The Poor Can't Afford to Buy Second-best

The defense industry of my home country produces high-quality equipment. For example, the future standard firearms for Finnish and Swedish soldiers are expected to be based on the entirely new Sako M23 system, covering everything from assault rifles to precision weapons. When it comes to troop transport, one of the best options already available is the 6x6 armored personnel carrier, considered the best in the world and recently sold, for example, to Germany.

Still, it is clear that a country the size of Finland cannot rely solely on domestically produced weapons systems. It also needs weaponry manufactured elsewhere. Therefore, attention must be turned toward systems regarded as the best in the world in each category.

In this regard, it is significant that the Israeli Defense Forces have recently demonstrated their effectiveness in Syria, Iran, Gaza, and Lebanon. Following these displays, there can be no doubt that the armed forces of the Jewish state possess top-tier weapons systems.

This applies to both imported and domestically produced military equipment. That, in turn, means that Finland—located right next to Russia—is extremely interested in such systems. However, the security-policy-irresponsible left, which sympathizes with the Palestinians, has taken a stance against this.

The most controversial case has been the Israeli-made David’s Sling, a high-altitude air defense missile system. Its necessity has been recently demonstrated by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Given that Finland has a vastly larger and extremely dangerous neighbor, only the best available equipment should be considered for procurement—and David’s Sling systems have indeed already been ordered.

Finland is also renewing its navy, and for that purpose, both new and older vessels are being equipped with Gabriel surface-to-surface missiles from Israel. Additionally, counter-battery radars were acquired, as their necessity became apparent early on in the war in Ukraine.

Beyond these, the Finnish Defence Forces use a range of Israeli-made weapons, including Spike anti-tank and coastal missiles, Orbiter 2 mini-drones, and communication and information systems. When you're poor, you can't afford to buy second-best.

Of course, one can only hope that none of the aforementioned weapons—or others, such as the recently ordered F-35 fighters or Leopard tanks—will ever need to be used. If that turns out to be the case, it will demonstrate that a top-tier army equipped with the best weapons available is a sufficient deterrent even against an imperialist like Vladimir Putin. One would hope that this is also understood by the political left, who are still dreaming of their own fantasy world where all nations are happy and friendly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
From Finnish Neutrality to Russian Ruins
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine
Russia to Triple Its Military Presence on Finland’s Border

Why the Soviet Union Failed to Break Finland—And Why Russia Won’t Succeed Today

A Finnish officer shared his experiences as a Finnish soldier among NATO colleagues. The perspectives are subjective, of course, but they also align closely with my own understanding of what it means to be Finnish—yet they remain flattering.

“We have a solution-oriented, open-minded approach to work.” Finns are best known for their directness. “We don’t get stuck in the details—we push toward the goal, even if we have limited information. That’s a skill that’s appreciated here.”

“We’ve adopted a model of deep leadership. It’s based on trust and mutual respect—not just issuing orders... Many people told me that the Finnish style is exceptionally effective. And when we demonstrate that it works even under pressure and time constraints, it leaves a lasting impression.”

Norwegian Rear Admiral (ret.) Hans Helseth, for his part, described Finnish officers as “open, courageous, and intelligent. They made an enormous impression right away.”

* * *

Let’s hope his observations are read in Putin’s Russia as well. And through that, maybe there will be an understanding of why the great power Soviet Union failed to conquer Finland—then a nation of fewer than four million people—during World War II. This was especially evident in the last major battle at Ilomantsi, where Russian forces fled in disarray, leaving the Finns with considerable spoils of war.

The conquest of Finland didn’t succeed—as it did in Germany or Japan—even though Stalin tried twice. And it certainly won’t succeed now, with Finland backed by the world’s most powerful defense alliance: NATO.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"
Russia to Triple Its Military Presence on Finland’s Border
No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors

Warnings from Jussi Halla-aho and Igor Girkin About Europe's Near Future

The Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho, stated at the Conference of EU Parliament Speakers in Budapest that Europe's biggest and most urgent challenge is to learn from the mistakes made after the Cold War, as Russia poses an immediate threat to European security.

