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

Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?

As my esteemed readers know, yesterday the United States and Israel struck Iran, killing a large number of the country’s leaders, beginning with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran, for its part, has launched its own missiles at least toward the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, Syria, Iraq and Bahrain, as well as, of course, Israel. In addition, it has closed the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranians have reacted to the events—at least according to Iranians living in Finland—by celebrating in the streets. Women symbolically with their hair uncovered, and at least some shouting the name of Reza Pahlavi, the current head of the country’s former monarchical dynasty.

On the other hand, social media also contains video material of demonstrations supporting the Iranian government. Based on what I have seen, the crowds at these demonstrations appear to be quite large.

* * *

It remains to be seen, then, how the situation in Iran will develop from here. In this respect, the absolutely central factor is the Iranian army: will it remain loyal to the Islamist regime, or will it shift to the side of those demanding change? Or, as I could well imagine, will it split into two camps that begin to wage a civil war against each other?

In any case, it is clear that neither the United States nor Israel will send their ground forces into Iran. For that reason, the country’s future is still entirely open, and it would not be surprising if it were to continue its existence in a medieval atmosphere in the future as well.

This alternative becomes more likely the longer the people demanding liberation remain without military force—that is, the longer the country’s leadership is given time to recover from its losses.

* * *

In order to clarify the situation, I asked the Gemini AI for the very latest information. It replied that “there have been reports that parts of Iran’s regular army and local security forces have refused to follow orders or have even joined the side of the protesters. Wikipedia sources and news agencies now mention ‘armed civilians’ and ‘police and military defectors’ as part of the ongoing unrest.”

In addition, according to Gemini, “there have been reports of local clashes in the regions of Kurdistan and Baluchistan. In particular, Kurdish groups (such as PJAK and PDKI) have moved from a state of readiness to actively taking up positions in their own areas.” It also stated that “there have been reports within the country of arson attacks and assaults against symbols of the regime as well as local offices of the IRGC.”

I interpret this to mean that it is not yet possible to draw conclusions about Iran’s future. In any case, however, Iranians now have an opportunity to replace their Islamist theocracy with a more civilized form of government—but the window of time for doing so may not be very long.

* * *

Finally, one observation about the possible effects of a change of power on Finnish society. It may well happen that refugees set out from the country toward Europe.

In this sense, it should be understood that these people would not be ordinary Iranians, as such people would rather return to their homeland if conditions there were to normalize. Instead, those who may set out could be Islamists who have served and/or supported the country’s tyrannical regime.

For this reason, Finland should already now state very clearly that it will not grant asylum to potential Iranian refugees in the event of a change of government, but rather that Iran will be regarded as a safe country for all its citizens—and that this assessment will not be altered by possible reports of representatives of the Islamist regime being held accountable for crimes committed over the course of half a century.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
UN Congratulates an Executioner – Credibility in Free Fall
What’s Next, Iran?
Iran at a Crossroads: From Islamist Rule Toward Democracy?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Vaihtuuko Iranissa valta?

The Frog in the Pot: Russia’s Baltic Strategy

According to Ukraine’s intelligence chief, Putin is planning to seize the Baltic states as early as 2027. According to him, “the Russian Federation was supposed to be ready to launch operations in 2030. Now the plans have been adapted and revised so that the deadlines have been shortened to 2027.”

As Putin’s motive, the intelligence chief cited a somewhat undeniably mysterious idea that an empire must “always be moving somewhere in order to expand its influence and territories.” He believes the selection of the Baltics as the target of an attack, in turn, is due to their weakness in the Arctic region compared to the United States and China, which Russia would face in other directions.

* * *

The fact, however, is that all three Baltic states are members of NATO, and as such they enjoy the security guarantees of the world’s most powerful military alliance. According to Article Five, "the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all".

It further states that “each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence… will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”

* * *

However, Article Five does not define the level of force with which an attack against a member state would be answered. It therefore does not state that an attack on a member state would be met with sufficient force, or with NATO’s full military power, or that tens of thousands of NATO troops would be deployed to the Baltics after an attack.

Let alone that the attacker would be threatened with full-scale nuclear war in such a situation. Instead, Article Five merely states that the response will consist of actions deemed necessary.

* * *

Therefore, the key question from Russia’s perspective—if it wishes to attack the Baltics—is the nature and scale of the actions that NATO countries would deem necessary. And I do not consider it impossible that Russia might—most likely only after the war in Ukraine has ended—want to find out.

