Estonia Needs Its Own Air Force

Finland’s Air Force’s operations outside the country’s borders are restricted — in peacetime — by national regulations according to which fighters do not — without a separate decision — fly in other states’ airspace. Now, however, Estonian politician Kalev Stoicescu has asked Finland to change its practices in this respect.

The background is that Estonia itself does not have a proper air force; the defence of its airspace is handled by fighters from other NATO countries stationed at the Ämari base. In the Baltic Sea area in particular, it may happen that Finnish fighters can react to Russian border violations more quickly than those departing from Ämari.

For Finland the problem is that we have a 1,340-kilometre border with Russia. That gives us more than enough to monitor — and, if necessary, to intercept — without expanding the area under surveillance to the south of the Gulf of Finland.

Therefore I am of the opinion that the Estonians would be better advised to consider establishing their own fighter fleet rather than asking the Finns for help. Of course that would be expensive, and the size of Estonia’s economy does not allow for funding a very large fleet, and so would not enable them, in a real crisis, to fend off the Russian Air Force on their own.

On the other hand, an Estonian squadron would not have to operate alone; it would rather complement the support the country already receives from NATO. Through this, Estonia’s defence of its airspace against intruders would also be substantially improved compared with the present.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland’s Response to Unauthorized Aircraft Entering Its Airspace
Russia’s Aging MiG Fleet vs. Finland’s Modern Air Power
Finns - Among the World’s Best

Kremlin’s Provocations Echo Pre-War Rhetoric on Ukraine

Vladimir Putin’s Russia once again tested Estonia’s air defense by sending fighter jets flying “dark” – that is, without transponders – toward Tallinn. However, the planes turned back after first Finnish and then Italian fighter jets appeared to meet them.

The details of the encounter have not been made public, so we do not know whether the mere appearance of NATO aircraft was enough to make the Russians retreat, or whether the jets had to make it clear in some way that they were serious—perhaps using some kind of signaling, or even weapons, to drive the message home.

In any case, this was the fourth such incident this year, so it cannot be dismissed as a navigational error. Rather, it was a deliberate action—and therefore a dangerous game that relies on the assumption that airspace violators will not be shot down.

* * *

The situation is, of course, extremely difficult for Estonia and for NATO’s defense as a whole. Previous airspace violations have lasted around a minute, but this time the incursion was stretched to four times that length. And as noted above, the course was set toward Tallinn.

The obvious question is whether NATO has agreed on some kind of threshold after which Russian fighters will be actively intercepted—that is, shot down, as happened recently with drones flying in Polish airspace.

Naturally, the threshold for such an action is very high, since downing aircraft would almost certainly trigger extreme military and political tension. At the same time, it is equally clear that Russian fighter jets flying dark and without permission cannot be allowed over Tallinn; they must be stopped in time, and by any means necessary if required.

* * *

It remains to be seen whether these Russian violations of Estonian airspace will continue and lengthen in the coming days and weeks—and whether they might extend into Finnish airspace as well, testing Finland’s readiness in the same way.

This possibility may be hinted at by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s claim that the Finnish government’s “façade of neutrality has fallen away,” and that a politics of retribution has “literally arisen” in our country. A similar goal also seems to be served by statements from Russia—apparently aimed at undermining Finnish unity—suggesting that Finland’s population is dissatisfied with the government, and that the absence of Russian tourists in eastern Finland has led to “population decline” and economic weakening in Southeast Finland.

According to the American think tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW), these narratives resemble the kind of rhetoric the Putin regime used to justify its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. That is why Finland’s—and NATO’s—communication toward Russia must be firm and unequivocal, making it clear that Russia has nothing to gain beyond its northwestern borders.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The War in Ukraine Came Close to Me
Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?
Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?

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

A Growing Sino-Russian Threat to the West

The war in Ukraine is increasingly dividing the industrialized world into two opposing camps. One consists of the Western nations, and the other of China and Russia. The latest sign of this division is the fact that the Chinese and Russian navies have begun joint exercises in the Sea of Japan.

The exercise, named Joint Sea 2025, began off the coast of the city of Vladivostok in Russia’s Far East. The drills include submarine rescue, anti-submarine warfare, air defense, and missile defense exercises. While China and Russia have conducted joint military drills before, there have also been significant disagreements between them in the past.

