Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony

The Iranian government threatened to destroy water desalination plants in the Persian Gulf countries if the United States begins destroying its energy facilities. As a result, millions of people would face a horrific situation—assuming water production were severely disrupted—since the region’s natural water resources are insufficient to meet their needs.

With this threat—or at least by carrying it out—the Iranians would violate international agreements that prohibit attacks on infrastructure vital to civilians, such as drinking water systems and dams. In doing so, they would act just as the Russians have in Ukraine—without facing any particularly serious consequences. And they continue to do so.

Thus, in Putin’s “three-day special operation,” a precedent has been created that encourages the Iranians to act in a questionable manner. At the same time, it demonstrates the toothlessness of international law when it comes to protecting civilians.

* * *

The Houthi rebels in Yemen are one of the most significant proxy actors of Iran against other states and their governments in the region. However, they have been remarkably passive during the attack against their “patron”—perhaps purely out of self-preservation.

Now, however, the Houthis have announced their intention to join the war on the side of the Iranian government if the United States or Israel use the Red Sea against it. In practice, however, the Houthis’ capabilities would likely be limited to harassing ships traveling by sea.

Unfortunately, even that alone would have significant economic consequences for global trade. And therefore—if that were to happen—the rest of the world might have to consider whether the time has finally come to take real action to dismantle the terrorist Houthi regime.

* * *

If the two threats discussed above are extremely serious, the third case that caught my attention is rather amusing. I am referring to Russia’s threat to halt gasoline exports abroad. This comes after its oil infrastructure has been repeatedly destroyed—most recently even in ports along the coast of the Gulf of Finland.

Of course, the Russian threat shows that they have understood how to make use of the situation. They are scoring points by turning necessity into a virtue. It remains to be seen, however, whether this threat will have any impact on the course of the war, in which Ukraine has clearly gained the upper hand this year and now appears likely to emerge as the victor.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Houthi Leaders Risk Their Lives to Cling to Power

Trump Speaks from Putin’s Pocket – A Perilous Shift in the Ukraine War

Donald Trump's proposal to end the war in Ukraine was like a godsend for Russia. First of all, he announced that he was ready to legally — de jure — recognize Russia’s control over the Crimean Peninsula.

Secondly, he is prepared to accept — de facto — Russia's occupation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. These are areas that contain a significant share of Ukraine's vital natural resources and where a large part of Ukraine’s industry and mining operations were concentrated before the war.

Additionally, Trump wanted to block Ukraine from joining NATO but did not offer any credible alternative security guarantees.

Finnish Member of Parliament Jani Kokko (Social Democrats) rightly pointed out that "this is an outright catastrophic shift away from the principle that has been pursued in Europe and internationally for decades: that war cannot be used to achieve political goals." Therefore, according to Finnish MP Jukka Kopra (National Coalition Party), "Trump’s proposal appears to suggest that Russia is pursuing its own war aims and has managed to draw the United States into its orbit."

As for me, I will simply say that this peace proposal only further strengthened my impression that Donald Trump has, in one way or another, ended up in Vladimir Putin’s pocket. And that he is acting from there in Putin’s interest — while causing nearly irreversible damage. Not just to Ukraine, but to the entire world — including the United States he leads.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Can Trump Resist the Kremlin’s Lure?
Xi Jinping and Donald Trump Agree on Cooperation to Bring Peace to Ukraine
Political Rhetoric Like Trump-Zelenskyi’s Has Deep Historical Roots

Finnair Pilots' Actions Spark Employer Countermove

Finnair is a Finnish airline whose pilots have recently engaged in various industrial actions, such as standby duty bans, leading to flight cancellations. The underlying reason for these actions is their demand for significant pay raises, as the pilots had previously accepted salary cuts to help save their employer, which had fallen into heavy losses.

However, the pilots now have something new to consider, as Finnair has announced the start of negotiations regarding pilot layoffs. The reason for this is an arrangement in which Finnair had leased two of its A330 aircraft, along with their crews, to a partner company. Finnair pilots have been operating flights on these aircraft from Bangkok and Singapore to Sydney.

According to Finnair, this arrangement has allowed the airline to put its A330 aircraft to productive use and provide work for around 90 pilots, even though, with Russian airspace closed, there would not have been enough demand for these aircraft otherwise. Despite this, the pilots' union has now expanded its industrial actions to include the critical Bangkok and Singapore flights, as well as the Sydney flights operated for the partner company.

As a result, Finnair is no longer able to operate these partnership flights reliably and has therefore started discussions with its partner regarding next steps, which include the possibility of terminating the agreement—and consequently laying off the pilots involved in these operations. It remains to be seen how the pilots' union will respond to this development.