This could of course occur through a large-scale offensive or by carrying out—successfully—a blitzkrieg (“special operation,” po-russkii), in which the Baltics would be occupied in a matter of days. Such an approach, however, would involve enormous risks—even the possibility of nuclear war—which Russia would more likely seek to avoid by using the so-called “frog in a pot of water” method and increasing its power in small steps.

The beginning of such actions could already be seen in past hybrid operations exploiting migrants from developing countries, airspace violations, balloon flights, and most recently armed border guards entering Estonian territory. For this reason, especially in Europe, it is necessary to closely monitor whether increasingly serious border violations are directed at the Baltic states in the future. And if they occur, to raise the level of readiness.

In my view, the most sensible course for NATO would be to make it clear that it will use sufficient force in all attacks directed at NATO countries to stop the attacker’s army—i.e., that it would, if necessary, ensure by all available means that the attacker is halted.

* * *

Unfortunately, there are good reasons to doubt that all NATO member states—particularly the strongest one under its current administration, or the states of Westernmost Europe—are willing to make such a commitment. And even if they were, Putin’s Russia might still choose to observe how the “frog” reacts to cautious measures to heat the pot.

For this reason, the Baltic states, other countries bordering Russia, and—next in line to attract the interest of Russian dictators—their western neighbors must themselves ensure that any potential aggression by the Moscow regime is met decisively. And they must ensure that their military capabilities are sufficient for that purpose.

Only by acting in this way can it be made clear to Putin that Russia should not even consider taking the kind of risk that Ukraine’s intelligence chief spoke of.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Should Ukraine Trust Donald Trump After Being Let Down by Barack Obama?
Estonia Needs Its Own Air Force
Kremlin’s Provocations Echo Pre-War Rhetoric on Ukraine

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

Responding to Russia’s Challenges Is Essential

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cost of the East Jerusalem Attack for Palestinians — and Its Echo Worldwide

Two Palestinian militants apparently thought that the Palestinians’ position in the Holy Land would improve if they started shooting on a road heavily used by Jews. So they put their plan into action, managing to kill at least six people and wound several others. And of course, they themselves supposedly got to enjoy the company of 72 virgins—assuming, that is, that there’s any truth to their beliefs.

Next, we are left to see what follows from this attack. Will the everyday life of ordinary Palestinians in the West Bank improve, or perhaps turn quite the opposite way?

Even more interesting, however, will be to observe how European media report on the future living conditions of the people in the West Bank—conditions that Israel’s army will undoubtedly alter in one way or another. And more interesting still will be to see how UN Secretary-General António Guterres comments on what has happened now, and again later when we can see the consequences.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Abu Obaida’s Death Brings Palestine One Step Closer to Peace
Will Gaza Get a Ceasefire, or Will Hamas Hold On to Its Terrorist Capabilities?
United Nations, corruption and terrorism

Houthi Leaders Risk Their Lives to Cling to Power

Last Thursday, the Israeli armed forces killed Yemen’s Houthi administration Prime Minister Ahmed Ghalib al-Rahawi, Foreign Minister Jamal Amer, and ten other ministers — more than half of Yemen’s government members — in a precise airstrike. Such an outcome is undeniably impressive, and it could not have arisen by chance as if in a fairytale.

In this case too, the strike was preceded by weeks of intelligence gathering involving around 200 military intelligence professionals. The group worked in a secret bunker located in Israel and also included representatives of the United States military.

The actual attack was carried out by Israeli fighter jets just a few hours after the intelligence team had confirmed the meeting place of the Yemeni government. At that moment, the Yemeni ministers had just gathered to listen to the speech of spiritual and military leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi, who, fortunately for him, was speaking via remote connection and thus preserved his life.

For the time being, the broader impact of the successful strike remains uncertain, but it seems that the Houthi administration is trying to hold on to its position. In doing so, its members are taking an enormous risk of another Israeli and U.S. strike, which, if successful, could cost them their lives. In any case, it is clear that the intelligence services of these states will do their utmost to succeed again.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Power Change Hands in Iran?
The End of the Holy Soldier of the Arabs
Religious authority and the Iran strike on Israel

A Quick Israeli Success in Iran Would Be Crucial for Ukraine

Israel's attacks today demonstrated that Iran has no means to defend itself against the Jewish state's assaults. Nor does it have the capability to inflict significant damage on Israel, as the mullahs’ failed counterattack attempt showed.