However, as Russia has become increasingly dependent on Chinese support due to the war in Ukraine, the cooperation has deepened. According to China's Ministry of Defense, the purpose of the newly launched exercises is to "further deepen the comprehensive strategic partnership."

This is something the West should take seriously. Although Russia has proven to be a paper tiger in conventional warfare in Ukraine, it remains the world’s second most powerful nuclear state. Furthermore, it's important to remember that China's actual military capability has not truly been tested since the Korean War—making it a significant unknown.

In solving this unknown, it's crucial to recognize that China has made giant leaps forward both technologically and economically. It would not be a major surprise if China’s military capability turned out to be strong enough to challenge even the United States.

All of this is one reason why the West must continue to develop its own military capabilities and technical proficiency. After all, it would be a major humanitarian catastrophe if the current, even partially free, world were to become subordinate to superpowers based on dictatorial authoritarianism.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Trump Jeopardizes NATO Progress
Warnings from Jussi Halla-aho and Igor Girkin About Europe's Near Future
The Free World Needs America’s Leadership Now

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

Russians in Finland Include Both Putin’s Supporters and Loyal Citizens

The European Parliament has affirmed the self-evident truth that Finland has the right to close its eastern border with Russia. This occurred because a representative of the pro-Russian Freedom Alliance party living in Finland—and, judging by the name, a Russian national—Alexey Bulavtsev, had appealed for the borders to remain open.

Naturally, this was an unnecessary bureaucratic twist, since Finland would have kept the border closed in any case—regardless of the EU Parliament’s decision. This is because it is the country’s legitimate right to defend itself against a military threat.

Nevertheless, the case is significant, as it demonstrates that there are individuals of Russian background in Finland who aspire to positions of power in society and who act on behalf of Vladimir Putin against the Finnish people. This is, of course, not beneficial for Finnish-Russians, many of whom are descendants of émigrés who fled to Finland during the Russian Revolution, or individuals who have escaped the current Russian regime and are well integrated into Finnish society.

Therefore, it is to be hoped that Bulavtsev’s actions will not be generalized to all people of Russian descent living in Finland, but that they too will be evaluated as individuals and as members of society. At the same time, care must be taken to ensure that Russian immigration does not, now or in the future, form a fifth column in Finland, should Russia, for any reason, challenge the country’s independence.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Expert Statement Highlights Russian Hybrid Threat Over Migration Across the Mediterranean
Human Rights Judge Pauliine Koskelo Questions Asylum Interpretation That Ignores the Threat of Hybrid Warfare
A Finnish MP Resigned After Straining Finland-Russia Relations

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

Newsom Rising, Unity Fading

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s chances of becoming the next President of the United States increased significantly after the current head of state, Donald Trump, decided to use tough measures to quell the riots in Los Angeles.

If—and when—this happens, it will mean a further deepening of the divide within the United States. This is because Newsom belongs to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and will likely face off against a Trump-aligned Republican. 

This does not bode well for the global superpower that has led the world for a long time, and which is increasingly being challenged by China economically, militarily, and politically. Nor is it good news for Western Europe, where people have, for far too long, operated under the assumption that the U.S. will selflessly take care of global security matters without EU countries investing in their own defense to the same extent.

That’s why it is important for Americans, after the Trump era, to succeed in finding more common ground rather than allowing politically opposed leaders to dig even deeper trenches between different segments of the population. And neither Newsom nor his potential Trumpist opponent is the right person to lead such a unifying process.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ego at the Altar
Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?
Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions

Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna has confirmed at the informal meeting of NATO foreign ministers that a Russian military aircraft – apparently a Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jet – violated Estonian airspace over the Gulf of Finland to protect an oil tanker sailing under the Gabonese flag, which was en route to the Russian port of Primorsk. The incursion occurred because Estonia attempted to stop this Russian shadow fleet tanker, as it was unflagged, uninsured, and listed under the UK sanctions regime.

According to Margus Tsahkna, the Russian Federation dispatched its fighter jet to monitor the situation, and it breached Estonian airspace for nearly a minute. “We must understand that the situation is extremely serious,” he emphasized.

