AI Drones: Ukraine’s New Edge in the War?

The Financial Times reported that Ukraine is now using a new type of American-German drone, which can operate independently using its own artificial intelligence. If this information is accurate, it marks another significant step forward in the evolution of warfare.

As a consequence, Ukraine’s technological superiority over Russian forces is increasing, shifting the balance—at least to some degree—in favor of the defenders, who have so far been the underdogs. Whether this will be enough to reverse the course of events on the front lines remains to be seen.

Naturally, this news is extremely bad for Russia, and especially for its dictator Vladimir "Little Man" Putin, whose political future is closely tied to success on the battlefield. It certainly doesn't help that Putin’s war chest—namely the National Wealth Fund used to cover the budget deficit—is inevitably running dry, having shrunk from €110 billion at the start of the war to around €30 billion.

For us bystanders, the situation is undeniably fascinating, as the long-standing trench warfare reminiscent of World War I might shift into a more dynamic and mobile conflict as early as next summer. This could ultimately lead to the collapse of the Russian army—and with it, the fall of Putin from his throne.

Previous thought on the same topic:
Military Support Is Needed to Reinforce EU Sanctions
Russian Soldier in Finland – A Sign of Crumbling Morale?
Renaissance of the Finnish Defense Industry

Instability Returns to the Balkans

I begin this blog post with a look back 111 years. At that time, on June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sophie were assassinated in Sarajevo, Bosnia, which was then part of Austria-Hungary.

The reason behind the assassination was that the Bosnian Serbs wanted to join Serbia and pursued this aim through political murder. As a result, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914.

Serbia soon gained Russia as an ally, while Austria-Hungary was supported by Germany. In an effort to avoid a two-front war, Germany attacked France through Belgium. This, in turn, led to Britain entering the conflict — and thus the First World War began. Around 16 million people lost their lives in that war.

* * *

In his recent column, retired Major General Harri Ohra-aho warned Finns about the smoldering powder keg of the Balkans. According to him, Bosnia and Herzegovina is teetering on the brink of a deep crisis, with the actions of the President of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik — the leader of the federation’s Serbian entity — at the core of the issue, as he pushes for Serbian independence.

Under Dodik’s leadership, Republika Srpska has passed laws that prevent federal authorities from operating within its territory. In addition, his administration has demanded a separate constitution for the Serbs — a step toward splitting Bosnia and Herzegovina into two separate states.

Behind this lies the strong support of Serbia itself and, lurking behind Serbia, that of Russia. Unfortunately, Hungary — an EU member state — and its president Viktor Orbán have also joined in, sending special forces to conduct joint exercises with the Serbs. In other words, this is part of Vladimir Putin’s broader strategy to shift Western Europe’s attention from Ukraine to the Balkans.

For now, however, the situation remains calm, and most Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs hope for stability and envision their future in the EU. Even within Republika Srpska, Dodik does not enjoy unanimous support. But as we well know, people’s opinions can be easily influenced by the right kind of propaganda.

* * *

For us Finns, the matter is significant in several ways. First, every military-political victory for Putin increases the risk that Russia might test the military readiness of a NATO border country through a suitably crafted special operation. Perhaps not on Finland’s border specifically, but quite possibly somewhere in our neighborhood.

Second, Bosnia and Herzegovina has served as one of the routes for humanitarian migration, and if it falls into chaos, it could lead to an increase in the number of people arriving in the EU. This, in turn, could further destabilize the internal situation in the EU countries most affected by such flows — such as Germany, France, the Netherlands, or Sweden.

For these reasons, Ohra-aho ended his column with the following hope: "Europe must therefore act wisely but decisively. Words must be followed by actions: more support for constructive forces in Bosnia, a clear message against separatism, and concrete steps toward NATO and EU integration. Stability does not arise by itself, and in the Balkans its value is often only recognized once it has already been lost."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Russians in Finland Include Both Putin’s Supporters and Loyal Citizens
Ukraine’s Justified Exit From the Ottawa Convention
NATO Sounds the Alarm on Illegal Immigration

When Should We Recognize the Independence of Palestine?

According to a recent opinion poll, 44 percent of Finns would like to recognize the State of Palestine. This group consists mainly of voters from the Left Alliance, the Greens, and the Social Democrats. On the other hand, on the political right, supporters of the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party are more opposed to the idea than others.

There are hardly any differences between age groups, but women are more inclined than men to support the establishment of a new state in the Middle East—despite the fact that women’s rights would likely not be realized there. Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, for his part, has stated that Finland should also recognize Palestine if the United Kingdom, France, or other major countries do so.

