Independence and the Sword of Damocles

Finland became independent exactly 108 years ago. Has that been a long or a short time?

One way to look at it is that Finns of my age have lived through and experienced most of the country’s independence. And our grandparents were born in the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland within the Russian Empire.

On the other hand, Finland’s independence has lasted as long as the time it spent as part of Russia. The Finnish War was fought in 1808–09, and in the ensuing peace agreement the eastern parts of the then Kingdom of Sweden—those along the Gulf of Bothnia and in the north along the Tornio and Muonio rivers—were ceded to Russia.

During its 108 years, the autonomous Grand Duchy had only five grand dukes. The first was Alexander I, who decided to make Finland autonomous and incorporated into it the territories east of the Kymi River that Russia had previously conquered. Our last grand duke was Nicholas II, who set out to dismantle Finland’s autonomous status—something that caused widespread dissatisfaction and ultimately led to Finland’s independence.

Independent Finland has had thirteen presidents and seventy-seven governments. At the beginning of independence, strong powers were granted to the president because there was considerable monarchist sentiment among the people. Since the 1980s, however, constitutional reforms have made the government and its prime minister the country’s de facto wielders of power—excluding foreign policy, where strong presidents Sauli Niinistö and Alexander Stubb have kept the reins firmly in their own hands.

* * *

History belongs to the past, and although it is pleasant to recall, the fate of our people will be decided in the future. And so our descendants will see whether Finland is still Finnish after another 108 years—that is, in 2133.

As history shows, a great deal can happen over such a long span of time, and predicting the outcome is impossible—just as it was in December 1917. Few people back then could have imagined our life as members of the European Union and of the Western defence alliance 108 years later. And such long-term foresight is hardly possible today either.

Nevertheless, there is reason for confidence in the future, because Finland is a democracy, and as such the country’s fate lies in the hands of its people. Yet hidden within this fact is a kind of Sword of Damocles: with good decisions, the future of Finns can be at least as bright as the past 108 years, but poor decisions could lead to national decline and a harsh future for generations to come.

That is why we—and future Finns—must exercise our rightful power with care and wisdom: to secure the success of our homeland and its Finnish people.

Despite all this — or perhaps precisely because of it — I wish all of you, my esteemed readers, a very happy Finnish Independence Day!

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gender identity and the future of Finnishness
Finns - Among the World’s Best
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Itsenäisyys ja Damokleen miekka

Ukrainian and Finnish Cases of Desertion

Financial Times published a report on Ukrainian soldiers deserting the front. According to it, as many as 60,000 charges have been filed this year alone against soldiers who have abandoned their posts.

For this reason, I would like to remind you – my esteemed readers – that Finns faced similar problems in 1944. However, they were resolved swiftly and effectively, which demonstrates that desertion can be brought under control quite quickly – if there is the will to do so. Undoubtedly, this applies to Ukraine as well.

* * *

During the Winter War, Finnish soldiers held their positions admirably, and morale remained high. But when the Karelian Isthmus front collapsed in 1944 under the pressure of the Soviet Union’s massive offensive, many Finnish soldiers also abandoned their posts. As a result, it was estimated in June 1944 that around 30,000 soldiers had gone missing from their units – some lost, but many deliberately fleeing.

This led Parliament to enact a law strengthening the military penal code, allowing for the death penalty for “cowardice in battle,” that is, desertion. This resulted in summary judgments by field courts and, in some cases, officers taking justice into their own hands. Consequently, roughly fifty Finnish deserters and war resisters met their end at the hands of their own countrymen.

* * *

These events have later been condemned with the infallible morality of hindsight – or, as Veikko Huovinen put it, with the “sweetest and most self-satisfied kind of wisdom.” The fact remains, however, that it was precisely those summary punishments – and the word of them spreading rapidly through the ranks – that brought desertion among Finnish soldiers under control.

Thus, swift and sufficiently firm action against desertion made possible, among other things, the defensive victory at Tali–Ihantala – the so-called Miracle of Ihantala, which stopped the Red Army’s great offensive and saved Finland’s independence. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Ukrainalainen ja suomalainen rintamakarkuruus

When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?

Many states have recognized the State of Palestine. In other words, they have recognized something that does not even exist.

Finland is not, at least for the time being, part of this group. But now the entire Finnish green-left – the Social Democratic Party, the Greens, and the Left Alliance – have demanded that Finland’s government recognize the State of Palestine. In other words – I repeat – recognize something that does not even exist.

President of Finland Alexander Stubb has left this matter to the government and parliament, meaning he has promised to sign the recognition if such a proposal is placed on his desk. It has not yet been presented, but according to Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, “the government is still processing the matter, but our main policy, as decided in the foreign and security policy report, is that we promote the two-state solution.”