The Estonian foreign minister stated that the incident is yet another piece of evidence that Russia poses a serious threat beyond Ukraine. Therefore, in his view, NATO must strengthen its deterrence and defense – especially in European member states.

* * *

This event was particularly interesting to me personally, as I happened to hear a loud bang yesterday while I was in a small house in the Finnish countryside – it sounded as if a cannon had been fired right next to me. I don’t know if that sound was connected to the incident over the Gulf of Finland, but I’m fairly certain it was a Finnish fighter jet flying faster than the speed of sound.

That led me to consider the possibility that the Finnish Air Force might have decided to intervene yesterday – although, as far as I know, this hasn’t been reported anywhere – to ensure that the Russian Su-35 pilot didn’t take any reckless actions. Of course, I don’t know if that’s the case, but the incident underlines the need for the countries around the Baltic Sea to intensify their cooperation in order to put an end to the business Russia is conducting through its shadow fleet.

At the same time, Estonia – at the very least – must invest more in its own defense, particularly in its naval and air capabilities, because Finland would not be able to assist its smaller neighbor if it were also under attack. However, in this case, it would – at least in principle – have been possible, and thus the sound I heard may well have been a sign of Finnish-Estonian military cooperation.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Russia’s War Rages On – And the World Keeps Funding It
Sabotage in the Baltic Sea Sparks Calls for New Maritime Borders
Finns - Among the World’s Best

Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

Good luck to Chancellor Friedrich Merz!

The coalition negotiations in Germany have been concluded, and as a result, the next Chancellor of the country will be Friedrich Merz from the Christian Democrats (CDU). His government is scheduled to begin its work in the early days of May. The coalition will include the CDU, CSU, and SPD, and with this, Merz sent a message to the President of the United States, stating that "Germany is back on track."

Naturally, the government's effectiveness remains to be seen, but it will certainly not be helped by the fact that Germany's economic growth is expected to slow to almost zero in the near future. On the other hand — as we have all noticed — at least the trade war between the US and the EU, previously threatened by Donald Trump, has for now been called off by both sides.

According to Merz, the incoming government plans to significantly increase the country's defense spending and will also provide comprehensive support for Ukraine.

Domestically, the government faces pressure from the AfD, whose support has recently risen to match that of the CDU/CSU according to the latest polls. 

However, it remains to be seen how the government's policies, especially its program described as critical of immigration, will affect the popularity of different parties in the coming years.

What is clear, however, is that for the EU, the success of Merz’s government in both domestic and foreign policy would be important. Therefore, it is only fitting to wish him success in his new role.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
What will post-migration Europe look like in the future?
Will Tomorrow’s Elections in Germany Be a Turning Point?
Afghan's Rampage in Germany Signals the End of the Value-Liberal Era in the EU

Finland's Stance on NATO Defense Spending Is Linked to the Geopolitical Threat from Russia

Finnish Minister of Finance Riikka Purra (Finns Party) suggested today that the defense spending target for the military alliance NATO will be raised to three or even 3.5 percent of the member countries' gross domestic product. Such an increase would be quite high, as many European NATO countries have not previously reached the current two percent target.

However, Finland appears to be ready for such an increase, provided that the decisions are made in a way that the allocated funds are specifically directed towards enhancing the country’s military capability and addressing threats against Finland, as well as fulfilling identified defensive needs.

In practice, the Finnish military currently has the greatest needs in the development of ground forces, so investments will initially focus on that area. This is because Finland has recently or is currently investing heavily in both naval and air forces.

However, the extent of the military threat against Finland remains unknown, as it depends on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. If the outcome is such that Russia can interpret its aggression as having achieved any form of victory, the risk to Finland increases in proportion to the certainty of Russian military achievements.

For this reason, it is not in Finland's interest to support a resolution that would, for example, limit Ukraine's sovereignty, involve territorial concessions, or restrict its military capabilities. Unfortunately, it seems that such elements are included in President Donald Trump's plan for a ceasefire and permanent peace. Even more clearly, these elements are present in the demands that Vladimir Putin has set as conditions for his involvement.

