Military Superiority Does Not Guarantee Victory

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

Putin's Endgame: Deception, Escalation, or Death?

According to Finnish media, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters yesterday evening that Russia had completely captured the Ukrainian city of Kostiantynivka. Meanwhile, the U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) disputed the claim, stating that while Russian forces have made tactical gains in Kostiantynivka, "the majority of the Russian presence in the town consists of small infiltration groups scattered among Ukrainian positions."

ISW argued that Peskov's exaggerated statements were intended to shape Western media coverage of the war over the weekend, when the United States is celebrating its 250th anniversary. It therefore remains to be seen whether Russia's so-called "special military operation" has genuinely advanced or whether the claims about capturing Kostiantynivka are simply another example of Kremlin propaganda.

* * *

Columnist Lauri Nurmi, for his part, speculated that Vladimir Putin could ultimately meet the same fate as Nicolae Ceaușescu. In doing so, he echoed a point I made some time ago when I argued that Putin would have no political future if Russia were to return from Ukraine having suffered defeat.

Admittedly, it is difficult to follow developments in the war in Ukraine—as the Kostiantynivka case illustrates—because both sides are accompanied by actors spreading disinformation. This is particularly true on social media, where anyone can publish virtually anything.

In any event, it has long been evident that Putin's three-day "special military operation" has fared no better than Stalin's Red Army's planned "two-week march to Helsinki" in 1939. For that reason, it is possible—perhaps even likely—that Putin will eventually have to announce at least a partial mobilization.

The consequences can only be guessed. What is certain, however, is that if compulsory mobilization is implemented, many more Russian families will lose sons, husbands, and fathers. It is difficult to imagine that those affected would thank their country's leader. At the very least, many of them might privately entertain thoughts similar to those expressed by Nurmi—or by myself.

* * *

This may also help explain why the Russian dictator has reportedly been pressuring his Belarusian counterpart to join the war. Such a move could serve two purposes at once: perhaps fewer Russians would be killed in combat, while Ukraine's military position would become more difficult as the front line expanded.

On the other hand, President Alyaksandr Lukashenka undoubtedly understands that Ukrainians would not simply surrender. They would resist with everything they have, increasing the number of Belarusian families mourning fallen relatives.

That, in turn, would heighten the risk of a coup—or at least serious unrest—in a country where dissatisfaction with his rule has existed for years. For that reason, he is likely to continue accommodating Putin in almost every respect except one: sending Belarusian troops across the southern border into Ukraine.

If Putin ultimately succeeds in forcing Belarus into the war, Europe would face a serious test. Would we merely express outrage, or would we take concrete action? Something more substantial than words and continued deliveries of material assistance to Ukraine?

* * *

Adding to these concerns are speculations that the Russian military could launch a strike against Poland via Belarus or Kaliningrad, disguising it as an "accidental" incident. Such scenarios make the overall situation appear even more serious and Europe's security environment increasingly precarious.

The most troubling question is that we do not know how nuclear-armed Russia would respond if it continued to struggle in conventional warfare. Could it resort to its most powerful weapons if its position in Ukraine deteriorated further and Belarus refused to intervene on its behalf?

And what if Polish forces were to destroy a Russian unit that had crossed the border under the guise of a "mistake"? How would Russia respond? And how would Western leaders react?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
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
Can Ukraine Create Its Own “Winter War Miracle”?

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

Can Ukraine Create Its Own “Winter War Miracle”?

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. As we all know, its success has not been what President Vladimir Putin and his generals had hoped for.

Finnish news media MTV3 published a news report according to which the intelligence service GCHQ has estimated that nearly half a million Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine during the past four-plus years, or roughly 50 months. This means that the Russians have lost an average of nearly 9,800 soldiers per month.

* * *

In Finland, the miracle of the Winter War is still remembered. That war lasted about 3.5 months, and therefore it is interesting to compare Russian losses in Ukraine with the casualties suffered by the Red Army during the winter of 1939–40.

According to Russian sources cited by Wikipedia, either 126,875 or 167,976 Red Army soldiers were killed or went missing during that conflict. These figures amount to approximately 36,000 or 48,000 killed or missing per month.

From this, one may conclude that the Finns who resolutely defended themselves during the Winter War were about 3.6 or 4.8 times more effective than present-day Ukrainians in their fight against an invasion directed from Moscow. This is despite the fact that Ukrainians in the current war have killed roughly 2.5 times as many Russian soldiers as they themselves have lost.

* * *

Of course, my text above may be criticized on the grounds that the Winter War was exceptional in rallying almost all Finns unanimously to defend our country. Therefore, it is useful to calculate the same comparison figures for the Continuation War, that is, the years 1941–44.

According to Wikipedia, during those 39 months approximately 63,204 Finnish soldiers and 201,000 Russian soldiers were killed. After doing the calculations, we see that the Finns managed to kill “only” a little over 5,000 Red Army soldiers per month. The explanation is probably the long trench warfare phase associated with that war, during which the fighting consisted mainly of minor skirmishes.

* * *

Therefore, it is also useful to calculate comparison figures for present-day Ukrainians as well as for the Finns of the Winter War and the Continuation War by dividing the scale of their own losses by the number of dead Russian/Red Army soldiers. For this, we first need the figures for their own casualties: according to Wikipedia articles, these were just under 200,000 in Ukraine, about 26,000 in the Winter War, and slightly over 63,000 in the Continuation War.