As a consequence, the conflict between Israel and Iran will be militarily uninteresting. However, it is clear that if Iran even partially closes the Strait of Hormuz, the global market price of crude oil will rise — and this, in turn, will have an indirect impact, particularly on the war in Ukraine.

This is because the price increase would result in money flowing into Russia’s war chest from oil sales more rapidly than it currently does. And this would lead to two consequences, both of which would be detrimental to Ukraine.

The first would naturally be that the increased oil revenues would provide more funding for arming Putin’s military, thus strengthening Russia’s invading army. The second is that the burden of war on Russian civilians would ease, thereby reducing the risk of a collapse in support for Putin’s regime — and thus the risk of a potential popular uprising.

For this reason, it is to be hoped that Israel achieves its objectives in Iran as quickly as possible. And if the mullahs attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, its openness must be ensured by the actions of other countries — especially the United States.

For this reason, it is especially interesting to closely follow the war between Israel and Iran over the weekend and the early part of next week. And perhaps even to hope that the Iranian people will grow tired of their Islamist regime and overthrow it through a popular uprising — just as the Shah's regime collapsed 46 years ago. And as a result, shut down Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran Rejects Direct Nuclear Talks with U.S., Calls Them Pointless
Can Peace Emerge from Horrific War Crimes?
Israel’s Strike on Iran: Ripple Effects for the Middle East, Russia, and Global Stability

Fear Lurks in Vladimir Putin's Mind as He Celebrates on the Wrong Date

Tomorrow, Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, along with his cronies and subordinates, will celebrate the so-called Victory Day in honor of the end of World War II. However, the timing isn’t quite accurate, as World War II is generally considered to have ended with Japan’s surrender—first with the Emperor’s announcement on August 15, 1945, and officially with the signing of the surrender documents on September 2. Of course, the European war had already ended 80 years ago, in May 1945.

It’s also worth remembering that the Soviet Union didn’t stop fighting when the war in Europe ended. Instead, it entered the war against Japan on August 8, 1945, in accordance with what had been agreed among the Allies at the Yalta Conference earlier that year. This happened at a point when Japan’s defeat was all but inevitable, though no formal surrender had yet occurred. The Soviet offensive in Manchuria, southern Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands continued through late August and even into early September.

As a consequence of these events, the Korean Peninsula ended up divided into Soviet and American occupation zones—and remains split into two nations to this day. In addition, Japan and the Soviet Union, and later Russia, have never signed a formal peace treaty due to the ongoing dispute over four of the Kuril Islands.

These facts are unlikely to dampen Putin’s celebratory mood. What may trouble him more—like a squirrel tormented by a frozen nut—is the persistent fear, lurking in the back of his mind throughout the festivities, that a Ukrainian drone could strike directly in Red Square. Even if Ukraine likely lacks the capacity to cause large-scale destruction in such an attack, that doesn’t guarantee peace of mind inside the Kremlin.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When the War Comes Home to Moscow
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans
Ukraine’s Situation Mirrors Finland in 1944

From Finnish Neutrality to Russian Ruins

Russia's attack on Ukraine has led to a complete transformation of Finland's foreign policy. Whereas during the Soviet era, politicians in my home country often aligned themselves with the positions of our great eastern neighbor, and even at the beginning of this millennium avoided directly criticizing the blatant injustices it committed, today they are ready to respond to Russia's actions exactly as they deserve.

We saw another example of this today when the Finnish Parliament — unanimously, note, unanimously, from the left to the right — approved the government's proposal for a complete ban on Russian real estate acquisitions. As a result, Minister Antti Häkkänen (National Coalition Party) expressed his "great joy that Parliament so comprehensively supported this proposal, whose goal is to strengthen national security. This decision sends a clear message: we will not allow Finland to be destabilized."

Meanwhile, in Ukraine itself, Russian forces have once again attacked and even made some advances, but only at great cost. In particular, Ukrainian drones have caused significant destruction among the attackers. According to Ukrainian sources, drones have been responsible for as much as 70 percent of the losses suffered by Russian forces.

According to Finnish expert Pasi Paroinen, satellite images have made it possible to assess that Russia has almost no old Soviet-era stockpiles left. It remains to be seen what Putin and his military leadership will do once the very last museum piece has been retrieved from storage and sent to be destroyed by Ukrainian drones.

