky’s administration is to demonstrate through its future actions that the purpose of the new law was not to shield the country’s elite from corruption investigations, but solely to eliminate the identified security risk linked to Russia. To support this, it is essential that the actions of Ukraine’s top officials are closely and credibly monitored as a condition for continued Western economic and military support.

PS 21:20. It seems that Zelensky has understood the risks brought by the change, or at least is yielding to the pressure from citizens. That’s good, because – as I wrote – the risks were too great. Nevertheless, Ukrainians must figure out how to keep the Russians out of Ukrainian affairs.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Can Trump Resist the Kremlin’s Lure? 
Finnish Winter war showed the way to help Ukraine
Will an attitude lead Ukraine into EU?

Ukraine’s Justified Exit From the Ottawa Convention

Ukraine is doing the same as Finland—that is, withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines. This is, of course, understandable given that by refraining from using mines, its army gives an unnecessary advantage to Russia’s invading forces, who sow mines wherever they go.

In fact, I find it astonishing that the Ukrainians have abided by the treaty for this long, even though it has likely cost the lives of many Ukrainian soldiers. That alone shows Ukraine’s genuine intent to comply with the treaty for as long as possible.

However, enough is enough, and upholding a treaty cannot be more important than a nation’s independence. For this reason, I fully support President Zelensky, who today signed the necessary decree for the withdrawal. 

I also hope the country will soon have access to the mines it needs to ease its defensive struggle. Perhaps Finland and Ukraine could even cooperate on this issue!?

This case also demonstrates that treaties restricting military capabilities are a double-edged sword. While they may, in principle, reduce human suffering—as is the goal of the landmine ban—there can be even greater values at stake, such as the very survival of an entire nation.

That’s why I believe states should take a very cautious approach toward agreements that reduce their military effectiveness, especially when they share borders with nations harboring imperialist ambitions. In other words, nations like Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

Putin Faces a Heavy Price for His Hesitation

According to Russian sources, Ukraine has launched another attack on Kursk. This information has not been confirmed by Kyiv, but the geolocation data of some Ukrainians appears to support the claim.

The attack is, of course, a humiliation for dictator Vladimir Putin, who is preparing for the anniversary of the end of World War II. The same goes for the fact that just a few days ago, a Ukrainian unmanned sea drone destroyed two Russian fighter jets.

And Putin is unlikely to be pleased about the fact that, following the signing of a mineral agreement between Zelensky and Trump, the United States has once again begun supporting the Ukrainians in their fight for independence.

One would think even Putin would realize he missed his window of opportunity by delaying the signing of a peace agreement, despite Trump’s many appeals.

It remains to be seen how the Ukrainians will fare in Kursk and on other fronts. And most importantly, whether their forces will, over time, succeed in pushing the Russians off their land.

In this regard, the mineral agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine may play a key role. It’s clear that the Americans are also interested in the mineral resources located in the Russian-occupied areas. That is why they have an interest in supporting Ukraine in retaking them — as well as a motivation to prevent further aggression against Ukraine.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 

What the U.S.–Ukraine Mineral Agreement Means
Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans

What the U.S.–Ukraine Mineral Agreement Means

Today, we’ll be hearing politically charged speeches from the leaders of various Finnish parties on current issues—which, of course, is above all entertaining.

But the most significant May Day event was likely already reported early this morning.

I am, of course, referring to the fact that the United States and Ukraine have indeed signed a mineral agreement. According to the deal, the U.S. and Ukraine will establish a joint investment fund intended, among other things, to support Ukraine’s reconstruction and to facilitate investments related to Ukraine’s natural resources.

The agreement explicitly states that Russia initiated the war, enables U.S. military aid to the victim of the aggression, and recognizes Ukraine’s right to control the minerals within its territory. At the same time, it offers Americans the opportunity to invest in Ukrainian mineral assets through the newly created fund.

According to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, “The United States is committed to helping end this cruel and senseless war. This agreement sends a clear message to Russia that the Trump administration is dedicated to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine.”

Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, for his part, described the agreement as “good, fair, and favorable.” And there’s no reason to doubt that he meant what he said.

It remains to be seen how this new agreement will influence American realpolitik regarding the war in Ukraine. In other words, will it lead to increased or decreased military and diplomatic engagement by the U.S. on Ukraine’s behalf?

On one hand, it could be argued that since Americans now have a deal concerning Ukraine’s natural resources, their interest in ensuring those resources remain under their partner’s control may grow. That could even lead to actions aimed at liberating at least the most mineral-rich areas currently occupied by Russia.

On the other hand, it’s equally possible that the U.S. and President Donald Trump will begin pressuring Ukraine to make peace at any cost, in order to begin exploiting the deal quickly. In the worst case, this might take the form of increased pressure on President Zelensky’s government to accept peace terms reflecting the current front lines—playing into Putin’s hands.

At this stage, the only thing that’s clear is that the war in Ukraine has entered a new phase, one that will most likely differ in nature from what we’ve seen so far. One can only hope that, at least from a European perspective, it doesn’t take a turn for the worse—that is, in favor of the Russians.