Unfortunately, at the moment, it seems that Trump does not understand — or care — about the consequences of such peace for Russia’s neighboring states. Nor do European countries, due to their previous neglect of defense, possess the military strength to offer Ukraine an alternative or to pressure Russia to withdraw from Ukraine.

Therefore, the current phase of the peace process in Ukraine appears outright threatening to both Finland and other neighboring states of Russia. On the other hand, it ensures that the citizens of these countries have a strong will to enhance and strengthen their military defense capability.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Now It's Putin's Turn to Show His Hand
Shifting U.S. Foreign Policy Sparks Concerns in Estonia
Trump's Indecision Benefits Putin – Deadly Consequences for Ukraine

Peacekeepers in Ukraine: A Rational Move After All?

It seems that deploying peacekeepers to Ukraine might actually be a reasonable course of action. This is because Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has expressed his frustration over the UK and France’s proposal to send NATO peacekeepers after a peace agreement is reached in Ukraine.

According to Lavrov, the deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine is completely unacceptable, as it would only escalate the war that Russia itself initiated. As if Putin’s army weren’t already doing everything in its power to win the war.

Meanwhile, Finland’s Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen announced that Finland is launching a new support program for Ukraine, focusing on domestic defense industry orders. The first decision involves a €660 million funding package, based on Ukraine’s critical needs, the suitability of products for transfer, and the production and delivery capacity of companies.

The equipment will be delivered to Ukraine as part of future military aid packages. According to Häkkänen, Finland’s defense sector will be modernized over the next 10 years, including the development of entirely new products.

It remains to be seen what Lavrov thinks about these plans. Or will he stay silent and hope that Russia doesn’t have to revert to 1950s technology in warfare?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
President of Finland Asked Whether There Are Top Politicians With Serious Intellectual Limitations
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine
Putin Set a Goal — Failure Would Be an Embarrassment

Trump’s America: Criminal or Benefactor?

The American Republican Senator Lindsey Graham raised the question of why Ukrainians should consider allowing Americans access to their natural resources. According to him, "a mineral agreement would secure American business interests. Putin does not understand what will happen if the agreement is signed. He is in trouble because Trump supports the deal—he defends the interests of the USA."

In other words, in its difficult situation, Ukraine could trade its mineral resources for the United States’ commitment to defending the country against the Russians now and in the future. The idea is undeniably interesting.

On the other hand, the idea can also be interpreted—and this is the general perception in Europe—as the Trump administration blackmailing Ukraine into giving up its natural resources in exchange for American support. Put differently, this would mean acting according to the principles of organized crime.

In fact, I feel that both interpretations reflect reality. That is, the Trump administration is indeed pressuring the Ukrainians, but at the same time, it sincerely believes that the U.S. has no obligation to sacrifice its resources—let alone its soldiers—to save a European state without receiving something in return.

Which side weighs more heavily in Trump's thinking remains known only to him. However, Europeans should take a hard look in the mirror and recognize that they—yes, they, basking in their own self-righteousness—have neglected their own defense. As a result, in 2014 and 2022, they were too weak to act as a deterrent against Vladimir Putin’s power politics—and even weaker in turning the war in Ukraine’s favor.

In practical terms, this means that European security policy must be completely rethought. Instead of EU countries trying to shirk their NATO expenses, they must now take the lead in demanding strict compliance. At the same time, they must ensure that each state increases its military capabilities to meet the requirements necessary to keep Putin and future Russian dictators in check.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Europe Needs More Money—and More Will—to Defend Itself
Finland Shifts Stance on EU Joint Debt Amid Growing Defense and Ukraine Support Needs
Finland and the USA: Strong Allies with Shared Interests or a Trade Dispute?

Europe Needs More Money—and More Will—to Defend Itself

The countries of Western Europe assumed that the collapse of the Soviet Union had made national defense unnecessary. However, the events in Ukraine have clearly shown that this assumption was, at best, naïve—if not outright foolish.

Recently, the issue has been brought back into focus, first by Donald Trump, who has demanded that NATO’s European members allocate as much as five percent of their GDP to defense. Yesterday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also weighed in, stating that European NATO countries must significantly increase their defense spending.