In practice, the government is unlikely to make such a proposal to the President, since its other main party, the Finns Party, as well as its smallest party, the Christian Democrats, oppose recognition. The President has also acknowledged this, saying: “Somehow I don’t believe I will receive this proposal before the UN meeting next week.

* * *

For my part, I state that if a new independent state is created in Palestine, I am ready to support its recognition immediately. On the other hand, I do not wish under any circumstances to recognize something that does not even exist.

In this, I follow the model set by Western countries over a hundred years ago – including Germany, which was at war with them – who decided after Finland declared independence in 1917 that recognition would not come until Soviet Russia itself recognized the new state. This led the ruling Senate of Finland to turn to Lenin’s Council of People’s Commissars.

After various stages, Lenin then acknowledged the facts as they were and recognized Finland’s independence. After that, Western nations followed suit one by one, and there has been no ambiguity about Finland’s independence since, even though the Soviet Union tried to occupy the country during World War II – on two separate occasions.

This is the same model I am prepared to recommend for the recognition of Palestine. That is, let the Palestinians lay down their arms, make peace with Israel, and agree on the conditions under which an entity made up of the West Bank and Gaza could achieve independence. And let Finland, in that context, acknowledge the reality – and grant recognition to the new state only then.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?
When Should We Recognize the Independence of Palestine?
Palestinian Youth Require More Understanding, Less Aggression

Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?

During World War II, Finland and the Soviet Union fought two wars. The first of these was the Winter War, which broke out as a result of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In that agreement, the foreign ministers of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler agreed to divide Eastern Europe between the socialist Soviet Union and the National Socialist Germany.

Despite receiving little help from abroad, tiny Finland managed to resist the Soviet Union’s massive army. Although the peace treaty forced Finland to cede territory far west of the prevailing front lines, the Soviet Union did not succeed in conquering its neighbor. This created a strong sense of injustice among the Finnish people.

After the Winter War, Finland sought a defense alliance with the other Nordic countries, but especially Sweden opposed the idea. Eventually, the whole concept became impossible when Germany, through its blitzkrieg strategy, conquered Norway, and the Soviet Union—pursuant to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact—occupied the Baltic states. As a result, Finland and Sweden became isolated from the Western powers, France and Britain. Protection against the Soviet Union now had to be sought either from Germany—or vice versa. Finland chose Germany, which at the time was considered militarily superior, even though Finland did not embrace Nazi ideology and remained a democracy throughout World War II.

This led to the so-called Continuation War, whose first military actions in Finland were Soviet strikes against Finnish targets. The reason for this was Hitler’s false claim that Finland had joined Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

* * *

The events described above are well known in Finland. Less known is the final battle between the Soviet army and Finnish forces. This took place in the Ilomantsi region, where the Soviets launched an attack with two divisions against the Finns.

The Finnish troops were led by Major General Erkki Raappana, who accepted the challenge and launched a bold counterattack based on a double envelopment maneuver. The Finnish forces surrounded both Soviet divisions in separate pockets in the areas of Leppävaara–Lutikkavaara and Vellivaara–Lehmivaara, then broke them down and destroyed them. The battle was fought over a 40-kilometer-wide and approximately 30-kilometer-deep area.

At the same time, three Soviet marine brigades, a tank brigade, and an engineer brigade attempted to come to the aid of the encircled divisions from the east, but they were repelled. Eventually, the encircled Soviet troops saw their situation as hopeless, and the remnants of the divisions broke out eastward—effectively fleeing the battlefield.

As a result of this crushing defeat of the Red Army, the Soviets left behind heavy equipment, including over a hundred artillery pieces and nearly a hundred mortars, which became Finnish war trophies. The battlefield was left in the hands of the victorious Finns. This defeat prompted Stalin to abandon his goal of conquering Finland. He began peace negotiations and redirected his forces to the front against Germany, aiming to reach Berlin before the Western Allies.

Due to this battle, along with the earlier failed Soviet offensives at Tali-Ihantala and the Bay of Vyborg, Finland remained an independent democracy—unlike other European countries with long borders with the Soviet Union: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why the Soviet Union Failed to Break Finland—And Why Russia Won’t Succeed Today 
Fear Lurks in Vladimir Putin's Mind as He Celebrates on the Wrong Date
When the War Comes Home to Moscow

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

Ukraine’s Justified Exit From the Ottawa Convention

Ukraine is doing the same as Finland—that is, withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines. This is, of course, understandable given that by refraining from using mines, its army gives an unnecessary advantage to Russia’s invading forces, who sow mines wherever they go.

In fact, I find it astonishing that the Ukrainians have abided by the treaty for this long, even though it has likely cost the lives of many Ukrainian soldiers. That alone shows Ukraine’s genuine intent to comply with the treaty for as long as possible.