In that regard, it sounds particularly encouraging that Bessent also stated that “no entity that financed or equipped Russia’s war machine will benefit from Ukraine’s reconstruction project.”

It’s as if Trump’s Ukraine policy made a complete U-turn overnight—but let’s not count our chickens before they hatch. Instead, for now, let’s focus on May Day traditions."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
May Day Reflections from a President—and a Student
Trump Speaks from Putin’s Pocket – A Perilous Shift in the Ukraine War
Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?

Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

Ukraine's Struggle Is Also Our Struggle

As I write this, President Volodymyr Zelenskyi is having a phone conversation with the U.S.'s Donald Trump. Hopefully, the two men will this time find common ground on how to achieve a just peace in Ukraine—one that does not encourage Vladimir Putin, who mocked Trump yesterday, to continue his military campaigns in Ukraine or elsewhere in Europe.

With this in mind, it was promising to hear from Finland's President Alexander Stubb that the situation on the Ukrainian front is much stronger than one might assume from the news flow. At the same time, he stated that he trusts Zelenskyi more than Putin.

Zelenskyi also just announced on social media that: "We are grateful that the voice of Finnish parliamentarians in support of Ukraine within the European institutions and in the international arena is pro-Ukrainian and loud." This was nice to hear, as the vast majority of Finns, due to our own history, can relate to the situation of the Ukrainian people—and understand that Ukraine's struggle is also our struggle as Finns.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia
Questionable Achievements of Donald Trump's Foreign Policy
Finnish weapons are being tested against the Russians in Ukraine

Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Rhetoric Like Trump-Zelenskyi’s Has Deep Historical Roots

Volodymyr Zelenskyi's visit to the USA did not end well for the Ukrainians. Instead, it became an event that will be remembered even decades from now.

Finnish professor of American studies, Mikko Saikku from the University of Helsinki, assessed that Ukraine's President made "a tactical misstep. As I understand it, he had been warned not to publicly correct Trump’s statements, even if there was every reason to do so."

According to Saikku, Zelenskyi should have been more cautious in the meeting because the position of a petitioner is always inherently weak, and Trump clearly does not consider Ukraine's fate a personal concern. Furthermore, "Zelenskyi has long been an unpalatable figure to Trump because he is closely linked to Trump's first-term impeachment trial."

* * *

French President Emmanuel Macron stated that the one gambling with the outbreak of a third world war is Russian President Vladimir Putin, not Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyi, as Trump incorrectly claimed. He also expressed hope that the United States would remain committed to defending democracy, as it always has.

For my part, I suspect that the current U.S. president may have fallen into a Moscow honey trap long ago, as has been suggested for years. In this scenario, he would have ended up engaging in sexual activities with Russian prostitutes in front of hidden cameras and microphones. This would explain quite well the current U.S. president’s toothlessness regarding Vladimir Putin.

* * *

That said, the kind of political rhetoric witnessed in the U.S. is not new but rather quite old-fashioned. In fact, such an example was set as early as 1571 by Russia’s Tsar Ivan IV, known as Ivan the Terrible, and Sweden’s King John III Vasa.

It was initiated by Putin's distant predecessor, the Russian autocrat, who wrote to the Swedish king as follows:

"We, Ivan Vasilyevich, Lord and Grand Prince of all Russia, ruler of Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod, etc., write to John, son of Gustav, who, according to his own claim, is King of Sweden, the Goths, and the Wends, and who, on his father's side, descends from a certain village in Småland. You do not know at all how you should write to us."

He went on to state that Sweden was not "a vast kingdom capable of defending you against all your enemies."

Finally, the Tsar concluded: "In your last letter, you wrote that you wish to keep the peace with us. If you were wise, you would understand that the distance from the earth to heaven is long."

John, son of Gustav Vasa, responded to the Tsar’s diplomatic phrasing in a letter dated April 18, 1573, as follows:

"What absurd and boorish arrogance, lies, and belittlement you direct at us. Surely, your father must have been some monk or peasant, since you write so incompetently, as if you had grown up among peasants and vagrants who understand nothing of honor."

John further continued:

"We thank God that all Christian kings have given us the respect we deserve, except for you, who possesses only the intellect of a pig."

Finally, John emptied his verbal arsenal by stating:

"May you yourself become a mere 'stratnik' (low-ranking servant), a dishonorable slave, an unchristian chief liar, and a tyrant, which you already truly are, since you do not value promises, honor, seals, letters, or truth, as has been well proven."

I leave it to you, my esteemed readers, to assess whether this distant historical example is fitting for Donald Trump and his administration. To my ears, at least, it did not sound civilized.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Trump’s America: Criminal or Benefactor?
Is President Putin on his way to repeat the destiny of Czar Nicholas II?

Zelensky Condemns Fico’s "Immoral" Support for Putin

In the Western world—particularly in Finland—people understand quite well what a Russian victory in Ukraine would entail. Unfortunately, Slovakia's Prime Minister Robert Fico seems to struggle with this understanding.