* * *

All of this reminded me of Finland’s own independence from Russian rule. The Declaration of Independence was approved by the Finnish Parliament on December 6, 1917, shortly after the October Revolution.

After that, Finland began seeking support for its independence from Western countries, but they were unwilling to recognize it. Support was first sought from Germany, which initially promised to raise the matter in the peace negotiations with Russia in Brest-Litovsk. However, this did not happen; instead, the Germans said they would wait for Soviet Russia to recognize the new state first.

Consequently, the Finnish government sent a request for recognition of independence to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, and Britain. Recognition was not requested from Russia, as it was thought that it would be more inclined to approve the matter once the Western powers had already done so.

This hope turned out to be in vain, as the Western countries urged the Prime Minister to turn to the Bolshevik government of Russia, led by Lenin. The Finnish Prime Minister, however, was reluctant to do so, as he did not want to acknowledge the Bolsheviks as the legitimate rulers of Russia.

Eventually, on December 22, the Finnish Parliament decided to seek recognition not from the Bolshevik government, but from the Russian Constituent Assembly, which was expected to convene soon and where the majority was made up of Russia’s more moderate left-wing parties. Germany, however, intervened and pressured the Finnish government to approach Lenin’s Council of People's Commissars instead.

This is what happened, and Lenin did recognize Finland’s independence. He did so because he believed that supporting the right of national minorities to secede would further the Bolsheviks’ main goal—the spread of the socialist revolution. In his view, the separation should only be temporary, as he assumed that the small nations breaking away from Russia would later voluntarily rejoin either the Russian socialist federation or a broader worldwide Soviet union.

* * *

As for myself, when it comes to recognizing Palestinian independence, I believe the time is not yet right. After all, there isn’t even a theoretically independent Arab state in the Holy Land that would meet the criteria for statehood.

However, I would be ready to recognize Palestine immediately after Israel does. In other words, I would act in the same way that the Western countries did when they eventually recognized Finland’s independence.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator
The Complete Demilitarization of Gaza: What Would It Mean for the Palestinians?
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

Are We on the Brink of World War III?

The Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), has given an interview in which he has, so to speak, painted devils on the wall. In other words, he has expressed fears that the Third World War may already be underway, but people are unwilling to recognize it.

According to him, the current situation is similar to the one leading up to the Second World War in the late 1930s. Therefore, I thought I would remind you, dear readers, of what happened back then.

* * *

One of the causes of the Second World War is considered to be the Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed after the First World War. Its terms were regarded as overly harsh in Germany. After all, German soldiers had still occupied enemy territories in both the east and the west at the end of the war, unlike at the conclusion of the Second World War.

In addition to territorial losses, Germany’s military was drastically reduced. However, Hitler disregarded this and began rebuilding his country's military strength in the mid-1930s. This went unchallenged; for example, Britain signed a naval agreement with Germany, allowing its navy to be 35% the size of Britain’s own – then the most powerful in the world.

The Second World War was preceded by the Spanish Civil War, which ended with General Francisco Franco coming to power by overthrowing the democratically elected left-wing government. In this conflict, Germany and Italy supported Franco, while the Soviet Union backed the Republicans. This war provided an opportunity for these powers to test their weaponry and assess their military needs.

In 1936, Hitler capitalized on Germany's increased military strength by remilitarizing the demilitarized Rhineland. France protested, but Britain accepted the action, and no military threat was posed to Germany. Instead, Hitler orchestrated a "referendum" in the Rhineland, where 98.8% of those who voted supported his actions.

Hitler also engineered Austria's annexation into Germany, despite this being prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles. He received support from Italy for this move.

Some Austrians opposed the loss of independence and organized protests. However, these ended when Austrian Interior Minister Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who facilitated the unification, invited Hitler's army to restore order.

The next step in Hitler’s march towards war was the annexation of the Sudetenland, the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia. The Czechs wanted to defend themselves, but their allies, France and the Soviet Union, refused to assist them. Thus, the issue was resolved through the Munich Agreement, led by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, which granted the Sudetenland to Germany.

After acquiring the Sudetenland, Hitler annexed the Czech region outright and reduced Slovakia to a puppet state. Shortly thereafter, Hungary annexed the Hungarian-speaking areas of Slovakia.

Following these events, Hitler demanded the transfer of Memel (now Klaipėda) to Germany. Once again, the victim, Lithuania, sought help from foreign powers, but assistance was denied.

It should also be remembered that before the Second World War, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Eastern Europe between them. Under this agreement, Hitler invaded Poland in early September 1939, and the Soviet Union occupied the eastern part of the country.