He noted that it is not enough for us to rebuild our own defense and help the Ukrainians—nor is it even enough that Russia’s neighboring countries do their part. Instead, the major EU countries must do more.

At the same time, he reminded that those countries which benefited from European solidarity during the financial crisis, the migration crisis, and the COVID crisis must now show similar solidarity towards the EU's and NATO’s eastern border states. Only in this way can Europe survive future crises.

Speaker Halla-aho also recalled the serious mistakes made over recent decades, stating that "many European countries built their economies on cheap Russian gas and oil, ignoring the risks and warnings. Most European countries dismantled their defense capabilities, believing that traditional military threats were a thing of the past and that the United States would endlessly pay for our security. Moreover, the whole of Europe is dependent on China—from raw materials to industrial production."

Much needs to be corrected now, just as Russia and Ukraine are—perhaps—expected to sit at the negotiating table in Turkey to make peace. More precisely, a peace that would allow the Russians to prepare for their next imperialist strike against Europe—very much in line with the precedent set by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

* * *

Of course, peace in Ukraine is not yet certain, but that does not change the fact that European leaders would do well to listen carefully to Jussi Halla-aho, who has time and again been right in his assessments. This also applies to immigration from developing countries into the EU.

That is why he reminded politicians and the press—also in Budapest—that "instead of panicking over President Donald Trump or similar movements in Europe, we should understand that more and more ordinary citizens are voting for them for a reason. People have genuine and legitimate concerns about the changes happening around them. Mass immigration from third countries is probably the most significant of these concerns."

He also reminded that well-off people—such as politicians—are more or less shielded from the negative effects of immigration, such as violent crime and the segregation of schools and residential areas. Less affluent people, on the other hand, experience these effects, according to Halla-aho, "in their everyday lives."

As a result, societies in EU countries are becoming polarized and fragmented, so "we must ensure that citizens feel their voices are heard and that their hopes, fears, and concerns are taken seriously."

It remains to be seen how carefully and seriously the speakers of EU member states listened to Halla-aho’s remarks—and whether they will pass on what they heard to their national governments for action. They certainly should, because—as I said at the beginning—Halla-aho’s views have repeatedly proven correct, and I do not doubt that the same will be true for the points made above.

* * *

Finally, I want to inform you, dear readers, that Russian FSB Colonel Igor Girkin has predicted that Ukraine will gain the upper hand in the war this summer. According to him, "the Ukrainian Armed Forces have gathered reserves, while the Russian Armed Forces have exhausted their capabilities... The next Ukrainian assault could begin at any moment."

Girkin also does not rule out the possibility that the upcoming Ukrainian offensive could result in major territorial losses for Russia. That is yet another reason why major EU countries must now take Ukraine’s military assistance seriously—so that Girkin’s prediction may come true, and Europe's security situation could improve, at least for a time.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Diplomacy Without Rituals: What Awaits as Finland’s Speaker Halla-aho Visits China?
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
A Finnish MP Resigned After Straining Finland-Russia Relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable Achievements of Donald Trump's Foreign Policy

Donald Trump's foreign policy has led to questionable achievements. One of them relates to Finland: according to a survey conducted by the country's largest newspaper, nearly half of Finns do not believe that the U.S. would defend Finland in the event of a Russian attack.

This is despite the fact that Finland is a member of NATO and has a bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement with the U.S., both of which obligate Trump to act in a real-life situation. Additionally, Finland has met NATO's requirement of allocating more than two percent of its GDP to defense spending.

Moreover, American troops have actively trained in winter warfare in Finland. For instance, during the recently concluded Arctic Forge exercise, Lieutenant Colonel Dan Ludwig, who led the American soldiers, stated that the exercise had improved his troops' Arctic combat readiness to such an extent that it would be great to continue training in Finnish Lapland in the future.

* * *

Given that NATO allies' faith in the U.S.'s adherence to agreements in a crisis situation has weakened in this manner, one can only hope that Trump's foreign policy regarding Ukraine proves effective. In other words, that the war would end with a peace that Ukrainians can genuinely accept, and that the Russians would not be left with the impression that they could gain any advantages through aggression against neighboring countries.