The question is: should they finally give up?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finally, Finland Speaks the Truth Without Fear!
Putin Set a Goal — Failure Would Be an Embarrassment
Turning Points in the War in Ukraine and the West's Responsibility

Afghan's Rampage in Germany Signals the End of the Value-Liberal Era in the EU

A 24-year-old Afghan living in Germany decided to boost AfD’s support in becoming elections. As my esteemed reader already knows, he did so by driving a car in an inappropriate manner toward protesting members of trade unions.

It remains to be seen what will come of this—aside from an increase in AfD’s support. However, what we do know about the driver at this stage is that he has previously behaved badly, committing thefts and drug-related crimes. It is likely that his crime spree will now come to an end, at least for a while.

It is also clear that this case will further increase the number of Germans who take a critical stance on immigration. And this will be reflected in the program of the country’s next government.

The incident will undoubtedly have consequences for immigration policy in other European countries as well. And in this way, it reinforces the idea that, as a result of all this, the era of value-liberal politics is coming to an end—not just in Trump’s USA, but also in Germany and other EU countries.

What is less clear, however, is what kind of political climate the EU will shift into in the coming years. And what will become of the international Geneva Conventions, which were originally established in the aftermath of the Holocaust to ensure that people could escape the clutches of bloodthirsty dictators? 

In my assessment, the era of strictly adhering to these conventions will also come to an end, and the distribution of humanitarian asylum will become significantly stricter than it is today. At the same time, the residency rights of asylum seekers in EU countries will become temporary—just as is already happening in Finland, which is leading the way in this matter.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Does Germany’s Ban on Arabic-Language Posters Signal a CDU/CSU-AfD Coalition?
Germany Then and Now Resemble Each Other
Strengthening Christmas Market Security: Lessons from Magdeburg

Uncertain Horizons: Syria's Post-Assad Era

Israel destroyed the Syrian army’s equipment in swift strikes following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad's regime, as the previously Islamist-designated Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) assumed power.

In practical terms, this means that the armaments of the Syrian dictatorship, including chemical weapons of mass destruction, will not fall into the hands of a new government, which may turn out to be an Islamist rogue state.

In this light, one might imagine that the entire world would be pleased with Israel’s actions. On the other hand, Israel’s operations contradict general principles of justice, which dictate that the law should apply equally to all. The same should hold true at the state level, meaning that Israel’s actions appear as nothing more than the unlawful use of force by the stronger party.

It is therefore clear that opponents of the Jewish state have gained yet another justification for their hatred toward it—and even a seemingly legitimate basis for actions against it in international forums such as the UN.

It is thus to be expected that the value-liberal left in Western countries will exploit this development to support Hamas terrorists in their fight in Gaza. At the same time, they will conveniently forget that the entire Gaza war began with Hamas’s terrorist attack and has only continued because the group has refused to disarm or release the hostages it took in October of last year.

* * *

When power shifted in Syria, Israel also occupied the demilitarized zone between it and Syria. Furthermore, it has advanced somewhat into the part of Syria inhabited by Druze communities.

The world was simultaneously surprised by the fact that, following these events, the Syrian Druze neither fled nor mounted resistance but instead declared their desire to become part of Israel. This indicates that this religious minority does not trust its future under the rule of Syria's new leaders.

This development is unlikely to sit well with Syria's new government. Should Israel fulfill the Druze community's wish, it could lay the groundwork for HTS to become a more fundamentalist organization—ultimately transforming into a rogue state similar to Iran or Afghanistan.

At this stage, however, it is virtually impossible to predict what will ultimately happen in Syria. Some have even suggested dividing the country into three parts, with HTS governing the central region, the Kurds holding power in the northeast, and either Israel or the Druze themselves controlling the southwestern corner.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Need for Asylum Among Syrians Disappeared with the Regime Change
On the Consequences of Russian Inability in Syria
Revolution in Syria: What Comes Next?

Hezbollah Uses Human Shields While the Green-Left Looks Away

According to World At War, a source active on social media, the terrorist organization Hezbollah has asked civilians not to leave the area where Israel has announced it will attack - and that attach occurred today. This is nothing new or surprising, as another terrorist organization, Hamas, operating in Gaza, has similarly used civilians as human shields.