This can be inferred from his statement on social media, where he reported exchanging views in Moscow with Russia's dictator Vladimir Putin on "the military situation in Ukraine, possibilities for an early peaceful resolution of the war, and relations between Slovakia and Russia, which I intend to normalize."

According to Fico, his comments were a reaction to Ukraine's announcement that the country would not renew its agreement on the transit of Russian gas through its territory to the European Union. Angered by this, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyi issued a blunt accusation against Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico on another social media platform.

Zelensky claimed that Fico wants to help Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. Zelenskyi added, "Mr. Fico even rejected compensation that would have facilitated the transition and eliminated dependence on Russian gas." He continued, stating that "Fico is funding, in this way, the suffering of Russians, and therefore Ukrainians "are losing people as a result of the war Putin started. For us, such assistance to Putin is immoral."

Zelensky’s perspective is one worth agreeing with. At the same time, one cannot help but wonder why on earth the people of Slovakia—a nation subjugated by the Soviet Union for half a century—have chosen Fico as their leader.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Message from Finland's President to Vladimir Putin
Western Nations Should Act Decisively On Two Fronts Against Russia
Anecdotes and Jokes About Vladimir Putin

Former President of Finland, Tarja Halonen, suggested that Ukraine should cede part of its territory

Finland's most left-wing president in history, Tarja Halonen, suggested that Ukraine should cede part of its territory to the control of international forces. These forces should not include soldiers from EU or NATO countries.

The question, of course, is what kind of forces would make up this contingent occupying part of Ukraine. Chinese, Indian, Iranian, or African troops? Or even Russian and Belarusian troops?

In Finland, Halonen is known as a president who pursued Russia's interests and, as part of that, did everything she could to weaken the country's defense forces and opposed Finland joining NATO. Fortunately, she failed, and Finland still has the capability to defend itself.

It is important for Ukraine and Ukrainian´s to know this so that President Zelenskyi and his administration understand to immediately reject any potential consultation from Tarja Halonen. She is not an advocate for peace or security, and - for example - during her presidency, she never expressed concern about Russia's actions in world politics but rather about those of the USA.

The difference between Halonen and the current President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, is vast. This was evident most recently at a peace conference held in Switzerland, where he stated: "I strongly urge China to influence Putin, in particular, to stop this war and withdraw".

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish weapons are being tested against the Russians in Ukraine
The procrastination of Western countries is paid for with the blood of soldiers
Why Finland will apply for a membership in NATO

The procrastination of Western countries is paid for with the blood of soldiers

Russia has recently achieved success in the ammunition-starved Ukraine. News reports indicating the increasing success of Putin's army day by day suggest that even the rapid collapse of Ukrainian defense is possible.

Three factors have enabled this development. One is the procrastination of the Trumpian House of Representatives in sending new aid packages. Second is the irresponsible defense policy of most EU countries in recent years, resulting in depleted weapon and ammunition stocks. And - as we know - it's hard to make something out of nothing. Additionally, behind it all is the Ukrainian government's inability to mobilize enough men to the front lines.

* * *

Apparently, French President Emmanuel Macron has understood that the situation in Ukraine is currently completely untenable, as he even raised the issue of sending Western troops to assist Zelensky's army. This would undoubtedly mean facing Western casualties and Russian counter-reactions in one way or another.

Western populations are by no means prepared for returning filled coffins. And their home fronts will not withstand large-scale losses. Therefore, Macron's proposal did not receive immediate support from Finland or other Western countries either.

The future commander of the Estonian Defense Forces, on the other hand, suggested granting Ukraine permission to use Western weapons also on Russian soil. This is because Estonians have learned from their history that "when Russia attacks, the war must be taken to its territory. Otherwise, we will lose it. This rule still applies."

Behind both proposals likely lies the idea of not only direct military impact but also of undermining the Russian home front. In other words, the clearer the war is visible to Russians, the more resistance is likely to arise against Putin's administration's war policies. And the more difficult position the country's dictator finds himself in domestically.

* * *

It's quite clear in this situation that Ukraine's army will collapse for sure unless it receives swift material aid from the West. Loss is also certain in the longer term if a vast number of capable Ukrainian men or women are not urgently called up and trained into Zelensky's army.

In this context, it's also worth noting that every recapture of a village surrendered to the aggressor seems to demand a massive human sacrifice in Ukraine, with fallen soldiers. Therefore, the Western countries' incapacity for effective aid to Ukraine will, in the best-case scenario, demand the lives of tens of thousands, or - if the situation persists - even hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

It's justified to say, therefore, that the delay of Western countries will be paid for with the blood of soldiers. First in Ukraine and - if Putin ultimately wins the war - later most likely also in the militarily weaker Russian border states. And eventually, possibly even in Finland.

The original thought in Finnish:
Länsimaiden viivyttely maksetaan sotilaiden verellä

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare
Desperate cry of Russians
Finnish general praised the Ukrainian air strike