At this very moment, it is clear that Putin is not yielding to Trump's will. Therefore, the U.S. president should make the Russian counterpart an offer he cannot refuse.

After all, he previously made such an offer to Ukraine, which understood the situation and complied with Trump's conditions. It would be truly strange if the U.S. demanded greater submission from a friendly nation like Ukraine than from an openly hostile and imperialistic Russia.

* * *

Just a while ago, President Trump wrote on social media: "We had very good and productive discussions with President Vladimir Putin of Russia yesterday, and there is a very good chance that this horrible, bloody war can finally come to an end — BUT, AT THIS VERY MOMENT, THOUSANDS OF UKRAINIAN TROOPS ARE COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY THE RUSSIAN MILITARY, AND IN A VERY BAD AND VULNERABLE POSITION. I have strongly requested to President Putin that their lives be spared. This would be a horrible massacre, one not seen since World War II. God bless them all!!!"

This does not sound very promising to me. Therefore, I regret to point out that failure in dealing with Russia would fuel suspicions that President Putin somehow possesses the means to force his American counterpart to prioritize Russia's interests in all actions. This is a message no one would want to hear — at least not outside Russia and its satellite states.

Postscript: "The White House has just announced that Trump did not speak with Putin yesterday."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland's Stance on NATO Defense Spending Is Linked to the Geopolitical Threat from Russia
Now It's Putin's Turn to Show His Hand
Trump's Indecision Benefits Putin – Deadly Consequences for Ukraine

Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, told that he supports British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s initiatives for a new ceasefire plan in Ukraine. According to the president, Europe currently needs leadership, which Starmer is demonstrating.

Stubb also stated that the winner of Friday’s meeting between Trump, Vance, and Zelensky was Vladimir Putin. However, despite this, the relationship between the United States and Europe remains strong.

For this reason, he urged people to stay calm in a very Finnish way—by advising them to take deep breaths, have a cold plunge, go to the sauna, and think things through. He also promised to return to the matter later.

Beyond that, Stubb did not wish to give instructions to Volodymyr Zelensky either. Instead, Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (NCP) stated that all European countries must strengthen their defense capabilities to the maximum extent, with the goal of being able to defend themselves independently within ten years.

He also noted that Europe is unlikely to reach consensus on this matter, so responsible nations must be ready to make joint decisions—even without those who are unwilling to participate.

It remains to be seen whether Europe will succeed in finding its footing in this changing situation, where military security must also be considered alongside the challenges posed by weak economic growth and internal security. A positive signal in this regard, however, is that the European Commission has just decided to reduce internal EU bureaucracy and regulations to enable economic growth.

To me, it is clear that none of the above issues will be hindered by Finland’s current leadership. That is why it would be beneficial for progress to be made quickly, as democracy may once again bring forth political movements or other leaders whose understanding does not always suffice to recognize facts—let alone act accordingly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Political Rhetoric Like Trump-Zelenskyi’s Has Deep Historical Roots
President of Finland Asked Whether There Are Top Politicians With Serious Intellectual Limitations
Finland and the USA: Strong Allies with Shared Interests or a Trade Dispute?

Russia to Triple Its Military Presence on Finland’s Border

According to a report by Finnish military intelligence, Russia is set to triple the number of its troops stationed near Finland’s borders after the war in Ukraine ends. It is doing so because Putin’s military prioritizes its northwestern direction – essentially the area near Finland – highly in its strategic considerations.

The military intelligence assessment suggests that the number of Russian troops in the region will increase from around 30,000 combatants to an estimated 80,000 soldiers. At the same time, Russia’s behavior is “likely to become increasingly unpredictable” as Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has severed Russia’s ties with the global economy.

As a result of all this, the border region between Finland and Russia will become “tense.” Naturally, this poses a significant challenge – and risk – to Finnish society as a whole and its independence.

