The Frog in the Pot: Russia’s Baltic Strategy

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

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

* * *

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

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

* * *

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

Russian Strategy to Take Control Over the USA and the World Has Succeeded Shockingly Well So Far

Two days ago, Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, rolled back its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, joining a growing list of major corporations that have done the same after facing criticism from conservative activists. Even before this, companies such as Ford, Harley-Davidson, Lowe’s, and Tractor Supply had already taken similar steps.

This reminded me of a strategy described in the recent book by Finnish top communication professionals Markku Mantila and Jouni Mölsä, which the Russians have allegedly used to influence Western nations. According to them, a Russian defector, Yuri Bezmenov, revealed back in 1984 that the Soviet Union’s goal was to alter the perception of reality in the United States to the extent that its population would no longer be able to draw rational conclusions about the reality surrounding them.

The first stage of this strategy was demoralization, which involved steering students toward Marxist-Leninist thinking. According to Bezmenov, this phase was already complete 40 years ago. 

In the next stage, lasting about 20 years and referred to as destabilization, the Russians’ aim was (in Bezmenov's time, "would be") to increase disagreements between different groups in the United States. As examples of destabilizing themes, he mentioned homosexuality as well as women’s and children’s rights—translated into today’s language, themes that have gained traction in recent years through DEI policies.

The third stage in the Russian strategy is the crisis phase, in which citizens look for saviors by demanding strong leaders and governments, while expressing their discontent with societal chaos.

According to Bezmenov's ideas from 40 years ago, the Russians’ ultimate goal is "normalization", which refers to a situation similar to what happened after the Prague Spring in 1968, when Czechoslovakia was ruled by a puppet government installed by the Soviet Union, subordinate to Moscow and receiving its instructions from there.

All of this is detailed in Mantila and Mölsä’s book. From my perspective, it seems that the Russians have shockingly succeeded in achieving the goals of the first two phases. However, it remains to be seen what the collapse of corporations and, subsequently, DEI policies will lead to.

In this matter, ordinary Americans play a decisive role. Will the resistance faced by DEI deepen societal polarization, eventually leading to the crisis Bezmenov described? Or is this merely part of an ideological shift, one that is leaving DEI policies behind and, in doing so, discarding Russia’s long-term objectives into the trash bin of history?

Finally, I conclude that it would be beneficial for American (and Western) politicians to equip their citizens with the means to counter Russian hybrid influence. In this regard, it is particularly important to ensure a strong foundation of basic knowledge through quality education, the reliability of the political system, the adherence of information channels to facts rather than fostering political discord, and the media literacy of citizens. 

Strengthening social cohesion and fostering a sense of community could also play a vital role in making societies more resilient to external manipulation. And cooperation between Western nations is equally crucial, as countering hybrid threats often requires a unified response and shared strategies.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin Set a Goal — Failure Would Be an Embarrassment
Swedish TV Did Not Learn Anything From the Riots in the UK
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare

The Game is Getting Tougher

Mass immigration to the European Union has taken on a new dimension at the border between Greece and Turkey. The Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle reported that a Greek border guard was hit by a bullet fired from the Turkish side. The shooter is suspected to be a smuggler profiting from people from developing countries.

It is absolutely clear that shooting at border guards cannot be tolerated at any level, whether done by a smuggler or those being smuggled. Nor is it in line with any human rights agreements.

It remains to be seen how the EU will react to this incident. Will it be ignored, as are other crimes (example) committed by immigrants in Union territories, or will the mass migration from developing countries finally be treated as a serious threat to the whole of European culture?

Russians, on the other hand, have realized that fighting in Ukraine is not without risks to the home front. According to a Meduza news story, those returning from the war have committed various crimes. This is especially true for those who have previously engaged in criminal activity and joined the army as volunteers to escape prison.

According to the report, the Kremlin even believes that returning soldiers from Ukraine pose the greatest political and social risk factor during Vladimir Putin's reign. Of course, it would be great if this ultimately led to the fall of the aforementioned dictator and Russia's withdrawal from Ukraine.

However, I doubt that the Russians are capable of rising against Putin's regime. After all, they have become accustomed over hundreds of years to their leaders not caring about the well-being of the people, but only about enhancing their own reputation and wealth.

Despite everything, the news mentioned above indicates that the situation is intensifying regarding both immigration from developing countries to Europe and Russia's so-called special operation. It remains to be seen what impact this will have on the future of our continent.

This issue is also of great significance for Finland, as it is, like Ukraine, a neighbor of Russia, and Vladimir Putin has conducted hybrid operations against it using people from developing countries as weapons. In the best-case scenario, Russians will be frightened by the consequences of their war on the home front and will end all hybrid operations on Finland's borders.

On the other hand, it is also possible that instead of using reason, Russians might apply the criminal activities seen at the Greek-Turkish border, endangering the safety of Finnish border guards. This too must be anticipated in the training of border guards.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare
Russian Tax Overhaul: Citizens to Bear the Burden of War Losses
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth

Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare

Yesterday was an important day for Finland and all of Europe, as the parliament approved the so-called return law with a vote of 167-31. In this way, our country has shown our hybrid war-fighting neighbor that Finland will not submit to its victimization.

With the new return law, asylum seekers attempting to enter Finland can be prevented from entering the country, submitting asylum applications, or removed from outside the borders when they are being used as tools of hybrid warfare. Thus, the law is not about violating human rights but about a means to prevent the misuse of the asylum system when its purpose is to destabilize or blackmail the security of Finland and/or Europe.