However, enough is enough, and upholding a treaty cannot be more important than a nation’s independence. For this reason, I fully support President Zelensky, who today signed the necessary decree for the withdrawal. 

I also hope the country will soon have access to the mines it needs to ease its defensive struggle. Perhaps Finland and Ukraine could even cooperate on this issue!?

This case also demonstrates that treaties restricting military capabilities are a double-edged sword. While they may, in principle, reduce human suffering—as is the goal of the landmine ban—there can be even greater values at stake, such as the very survival of an entire nation.

That’s why I believe states should take a very cautious approach toward agreements that reduce their military effectiveness, especially when they share borders with nations harboring imperialist ambitions. In other words, nations like Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

When Should We Recognize the Independence of Palestine?

According to a recent opinion poll, 44 percent of Finns would like to recognize the State of Palestine. This group consists mainly of voters from the Left Alliance, the Greens, and the Social Democrats. On the other hand, on the political right, supporters of the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party are more opposed to the idea than others.

There are hardly any differences between age groups, but women are more inclined than men to support the establishment of a new state in the Middle East—despite the fact that women’s rights would likely not be realized there. Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, for his part, has stated that Finland should also recognize Palestine if the United Kingdom, France, or other major countries do so.

* * *

All of this reminded me of Finland’s own independence from Russian rule. The Declaration of Independence was approved by the Finnish Parliament on December 6, 1917, shortly after the October Revolution.

After that, Finland began seeking support for its independence from Western countries, but they were unwilling to recognize it. Support was first sought from Germany, which initially promised to raise the matter in the peace negotiations with Russia in Brest-Litovsk. However, this did not happen; instead, the Germans said they would wait for Soviet Russia to recognize the new state first.

Consequently, the Finnish government sent a request for recognition of independence to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, and Britain. Recognition was not requested from Russia, as it was thought that it would be more inclined to approve the matter once the Western powers had already done so.

This hope turned out to be in vain, as the Western countries urged the Prime Minister to turn to the Bolshevik government of Russia, led by Lenin. The Finnish Prime Minister, however, was reluctant to do so, as he did not want to acknowledge the Bolsheviks as the legitimate rulers of Russia.

Eventually, on December 22, the Finnish Parliament decided to seek recognition not from the Bolshevik government, but from the Russian Constituent Assembly, which was expected to convene soon and where the majority was made up of Russia’s more moderate left-wing parties. Germany, however, intervened and pressured the Finnish government to approach Lenin’s Council of People's Commissars instead.

This is what happened, and Lenin did recognize Finland’s independence. He did so because he believed that supporting the right of national minorities to secede would further the Bolsheviks’ main goal—the spread of the socialist revolution. In his view, the separation should only be temporary, as he assumed that the small nations breaking away from Russia would later voluntarily rejoin either the Russian socialist federation or a broader worldwide Soviet union.

* * *

As for myself, when it comes to recognizing Palestinian independence, I believe the time is not yet right. After all, there isn’t even a theoretically independent Arab state in the Holy Land that would meet the criteria for statehood.

However, I would be ready to recognize Palestine immediately after Israel does. In other words, I would act in the same way that the Western countries did when they eventually recognized Finland’s independence.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator
The Complete Demilitarization of Gaza: What Would It Mean for the Palestinians?
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

Putin, Trump, and the Prospect of Peace

President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, suggested recently that peace between Ukraine and Russia could be achieved in less than six months. This is because Russia’s economy is currently in a rather dire situation.

The situation in Russia is not helped by the fact that Donald Trump, the newly elected President of the United States, aims to lower global oil prices. This would further diminish the revenue available to Putin’s dictatorship. Most importantly, it would lower the standard of living for people living in Russia, potentially increasing their opposition to the war and even leading to rapid radicalization.

One can look to Russia’s own history for parallels in this matter—specifically the February and October Revolutions.

In the former case, the public’s dissatisfaction with Russia’s losses in war (during World War I) led to power being transferred from the Tsar to the Mensheviks. However, the Mensheviks continued the war, which prolonged the burdens it inflicted on the population. Additionally, the government’s actions caused rapid inflation, making it unprofitable for peasants to sell grain to the cities.

As a result, food supply in urban areas worsened continuously, while living costs rose rapidly, and unemployment began to increase. Ultimately, the Bolsheviks launched another revolution, taking control by promising work and bread—and an end to the war that was devastating the population.

* * *

All of this is undoubtedly known to both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. This is why the former has good reasons to carefully listen to what the newly elected U.S. president offers him.

It is also worth noting that if a significant portion of the Russian population turns against the war, the situation will become untenable for Putin, much like what happened to the Germans at the end of World War I. At that time, a revolution began in the navy and quickly spread among the people.