Additionally, Hezbollah’s leaders clearly intend to exploit the civilians who may die or be injured in a potential Israeli strike for their propaganda war, claiming it was a terrorist attack. At the same time, following Hamas’s example, they fail to mention that they are actively contributing to the high number of civilian casualties.

In other words, these terrorist organizations are committing war crimes by sacrificing their own citizens. Unfortunately, this strategy works as long as people in Western countries fail to understand the irresponsible sacrifice of their populations by these two terrorist organizations for the sake of propaganda victories.

The problem lies in the fact that the Western political green-left movement - for reasons I personally cannot comprehend - remains locked in a Cold War mindset (example and another), where people with a socialist worldview consistently supported the side backed by the Soviet Union in international conflicts. The Soviet Union may no longer exist, but the memory of its strong support for Muslims in their efforts to destroy Israel remains alive.

This persists despite the fact that the Islamic world represents almost everything the political green-left claims to support: equality between genders or religions, freedom of expression, or the avoidance of corporal punishments—none of which exist in the Islamic world, as is well known by everyone in the Western world.

It remains to be seen how the green-left will once again protest when Israelis defend their existence by attacking the terrorists based in Lebanon, despite the human shields they use. And how they will demand punishment for Israel over the casualties that would not have occurred without Hezbollah's active involvement.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
How Will Israel Benefit on the Explosions of Hezbollah's Communication Devices?
What Does the Failure of Hezbollah's Attack Tell Us?
The first casualty of war is the truth - but whose truth?

EU Decision-Makers Did the Bear a Disservice

In Finland, there are four so-called large carnivores. They are the bear, wolf, lynx, and wolverine.

Of these, only the bear and wolf can pose a danger to humans. Or more precisely, only the bear, since the last time a Finnish wolf killed a human was in 1882.

Bears, on the other hand, occasionally attack people. A particularly dangerous time is spring, when these rulers of the forest have cubs. Mother bears will attack, especially if, for some reason—such as during a jog—a person happens to come between them.

The risk exists in remote forest areas, of course, but a bear attack is especially likely when the predator roams densely populated areas, such as towns and cities.

That’s why it’s concerning that recently, bears have been wandering into cities more frequently. According to Finnish large carnivore researcher Ilpo Kojola, this is because bear hunting has practically come to a complete halt in recent years.

This has happened because Finland’s Supreme Court ruled that population control hunting is illegal in Finland. This, in turn, stems from the European Union's Habitats Directive, which requires member states to prohibit the deliberate capture or killing of individuals from certain species in the wild.

Because of this, Finns can currently do nothing but admire urban bears and, at the same time, fear the moment when a bear finally kills—whether to defend its cubs or for some other reason—a human, or perhaps more. And after that, wait anxiously to see what kind of hatred toward predators will take hold among Finns.

If and when that happens, the only certainty is that many bears will be poached. And that likely serves neither the interests of the EU's directive makers nor the bears themselves.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
During the Eurovision song spectacle, the incompetence of EU officials was revealed
Wolfs affect nature conservation
A popular hobby risks ecological balance, private property and human health in Finland

How Will Israel Benefit on the Explosions of Hezbollah's Communication Devices?

The Islamist Hezbollah operating in Lebanon has been the target of an interesting attack. First, their beepers were blown up, and today it was the turn of their walkie-talkies.

Both times, the organization lost a small number of people killed, but many more were more or less injured. However, the biggest impact is likely to be that from now on, Hezbollah members will probably fear handling any kind of electronic devices - and this will certainly weaken their ability to plan and especially carry out their operations against Israel.

It remains to be seen how Israel will take advantage of the advantage it has gained. Will it launch a military attack on southern Lebanon - as they seem to plan - or do they have some other operation in mind? In my view, it is clear that Israel’s ultimate goal - assuming it is behind the explosions - is to calm northern Israel from Hezbollah’s rocket attacks.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
What Does the Failure of Hezbollah's Attack Tell Us?
According to the Israeli army, Hamas cannot be defeated
The first casualty of war is the truth - but whose truth?

Turning Points in the War in Ukraine: New Threats and Unexpected Allies

Ukraine's successful offensive against Russia has undoubtedly caused headaches for Putin's administration. And it is not impossible that the Russians might decide to do something extraordinary to rid themselves of this embarrassing situation.

One possibility, of course, would be to divert the Ukrainians' attention elsewhere. This could happen in cooperation with Belarus, for example, by inciting Lukashenko to involve his army in the war.