For this reason, it is good that Finland’s Defense Forces have been working to integrate into NATO as quickly as possible, enabling Finland to rely on NATO’s support when necessary and to fully utilize its resources. It would also be beneficial if this were understood in Russia so that they would refrain from any aggression along their northwestern border.

This would also be in Russia’s own interest, as it is clear that its army would face significant challenges in an attack on Finland, especially given the difficulties it has already faced in Ukraine. Finland’s military is far better equipped than Ukraine’s, the size of its reserves is exceptionally high due to compulsory military service, the Finnish people’s will to defend their country is the highest in the world, and all of this is backed by the United States-led world’s strongest military alliance.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors
Ukraine Plans to Recruit 160,000 Soldiers, but Will It Turn the Tide of the War?
Finnish military intelligence: the Russian army is at the limits of its operational capability

No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors

Russia’s attack on Ukraine has raised concerns among European nations. As a result, they are striving to rapidly enhance their defensive capabilities.

The latest news concerns Sweden, which has ordered 44 new Leopard 2A8 tanks from Germany. In addition to purchasing new tanks, the Swedish Armed Forces have agreed to modernize approximately 70 tanks that have been in service since the 1990s.

These numbers can be compared to the Finnish Defence Forces’ equivalent arsenal. Finland’s inventory consists of 100 Leopard 2A6 and 139 Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks, as well as 102 CV9030 and 110 BMP2 infantry fighting vehicles. In other words, this new investment is a significant boost to the combat capability of the Nordic countries and NATO.

Another recent development involved Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda, who proposed that the country allocate at least 5.5% of its GDP to defense in the future. Even with this increase, Lithuania would still spend less than five billion euros on its military preparations, compared to Russia’s defense budget of a staggering 122 billion euros.

Purchasing weapons is not enough; they must also be used effectively. That’s why it was welcome news that the Finnish Air Force is sending four F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets and 50 soldiers to Iceland to monitor its airspace. This allows Finland to develop its cooperation with NATO and ensure its capability to deploy a fighter detachment to an allied nation’s base if needed.

These actions have undoubtedly been noticed in Putin’s Russia. However, it remains unclear how they will respond. Will they resort to reckless countermeasures? Or will they finally acknowledge that Russia poses no real threat to NATO?

Unfortunately, it seems that the military objective of Vladimir Putin’s regime, even in Ukraine, is not to win the war, but to divert the public’s attention from the activities and failures of his administration. This is why it is absolutely crucial that neither Putin nor his successors see any so-called low-hanging fruit in neighboring countries—targets that might appear easy to seize.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?
Message from Finland's President to Vladimir Putin
Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?

Finland Must Avoid Ukraine’s Fate

The Commander of the Finnish Defence Forces, General Janne Jaakkola, reminded us Finns that we must never find ourselves in the same situation as Ukraine is in right now. In other words, we should avoid having to repel a full-scale Russian attack as an underdog, where losses in personnel and equipment do not matter.

He also emphasized that the structures of Finnish society must be such that Russia cannot influence the country’s population or infrastructure, even in a wartime scenario. This view has certainly been noted by the current government, as well as by the opposition, and it will not go without impact.

Finland’s defense naturally relies on the strong will of its citizens to defend the country, on high-performance equipment, as well as on the bilateral defense agreement (DCA) signed with the United States and the security guarantees provided by NATO membership. In relation to the latter – according to the Commander of the Defence Forces – discussions are currently underway regarding the nationalities and composition of the forces to be stationed in Finland.

The general also stated that Russia does not pose an immediate military threat to Finland at the moment. However, he expressed concern that we do not have a clear understanding of Russia’s future intentions in Finland or elsewhere.

This is also understood by ordinary Finns, as NATO is, according to a recent survey, the fourth most trusted institution in Finland, following the Defence Forces, the police, and the education system. This reflects the fact that living next to an irresponsible great power helps Finns prioritize things – and security can only come first in this regard.

In relation to what I’ve written above, I’ve sometimes had to answer questions about why the Finnish will to defend is exceptionally high. I believe it largely stems from some form of national memory, where key factors include the seemingly endless suffering during Sweden’s great power era when Finns were sent to die across Europe at the whims of the king.