As a result, France and Britain eventually declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union. Thus, the Second World War had begun, even though little fighting occurred along the German-French border until May 1940. Before that, Hitler had already occupied Denmark and advanced into northern Norway, prompting a response from France and Britain – though, at this stage, they suffered defeats.

* * *

If we examine the events I described earlier in light of Halla-aho’s perspective, we can make the following observations.

Firstly, it seems that Putin views the collapse of the Soviet Union as a comparable event to the Treaty of Versailles for Germany. After all, Russia lost a vast portion of the territories it controlled, from the Baltic states to the newly independent nations of Central Asia.

Russia’s actions in Syria were successful and undoubtedly reinforced Putin’s perception of the effectiveness of his military, much like the Spanish Civil War shaped the views of Hitler and Mussolini. However, unlike Hitler’s army, Putin’s forces have not been able to use their experiences in Syria to improve their available weaponry. A particularly striking example of this is the widely advertised Armata tank, which has proven incapable of participating in the war in Ukraine despite being a flagship product of Russia’s defense industry.

We have yet to see an event analogous to the unification of Austria and Germany, but the recent discussions surrounding Belarus being integrated into Russia would correspond quite closely. Additionally, it seems to me that Russia’s annexation of Crimea mirrors the events in Czechoslovakia in 1938: Ukraine wanted to fight, but Western nations at the time denied it military support and left it just as isolated as Czechoslovakia had been.

Furthermore, parts of occupied Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk) were, for a time, turned into puppet states of Russia, much like Hitler had done with Slovakia. The West sought to legitimize all this through the so-called Minsk Agreement, which closely parallels the Munich Agreement of 1938, which sealed Czechoslovakia’s fate.

Hitler’s invasion of Poland can, of course, be quite effectively compared to Ukraine’s situation from 2022 onward. Western nations have not declared war on Russia, but then again, the Western Front of 1939 didn’t see much actual fighting either.

However, Western countries are providing Ukrainians with some military aid, which—alongside the courage of the Ukrainians themselves—has enabled them to defend their country, though not to drive the aggressor out entirely. Poland, on the other hand, received no such support during the rapidly progressing war and wasn’t even provided with weapons in time.

* * *

And is there a modern-day Chamberlain and a 1930s-style Britain? Isn’t this self-evident?

What else are we to think of Germany’s Olaf Scholz, who has done his utmost to minimize military aid to Ukraine, thereby playing into Russia’s hands in much the same way as Britain’s prime minister did back then?

What I’ve written above shows that the Speaker’s view of the similarities between the current situation and the events leading up to the Second World War is astonishingly accurate. However, I also see some differences.

The most significant of these is that Putin’s Russia is not a great power comparable to Hitler’s Germany. Certainly, Russia possesses nuclear weapons, but wars fought with them have no winners. At least not in a large-scale war, where a U.S. counterstrike would be inevitable and therefore too great a risk for the Russians.

* * *

On the other hand, we also have China, which is rising as an increasingly powerful military force. It certainly has its own interests, particularly regarding Taiwan, but would it go to war as Russia’s ally against the entire world?

In my view, the answer is unequivocal. And it is a resounding "no"—especially regarding direct warfare. China will not engage in a large-scale war against the West, at least not as long as it can gain power and wealth through other means.

However, the question remains whether China might exploit Russia’s weakness and seize old Chinese territories in East Asia. Since the situation is quite similar to Taiwan, the answer is "possibly yes." But in that case, we are no longer talking about a Third World War but rather localized military actions.

Finally, I want to emphasize that although I do not believe, for the reasons outlined above, that a Third World War is about to break out, I do agree with Speaker Halla-aho (and many others) that it is better to prepare for war before it begins than to be naïve.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?
Strategic Experts Predicted Russia’s Collapse but Fell into Wishful Thinking
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization

Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?

The American think tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW) speculates in its latest publication that Russia may soon absorb Belarus into its own territory. This would significantly expand Russia's border with NATO countries, thereby heightening tensions between Western Europe and Russia.

Today, Belarus is particularly known for its dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka and his close ties with Russia. Despite this, Belarus has not participated in Russia’s war against Ukraine but has remained separate from it.

The fact remains, however, that little is known about Belarus in Finland—or, as far as I can tell, elsewhere in the world. That’s why I thought I’d share a few words about its history.

Belarus is a region inhabited by a Slavic people who have their own language, spoken by about 85 percent of the country’s citizens. In other words, Belarusians are not Russians, nor do they wish to be.