Unfortunately, 31 members of parliament decided to express with their voting behavior that promoting the hybrid activities of our eastern neighbor is more important to them than the safety of their own people. Therefore, I considered it appropriate to make a list of them so that the irresponsible actions of these politicians would remain in the memory of social media for a long time to come.

The members of parliament who voted against the return law are Li Andersson (Left Alliance), Eva Biaudet (Swedish People's Party), Fatim Diarra (Greens), Tuuna Elo (Greens), Bella Forsgrén (Greens), Timo Furuholm (Left Alliance), Elisa Gebhard (Social Democrats), Pekka Haavisto (Greens), Timo Harakka (Social Democrats), Atte Harjanne (Greens), Hanna Holopainen (Greens), Veronica Honkasalo (Left Alliance), Inka Hopsu (Greens), Saara Hyrkkö (Greens), Krista Kiuru (Social Democrats), Mai Kivelä (Left Alliance), Anna Kontula (Left Alliance), Minja Koskela (Left Alliance), Johan Kvarnström (Social Democrats), Merja Kyllönen (Left Alliance), Laura Meriluoto (Left Alliance), Krista Mikkonen (Greens), Matias Mäkynen (Social Democrats), Maria Ohisalo (Greens), Aino-Kaisa Pekonen (Left Alliance), Jenni Pitko (Greens), Nasima Razmyar (Social Democrats), Jussi Saramo (Left Alliance), Hanna Sarkkinen (Left Alliance), Oras Tynkkynen (Greens), and Sofia Virta (Greens).

Of the people on the list, 23 or 74 percent are women, and the remaining 26 percent are men. In other words, female members of parliament are significantly more inclined than their male colleagues to act as Vladimir Putin's helpers or at least his useful idiots.

Among them, Eva Biaudet belongs to a government party, so there will likely be consequences for her voting behavior. Otherwise, those who have chosen to act as Russia's stooges represented the extreme or slightly more moderate left.

It was also significant that all three members of parliament with a developing country background - Diarra, Forsgrén, and Razmyar - supported Putin. This suggests that Finland's security is not important to them, or they are unable to understand the threat posed by Russia. This is, of course, unfortunate, because one would especially expect them to appreciate the security of their current home country.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland and Western Europe: Effectively at War
Putin's useful idiots in Finland
Change of immigration policy and development cooperation

Finns want a border law

According to a recent opinion poll, a clear majority of Finns support a new border law that would better counter Russia's hybrid warfare. The idea was backed by 62 percent of respondents, while only 17 percent opposed it.

This means that of those who expressed an opinion in the poll, 78.5 percent were in favor of enacting the law. And this is a very large majority. In other words, Finns want a new border law.

President Alexander Stubb also supported the law, stating that "according to our intelligence, Russia is capable of moving migrants to our border who are not traditional asylum seekers but people used as weapons and instrumentalized. Over a thousand in a few hours."

Hopefully, this information will sway those Social Democratic MPs who have so far opposed the law change, and perhaps even some representatives of the Greens or the Left Alliance.

Of course, there are no guarantees, but at least I wouldn't want to be the MP who ended up supporting Vladimir Putin's efforts to use masses of people from developing countries as a hybrid weapon by flooding them across our eastern border. And in doing so, helped one of the cruelest dictators of our time to undermine our organized society and its security.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's useful idiots in Finland
Immigration issue
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth

Duck emphasizing the urgency of the new border law

In Finland, there is fear of a hybrid operation organized by Russia, which could result in an influx of asylum seekers from developing countries as spring arrives. Among them, there may also be activists or operatives playing into Putin's hands.

For this reason, the government has prepared a proposal to enhance our country's ability to defend against Russian aggression. During the preparatory consultation process, the draft legislation in question received some critical comments - as expected - so the potential enactment of the law is still ahead.

However, there is hope that this so-called "pushback law" - or the new border law - could be finalized and enacted as soon as possible, and that it would also be effective in practice. This has also been emphasized by both the former and current leaders of the country's foreign policy.

* * *

Relating to the text above, MTV3 published news yesterday stating that if something "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck." The discussion was about a series of mischief in the Baltic countries, suspected to be a hybrid operation organized by Russia.

Related to these incidents, Janis Sarts, the Director of NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, assessed that if Russia sees the method working in the Baltics, similar hybrid influence operations could also be seen in Finland in the future. This could include, for example, Molotov cocktail attacks or threats against daycare centers - something hardly any Finn would want.

It is evident that the suspicion of the hybrid nature of the crimes witnessed is correct, and therefore Sarts' assessment should also be taken seriously in Finland. Steps should be taken to ensure that Russia is not given leeway on our own soil.

Understanding this issue in all parliamentary groups - including those on the political left - is essential right now. And especially when the government's new proposal for the so-called "pushback law" is next up for discussion: in that context, I certainly wouldn't like to see a single useful idiot for Putin.

This is because the law will need to be enacted as a so-called emergency law, which requires a five-sixths majority in parliament. If such a majority cannot be found, there is a risk that we will soon find ourselves even more at the mercy of Russia's bloody dictator.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Desperate cry of Russians
The Finnish forest is life-threatening to asylum-seekers
Political rats and useful idiots