When we divide the Muscovites’ casualty figures by those of the Ukrainians or Finns, we arrive at the following comparison ratios. In the war in Ukraine, about 2.5 Russians have died for every fallen Ukrainian. In the Winter War, by contrast, about 5–6.5 Red Army soldiers were killed or went missing for every dead Finn, while in the Continuation War the figure was about 3.2.

* * *

From these figures we can see that the Winter War differs fundamentally from the other two wars under discussion. This suggests that the spirit of the Winter War not only encouraged Finnish soldiers to engage in determined resistance, but also significantly increased their effectiveness compared with the less motivated Finnish army of the Continuation War.

Therefore, it is worth asking — assuming that Russians and Ukrainians are, as fighters, roughly equal to begin with — whether the substantially higher casualties suffered by Putin’s army in the current war can be explained by the low motivation level of its soldiers. And is this phenomenon creating a Ukrainian equivalent of the spirit and miracle of the Winter War: a “spirit of the special military operation” and a “miracle of the special military operation”?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Russia’s Spring Offensive: Gains Unclear, Losses Undeniable
Concern About the Future Is Growing in Russia
The Outbreak of the Continuation War Between Finland and the Soviet Union

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

The Outbreak of the Continuation War Between Finland and the Soviet Union

In recent days, Finland has been engaged in a discussion about the outbreak of the Continuation War between Finland and Russia as part of the Second World War. The debate began when Finland’s largest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat (HS), published an article with a headline claiming that “Elina Valtonen forgot the Continuation War on television.”

It claimed that Finland had attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, at the beginning of the Continuation War. This stirred up a lot of debate—and perhaps even some lipstick-splashing—because it is an indisputable fact that the Soviet Union initiated the hostilities of the Continuation War.

* * *

The Finnish-language Wikipedia states the matter—immediately under the subheading “The war begins”—as follows:
“The Soviet Union’s attacks against Finland began on 22 June 1941 at 6:05 a.m., when the Soviet Union opened artillery fire from the Hanko base at Finnish targets in the archipelago and on the mainland, and launched air raids against Finnish ships at sea. On the same day, the Soviet Union carried out several artillery strikes on the eastern border.

According to the same source, ‘after this, on the same day Finland participated in the mining of the southern Gulf of Finland. Germany had launched Operation Barbarossa at 3:00 a.m., and German aircraft that had conducted mine-laying flights from East Prussia to the Leningrad region landed at the Utti airfield on their return journey to refuel. The Soviet Union continued its air and artillery strikes against Finnish military targets in Finland. Finland refrained from returning fire and attempted to assert its neutrality in the new war.’”

And again, quoting Wikipedia:
“On 25 June 1941, the Soviet Air Force bombed Helsinki, Turku, Heinola, and Porvoo as well as a dozen other localities with about 500 aircraft, of which 27 were shot down over Finnish territory. Based on these bombings and previous events, in a communication submitted to Parliament the government concluded that the country had entered a state of war. Parliament accepted this position. Later that same day, 25 June, Prime Minister Jukka Rangell stated on the radio that Finland was once again at war with the Soviet Union…. War was declared on 26 June 1941. The Finnish Army and German troops stationed in Finland began the land offensive.”

* * *

HS has later attempted to correct its mistake with an addition stating that “Finland declared a state of war only after the Soviet Union had bombed Finland, but Finland had already before this made extensive offensive preparations to join the war alongside Germany. Finland’s objective was to occupy large areas of the Soviet Union beyond those that had been lost in the Winter War.”

This correction is indeed in the right direction, but it is still misleading. It was the Soviet Union that unambiguously initiated the Continuation War. And, incidentally, it committed what would today be considered a serious crime against humanity, since terror bombings—even against countries allegedly preparing for war—aimed at civilian populations are indisputably such acts.

The Red Army Air Force bombings of 25 June were unquestionably exactly that—state terrorism. And it is equally indisputable that Finland began its own offensive operations only after those attacks.

For the first three days of the war, all Finnish military operations had been defensive. And that’s not all: as can be seen even from the Wikipedia excerpts I cited above, Finland had refrained even from some defensive actions.

* * *

It must of course be acknowledged that German soldiers had arrived in Finland. It is also well known that many of Finland’s political leaders at the time wished to avenge the defeat of the Winter War.

I personally find Heikki Ylikangas’s view quite plausible—that this idea had been adopted, as a result of Hermann Göring’s persuasion, already at the end of the Winter War.

However, this does not change the truth that Finland was not the aggressor in the Continuation War; it was Stalin’s Soviet Union. It is also a fact that since history is not an experimental science, we cannot turn back time and see whether Finland would have attacked the Soviet Union without the war initiated by Stalin.

Furthermore, one should understand about the nature of the Continuation War that although Finland’s offensive into the Soviet Union—beginning several days after the Red Army’s military actions—was undeniably a war of conquest, it was not an existential threat to the communist state. This is because Commander-in-Chief Carl Gustaf Mannerheim refused to launch an active offensive against Leningrad and did not order the continuation of the conquest beyond the three isthmuses stretching from the Gulf of Finland through Lakes Ladoga and Onega to Lake Seesjärvi. Yet conditions would have been favorable for such an advance at the time.