In Germany, too, the rebellion was fueled by war fatigue and economic difficulties. The difference compared to Russia was in the outcome—Germany avoided the yoke of socialism, and the deposed Kaiser survived, unlike in Russia.

The question remains whether President Stubb is correct—can Donald Trump push Putin into a corner from which there is no way out other than agreeing to peace? It will also be interesting to see what terms are set for peace.

In this regard, the Russian revolutions of 1917 and the German revolution of 1918 provide fascinating points of comparison. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia’s territory was significantly reduced as several states—including Finland—gained independence. Similarly, Germany lost territory as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I.

* * *

It remains to be seen, however, whether Trump is willing to push Putin’s Russia into a position as desperate as that of the Tsarist Empire in 1917, forcing it to withdraw entirely from Ukraine. Or will he ultimately offer Putin an opportunity to retain at least part of the territory he seized in and after 2014?

If it is true, as Trump has claimed, that Ukraine is ready to “make a deal,” the terms are unlikely to be favorable for Putin. And they will certainly not improve if Russian public support for the war vanishes.

And what about Putin’s own position? If and when he is forced to negotiate a peace that is a loss for Russia, will he suffer the same fate as the Russian Tsar or the German Kaiser in the revolutions of just over a century ago? Or will he somehow manage to retain his grip on power?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors
Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?

Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?

The American think tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW) speculates in its latest publication that Russia may soon absorb Belarus into its own territory. This would significantly expand Russia's border with NATO countries, thereby heightening tensions between Western Europe and Russia.

Today, Belarus is particularly known for its dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka and his close ties with Russia. Despite this, Belarus has not participated in Russia’s war against Ukraine but has remained separate from it.

The fact remains, however, that little is known about Belarus in Finland—or, as far as I can tell, elsewhere in the world. That’s why I thought I’d share a few words about its history.

Belarus is a region inhabited by a Slavic people who have their own language, spoken by about 85 percent of the country’s citizens. In other words, Belarusians are not Russians, nor do they wish to be.

Belarus also has a long history, although for most of it, the rulers have come from outside its borders. Between 1068 and 1069, the Belarusian Prince of Polotsk ruled the entire Kievan Rus for a few months, but the tables turned in 1129, when Kievan Rus subjugated the region. In 1240, it became part of Lithuania, and in the 16th century, it fell under the rule of the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth.

In the 18th century, it was incorporated into Russia during the partitions of Poland and remained under Russian control until the First World War. During the war, the Germans occupied the area and established the short-lived Belarusian People's Republic, which quickly became part of the socialist Soviet Union after the war, though Poland seized about half of it in 1921.

At the beginning of the Second World War, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact resulted in Belarus once again becoming fully part of Russia. The war swept over the region in both directions, and afterward, most of Belarus remained part of the Soviet Union. It declared independence once more in 1990 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In summary, what I have written above means that if Russia were to annex Belarus once again, it would return to its historical "normal" of being subjugated by others. However, it remains to be seen whether the Belarusian people will find the will and ability to avoid this fate and—contrary to my own expectations—retain their independence and keep their future in their own hands.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Elections in Georgia and Japan: The Future of Democracy on Different Paths
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

Greenland's Future: A Battleground of Global Powers?

The future president of the United States, Donald Trump, has threatened either to buy Greenland from Denmark or even to seize it by military force. The latter threat, in particular, does not sound like something a leader of a friendly nation would say.

This has also drawn attention in the European Union. For example, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated that it is clear the EU will not allow any country, whoever they may be, to violate its sovereign borders.

Such discussions among NATO allies obviously serve only one purpose: to advance the goals of Russia and China against the Western world. Therefore, it must be asked whether Trump fails to grasp the implications of his words or if he is genuinely under the influence of China and/or Russia.

However, I am not sure which scenario would be worse—a foolish president of a Western superpower or a puppet of states hostile to the West. For this reason, I hope that Trump’s words will ultimately turn out to be nothing more than empty bluster.

* * *

Greenland’s status as part of Denmark is not necessarily straightforward, as the island's Prime Minister, Múte B. Egede, also addressed the matter in his New Year’s speech. According to him, it is time for the island to “break the chains of colonialism” and take responsibility for its own future.

Considering that Greenland has vast natural resources but fewer than 60,000 inhabitants, I do not find this comment particularly wise. Not because those people couldn’t live well on their island, but because as an independent nation, it would be both highly attractive and defenseless.

It is therefore obvious that, in addition to the United States, both China and Russia would be extremely interested in bringing Greenland into their sphere of influence. For this reason, the Greenlandic Prime Minister’s comment must also be regarded as unequivocally foolish—especially in today’s world, where it seems a new Cold War has begun.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?
Former President Donald Trump is Also the Upcoming President – But What Does It Mean?
Medieval trade ranged from North America to Ukraine

Finns - Among the World’s Best

In Finland, Independence Day is associated with various traditions. One of the most significant has been the reception hosted by the President, where living World War II veterans have traditionally played a central role. This year, however, they were not invited to the main celebration; instead, a separate event was organized earlier this week to honor those who saved Finland's independence.