In this regard, I see the final stages of that era in the early 18th century as particularly significant, when – while Finnish soldiers were fighting elsewhere – the Russians occupied Finland twice (Great Wrath and Russo-Swedish war (1741-1743), looting, raping, killing, and taking women and children as slaves in large numbers. This is something that we absolutely do not want to see repeated ever again.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Message From and To Vladimir Putin
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare
History of Finland IV: The bleakest time in Finnish history

Former President of Finland, Tarja Halonen, suggested that Ukraine should cede part of its territory

Finland's most left-wing president in history, Tarja Halonen, suggested that Ukraine should cede part of its territory to the control of international forces. These forces should not include soldiers from EU or NATO countries.

The question, of course, is what kind of forces would make up this contingent occupying part of Ukraine. Chinese, Indian, Iranian, or African troops? Or even Russian and Belarusian troops?

In Finland, Halonen is known as a president who pursued Russia's interests and, as part of that, did everything she could to weaken the country's defense forces and opposed Finland joining NATO. Fortunately, she failed, and Finland still has the capability to defend itself.

It is important for Ukraine and Ukrainian´s to know this so that President Zelenskyi and his administration understand to immediately reject any potential consultation from Tarja Halonen. She is not an advocate for peace or security, and - for example - during her presidency, she never expressed concern about Russia's actions in world politics but rather about those of the USA.

The difference between Halonen and the current President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, is vast. This was evident most recently at a peace conference held in Switzerland, where he stated: "I strongly urge China to influence Putin, in particular, to stop this war and withdraw".

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish weapons are being tested against the Russians in Ukraine
The procrastination of Western countries is paid for with the blood of soldiers
Why Finland will apply for a membership in NATO

Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin is quickly losing her national credibility

Formerly admired by the world, the Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin is quickly losing her national credibility in politics. One significant step in this was her unfounded promise to donate Finnish fighter jets, which will be decommissioned in 2026, to Ukrainians.

It was surprising that the Prime Minister returned to the issue earlier this week and got retired Major General Pekka Toveri to comment on the matter. According to him, "sometimes it would be better to admit a mistake and learn from it rather than getting oneself deeper into the mud". He also confirmed the earlier mention by the Commander of the Finnish Defense Forces that the current fighter jets will be used until the end of their life before they are replaced.

Another strange thing that has been seen in the ongoing April parliamentary election debates is that the Prime Minister has started shouting at her competitors (an example) in a way that is not usually seen in the rather restrained Finnish politics.

Such behavior does not inspire any trust in ordinary people in Finland, let alone in the case of a prime minister seeking to continue in the country's leadership. Therefore, it is quite easy to predict that Sanna Marin does not have a very good future in our country's politics - and that after the elections, she will do everything in her power to get a well-paying position in the EU. Perhaps her undoubtedly considerable beauty will help in that.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did the Finnish Prime Minister promise Hornet fighter jets to Ukraine?¨
Reducing taxes, enhancing export and paying the governmental debt
The beautiful PM of Finland has driven herself into a trouble

Did the Finnish Prime Minister promise Hornet fighter jets to Ukraine?

The national TV-channel of Finland showed in their main news today Prime Minister Sanna Marin (SDP) speaking to the press, saying, "I was a bit surprised by the strong reaction it got here in certain circles at home. Perhaps this shows that elections are always around the corner. Other parties have taken some liberties, for example, putting words in my mouth that I have never said."

Of course, it is possible that someone has put words in Marin's mouth, and I will not comment on that. However, in this situation, it is important to repeat exactly what she said in Ukraine. Therefore, I will copy the central content of Marin's statement from a newspaper's article where it was published word for word.

Firstly, the Prime Minister said that "we know the schedule for our future fighter jets, how we will get them to Finland, and yes, I think we can also have a discussion about the Hornets, whether it would be possible to transfer them to Ukraine." Additionally, she stated that "Finland is in an interesting position precisely because we have made the decision on a new acquisition, and we have existing equipment and can, of course, evaluate the use of that equipment".