* * *

Based on all this, I must deeply wonder why HS, even while correcting its article, failed to present an accurate picture of the events of June 1941. Instead, it gave support to the false propaganda spread across social media in recent times by Putin’s Russia and its trolls (example), claiming that Finland was a Nazi state that attacked the innocent Soviet Union. The fact is that Finland never had a Nazi party in its Parliament; the only far-right party represented there, the Patriotic People’s Movement, was relatively small and not a Nazi party.

* * *

At the same time, it is necessary to correct the notion—indeed, an urban legend—that the Soviet Army was not prepared for Germany’s attack. In fact, its forces had been massively strengthened after the Winter War, so that in the summer of 1941 it was—at least on paper—much stronger than the German armed forces. And Hitler’s intelligence had failed to discover this fact.

I even consider it possible that this very fact—the presumed strength of the Soviet Army—explains the Red Army’s attack on Finland immediately after the start of Barbarossa. It is, after all, irrational that Stalin opened a new front—against a new enemy—after being forced into a defensive war against the Germans.

I justify this by arguing that Stalin may have imagined his unprecedentedly strong Red Army capable of stopping and destroying the attacking German forces, unlike the French the previous year. And as we know, that is ultimately what it did—although only after years, and with the support of massive American aid packages.

The Finnish Army, on the other hand, Stalin failed to defeat, and Helsinki remained unconquered. And therefore our history does not include a 50-year period of misery under communist dictatorship.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?

During World War II, Finland and the Soviet Union fought two wars. The first of these was the Winter War, which broke out as a result of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In that agreement, the foreign ministers of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler agreed to divide Eastern Europe between the socialist Soviet Union and the National Socialist Germany.

Despite receiving little help from abroad, tiny Finland managed to resist the Soviet Union’s massive army. Although the peace treaty forced Finland to cede territory far west of the prevailing front lines, the Soviet Union did not succeed in conquering its neighbor. This created a strong sense of injustice among the Finnish people.

After the Winter War, Finland sought a defense alliance with the other Nordic countries, but especially Sweden opposed the idea. Eventually, the whole concept became impossible when Germany, through its blitzkrieg strategy, conquered Norway, and the Soviet Union—pursuant to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact—occupied the Baltic states. As a result, Finland and Sweden became isolated from the Western powers, France and Britain. Protection against the Soviet Union now had to be sought either from Germany—or vice versa. Finland chose Germany, which at the time was considered militarily superior, even though Finland did not embrace Nazi ideology and remained a democracy throughout World War II.

This led to the so-called Continuation War, whose first military actions in Finland were Soviet strikes against Finnish targets. The reason for this was Hitler’s false claim that Finland had joined Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

* * *

The events described above are well known in Finland. Less known is the final battle between the Soviet army and Finnish forces. This took place in the Ilomantsi region, where the Soviets launched an attack with two divisions against the Finns.

The Finnish troops were led by Major General Erkki Raappana, who accepted the challenge and launched a bold counterattack based on a double envelopment maneuver. The Finnish forces surrounded both Soviet divisions in separate pockets in the areas of Leppävaara–Lutikkavaara and Vellivaara–Lehmivaara, then broke them down and destroyed them. The battle was fought over a 40-kilometer-wide and approximately 30-kilometer-deep area.

At the same time, three Soviet marine brigades, a tank brigade, and an engineer brigade attempted to come to the aid of the encircled divisions from the east, but they were repelled. Eventually, the encircled Soviet troops saw their situation as hopeless, and the remnants of the divisions broke out eastward—effectively fleeing the battlefield.

As a result of this crushing defeat of the Red Army, the Soviets left behind heavy equipment, including over a hundred artillery pieces and nearly a hundred mortars, which became Finnish war trophies. The battlefield was left in the hands of the victorious Finns. This defeat prompted Stalin to abandon his goal of conquering Finland. He began peace negotiations and redirected his forces to the front against Germany, aiming to reach Berlin before the Western Allies.

Due to this battle, along with the earlier failed Soviet offensives at Tali-Ihantala and the Bay of Vyborg, Finland remained an independent democracy—unlike other European countries with long borders with the Soviet Union: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why the Soviet Union Failed to Break Finland—And Why Russia Won’t Succeed Today 
Fear Lurks in Vladimir Putin's Mind as He Celebrates on the Wrong Date
When the War Comes Home to Moscow

Estonians Have Learned from Their History — and Defend Accordingly

One of the countries that regained its independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union was Estonia—the northernmost and smallest of the Baltic states. It has a population of just under 1.5 million people, of whom 68.5 percent are ethnic Estonians, 21 percent Russians, 5.4 percent Ukrainians, and the rest people of other ethnic backgrounds.

This nation has built a prosperous state, where GDP per capita has risen from $2,685.90 in 1993 to an impressive $31,170. In other words, it has grown more than elevenfold—or by 1,160 percent.

Estonia was independent from 1918 until 1940, when the Soviet Union occupied it along with the other Baltic states, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact it had signed with Nazi Germany. Incidentally, Stalin also issued ultimatums to Finland on similar grounds and eventually launched a full-scale military invasion. However, the Finns did not yield and managed to preserve their independence.