The heroes who preserved Finland's independence during the turmoil of World War II are still remembered on television, with the screening of the war film The Unknown Soldier. The film is based on a book of the same name, which depicts the experiences of a machine gun company from 1941 to 1944.

As for me, I plan to honor the heroes who safeguarded our independence by reflecting on a few statistics about Finnish fighter pilots. These figures come from Kari Stenman's book, Finland’s Best Fighter Aces and Their Aircraft.

* * *

Among Finnish pilots, the most successful in destroying Soviet aircraft during World War II was Ilmari Juutilainen, whose exceptional skill resulted in the enemy losing a remarkable 94 aircraft. Of these, six were destroyed in a single air battle on June 30, 1944.

He reported the battle as follows: "We were on a patrol mission with eight aircraft. I led the squadron to Tali, where we encountered enemy fighters. Over Viipuri, I fired on an AC from behind, tearing off most of its rudders. It crashed at the edge of Torkkeli Park near Punaisenlähteen Square, leaving behind a mist that looked like a fuel vapor cloud."

"The fight continued toward Säiniö. Near Säiniö, I shot at another AC from behind and above, setting it on fire. It crashed between Säiniö and Karhusuo, still burning on the ground."

"I saw over 50 bombers approaching from the east, accompanied by fighters. I regrouped our planes between Juustila and Tali, where we clashed with the Russians. Over Juustila, I shot down one Yak-9, which crashed in flames. Another Yak-9, its right wing shot off, crashed in the same area."

"At one point, we protected Stukas, but after that, more Russian bombers and fighters appeared. I couldn’t get a result. Then I saw Il-2 planes without cover. I attacked sharply from the side, and one Il-2 crashed in flames into Juustila peninsula."

"At the same time, I was surrounded by La-5s. After a five-minute duel with one of them, I managed to set it on fire at an altitude of 2,000 meters. It crashed in flames 3–4 kilometers north of the Il-2 crash site along the road. My ammunition ran out, so I had to end the battle, though I still had about 10 minutes of fuel. The battle altitude ranged from 5,000 to 50 meters. My aircraft was MT457."

* * *

Juutilainen had also participated ten days earlier on June 20, 1944, the most active day of aerial combat on Finland’s front lines. On that day, Finnish pilots shot down a total of 51 Soviet aircraft in three consecutive air battles—without suffering any losses of their own.

This alone demonstrated the extraordinary skill of Finnish pilots. Further evidence lies in the overall statistics: during the Continuation War, Finnish pilots destroyed approximately 1,100 Soviet aircraft while losing only 53 of their own pilots.

Even among the best, some stood out. None of the top ten Finnish fighter aces, ranked by aerial victories, were killed during the Winter War or the Continuation War. Together, they accounted for 488 Soviet aircraft shot down.

This achievement was remarkable, especially considering that during the Winter War, Finnish fighters were largely outdated models such as the Gloster Gladiator II, Fokker D.XXI, and Fiat G.50. At the start of the Continuation War, the mainstay was the Brewster 239—a model so disliked by American pilots that they nicknamed it the "Flying Coffin." The Finnish Air Force also used a mix of captured Soviet aircraft acquired through German assistance and some Morane-Saulnier 406 fighters, which were gifted by France during the Winter War but were already obsolete before the conflict began.

The situation changed in April 1943 with the arrival of Messerschmitt Bf 109 G fighters. These aircraft allowed Finnish pilots to fully showcase their skills.

One indication of their proficiency is that thereafter, enemy pilots never managed to shoot down any Finnish bombers protected by these fighters. Moreover, unlike their German counterparts, Finnish pilots rarely damaged their Messerschmitts during takeoff, despite the aircraft being known for its challenging handling characteristics.

* * *

The exceptional skill of Finnish fighter pilots can be attributed to various factors. My guess is that it stems from similar genetic or cultural traits that have made Finns, relative to their population, the most dominant motorsport athletes in the world.

After all, this nation of five million has produced three Formula 1 World Champions and eight World Rally Champions. Furthermore, the next World Rally Championship title is highly likely to go to Kalle Rovanperä, a 24-year-old prodigy who took a sabbatical year and is arguably the most talented motorsport athlete of all time.

With these memories and reflections, I wish you—my esteemed readers—a very happy Independence Day as we celebrate 107 years of Finnish sovereignty.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

Criticism from the Left Brought a Small Association’s Independence Day March into the Spotlight

Finland’s green-left politicians have harshly criticized the participation of two Members of Parliament from the government’s Finns Party — Teemu Keskisarja and Sheikki Laakso — in the annual 612 event held on Finland’s Independence Day (December 6). As a result, both MPs will forgo attending the Independence Day reception hosted by the President of the Republic, Alexander Stubb.

