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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine’s Situation Mirrors Finland in 1944

According to Pasi Paroinen, an analyst from the Finnish Black Bird Group, Ukraine's attack on Kursk has resulted in Russian forces advancing approximately ten kilometers in the Donetsk region. Therefore, Ukrainians should consider repositioning their troops from the Russian side to the Donetsk area.

This reminded me of Finland’s situation in 1944. At that time, the Finnish Army controlled vast areas north of Lake Ladoga in Russian East Karelia, and there was reluctance to relinquish these territories, as they were thought to have potential as bargaining chips in peace negotiations to end World War II.

As a result, Finland's military strength on the front south of Lake Ladoga—in the Karelian Isthmus—was left insufficient. This became evident when the Soviet Union launched a massive offensive from the direction of Leningrad (St. Petersburg) on June 9.

Consequently, Finland’s defensive lines quickly collapsed, and the Russians advanced about a hundred kilometers within ten days. Simultaneously, the Finns hastily shifted their forces from East Karelia to the area between Lake Ladoga and the Baltic sea.

With this repositioning—and support from the German air force—the Finns ultimately managed to halt the Soviet strategic offensive in the battles of Tali-Ihantala, Äyräpää-Vuosalmi, and the Bay of Viipuri. They even stopped the Red Army’s attack north of Lake Ladoga in the Battle of Ilomantsi, where the Soviets were eventually forced to retreat in panic.

As a result of these battles, Finland retained its independence and a Western societal structure after World War II, unlike other Soviet border states. By the 1970s, Finland had developed into a so-called welfare state, following the model of its western neighbor, Sweden.

So, it remains to be seen how the war in Ukraine will unfold. Hopefully, history will not repeat itself in such a way that the Russians advance in Donetsk as they did on the Karelian Isthmus in 1944. However, if history does repeat itself, Ukrainians must do as the Finns did in 1944: reposition their forces into new positions and decisively defeat the Russians.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine Plans to Recruit 160,000 Soldiers, but Will It Turn the Tide of the War?
Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?
Turning Points in the War in Ukraine and the West's Responsibility

Ukraine Plans to Recruit 160,000 Soldiers, but Will It Turn the Tide of the War?

In Finland, one common question surrounding the war between Ukraine and Russia has been why Ukraine has not declared a general mobilization, despite having too few men on the front lines. However, this perspective is somewhat too Finnish.

This is because mobilization is only useful if the summoned forces have received military training. In Finland, this is not a problem, as men are subject to universal conscription, and women can receive military training if they wish.

In Ukraine, however, there is no universal conscription, so a general mobilization alone would not be of any benefit. Instead, it would be wise for Ukrainians — and it would have been wise long ago — to start training both men and women as soldiers.

Secondly, soldiers need to have proper equipment to be effective. This has apparently not been the case for Ukraine, which is why mobilization has not been timely — nor have Ukrainians been hunters in the same way as Finnish soldiers during the Winter War, who were able to bring their own clothing and other "Model Cajander" supplies and, at least in the case of those in the Civil Guard, their own rifles.

* * *

However, the situation has now changed, as it was yesterday reported that Ukraine intends to expand its army by 160,000 soldiers. The recruitment of new soldiers is planned to take place over the next three months, and if successful, the recruits will apparently be given some form of military training and necessary equipment.

On paper, 160,000 soldiers is a considerable force. For comparison, the wartime strength of the Finnish army is 280,000 combatants, so Ukraine’s additional recruitment could potentially be equivalent to more than half of Finland’s wartime forces.

However, it remains to be seen whether recruitment will succeed. And if it does, what will the fighting capability of these new Ukrainian forces be?

In this regard, the composition of the forces is crucial — in other words, will Ukrainians succeed in recruiting motivated, fit, and healthy individuals, or more or less problematic ones? Secondly, it’s essential to remember that the quality of the training provided will significantly impact the forces' ability to carry out their assigned tasks.

Thirdly, it’s worth noting that even a well-prepared military unit is not fully ready before its first battle. It needs what is known as a successful baptism by fire, during which the soldiers overcome their natural fear and maintain their operational capability in a situation where the danger of death is immediate due to the enemy.

A fourth critical factor is equipping the recruited soldiers. That is, can Ukraine, in its current situation, ensure its forces’ weaponry and supply so that they can operate effectively under the enemy’s constant pressure? My esteemed reader might recall the Ukrainians’ past complaints about shortages of arms supplies.

If — and when — Ukraine successfully navigates all the challenges mentioned above, their decision may indeed lead to a significant shift in the battle situation. This could mean putting the Russian army on the defensive or even driving it into a cycle of defeat.

Of course, this is to be hoped for, but it’s still too early to jump to conclusions. We must wait and see how well Ukraine manages to strengthen its forces.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Western Countries Must Stay United Against the Russian Threat
Bad News for Vladimir Putin and His Imperialistic Dreams
General Pekka Toveri, the Chair of the European Parliament's Delegation for Ukraine

Turning Points in the War in Ukraine and the West's Responsibility

For a while, there was an interesting situation in the war in Ukraine: the Russians were advancing in the eastern parts of the country at the same time as Ukraine's offensive towards Kursk was making deeper inroads into Putin's realm. Although the latter operation has proven to be a success—and still is—the Russian advance towards the eastern Ukrainian transportation hub of Pokrovsk has been considered highly concerning from Ukraine's perspective.

Apparently, the Ukrainians share this concern, as they have transferred a small elite force to the area, which seems to have been able to halt the Russian advance with a counteroffensive—or even push them back. Time will tell whether the Russians will be able to continue their advance or if this was the end of it, at least for now.

Another piece of news from Ukraine concerns the new types of weapons that Zelensky's army has received. The first of these is a long-range missile/drone, soon to be followed by a ballistic missile. It remains to be seen how Ukraine will make use of these weapons.

The second new weapon in Ukraine's arsenal is a "dragon drone", capable of burning a long stretch of terrain by dropping incendiary materials onto the enemy like a flamethrower. One can only imagine what it must feel like for Russian soldiers in the trenches when attacked by such a device.

Of course, it remains to be seen what impact these new weapons systems will have on the course of the war. And at what point the Russians will develop their own dragon drone, turning the fight into an even more hellish experience for the Ukrainians.

* * *

The other question, of course, is how the war will progress. Right now, it seems that a quick resolution is not on the horizon, in either direction. And so, soldiers from both Russia and Ukraine will continue to be fed into the jaws of war—while Putin's army continues its terrorist attacks on civilian targets.

All in all, the war demonstrates to the entire world the absurdity of Russian imperialism, which is the cause of this idiotic conflict. The United States and the United Kingdom also have some soul-searching to do, as they, along with the Russians, convinced the Ukrainians during their independence that their sovereignty would be guaranteed even without nuclear weapons.

They have not done so but have instead allowed the Russians to freely practice their terrorist power politics towards Ukraine. They have shown that international agreements are worth little more than the paper—or nowadays, perhaps the computer memory—they are written on. This, to say the least, is shameful.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Role of Ukraine Aid in the Elections of Thuringia and Saxony, Germany
Turning Points in the War in Ukraine: New Threats and Unexpected Allies
Ukrainian Offensive Encircles Russian Forces, Echoes of Past Defeats