Having learned from all this, Estonians have taken national defense seriously since regaining independence. As a sign of this commitment, Estonia joined NATO as quickly as possible, and the country’s defense minister, Hanno Pevkur, has stated that Estonia allocates five percent of its gross domestic product to actual military spending.

Unlike in many other countries, high defense spending enjoys broad public support in Estonia. Among Estonian speakers, 41 percent believe defense spending should be increased to five percent of GDP, and 34 percent support a defense budget of 3.5 percent. Even among Russian speakers, 17 percent favor 3.5 percent, and five percent support increasing it to five percent.

This strong public backing allows Estonia’s defense forces to develop their capabilities further. In practice, this has included the acquisition of HIMARS air defense systems and long-range missiles capable of striking deep into Russian territory. The rationale behind the latter is the principle that if Russia attacks Estonia, the war must be taken immediately to Russian soil.

I believe that Estonia’s perspective is worth listening to not only in neighboring countries that share a border with Russia but also in Central Europe—and even along the Atlantic coast.

This is because people in those countries can only remain secure if the whole of Europe sends a clear signal that Russia has no chance of success—neither in the borderlands nor further west—thanks to overwhelming support available to frontline countries like the Baltics, should it ever be necessary.

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?
Shifting U.S. Foreign Policy Sparks Concerns in Estonia

António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might

UN Secretary-General António Guterres made an appeal to countries planning to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty and reintroduce anti-personnel landmines. Among these countries, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland are neighbors of Russia.

Their departure from the treaty is justified precisely by this geographical fact — and by the fact that Russia is an aggressive and imperialist great power that has invaded the territory of several of its neighbors. There is no doubt that its current regime might also decide to test the security guarantees NATO has given to these countries — once it is done with Ukraine.

That is why it is fair to ask Mr. Guterres how he intends to prevent Russia’s intentions, should it decide to attack, for example, my own homeland. And whether, in such a situation, he would take responsibility for the Finnish lives that would have been saved by effective mining.

I do not expect an answer from the UN Secretary-General, but I remind him that Finland once sought help — in vain — from the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, before the Winter War that began in 1939. No help came then, and I do not believe Guterres would be able to provide any in the 2020s either, should Russia’s Putin choose to repeat Stalin’s move and order his army to seize Helsinki and strip Finland of its independence.

For this reason, I believe the UN Secretary-General would do well to keep quiet about the affairs of Eastern Europe, and instead focus on achieving a just peace in Ukraine, resolving the conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and ensuring that Iran does not continue its nuclear weapons program after its war with Israel comes to an end.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia
Highlights of the BRICS Meeting in Kazan, Russia
United Nations, corruption and terrorism

Ukraine’s Former Foreign Minister Warns Against Another 1939

Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba gave an interview to the British magazine Metro, where he reminded mothers in Britain that they will soon have to decide whether they will send their sons to fight against Russian soldiers in Europe, or suffer the end of NATO.

The Ukrainian politician also painted a devil on the wall by predicting that “Putin may invade Nato territory soon – so now what? Is Nato going to send a division to fight back?”

According to him, “The first day the EU – which is no big bother to England – is going to spend discussing its response to Russia, is going to be the end of it,” and continued, “the real test will be whether British mothers will actually accept that their sons have to die for Finland or Estonia or Poland. If they don’t, there is no NATO.”

Kuleba also noted an analogy to the year 1939 by reminding that “This is how World War II started. 'Why fight for Danzig? Let’s give it to Hitler, it is just a city in Poland. Why should we die for it?’”

At the same time, the foreign ministers Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov had agreed on a pact according to which Finland, the Baltic countries, and the eastern part of Poland would be turned into Russian territory. As a consequence, all those areas ended up as parts of the Soviet Union for seven decades — except Finland, which decided to fight for its independence and saved 90% of its territory in the Winter War.

Even though that war is considered a miracle, it is not an honour for the French and the British, who had promised to help Finland in many ways. Namely, they made many promises but ended up fulfilling only a small fraction of them regarding military material, and completely refused to send armed forces despite talks that those would also be sent via Norway and Sweden.

Based on this history from my grandparents’ generation, I certainly hope that history will not repeat itself — but that the difference will be an active NATO upholding its Article 5, and accordingly taking care of the agreed arrangements. And that it would show Kuleba that today’s Western Europe and the USA are more reliable pillars of European security than the Western powers of the late 1930s.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans
Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans

During the Second World War, Finland fought three separate wars. The first of these was the legendary Winter War, in which a nation of just 3.7 million people fought virtually alone against the Soviet Union, which was indirectly supported by Germany. Despite overwhelming odds, Finland managed to preserve its independence, though it had to cede one-tenth of its territory.

This loss fostered a spirit of revenge, leading Finland to attempt to reclaim its lost lands — and to conquer Eastern Karelia, home to related Finno-Ugric peoples — when Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. In this Continuation War, too, the Soviet Union was the first to initiate hostilities. Unlike Germany, however, Finland managed to halt the Soviet Red Army’s major offensives toward the end of the Continuation War and preserved its independence, with borders roughly similar to those agreed after the Winter War.