In my view, there are three possible outcomes. Either the pilots call off their industrial actions related to this partnership, abandon their push for significant pay raises to save those at risk of being laid off, or—what I consider the most likely scenario—the situation escalates even further. At this stage, one thing is clear: the labor dispute is being played with stakes so unusual that such a situation has rarely been seen in Finland.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Do Finns have the patience?
Why Can't Finland Find Workforce?
A nurse´s question: who deserves health care, and who does not

Are We on the Brink of World War III?

The Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), has given an interview in which he has, so to speak, painted devils on the wall. In other words, he has expressed fears that the Third World War may already be underway, but people are unwilling to recognize it.

According to him, the current situation is similar to the one leading up to the Second World War in the late 1930s. Therefore, I thought I would remind you, dear readers, of what happened back then.

* * *

One of the causes of the Second World War is considered to be the Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed after the First World War. Its terms were regarded as overly harsh in Germany. After all, German soldiers had still occupied enemy territories in both the east and the west at the end of the war, unlike at the conclusion of the Second World War.

In addition to territorial losses, Germany’s military was drastically reduced. However, Hitler disregarded this and began rebuilding his country's military strength in the mid-1930s. This went unchallenged; for example, Britain signed a naval agreement with Germany, allowing its navy to be 35% the size of Britain’s own – then the most powerful in the world.

The Second World War was preceded by the Spanish Civil War, which ended with General Francisco Franco coming to power by overthrowing the democratically elected left-wing government. In this conflict, Germany and Italy supported Franco, while the Soviet Union backed the Republicans. This war provided an opportunity for these powers to test their weaponry and assess their military needs.

In 1936, Hitler capitalized on Germany's increased military strength by remilitarizing the demilitarized Rhineland. France protested, but Britain accepted the action, and no military threat was posed to Germany. Instead, Hitler orchestrated a "referendum" in the Rhineland, where 98.8% of those who voted supported his actions.

Hitler also engineered Austria's annexation into Germany, despite this being prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles. He received support from Italy for this move.

Some Austrians opposed the loss of independence and organized protests. However, these ended when Austrian Interior Minister Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who facilitated the unification, invited Hitler's army to restore order.

The next step in Hitler’s march towards war was the annexation of the Sudetenland, the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia. The Czechs wanted to defend themselves, but their allies, France and the Soviet Union, refused to assist them. Thus, the issue was resolved through the Munich Agreement, led by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, which granted the Sudetenland to Germany.

After acquiring the Sudetenland, Hitler annexed the Czech region outright and reduced Slovakia to a puppet state. Shortly thereafter, Hungary annexed the Hungarian-speaking areas of Slovakia.

Following these events, Hitler demanded the transfer of Memel (now Klaipėda) to Germany. Once again, the victim, Lithuania, sought help from foreign powers, but assistance was denied.

It should also be remembered that before the Second World War, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Eastern Europe between them. Under this agreement, Hitler invaded Poland in early September 1939, and the Soviet Union occupied the eastern part of the country.

As a result, France and Britain eventually declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union. Thus, the Second World War had begun, even though little fighting occurred along the German-French border until May 1940. Before that, Hitler had already occupied Denmark and advanced into northern Norway, prompting a response from France and Britain – though, at this stage, they suffered defeats.

* * *

If we examine the events I described earlier in light of Halla-aho’s perspective, we can make the following observations.

Firstly, it seems that Putin views the collapse of the Soviet Union as a comparable event to the Treaty of Versailles for Germany. After all, Russia lost a vast portion of the territories it controlled, from the Baltic states to the newly independent nations of Central Asia.

Russia’s actions in Syria were successful and undoubtedly reinforced Putin’s perception of the effectiveness of his military, much like the Spanish Civil War shaped the views of Hitler and Mussolini. However, unlike Hitler’s army, Putin’s forces have not been able to use their experiences in Syria to improve their available weaponry. A particularly striking example of this is the widely advertised Armata tank, which has proven incapable of participating in the war in Ukraine despite being a flagship product of Russia’s defense industry.

We have yet to see an event analogous to the unification of Austria and Germany, but the recent discussions surrounding Belarus being integrated into Russia would correspond quite closely. Additionally, it seems to me that Russia’s annexation of Crimea mirrors the events in Czechoslovakia in 1938: Ukraine wanted to fight, but Western nations at the time denied it military support and left it just as isolated as Czechoslovakia had been.

Furthermore, parts of occupied Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk) were, for a time, turned into puppet states of Russia, much like Hitler had done with Slovakia. The West sought to legitimize all this through the so-called Minsk Agreement, which closely parallels the Munich Agreement of 1938, which sealed Czechoslovakia’s fate.