Such a move would obviously not be in Belarus' best interest, especially given that its military is weak compared to Russia and even Ukraine. However, the fact remains that Belarus has gathered a large contingent of troops near the Ukrainian border.

The most likely reason for this, however, is not an attack on Ukraine but the annual joint military exercises held with Russia. This would also explain the presence of Russian units in the area, such as the Wagner Group.

From the Ukrainians' perspective, it is clear that the troops gathering in the north cannot be ignored, and Zelensky will need to deploy his own military units in response. Therefore, Lukashenko will end up assisting Putin’s army, even if the Belarusians do not carry out a single operation across the Ukrainian border.

One can only hope that this doesn’t halt Ukraine’s well-advanced progress on the Russian side of the border. This is important because the further they advance, the more they will affect Russia in the same way that the Belarusian troops are affecting Ukraine: by forcing Putin to halt his own sluggish but progressing offensive operations in eastern Ukraine and relocate his units away from Ukraine.

There is a fourth card in this game as well—one that has remained hidden so far—namely Poland. Militarily strong, Poland could, if it chose to, significantly alter the military balance in Ukraine. That’s why the recent incursion of a Russian drone into Polish airspace was extremely bad news for the Russians, as it gives the Poles a legitimate reason to intervene in the war in Ukraine.

One clear reason for such an intervention could be the resolution of World War II, in which Poland was shifted about a hundred kilometers westward. The lost territories likely still stir strong emotions among many Poles, which might lower the threshold for seizing the opportunity to right the wrongs experienced by their grandparents. Especially when Russia's army in Ukraine has proven to be more of a paper tiger than a real military force.

It remains to be seen how the war in Ukraine will continue from the current situation, and whether a resolution will eventually be reached that all parties can accept. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukrainian Offensive Encircles Russian Forces, Echoes of Past Defeats
Ukraine Gives Kursk Residents a Clear Choice: Russia or Refuge
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare

Will Russia Test NATO's Article Five?

Member of the European Parliament, General Pekka Toveri, has considered the possibility in his latest blog post that Vladimir Putin might test NATO's reaction to an attack limited to one of its smaller member states.

In his writing, he called this possibility the "Narva scenario," where the Russian army would cross a border under some pretext - similar to the Mainila shots that started the Winter War with Finland - for example in the Estonian border, and threaten to use nuclear weapons if the Western military alliance acted according to Article Five to defend its member state.

In such a case, NATO would have two options. According to the first, "Washington, Paris, Berlin, and London would start shaking, thinking they can't go to nuclear war for the sake of one and a half million Estonians. This would be a huge victory for Putin, and the entire NATO would crumble."

The second - and much more likely - option would be that NATO would act according to Article Five and destroy the Russian attacking forces. In this case, Putin's bluff would be exposed - and he would not use a nuclear weapon. 

According to Toveri, "Putin might lose a couple of thousand soldiers, but so what? Over a hundred thousand have already been killed in Ukraine. It would not affect his power. The gains are so great that the risk is worth it."

Toveri's thought experiment is frightening because the Narva scenario puts every Russian-bordering NATO country at risk. Though Finland, due to its strong army, is unlikely to be targeted, the risk is real for the Baltic countries - Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Therefore, it would be important for NATO to show the Russian dictator already in Ukraine that it is not to be trifled with. And finally ensure that Ukrainians receive the weapons they need and the right to use them, so that the Russian military is unequivocally defeated in Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine can and will stop Putin
Finland and Western Europe: Effectively at War
The most effective Russian agent in the UK

The first casualty of war is the truth - but whose truth?

The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, has called on Israel to immediately cease strikes in the Rafah area. The reason is that they have hit a tent camp in the southern part of Gaza, killing dozens of people according to local (Palestinian?) authorities.

At first glance, the demand seems justified. But after Israel announced that it had carried out strikes on a target used by the terrorist organization Hamas in the area, and its armed forces stated that they were based on precise intelligence knowledge and used precision weapons, Borrell's demand requires further consideration.

If Israel's and its armed forces' claim holds true, the situation changes completely. In this case, the Palestinian fighters would have - once again - used civilians as human shields to succeed in their war. And if this is the case, we must ask what their responsibility is for the civilian casualties caused by the Israeli attack.

And consider what it would mean if we accepted such warfare, where one side is allowed to break all the rules of war, but we condemn the other, which is thus forced to act in a way that results in civilian casualties. Or giving an advantage to the one who wages war without caring about even its own civilian casualties.