Ville Niinistö, a Member of the European Parliament from the Green Party, which is firmly positioned on the political left, commented on X (formerly Twitter) that MPs from governing parties form part of the government’s parliamentary majority. According to Niinistö, "if the government allows its MPs to openly support a far-right event that demeans the Republic’s independence and democracy, it constitutes an international-level scandal". He also called on Prime Minister Petteri "Orpo to take action".

Similarly, Minja Koskela, chairperson of the Left Alliance, wrote on X that she is curious to know what Prime Minister Orpo thinks about the actions of representatives from his coalition partner, especially after all the government’s proclamations against racism. She stated that "when two MPs from the Finns Party choose a far-right-linked march over the liberal President’s reception, it is a serious matter".

* * *

The 612 event has been organized annually since 2014. Initially, it attracted only a few hundred participants, but during the large wave of immigration, attendance surged to thousands before later declining back to a few hundred.

Among the organizers were, at least initially, several actors perceived as far-right. Conversely, far-left groups have, at times, sought to disrupt the event, even resorting to violence.

According to the event’s website, its "sole purpose is to celebrate Finland’s independence and honor the sacrifices made by previous generations. Participants are encouraged to respect the non-political nature of the event by leaving all political and other symbols at home. The organizers emphasize that societal inequality and political polarization have already driven a wedge between Finns. In uncertain times, the greatest strength of a small nation is its unity."

Furthermore, the event is organized by the 612.fi association, and participation is open to all who wish to celebrate Finland’s independence and honor the efforts and sacrifices of past generations. The only permitted emblem, flag, or slogan at the event is the official Finnish flag.

It remains to be seen whether the comments from the green-left bloc will have any impact on the government’s actions. However, one thing is already clear: as a result of these remarks, the 612.fi association and its march have received more publicity than they could have ever hoped to achieve otherwise.

Finally, it is worth noting that Niinistö’s and Koskela’s comments do not appear to align particularly well with the spirit of freedom of speech or freedom of assembly enshrined in Finnish law. However, this is not particularly surprising coming from the political left.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Green Movement is Withering – And That’s Not a Bad Thing
Demonstrations cause trouble in Helsinki and Sweden
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

Moldova's Election Challenged – Western Support Needed

According to recent information, the pro-Russia Socialist Party has contested the results of the presidential election held in Moldova. The party claims that rule violations, as well as the reduction in the number of polling stations for Moldovans living in Russia, led to the defeat of the Socialist candidate.

This case is particularly significant because Moldova has expressed a strong desire to join the ranks of Western countries. Russia, however, is far from pleased with this and has instead supported the independence of Transnistria, a region formally part of Moldova, aiming to turn it into a Russian vassal state.

For this reason, I expect two things from the European Union, and Western nations in general, regarding this matter. First, they must ensure that the Socialist Party’s claims have no basis— as I assume— and thereafter express strong support for the president-elect, including, if necessary, defending Moldova's independence by force. This support should ideally involve sending peacekeepers to the country, should Moldova’s leadership so desire.

This course of action is necessary to prevent Russia from finding room to pursue its ambitions of reintegrating former Soviet republics under Moscow’s control. It will also ensure that Moldovans do not end up in the same situation as Ukrainians have faced.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Elections in Georgia and Japan: The Future of Democracy on Different Paths
Resisting Putin’s Foolish Dreams
Vladimir Putin is Leading Russia into an Economic Ruin

Palestinian Youth Require More Understanding, Less Aggression

According to recent information, support for the terrorist organization Hamas has grown among young Palestinians. This is because they favor armed resistance against Israel, as they do not remember the previous intifada or the heavy toll that previous wars have exacted on the Palestinian people.

This is, of course, a development that will not bring peace to the Holy Land in the foreseeable future. On the contrary, it ensures that Israel will not grant Palestinians even the freedoms they have previously enjoyed—the most significant being the potential transfer of the Gaza Strip to direct Israeli military control.

Thus, two conclusions can be drawn from this development. First, as has already been stated, the lack of understanding among Palestinians will only harm them and their people. This is best demonstrated by Gaza's miserable fate over the past year.

Secondly, we must recognize that the increasing orientation towards violence among Palestinian youth pushes the dream of Palestinian independence even further away. It is clear that Israel has no intention of continuing to be a target for Palestinian rocket attacks now, or especially in the future, if support for armed resistance continues to grow among Palestinians.