Trump and Rutte are, of course, right in their demands, but meeting them is difficult for most Western European nations. According to the annual report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), these targets are particularly challenging for countries whose economies are already struggling.

The least capable of meeting these demands are, naturally, those countries whose economies are not growing at all. Based on GDP figures, these include Moldova, Latvia, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Germany, and Austria. Additionally, economic growth has been extremely weak—below one percent—in Hungary, Italy, Finland, France, and the United Kingdom.

The fact remains that Europeans must recognize Russia as a lasting threat to Europe's security, even if it is currently tied up in Ukraine. Therefore, despite economic difficulties, they should find ways to strengthen their defense capabilities.

Many countries have, of course, already acknowledged this, as evidenced by the fact that the combined defense spending of EU nations increased by 30 percent between 2021 and 2024. Unfortunately, the starting level was so low that even a significant percentage increase has not yet led to a substantial improvement in military security. This is why, especially in the EU’s most strategically important large member states—Germany, France, and Italy—as well as in the United Kingdom, defense budgets must be increased rapidly, as both Trump and Rutte have demanded.

* * *

In addition to weapons, a strong will to defend one's country is also essential. In this regard, it was alarming to see that only one in ten Britons aged 18–27 would be willing to risk their life to defend their country in a war—while 41 percent would not be willing to defend it with arms under any circumstances.

This stands in stark contrast to Finland, where 79 percent of people believe that the country must be defended militarily in all situations—even if the outcome appears uncertain.

If the situation in other European countries is similar to that in Britain, politicians must recognize that perhaps their most important task is to change it. Otherwise, Europe will eventually become nothing more than an easy prey for imperialist Russia—and perhaps even China.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin, Trump, and the Prospect of Peace
Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?
Western Countries Must Stay United Against the Russian Threat

Finland Shifts Stance on EU Joint Debt Amid Growing Defense and Ukraine Support Needs

As the United States grapples with the turbulence following the rise of a new administration, the European Union's role in supporting Ukraine is becoming increasingly significant. For this reason, the Finnish government is shifting its stance on EU joint debt, becoming more favorable toward it—provided it is used specifically for aiding Ukraine and strengthening collective defense.

As a sign of this shift, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party) reiterated this position on Monday upon arriving at an informal EU defense meeting in Brussels. According to him, the guiding principle of joint debt should be that investments in defense must be based on necessity and threat assessments.

To clarify his stance, he stated that “those funds should be used where Europe is being defended. In that case, Finland must clearly be among the beneficiaries.”

Additionally, Finland, along with nearly all EU member states, proposed that the European Investment Bank (EIB) should increase its financing for the European defense industry. In practice, this would mean reassessing the EIB's so-called "excluded sectors" list to align with the EU's current political priorities. This adjustment would allow the EIB to finance traditional defense industries in the future.

One point of contention has also been where defense procurements should be made. As always, France—keen to favor its domestic industry—wants EU defense acquisitions funded by joint resources to be sourced from European markets.

However, Finland’s prime minister noted that Europe’s defense needs are so vast that there will be enough demand to support both France’s and Finland’s defense industries. Furthermore, he emphasized that it would neither be reasonable nor even possible for the EU to detach itself from the United States, given that American defense systems are highly advanced and will continue to be necessary.

It remains to be seen whether Orpo’s well-argued positions will gain traction within the Union. At present, Hungary and Austria oppose them, and many other countries—such as France—are waiting for more details before taking a final stance.

That said, Europe does not have the luxury of time. Decisions must be made immediately regarding Ukraine and, as soon as possible, to enhance the EU’s overall defense readiness. At the same time, efforts must be made to prevent the trade war threatened by Donald Trump from disrupting transatlantic economic and technological cooperation—or, more critically, NATO’s ability to operate effectively wherever necessary.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland and the USA: Strong Allies with Shared Interests or a Trade Dispute?
Finnish Minister Riikka Purra: “Putin Is a War Criminal, an Aggressive Imperialist”
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization

Finnish Minister Riikka Purra: “Putin Is a War Criminal, an Aggressive Imperialist”

In Finland, there is an almost brutally realistic Minister of Finance, Riikka Purra (Finns Party), who has taken on the task of cutting state expenditures to align with revenues. She has faced opposition, particularly from the left side of the political spectrum, and the press has heavily targeted her and her party. However, this has not led to any shift in the government’s political direction.