Hitler’s invasion of Poland can, of course, be quite effectively compared to Ukraine’s situation from 2022 onward. Western nations have not declared war on Russia, but then again, the Western Front of 1939 didn’t see much actual fighting either.

However, Western countries are providing Ukrainians with some military aid, which—alongside the courage of the Ukrainians themselves—has enabled them to defend their country, though not to drive the aggressor out entirely. Poland, on the other hand, received no such support during the rapidly progressing war and wasn’t even provided with weapons in time.

* * *

And is there a modern-day Chamberlain and a 1930s-style Britain? Isn’t this self-evident?

What else are we to think of Germany’s Olaf Scholz, who has done his utmost to minimize military aid to Ukraine, thereby playing into Russia’s hands in much the same way as Britain’s prime minister did back then?

What I’ve written above shows that the Speaker’s view of the similarities between the current situation and the events leading up to the Second World War is astonishingly accurate. However, I also see some differences.

The most significant of these is that Putin’s Russia is not a great power comparable to Hitler’s Germany. Certainly, Russia possesses nuclear weapons, but wars fought with them have no winners. At least not in a large-scale war, where a U.S. counterstrike would be inevitable and therefore too great a risk for the Russians.

* * *

On the other hand, we also have China, which is rising as an increasingly powerful military force. It certainly has its own interests, particularly regarding Taiwan, but would it go to war as Russia’s ally against the entire world?

In my view, the answer is unequivocal. And it is a resounding "no"—especially regarding direct warfare. China will not engage in a large-scale war against the West, at least not as long as it can gain power and wealth through other means.

However, the question remains whether China might exploit Russia’s weakness and seize old Chinese territories in East Asia. Since the situation is quite similar to Taiwan, the answer is "possibly yes." But in that case, we are no longer talking about a Third World War but rather localized military actions.

Finally, I want to emphasize that although I do not believe, for the reasons outlined above, that a Third World War is about to break out, I do agree with Speaker Halla-aho (and many others) that it is better to prepare for war before it begins than to be naïve.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?
Strategic Experts Predicted Russia’s Collapse but Fell into Wishful Thinking
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization

Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?

According to BBC, a former adviser to President-elect Donald Trump - Bryan Lanza - says the incoming administration will focus on achieving peace in Ukraine rather than enabling the country to regain territory occupied by Russia. Furthermore, he stated that "if President Zelensky comes to the table and says, well, we can only have peace if we have Crimea, he shows to us that he's not serious, Crimea is gone."

However, Lanza no longer works for Trump, so it's difficult to say if his words carry much weight. Still, it’s always permissible to speculate.

In my opinion, it has long been clear that Russia—at least under Vladimir Putin's rule—will not stop if it can gain advantages through military actions. And turning Crimea over to Moscow’s control would indeed be one such advantage in the highest degree.

Thus, it seems likely that once peace is achieved, Putin would first focus on rearming his military and would use it in the future when a suitable target appears. That target could be one of the neighboring countries in either Europe or Asia.

For Ukrainians, the problem is also the fact that Russia has not kept its promise to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia, along with a few other countries, made this promise when the government in Kyiv surrendered Soviet-era nuclear weapons to Russia.

The treaty text states: "The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine."

As my esteemed reader has noticed, the United States would also be breaking its promise if the Trump administration acts as Lanza predicts. It is clear that if this happens, international treaties and their significance will become even less meaningful. And this does not benefit relations between states.

One can only hope that this will be understood within the Trump administration as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Former President Donald Trump is Also the Upcoming President – But What Does It Mean?
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization
Ukraine’s Situation Mirrors Finland in 1944

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

In Germany, immigration policy changes are being planned

Angela Merkel's Germany acted as the driving force in 2015 in a process in which approximately 1.3 million people from developing countries were admitted to the EU's territory. As a result of this event, the internal security situation in Germany and many EU countries deteriorated significantly.

As a consequence of this, and with the resurgence of mass migration from developing countries, Germany has  measures to curb the ongoing wave of immigration. This involves various well-intentioned actions.

Among the proposed measures are the following: setting an upper limit for immigration, reducing Germany's attractiveness by replacing cash benefits for newcomers with payment cards, distributing asylum seekers evenly to all EU countries, reinstating border controls in Germany, strengthening the control of the EU's external borders, detaining asylum seekers during the processing of their applications, adding new states to the list of safe countries, negotiating return agreements with countries of origin, outsourcing asylum processing to third countries, and increasing the number of quota refugees instead of individual asylum applications.