Therefore, I believe that Borrell should have kept his mouth shut thus far. Or alternatively, he should have also called on Hamas to stop fighting from behind civilians and demanded the international court to condemn its actions.

In reality, no outsider knows what the truth is in this case. Nevertheless, we can certainly consider which side's information has proven to be more often correct. And which one has has been feeding lies.

However, in this matter too, the old saying applies, that the first casualty of war is the truth. Perhaps also in this case. But whose truth?

PS 21.39 Finnish time: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has admitted that the attack mentioned in my writing was a 'tragic mistake'. Thus, it seems that this time the truth did not get trampled by the war after all.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Norway and Ireland are awarding the terrorists a prize
Putin's understanding and the battle between the gods
During the Eurovision song spectacle, the incompetence of EU officials was revealed

Religious authority and the Iran strike on Israel

Ancient Persia was a powerful empire of its time, stretching from Macedonia and Libya all the way to the borders of India. In contrast, modern-day Iran is a backward theocracy led by religious fanatics, where the people - especially women - are subjected to the yoke of medieval religion.

In recent years, the country has witnessed an incomprehensible drama by Western standards, where women have refused to comply with the demands of the morality police, despite being raped, tortured, and killed in large numbers.

Undoubtedly, all of this has affected every Iranian in one way or another, polarizing society. For example, many Iranian opposition figures in exile have stated that the recent airstrikes by the ayatollahs on Israel do not have the support of the entire nation, even though they were in response to an Israeli operation in Syria that resulted in the deaths of three Iranian generals.

The Iranian strike itself had little military impact, as Israel's air defense successfully intercepted the hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles sent by Iranian and Yemeni Houthi forces. Reports do not mention any casualties from the strike, but they do note that some people were wounded - including one child victim.

It remains to be seen how Israel will respond to Iran's attack. At this stage, the only certainty is that the consequences are significantly more serious for the Persians than what was seen in Israel last night.

All of this could have been predicted well before Iran's attack. And so, it begs the question: why was the attack launched last night, even though the outcome was known to be dismal for the aggressor?

One possible explanation could be that, as a result of the violence faced by women, an increasingly large portion of Iran's population is fed up with the clerical regime. Consequently, the country's religious authorities have decided to exploit Israel's strike in Syria to foster national unity and sweep the discontent raised by human rights issues under the rug.

Using military action to overcome political difficulties is an old and tested method. The most famous example is, of course, Margaret Thatcher's initiation of the Falklands War, which boosted her political approval rating from 25 percent at the start of the war to 59 percent within a couple of months.

And let's not forget the unity of the Finns who had just fought a civil war only two decades earlier when the Winter War began with the Soviet Union's attack. Nor the Ukrainians coming together to resist the Russians after they violated the young state's independence.

If indeed the strengthening of leaders´ domestic political position is behind Iran's attack, it is a bold gamble. Even though the people will undoubtedly rally behind their leaders after Israel retaliates, the mullahs will find themselves in a precarious position after a losing war when searching for those responsible for the defeat.

And that - in the best-case scenario - may even lead to a revolution, resulting in Iran's transition from a theocratic regime to secular power. And Iranian female students may look quite different from what they do now.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The demands of the vandals
Ayatollahs in Iran demonstrated their ridiculousness
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

Desperate cry of Russians

The war between Russia and Ukraine is currently in an interesting phase. Russia has managed to advance on some fronts, but at the same time, it has suffered a significant loss of personnel.

According to a recent Finnish assessment, Russia has suffered tens of thousands of casualties, including both dead and wounded, on the Andrivka front, along with a substantial loss of military equipment. In addition to this, Ukrainians have successfully destroyed a large warship and five fighter jets.

At the same time, the Putin government is definitively losing credibility among Russian citizens, as only one in four Russians now believes in the news reported by media under its control. In contrast, Ukrainians' belief in the victory of their country remains high.

In this situation, Russia's large-scale missile attack on Ukrainian civilian targets is better understood as a sign of desperation rather than a show of strength. Therefore, it is even more crucial for Western countries to continue their military support to Ukraine so that the war achieves an inevitable outcome where Russia is forced to withdraw from Ukrainian soil, and its current administration is ousted through some form of coup.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish general praised the Ukrainian air strike
Is French military history repeating itself in Ukraine?
Victims of Russian leaders