The two wars mentioned above are relatively well known even outside Finland. However, few have even heard of the Lapland War. It broke out on September 15, 1944, because the Soviet Union made the rapid expulsion of German troops from Finland one of the conditions of the Continuation War’s armistice.

At that time, northern Finland was a major base for a very large number of German troops — over 200,000 men — who had fought alongside Finland during the Continuation War and now had to be expelled swiftly according to the peace terms. If the Finns failed to do so, Stalin threatened that the Soviet Union would "send assistance" — effectively meaning a renewed attack on Finland, which was simultaneously required to demobilize most of its own army.

Due to this situation, and the relatively small size of the Finnish forces in Lapland — at most about 75,000 soldiers — the Finns were forced to attack the Germans first by surprise, without a formal declaration of war, and later with increasing but often tactically unwise aggressiveness. As a result, Finnish casualties were very high, and the surprised German troops retaliated for what they saw as betrayal by burning almost every building in northern Finland to the ground. Fortunately, most of the civilian population had been evacuated across the border into Sweden.

Moreover, the Germans scattered anti-personnel mines from their depots throughout the region, causing deaths and injuries well into the 1960s, during my own childhood. It is no wonder, then, that until the collapse of the Soviet Union — and the inflow of money brought by East German tourists that followed — the people of northern Finland harbored a deep hatred toward the Germans.

Through great sacrifice, Finland managed to satisfy Stalin and avoid a new Soviet invasion. This was achieved even though the Finnish army ultimately failed to capture the narrow northwesternmost corner of Finland, where German forces held strong positions in extraordinarily defensible — virtually unconquerable — terrain. They abandoned these only when the broader situation of the ongoing world war forced them to.

Today marks the 80th anniversary of the end of the Lapland War. It is also the Finnish Veterans’ Day, when we honor the memory of those men who defended our country in their youth. 

At the same time, I extend my heartfelt wishes to all the soldiers fighting for Ukraine, hoping they may be blessed with the same skill, valor, courage, resilience, and unwavering determination that the Finnish veterans so nobly displayed during the Second World War.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Different Kind of Christmas
Finns - Among the World’s Best
Ukraine’s Situation Mirrors Finland in 1944

Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?

The American scholar John Mearsheimer has commented on Finland’s NATO membership in an extremely negative tone. According to him, joining the alliance has weakened Finland’s security situation, and furthermore, the decision was made at the worst possible time.

In Mearsheimer’s view, instead of joining NATO, Finland should have continued its post-World War II policy of "Finlandization," where the country refrained from criticizing the Soviet Union's actions, no matter what they were. During that time, politicians and the media lied directly to the Finnish people about the conditions, human rights issues, and ambitions of their eastern neighbor.

However, it is noteworthy that despite all this, most Finns lived in constant fear, day and night, that Russia would occupy the country — a country with no allies to come to its aid in times of crisis. In other words, people feared a repeat of the Winter War.

Mearsheimer has also stated that Finland joined NATO at a completely wrong moment, as the alliance is now facing deep problems. He even speculated that U.S. forces might withdraw from Europe and that NATO’s Article 5 — the obligation to assist a member state under attack — would lose its significance.

He further claimed that Finland’s President Alexander Stubb has been wrong about Ukraine from the very beginning because Stubb believes in discredited ideas promoted by Western liberal imperialists since the end of the Cold War.

* * * 

After reading Mearsheimer’s views, I found myself reflecting on his words. His credibility is bolstered by the fact that already in 1993, he predicted that Ukraine should not give up its nuclear weapons the following year.

First, I concluded that neither I nor almost any other Finn — except for some on the far left — want in any way to return to the era of Finlandization. That’s why I deeply support Finland’s NATO membership and the DCA agreement with the United States, to ensure we are never again left alone if Russia attacks.

Second, I fully understand that if NATO and the DCA were to lose their significance, it would be impossible for a country of five and a half million people to maintain its independence in the event of a full-scale Russian assault. Finland’s only option would be to make the price of conquest unbearably high for Russia — just as happened in the Winter War of 1939–40 (as a result of which Finland lost about 10 percent of its territory), during which Soviet casualties reached 321,000–381,000 in about one hundred days, despite Finland's lack of modern weaponry and allies.

* * *

In light of the threat posed by Putin, I have advocated here on this blog that Western European states must build sufficient military strength and commit — within the EU framework or otherwise — to each other’s defense. Many leading European politicians, including Germany’s new Chancellor Friedrich Merz, currently share this view.

Thus, it seems to me that by the time Russia and Vladimir Putin find a way out of Ukraine, Western Europe — including Finland — will have grown militarily strong enough that Russia will no longer have the capacity even to threaten its security. This is something Mearsheimer should be aware of as well.

Therefore, I found it puzzling and decided to look more closely into this scholar. I discovered that in 2019, he supported the far-left Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Considering the historical record of socialists worldwide, this revealed to me that Mearsheimer is completely incapable of rational thinking.

Thus, I asked myself how much weight should really be given to Mearsheimer’s views on Finland’s security policy — and I concluded: not very much after all.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
From Finnish Neutrality to Russian Ruins
Donald Trump’s Reliability as an Ally Has Proven to Be Questionable
Finally, Finland Speaks the Truth Without Fear!

Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

The defense ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland have recommended in a joint statement to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, which bans anti-personnel mines. The reason cited is the increasing security threat posed by Russia.

Finland is also expected to join this group soon, as discussions have been ongoing about reintroducing anti-personnel mines. According to Jukka Kopra (National Coalition Party), chairman of the Defense Committee, Finland could withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty within the next few months.

This would enable the eastern border states of Russia, from Lapland to the Belarusian border, to defend themselves better against potential Russian aggression. And considering Belarus as a puppet state of Russia, this extends further down to Ukraine’s border.

Finland and Poland, in particular, have strong and well-equipped armies, which are undoubtedly capable of independent defense long enough for other NATO countries to come to their aid. If necessary, they can also help counter an attack against the Baltic states.

Since this text may be read in Putin’s dictatorship, it is important to state that none of the aforementioned NATO countries—let alone NATO as a whole—are planning any military operation on Russian soil. Any claims by Putin’s administration suggesting otherwise, now or in the future, are nothing but attempts to mislead ordinary Russians, much like Stalin’s administration did in 1939–40 when it ordered its army to occupy Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and eastern Poland, as well as launch an unsuccessful invasion to occupy Finland, which resulted in approximately 350,000 casualties for the Red Army in just three months.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?

A Different Kind of Christmas

Today, most of us celebrate Christmas Eve each in our own way, enjoying the holidays peacefully with loved ones and following old traditions. That’s what I will be doing as well.

However, things haven’t always been as good, and people have had to spend Christmas in very different circumstances. Even today, Ukrainians’ Christmas is overshadowed by the ongoing war, the impact of which on their holiday spirit is difficult, if not impossible, to even imagine from the safety of our northern corner of the world.

That’s why I decided to share the following text with you—to remind us to be content and grateful for the peace and atmosphere we are fortunate to enjoy this Christmas. It is an excerpt from a war diary describing the Christmas of the 1st Machine Gun Company of Infantry Regiment 65 in the Finnish Army during the first year of the Winter War, 1939:

"24.12. Christmas Eve. Relocation to Räisänen. Part of the company engaged in combat, led by Second Lieutenant Micklin. Russian aircraft. On Christmas Eve evening: violin + guitar + singing. Morale fairly high. The cabins were very warm.
25.12. Wake-up at 4 a.m., followed by an early departure to the front lines. Dry rations ran out. Supply extremely difficult. The men in their positions endured the terrible cold, -35°C, and hunger, but there was no help due to poor connections. Artillery fire several times. The Russians retreated about 3–4 km. Intense pursuit. Sergeant Taimi wounded. Cold night. Supply improved slightly. The battalion had no tents or other equipment except for Company I. We received rations during the night.
26.12. Fierce fighting continued through the night. Patrols continued movements and battles. Our patrol silenced a Russian mortar. In the morning, we got some rest. Overall, it was a relatively calm day. Shells + aircraft."

With these words, I wish all of you—my dear audience—a good, peaceful, and grateful Christmas! To Ukrainians especially, I also wish for a better future!

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Christmas gift to the Holy Land
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
Merry Christmas!

Finns - Among the World’s Best

In Finland, Independence Day is associated with various traditions. One of the most significant has been the reception hosted by the President, where living World War II veterans have traditionally played a central role. This year, however, they were not invited to the main celebration; instead, a separate event was organized earlier this week to honor those who saved Finland's independence.

The heroes who preserved Finland's independence during the turmoil of World War II are still remembered on television, with the screening of the war film The Unknown Soldier. The film is based on a book of the same name, which depicts the experiences of a machine gun company from 1941 to 1944.

As for me, I plan to honor the heroes who safeguarded our independence by reflecting on a few statistics about Finnish fighter pilots. These figures come from Kari Stenman's book, Finland’s Best Fighter Aces and Their Aircraft.

* * *

Among Finnish pilots, the most successful in destroying Soviet aircraft during World War II was Ilmari Juutilainen, whose exceptional skill resulted in the enemy losing a remarkable 94 aircraft. Of these, six were destroyed in a single air battle on June 30, 1944.

He reported the battle as follows: "We were on a patrol mission with eight aircraft. I led the squadron to Tali, where we encountered enemy fighters. Over Viipuri, I fired on an AC from behind, tearing off most of its rudders. It crashed at the edge of Torkkeli Park near Punaisenlähteen Square, leaving behind a mist that looked like a fuel vapor cloud."

"The fight continued toward Säiniö. Near Säiniö, I shot at another AC from behind and above, setting it on fire. It crashed between Säiniö and Karhusuo, still burning on the ground."

"I saw over 50 bombers approaching from the east, accompanied by fighters. I regrouped our planes between Juustila and Tali, where we clashed with the Russians. Over Juustila, I shot down one Yak-9, which crashed in flames. Another Yak-9, its right wing shot off, crashed in the same area."

"At one point, we protected Stukas, but after that, more Russian bombers and fighters appeared. I couldn’t get a result. Then I saw Il-2 planes without cover. I attacked sharply from the side, and one Il-2 crashed in flames into Juustila peninsula."