Finally, I note that if the Palestinians truly wanted peace, they would need to understand that Israel, due to its hostile surroundings, can never afford to lose a war. Therefore, it will continue to defend itself with excessive rather than minimal force, both against Palestinian uprisings and the aggressions of neighboring states.

Thus, the only realistic path to peace for the Palestinians would be to build trust with Israel. And to wait patiently, as this would eventually lead to an improvement in the status of Palestinians, either as part of Israel or as an independent state that does not threaten Israel’s security.

In this sense, there is still hope, as there are still moderate people among the Palestinians — including among the youth. Perhaps they will eventually form a majority that adopts a peaceful approach toward the existence of the Jewish state, following the example set by Egypt and Jordan.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Hassan Nasrallah Has Been Killed, but Lebanon Is Unlikely to Become the Switzerland of the Middle East Again
A Fair Peace Proposal for Gaza
Two out of three Palestinians support October 7 attack

New aid package keeps Finland as one of Ukraine's biggest supporters

Finland is located next to Russia and is therefore one of the countries that might become a target of Vladimir Putin's aggression if he achieves even a partial victory in Ukraine.

For this reason, the Finns decided to join the Western defense alliance, NATO, immediately after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The nation was quite unanimous in this decision, even though before the invasion, the so-called "NATO option" had not been particularly popular among the public.

The Finns’ perspective changed because Russia's attack on Ukraine showed that the previous policy of appeasement was insufficient to prevent Russian aggression. For the same reason, Finns are currently quite united in their belief that Ukraine must be supported in its fight for independence.

For this reason, Finland is now sending its 25th aid package to Ukraine. After this, the total value of the defense material sent will rise to €2.3 billion, keeping Finland among the countries that have provided the most support to Ukraine in relation to the size of its economy.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Must Avoid Ukraine’s Fate
Will Russia Test NATO's Article Five?
Ukraine can and will stop Putin

The Lenin Museum Will No Longer Serve as a Reminder of the Dangers of Political Correctness

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was the leader of the Russian Revolution and the first dictator of the Soviet Union. Among his most notable achievements in this position was the starvation of at least five million people due to his idiotic agricultural policies.

Less well known, however, is Lenin's history in my home country. During his exile, he often operated from Finland.

Lenin first expressed his support for Finland's independence at meetings held in Tampere in 1905 and 1906, in the building that now houses the Lenin Museum. The Soviet dictator did not do this out of goodwill but rather to weaken Tsarist Russia.

After his revolution, Lenin hoped that newly independent Finland would fall into a revolution that would bring it back into the fold of Soviet Russia. To this end, he incited the left, which indeed launched a bloody rebellion in 1918.

Today, it was reported in the Finnish press that the Lenin Museum, which I mentioned earlier, has seen more visitors this summer than in a long time. The reason is likely that the museum is set to close on November 3rd.

Thus, one monument to a time when Finland sought to secure its independence by avoiding provoking the eastern superpower is closing. This strategy was quite successful in that Finland remained independent, but the price was the eventual withering of Western-style democracy and the media's descent into the "woke" phenomenon of its time, where all opinions critical of the Soviet Union were condemned as politically incorrect and heretical.

This fate eventually befell even the largest right-wing party, the National Coalition Party, which subsequently joined the ruling center-left in adhering to the same policy of silence on certain facts. In doing so, it had to abandon the virtues of open democracy and freedom of speech.

All of this is relevant in the current world, where there are also attempts to condemn views based on people's own experiences and understanding as politically incorrect, regardless of their truth. In this sense, it is a shame that the Lenin Museum is closing, as it serves as a reminder of a time when Finland gradually slid into its own "truth," where black was white if the country's political leadership decreed it so in fear of the Soviet Union.

If my dear reader notes similarities in this writing to recent events in the United Kingdom or Ireland, Olympics or the changes in the workplace experienced in many Western countries, they may very well be on the right track.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
A young woman skiing in a swimsuit caused a controversy among women
Nightwish and the Disney Company

Rediscovered Relics: The Story Behind Finland's WWII Weapon Caches

Yesterday, approximately 200 old military rifles were found buried in Finland. They had already decayed beyond use, but they served as a reminder of the post-World War II situation.

In 1944, Finland had succeeded in halting the large-scale Russian offensive and subsequently signed an armistice, after which German soldiers were driven out of the country during the Lapland War, which destroyed the entire northernmost Finnish settlement. Although the peace thus achieved was welcome to the ordinary people, there was a fear that the Russians would continue their military actions and ultimately subjugate the Finns under their own control.

In preparation for this situation, caches were established across the country, where weapons were stored for guerrilla operations. The project was, of course, eventually revealed, and its scale is evidenced by the fact that a total of 1,488 people were convicted in court in connection with it.