It remains to be seen to what extent the above-mentioned list will be implemented in Germany. If it is implemented, it is uncertain whether it will have any impact on the desire of people from developing countries to enter the EU for the purpose of enjoying a safer society and higher living standards than in their home countries, or the impact it has on eroding these factors, as seen in Germany, France, and Finland, and particularly in the humanitarian migration powerhouse of Sweden.

The original thought in Finnish:
Saksassa suunnitellaan maahanmuuttopoliittisia muutoksia

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Freudian slip, 9-year-old girl and cultural appropriation
Attitudes towards immigrants are not becoming more positive in Western countries
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

This is the fourteenth part of a blog post series where I go through the significant events in Finnish history. In the thirteenth post, I described how Finland managed to develop again through peaceful democratic means after the rise of the extreme right-wing following the civil war initiated by the old Social Democratic Party.

As my esteemed reader well remembers, this development was interrupted by World War II. For Finland, the most significant chain of events occurred already before the Winter War.

I'm referring to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, in which Finland was defined as part of the Soviet Union's sphere of influence. As a result, the Kremlin offered our country a trade-off, in which we would give up areas on the Karelian Isthmus and Hanko, seen as important for the security of Leningrad, but would receive land in East Karelia in return.

Finland refused the trade mainly because the government believed that the Soviet Union was just bluffing. Not even the fact that Hitler's closest confidant - Marshal Hermann Göring - advised Finland to accept the offer, hinting that our country would get its losses back with interest during the coming major war. In the Baltic countries, Göring's similar speeches were believed and they agreed to Moscow's demands, which later, in a changed situation, led to the occupation of these countries.

As a result of Finland's stubbornness, Russia began to threaten our country through its media and moved its troops to the border. Since these methods did not make the Cajander government yield, Stalin also staged the shelling in Mainila and denounced the non-aggression treaty between the countries.

Even these measures did not change the Finnish government's position because it could not believe in an attack, at least not without an ultimatum or a threat to start a war. Moscow, on the other hand, could not give such a declaration because it would have been contrary to the propaganda image it created of the Soviet Union as a peace-loving state.

Therefore, the Soviet army eventually crossed the border, citing the shots fired at Mainila. This surprised the Finnish government, which believed in the impossibility of war, and it fell. After that, a new government tried to agree on a territorial exchange with Stalin. However, it was already too late, as Stalin was only discussing with the puppet government led by Otto Wille Kuusinen that he had established.

During the Winter War, the Finns remembered Göring's offer, which led to Finland's submission to the harsh peace terms of the Winter War, despite the still unbeaten army and military assistance offered - although not given - by England and France. However, the latter made Stalin begin negotiations with Finland.

At this point, the Finnish leadership had assessed that Germany would win the upcoming great war, at least against Russia, and that Finland would get its losses back with interest. This view was based mainly on the fact that Russia had also suffered a defeat during the First World War against Germany, which later lost the war.

Thus, our country was drawn into the Continuation War, in which the objectives were set clearly beyond the borders of 1939. Finland became dependent on Germany for both energy and food self-sufficiency. As a side note, it should be mentioned that the extradition of some Jews to the Nazis was done because Germany required it as a condition for grain deliveries.

In Finland, it was understood no later than 1942 that Germany would not win the war. This led to peace enquiries, during which Stalin was proposed to withdraw to the borders prior to the Winter War, which, of course, did not suit to the Generalissimo, who demanded the peace borders of the Winter War. This was not accepted, so Stalin agreed on future borders with other allies at the Tehran Conference in 1943, receiving in return permission to retain the Baltic states - that had previously "voluntarily" joined the Soviet Union - as his own after the war.

Thus, Finland's fate was left to weapons, and the solution proved to be the breaking of the front in the battles of June 9-10. After that, President Risto Ryti made his famous personal agreement with Hitler to receive military support, and the Commander-in-Chief transferred troops from Olonets Karelia, where the Soviet war machine was once again stopped - primarily due to the technically superior artillery fire of the Finns.

After this, a peace process was initiated as the Soviet Union needed its soldiers in the race to Berlin. Finland got its post-Winter War borders with Petsamo reduced and exchange of Hanko peninsula to the Porkkala peninsula closer to Helsinki. Additionally, Finland committed to clearing Lapland of German troops and paying heavy war reparations.

The war marked the end of the era of the first republic, often referred to as White Finland. During this time, the society that was extremely divided after the Civil War had gradually and especially during the Winter War, grown into a unified state, where the old aristocracy had been ousted and the working class had taken its place.

It was a world of peasants, businessmen, higher civil servants, and the intelligentsia, where even working-class families had dreams of social advancement by sending their children to study and thus pursue success in society. In other words, this was the foundation for poor Finland's development into one of the world's best places to live.

The original blog post in Finnish:
Suomen ensimmäisen tasavallan loppu

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