"At the same time, I was surrounded by La-5s. After a five-minute duel with one of them, I managed to set it on fire at an altitude of 2,000 meters. It crashed in flames 3–4 kilometers north of the Il-2 crash site along the road. My ammunition ran out, so I had to end the battle, though I still had about 10 minutes of fuel. The battle altitude ranged from 5,000 to 50 meters. My aircraft was MT457."

* * *

Juutilainen had also participated ten days earlier on June 20, 1944, the most active day of aerial combat on Finland’s front lines. On that day, Finnish pilots shot down a total of 51 Soviet aircraft in three consecutive air battles—without suffering any losses of their own.

This alone demonstrated the extraordinary skill of Finnish pilots. Further evidence lies in the overall statistics: during the Continuation War, Finnish pilots destroyed approximately 1,100 Soviet aircraft while losing only 53 of their own pilots.

Even among the best, some stood out. None of the top ten Finnish fighter aces, ranked by aerial victories, were killed during the Winter War or the Continuation War. Together, they accounted for 488 Soviet aircraft shot down.

This achievement was remarkable, especially considering that during the Winter War, Finnish fighters were largely outdated models such as the Gloster Gladiator II, Fokker D.XXI, and Fiat G.50. At the start of the Continuation War, the mainstay was the Brewster 239—a model so disliked by American pilots that they nicknamed it the "Flying Coffin." The Finnish Air Force also used a mix of captured Soviet aircraft acquired through German assistance and some Morane-Saulnier 406 fighters, which were gifted by France during the Winter War but were already obsolete before the conflict began.

The situation changed in April 1943 with the arrival of Messerschmitt Bf 109 G fighters. These aircraft allowed Finnish pilots to fully showcase their skills.

One indication of their proficiency is that thereafter, enemy pilots never managed to shoot down any Finnish bombers protected by these fighters. Moreover, unlike their German counterparts, Finnish pilots rarely damaged their Messerschmitts during takeoff, despite the aircraft being known for its challenging handling characteristics.

* * *

The exceptional skill of Finnish fighter pilots can be attributed to various factors. My guess is that it stems from similar genetic or cultural traits that have made Finns, relative to their population, the most dominant motorsport athletes in the world.

After all, this nation of five million has produced three Formula 1 World Champions and eight World Rally Champions. Furthermore, the next World Rally Championship title is highly likely to go to Kalle Rovanperä, a 24-year-old prodigy who took a sabbatical year and is arguably the most talented motorsport athlete of all time.

With these memories and reflections, I wish you—my esteemed readers—a very happy Independence Day as we celebrate 107 years of Finnish sovereignty.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

Anecdotes and Jokes About Vladimir Putin

Today, a few anecdotes and jokes about the beloved leader of our neighboring country came to mind. Since they are fresh in my memory, I decided to share them with you, my dear readers. So, here you go!

* * *

A high-ranking officer who fought in Vladimir Putin's army led his unit so effectively that the Ukrainians were forced to retreat several kilometers. Naturally, the president was pleased and invited the officer to the Kremlin.

There, he told the hero that he could ask for anything as a reward for his actions. The man replied, "I don’t want anything. I just ask that you don’t mention this to my friends."

* * *

God was angry about the hostility humans held toward each other and decided to destroy all of creation. After some thought, however, He chose to give humanity one last chance to see if there was still kindness, goodness, and love within them.

So, He appeared to a Frenchman and told him of His plan to destroy humanity the next day. He also asked what the man intended to do before then. The man replied that he would get some fine wine and prepare a delicious meal to enjoy with his wife, and then make love to her.

God was pleased and decided to also appear to a Finnish man and share His plans. The Finnish man thought for a moment and said he would first go to the sauna with his wife, enjoy some good beer and sausages afterward, and then make love to her.

God began to doubt the idea of destruction but decided to also ask Vladimir Putin what he planned to do before the end of the world. Putin thought for a moment and declared that he would immediately order his army to invade Georgia so that Russia could conquer it before the apocalypse.

* * *

Vladimir Putin believes he has made himself indispensable to Russians and the world. Because of this, he has been deeply concerned about what would happen to the world, Russia, and his wealth if he were to die.

One day, he summoned his trusted lawyer and expressed his concerns. The lawyer opened his laptop and asked the president to dictate his will. Putin began: “If I ever die…”

* * *

In early September, President Vladimir Putin set a goal for the Russian forces: the expulsion of Ukrainians from Russian soil by the beginning of October.

However, it is now early December, and Ukrainians are still holding large areas in the Russian Kursk region. Clearly, the goal Putin set in September has not been achieved. His position is, therefore, reminiscent of his role model Joseph Stalin, who in 1939 issued a guide for Soviet soldiers on how to reach Helsinki in two weeks — only to fail completely in capturing the city.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did You Know That 1952 Was a Turning Point in World Eras?
Putin Set a Goal — Failure Would Be an Embarrassment
Tractor course for Ukrainians

All Russians Should Be Informed of the Staggering Losses of Putin’s Army in Ukraine

Based on open data, the BBC, together with the publication Mediazona and a team of volunteers, has identified the names of 78,329 Russian soldiers who have died in Ukraine over the past two years. The growth rate of confirmed deaths is currently at its highest since the beginning of the war. The figures for September, October, and November exceed those of last year by one and a half times, and the 2022 figures by more than double.