Based on those comments, dear reader, you can draw your own conclusions on how Marin's words are meant to be understood, and how they have been interpreted by the listeners.

In my opinion, with those words, Marin clearly and unambiguously informed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian people that Finland is in a position to both transfer Hornet fighter jets and is considering doing so - she even emphasized this twice.

And I can't possibly believe that Zelensky, nor his people awaiting aid, could have interpreted our Prime Minister's words in any other way. Nor do I believe that Marin intended them to be interpreted differently than how I have written.

We can only speculate on the reasons for Marin's statement. Perhaps she acted in good faith and genuinely wanted to transfer Finnish fighter planes to a people in dire straits. And perhaps she wanted to initiate a discussion on the matter domestically.

Or perhaps she has become fond of the immense admiration she has received worldwide for repeatedly taking a strong stance in support of Ukraine during the ongoing war. And maybe she thought that her interview in the midst of the war would generate more of the same - who among us hasn't enjoyed those moments in life when we have basked in someone else's expressed admiration.

The third option could be that Sanna Marin acted as the leader of the Social Democratic Party and believed that the strong support of Finns for the Ukrainian people could help her party win the elections in early April, if she promised that Finland would help where larger Western countries have hesitated. And thereby she could even get a second term as the country's most influential politician, that is, as the Prime Minister.

The situation becomes tragically comical by the fact that we don't really have anything to offer Ukraine. The Finnish Hornets will be used up in the Finnish Air Force and therefore wouldn't be of much use in Ukraine's fight against the Russians.

Former commander of the Finnish Defense Forces, General Jarmo Lindberg, tweeted about this, stating that "any retired aircraft has very few years left if everything goes according to plan. In addition, the spare parts inventory is of course being depleted, as there will be no need for parts in the future. Permission must be obtained from the USA for further use, but there is no remaining lifespan."

Unfortunately, I have to admit that while Marin gained great popularity with her internationally noticed appearance and convincing performances during the pandemic, her later period as the destroyer of national wealth and party princess has eroded my perception of her ability as Prime Minister. And this recent fighter jet opening certainly doesn't help - and I say this without any sugarcoating.

The original blogpost in Finnish: Sanasta Sannaa ja sarvesta miestä

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A gift from the free world to Ukraine
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago
Finland after the Russian war in Ukraine
 

Obligatory military service gains support

The Russian war in Ukraine is rapidly changing peoples attitudes in Finland. As an example, I wrote  two weeks ago about changes in the attitude of Finns about joining the western military organization NATO. 

Yesterday it was reported in the second biggest newspaper in Finland that attitudes have also changed towards the military service of women. According to an opinion poll 40.8 percent of Finns would make military service obligatory also for women, while 37.5 percent were opposing the idea. 

Previously only a marginal part of people were favorable to the idea, but now even the political left - especially Social Democrats and Greens - was notably positive for it. Also 30,2 percent of women supported the obligatory female military service, whereas 43,2 percent opposed. Among males it was supported by a majority, namely 51,5 percent.

Today women may have a voluntary service, but for males it is obligatory, although they may select between military and civilian options. However, only 65 percent of men get a full training, whereas six percent do the civil service. The rest are dropped out, which means that the Finnish defence forces are composed of selected high quality soldiers. 

Currently only a total of 1 200 women have finalized their military services. Therefore obligatory service for them would increase the size of the Finnish army considerably. That, however, is not necessary right now, as the the defence forces consider the current number of troops adequate. 

In my opinion, these changes - on NATO and on female military service - are the last steps out of the compliant policy towards Russia that was adopted by Finland and largely accepted by its citizens after the WWII. At the same time, they are a notable sign to Moscow about the willingness of Finns to stay independent of its eastern neighbor, and a full member of the the western world.  

Previous thoughts of the same topic: 
Military specialist: Russian plan in Ukraine was incredibly poor
Finland and NATO - problems to be solved
It takes heroes to avoid genocide