In a recent interview, Minister Purra also characterized Russia and Putin’s regime. True to her straightforward style, she did so in no uncertain terms.

According to her, “It’s probably quite clear what everyone thinks about Putin. He is a war criminal, an aggressive imperialist.”

She described the recent events of the war in Ukraine by saying, “Even the most recent images and videos of Russia’s massive attacks, not only on cities but also on energy facilities, are utterly horrifying. Of course, we hope that peace can be achieved as soon as possible, but in this case, it’s not that simple because peace must also be acceptable.”

She also stated that “especially in this situation, stronger preparedness and investment in defense are essential.” And therefore, “since there is no money lying around unused anywhere, there are essentially two options: take on more debt or prioritize — that is, elevate defense and security above some other area of policy. I support this prioritization.”

It is to be hoped that, by the end of this government’s term, Riikka Purra and the rest of the Finnish government will receive gratitude from the public for their steadfast actions. And that after the 2027 elections, they will be able to form a new government that takes care of both the country’s security and — as the national economy stabilizes thanks to the current government’s efforts — leads Finland into sustainable economic growth for the first time since 2008.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland’s Minister of Finance Believes Not All Cultures Are Equally Good
Will Orpo's Government Restore Finland to Sustainable Economic Growth?
Balancing the Books

Israel’s Strike on Iran: Ripple Effects for the Middle East, Russia, and Global Stability

Israel apparently destroyed virtually the entire Iranian air defense system in an attack about a month ago. At the same time, Iran's military capability proved to be a paper tiger, unable to compete in the same arena as technologically superior Western countries. This fact might have intriguing consequences.

The first of these relates to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has unsettled Tehran after the attack by releasing two video messages urging the Iranian people to rise up against the country’s Islamist regime. This raises the question of whether the regime’s time has come to an end.

This view is supported by the fact that the fall of the government would be an excellent outcome for almost all Iranians, and especially for women. However, the Islamists hold power and with it the means to continue terrorizing their citizens far into the future.

Thus, a revolution would require both unity and courage from Iranians, but it would not be impossible. The West could, of course, assist if necessary, but I fear that the memory of the failed 1980 Operation Eagle Claw strongly discourages interference in Iran’s affairs.

Therefore, I sadly suspect that Iran’s regime will not fall for a long time. And women will continue to long in vain for their human rights.

The second consequence of Israel's attack concerns Russia. Iran's air defense has been based on Russian systems, which proved ineffective against Western equipment. This might influence Putin’s policy toward the West or the war in Ukraine.

In other words, the attack will undoubtedly increase the caution of Putin's regime in relation to the West. This, in turn, reduces the risk that - as a result of Western arms systems being supplied to Ukraine - Russia would escalate by deploying weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, this dynamic is unlikely to work in both directions. Despite recognizing the inadequacy of Russian weaponry, the West is unlikely to decide to end the war by providing Ukraine with the kind of military power that would neutralize Russian missile and air strikes. For this reason, the bloodshed in Ukraine will continue, at least until the new U.S. President Donald Trump begins advancing his promised peace deal.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
It Is Time for Vladimir Putin to Acknowledge the Facts and Do Dmitry Medvedev a Favor
Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?
A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women

The Green Movement is Withering – And That’s Not a Bad Thing

The Green movement has gained strength since the 1970s in many countries. At the same time, it has transformed from an environmental movement that defied the traditional left-right classification into a broadly left-wing radical movement.

In many countries, this development has led to a decline in support for Green parties. For example, in Finland, the party reached its peak popularity in August 2017, with as much as 17% of eligible voters backing it. Today, however, its support has dropped to just 8%.

This has resulted in the rise of less left-leaning figures within the party, who continue to advocate for environmental issues but are more cautious toward far-left ideologies. An example of this is when three Green politicians – including the party's relatively new chairperson – proposed investing in Finland's defense industry.

This immediately sparked a backlash, casting doubt on the party's future. The Green youth organization declared that the defense industry does not represent Green values or "jointly agreed" policies.