The increase in losses may result from offensive operations by Russian forces in Ukraine’s Donetsk region, such as the assault on Vuhledar, which was captured by early October, and the assault on Pokrovsk, where fighting on the outskirts continues.

Other possible reasons include the gradual confirmation of Russian losses in Russia’s Kursk region or the aftermath of the summer offensive campaign. The rise in reports of fatalities could also be due to a combination of these factors.

The highest number of losses is among volunteers—those who signed contracts after the full-scale invasion began. Their share of total confirmed losses continues to grow, with confirmed deaths of 16,551 volunteers, accounting for 23% of the total confirmed Russian losses.

In addition to fatalities, many Russians have also been injured. Including these, the total losses for the aggressor rise to approximately 720,000 soldiers.

These figures can be compared to Soviet troop losses in Finland’s Winter War (November 30, 1939 – March 13, 1940), often likened to the war in Ukraine. In that conflict, as many as 126,875 Soviet soldiers were killed, with total losses—including the wounded—reaching around 350,000 soldiers in just 4.5 months. This means that current Russian losses have surpassed the staggering toll seen at that time. 

It would be valuable for all Russians to receive and understand this message, as it might reduce the appeal of the large rewards promised by Putin's administration to people living in Russia. This could weaken the country’s military capability in Ukraine.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization
Ukraine’s Situation Mirrors Finland in 1944

Iranian Missile Attack was Followed by Humorous Flowers

Iran launched around 200 missiles at Israel, most of which were intercepted. However, some missiles managed to get through the defense in central and southern Israel, resulting in the death of a Palestinian in the West Bank. Additionally, some material damage occurred as missiles hit empty homes and cars. According to American sources, minor damage was also inflicted on one of Israel’s military bases.

Against this backdrop, I found it somewhat incredible to read the writings of Muslims on social media. Or what do you, dear reader, think of these flowers of humor?

First, according to an account with a female figure (most probably not a woman): "Iranian state TV just ran this", followed by a flamboyant video clearly made using artificial intelligence or some other tricks.

Second, according to Iran’s military: "90% of our weapon systems successfully struck their intended targets".

Third, according to the Lebanon Times: "Pakistan’s Shaheen III missiles can strike Israel in a few minutes. This is the right time—Pakistan must provide its missiles to Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, and Palestine. Long live Iran."

My interpretation is that Iranian state TV is spreading unwieldy false information, the Iranian military is simply lying, and the Lebanon Times wants to subject Pakistan to Israel’s counterattacks. However, an ordinary Iranian has no chance of being factually informed.

I tell you, during the Winter War, Finns were not adequately informed about the situation on the front, and when Finland agreed to peace, including the loss of large areas, ordinary citizens were furious. Having learned from this, the events of the Continuation War were reported honestly. This made life much easier for both politicians and the people after the war.

The difference between today’s Iran and 1940s Finland is that the former is a dictatorial theocracy that doesn’t care about its people's lives and health. In contrast, the latter was a true democracy serving its inhabitants.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Mentally Elementary-School-Aged Were Attacked, But Will Iran Come to Their Aid?
Hassan Nasrallah Has Been Killed, but Lebanon Is Unlikely to Become the Switzerland of the Middle East Again
What Does the Failure of Hezbollah's Attack Tell Us?

NATO's Northern Europe Headquarters to be Established in Mikkeli, Finland's Former Military Command City

According to recent information, NATO's Northern Europe Command will be established in Mikkeli, Finland. The decision is based on an overall assessment of what is the best location for Finland's defense. No other reasons are involved.

At the same time, Finland sent, according to Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen (National Coalition Party), "a message to Russia that we are a full-fledged member of NATO, and NATO plays a very strong role in Finland's defense." He further stated that "this is not in any way a hostile action or a confrontation, but purely based on Finland's defense arrangements."

* * *

Mikkeli is an important city for Finland with about 50,000 inhabitants. This is because it served as the headquarters of the Finnish Defense Forces during the Winter War, the Continuation War, and the Lapland War. 

In the first of these, the Finnish army repelled the Soviet Union's attack, which was politically supported by Germany, on its own without any allies. Although Britain and France made strong promises of support, it ultimately amounted to little more than a few material deliveries.

In the Continuation War, too, the Soviet Union initiated military actions five days before Finland launched its own offensive as part of Germany's Operation Barbarossa, quickly capturing large areas of East Karelia. In 1944, the Red Army launched a major offensive, which after initial success was halted on the Soviet side of the pre-war border. Peace was subsequently made at the current borders.

Before the end of the World War II, Finland still fought a third war, during which it expelled the German troops stationed in northern Finland. In this war, the Germans retaliated against the Finns by burning practically all homes of the inhabitants in Lapland. As a result, the people of northern Finland still hated the Germans in the 1970s, until the income brought by tourism helped the resentment subside.

After these historical memories, I express the hope that Mikkeli will never again have to lead a war between Finland and Russia, and that NATO's mere presence in Finland will be enough to deter any potential imperialist ambitions of Vladimir Putin and his successors.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Must Avoid Ukraine’s Fate
Rediscovered Relics: The Story Behind Finland's WWII Weapon Caches
Finns Feel Sympathy for Ukrainians Because They Share a Similar Experience