Belarus also has a long history, although for most of it, the rulers have come from outside its borders. Between 1068 and 1069, the Belarusian Prince of Polotsk ruled the entire Kievan Rus for a few months, but the tables turned in 1129, when Kievan Rus subjugated the region. In 1240, it became part of Lithuania, and in the 16th century, it fell under the rule of the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth.

In the 18th century, it was incorporated into Russia during the partitions of Poland and remained under Russian control until the First World War. During the war, the Germans occupied the area and established the short-lived Belarusian People's Republic, which quickly became part of the socialist Soviet Union after the war, though Poland seized about half of it in 1921.

At the beginning of the Second World War, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact resulted in Belarus once again becoming fully part of Russia. The war swept over the region in both directions, and afterward, most of Belarus remained part of the Soviet Union. It declared independence once more in 1990 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In summary, what I have written above means that if Russia were to annex Belarus once again, it would return to its historical "normal" of being subjugated by others. However, it remains to be seen whether the Belarusian people will find the will and ability to avoid this fate and—contrary to my own expectations—retain their independence and keep their future in their own hands.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Elections in Georgia and Japan: The Future of Democracy on Different Paths
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

Strategic Experts Predicted Russia’s Collapse but Fell into Wishful Thinking

Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security surveyed the future, asking 167 global strategists and foresight practitioners around the world to answer questions about the biggest drivers of change over the next ten years.

Interestingly, 40 percent of respondents expected Russia to break up internally by 2033 due to revolution, civil war, political disintegration, or some other reason. Europeans were particularly pessimistic about Russia’s future: forty-nine percent of them foresee such an event, compared with 36 percent of Americans.

As a Finn, I naturally hope that the experts who participated in the survey are correct. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with them but view the survey results as wishful thinking rather than serious conclusions drawn from expertise.

My reasoning is that Russia did not collapse during the 1917 revolution or after its preceding defeat in the First World War. It also withstood the German offensive during the Second World War and the fall of communism in 1991.

Nor did Russia break apart during the famine of 1693 and the subsequent Time of Troubles, during which a Finnish army led by the Swedish Jacob de la Gardie captured Moscow in 1610. Nor when Napoleon did the same in 1812.

I do consider it possible, even inevitable, that Vladimir Putin’s reign will end within the next ten years, but the country will still be ruled by an undemocratic leader—be they called a czar, the chairperson of the Politburo, or a president. However, I do not believe that life for the average Russian will improve under a new leader.

I also do not believe that Russia will become a friendly state toward its neighbors or that its future rulers will abandon their imperialist policies.

For this reason, the rest of the world—and especially border states like Finland, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, and others—must ensure the humane, economic, and military strength of their societies. In other words, citizens must see their homeland as worth defending and possess the necessary resources and military capabilities to do so.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors
Message from Finland's President to Vladimir Putin
Western Nations Should Act Decisively On Two Fronts Against Russia

North Korea's Military Support to Russia: A Dangerous Escalation in Global Conflict?

According to South Korean intelligence, North Korea has sent 1,500 special operations forces (SOF) soldiers to Russia, with more expected in the near future. In total, North Korea has decided to send 12,000 soldiers to Russia, according to the intelligence service.

The soldiers have been provided with Russian military uniforms, weapons, and forged identification documents. The documents are forged in order to conceal the fact that the soldiers are from North Korea.

If and when these Korean soldiers reach the front lines, it would represent a dangerous escalation of the war, shifting from a conflict between two states to an alliance-based attack on a single nation. This would be somewhat similar to the origins of World War I, where more and more countries became involved in a fight that initially started between two nations — Serbia and Austria-Hungary. However, the timeline is longer in this case.

That’s why it’s interesting to see how leading Western countries - especially USA - and NATO will respond to North Korea’s involvement in this situation. Will Putin's army be allowed to strengthen with the help of an ally, or will there be countermeasures? And if there are countermeasures, what will they be?

Personally, I find it more likely that the U.S. will agree that Ukraine may use the weapons it has received from them for strikes on Russian territory if it wishes. It is also quite possible that Western nations will declare a no-fly zone over Ukrainian airspace and shoot down any military equipment that enters it.

However, I do not consider it even remotely possible that any Western nation would deploy its own military forces for combat operations in Ukraine, let alone direct military threats at North Korea. But I could be wrong.

So, we are living in tense times right now. It’s not entirely impossible that the situation could spiral out of control for both Putin and the leaders of Western nations, turning into something that no one really wanted.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Western Countries Must Stay United Against the Russian Threat
Putin's understanding and the battle between the gods
Military advice: Ukraine needs modern tanks