However, many officers who led the arms caches fled to the West, including Alpo Marttinen, who had distinguished himself as the right hand man of Hjalmar Siilasvuo in the Battle of Raate Road by destroying a Soviet division, and Lauri Törni, who ultimately died in Vietnam under the name Larry A. Thorne. Both of whom embarked on new military careers in the United States.

The recently discovered military rifles are one of these caches, whose existence sent a strong message to the Russians that the Finns were still ready to defend their homeland. This perhaps influenced the fact that Finland was not annexed by the Soviet Union or subjected to its vassal state, as happened to other Eastern European countries.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finns Feel Sympathy for Ukrainians Because They Share a Similar Experience
Finnish weapons are being tested against the Russians in Ukraine
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

Two out of three Palestinians support October 7 attack

According to a recent opinion poll, as many as 67 percent of Palestinians still approve of the events of October 7, during which groups of Jews were murdered and raped, and hostages were taken. As a result, the war in Gaza continues.

This demonstrates to the whole world that Palestinians have not excluded terrorism from the means they use to destroy Israel. And this, of course, does not encourage the Jewish state to negotiate the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Therefore, it is easy to predict that the war in Gaza will not end with serious negotiations for the creation of an independent Palestine. Instead, it will lead at most to some sort of theater, where Israeli representatives are merely pretending to negotiate, and Palestinian leaders are gathering sympathy points from gullible Westerners.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Norway and Ireland are awarding the terrorists a prize
Palestinian responsibility
Palestinians: acknowledging facts is the beginning of wisdom!

History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war

This is the twelfth part of a blog series where I go through the significant events of Finnish history. In the eleventh entry, I described how Finland became a democracy, ensuring equal political participation for all citizens, as a result of the oppressive measures taken by Russia in the country. 

As such, Finland gained independence in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution. However, led by the Social Democratic Party, then including also communists, the Finnish Civil War began. According to Professor Ylikangas, the war resulted in the deaths of as many as 36 640 people - more than in the similarly-lengthy Winter War, and in proportion to the population, more than in the three-year Continuation War.

As we know, the war was ultimately won by the Whites, led by Mannerheim, although they initially struggled to recruit even in South Ostrobothnia, where the war was being fought against fellow countrymen. This situation changed when Mannerheim managed to disarm 7 500 Russian soldiers with a small group of men in Ostrobothnia. Thereafter, recruitment was marketed with the need to remove the Russians from the country, which solved previous problems. 

The parties of the war were initially quite equal in terms of their skills, but the outcome was decided by the Jäger troops - Finnish young men who were trained and arrived from Germany - and ultimately by the German military unit that arrived in the country. In reality, the latter alone would have been sufficient to achieve the same outcome even if there had been no Jäger troops.

In the white Finland that emerged as the first outcome of the war, power was taken over by the educated classes, civil servants, owners of estates and factories, as well as farmers. On the other hand, the defeated industrial and agricultural workers and the landless inhabitants of sparsely populated areas were marginalized despite their right to vote.

The second significant outcome of the war was the emergence of a strong far-left party (The Finnish Communist Party) in our country. Its success was fueled by the white media, which highlighted the red terror, but remained silent about all the memories of the white post-war atrocities.

Finland was driven into a civil war primarily due to the power vacuum created by the fall of the Russian Tsar. The well-known social injustices - popularized by Väinö Linna and still cherished by the Left today - were more of a driving force for the war rather than the cause.

Two militant organizations, the Red and White Guards, emerged to fill the power vacuum, and their confrontation was ensured when the Senate, dominated by the political right, declared the Civil Guards as the government's armed forces. The Red Guard leadership could not accept this, and they set out on their ill-fated military campaign.

After the war, there was a multi-stage political struggle over the country's political system and the government structure that reflected it. The result was a democratic structure with a very strong executive power, which was entirely different from the other European states that became independent after the World War I.

Thanks to its strong executive power, Finland remained a democracy while other post-World War I democracies drifted towards right-wing dictatorships. This was despite the fact that communists in Finland were forced underground and the far-right sought to take power through extra-legal means.

The original blog post in Finnish:
Verinen sisällissota

All the blog posts in this series:
History of Finland I: How did Finland become culturally part of the West?
History of Finland II: From a hinterland of the Union into a modern state
History of Finland III: The legal and economic weakening of the position of the people
History of Finland IV: The bleakest time in Finnish history
History of Finland V: The pursuit of economic profit saved the country
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility
History of Finland VII: The dictator of the era of Enlightenment promoted capitalist economy
History of Finland VIII: Joining of Finland to Russia led to an increase in crime
History of Finland IX: Enlightended dictator initiated economic growth
History of Finland X: The birth of Finnish identity
History of Finland XI: Finnish democracy and gender equality for women
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
History of Finland XIII: The far-right's rebellion
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine
History of Finland XVI: Through rise and fall to a new kind of future