The chair of the youth organization further stated that "sustainable, just, feminist, and human rights-based foreign policy is the core of Green security policy. Therefore, we are deeply disappointed with the party leadership's statement and do not support it."

Since the future of established parties – such as the Finnish Greens – is always reflected in their youth organizations, it seems that the fate of Finland's environmental movement will be to wither away along with other far-left movements. This is not a bad outcome for ordinary Finns or even for the environment.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are Finns pragmatic and practical people?
Finnish Society Adopts Medieval Characteristics
The Green Movement of Finland is Lost

From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization

Russia has advanced in Ukraine's Donetsk region and may achieve a breakthrough there. However, former Finnish Defense Forces Commander and current Member of Parliament Jarmo Lindberg (National Coalition Party) reminded us that the front line is long and not immediately collapsing.

According to Lindberg, the Kursk region might become a burden for Ukraine as it ties down troops away from other areas of the front. Additionally, "North Korean fighters have reportedly joined the battles in the Kursk region."

Therefore, it remains to be seen what will happen in the war in Ukraine during the coming winter. However, it is important to note that it does not solely depend on the warring parties but also on what Western countries do to help the Ukrainians—or whether they do anything at all.

* * *

The Finnish Officers’ Union conducted a survey among professional soldiers on the war in Ukraine. According to the results, 67% of respondents considered Finland's support sufficient, while 28% would even support increasing military aid. One respondent suggested giving Ukraine Finland's soon-to-be-retired F-18 Hornet jets—but this would require extensive maintenance costing tens of millions of euros, as the jets will be fully decommissioned in the coming years.

One of the survey respondents summarized most Finns' perception of the war, saying, "Europe is being defended in Ukraine. Finland is the only European country prepared for large-scale warfare. The longer the war in Ukraine lasts, the longer it delays Russia’s resurgence… Ukraine’s success against Russia is an existential issue for Finland’s security."

Many professional soldiers also emphasized that donations should not compromise Finland's own defense capabilities. One noted, "Finland has provided outsized assistance to Ukraine, considering we are a frontline country relative to Russia."

Furthermore, 91% of Finnish soldiers agreed, at least to some extent, that Ukraine should be allowed to use long-range Western weapons to target sites deep within Russia. They do not understand why Ukraine must fight by different rules due to political caution.

One respondent questioned, "Russia constantly commits war crimes by destroying civilian targets. Ukraine is not even allowed to strike military targets." Another remarked, "Russia uses foreign weapons against Ukraine in the same way. Russia cannot be countered with one hand tied behind Ukraine's back."

* * *

These views should ideally be shared in Germany, where Chancellor Olaf Scholz has opposed Ukraine’s potential NATO membership. Scholz also displayed an embarrassing lack of understanding of Finland’s post-World War II position.

Scholz has stated that "Ukraine should adopt a ‘neutral’ position, as Finland did for decades." My homeland Finland was indeed forced into official neutrality after World War II, but it retained a Western societal structure and prepared as best it could for a possible war against the Soviet Union.

The so-called friendship between Finland and the Soviet Union was a grand theater, which did not shy away from suppressing freedom of speech or smearing rivals in internal politics. This was obvious to me, even as a teenager.

Also, the falsehood of Finland’s neutrality was clear to me decades ago while doing military service in my 20s, during which it was evident that the skills we were learning were meant to counter a potential attack by the Eastern superpower. Never—not even once—did it occur to us that Western countries could pose a threat to Finland.

Unfortunately, starting in the mid-1950s, Finnish politicians rose to power who played the so-called "Moscow card" to exploit Finland’s vulnerable position for personal and party advantage in domestic politics. The most well-known was President Kekkonen, who remained in power for 25 years with Soviet support, only stepping down after becoming completely senile.

So I expect that Germans, too, will help Ukraine in its fight for independence. If they don’t, I consider them cowards. Furthermore, Chancellor Scholz himself should ensure that he understands what he’s talking about before making foolish statements.

Finally, it would be great if this text somehow ended up being read by as many Germans as possible.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Social Democrats of Germany Supporting Putin
Finns Feel Sympathy for Ukrainians Because They Share a Similar Experience
History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine