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

Trump Jeopardizes NATO Progress

A while ago, President Donald Trump announced that NATO countries should increase their defense spending to five percent of their gross domestic product. A large portion of the European members of NATO have appeared ready to accept this goal after NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated that this could be achieved by raising actual military spending to 3.5 percent, with the remaining 1.5 percent consisting of other security-related activities.

The positive attitude of European countries is due to the undeniable fact that Vladimir Putin’s Russia has demonstrated its ruthlessness in Ukraine, and Europeans are unwilling to risk their security — especially not the United States' commitment to the continent’s security arrangements. Only Spain’s socialist president, Pedro Sánchez, has clearly voiced disagreement.

The continuation of this positive development is now in jeopardy, as Trump announced that the five percent rule would not apply to the United States. His justification is the — admittedly accurate — claim that the U.S. has so far borne the lion’s share of NATO’s military capabilities and their costs.

It remains to be seen how Europeans will react to Trump’s statement. Will it prompt other financially weaker countries, especially those far from the Russian border and thus at lower risk, to join Pedro Sánchez in resisting the NATO spending demands?

Such an outcome would be extremely unfortunate for both Europe and the United States — for Europe, because its security would not improve as much as it recently seemed it might; and for the U.S., because it would clearly weaken its influence in global politics. The winners would include not only Vladimir Putin’s Russia but also — and even more clearly — Xi Jinping’s China, which is looking forward to seizing Taiwan for itself.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Pedro Sánchez Sides with Europe's Fifth Column on Russia
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Ukraine’s Former Foreign Minister Warns Against Another 1939

Will Power Change Hands in Iran?

After Israel attacked Iran few days ago, it didn't take long before Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced his willingness to discuss the nuclear deal aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The reason for this is most likely the Jewish state's military superiority compared to Khamenei’s forces.

So far, Western countries have not, at least publicly, responded to the Iranians' announcement, instead choosing to watch from the sidelines as an uneven struggle unfolds, in which Israel demonstrates that it is militarily and technologically vastly more capable than Iran. This is the case even though Iran has managed to launch some missiles into Israel.

For the world at large—and especially for the Iranian people—it would likely be best if Iran’s Islamist regime were to collapse as a result of the war and be replaced by a religiously neutral government that would free its citizens from the religious terrorism imposed by the current regime. However, this would require a sufficiently strong force to emerge from within Iran, one capable of channeling public dissatisfaction into a revolution.

Another possibility for regime change could be the use of force by Israel or Western nations. However, I strongly doubt that anyone has the will to undertake such an operation, even though, for example, many Iranian refugees in Finland (an example and another) would undoubtedly wish for it.

It remains to be seen what consequences this ongoing and likely very short-lived war will have for the Iranian regime. Will it manage to maintain its position even in defeat, or will the Iranian people finally gain their freedom?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Quick Israeli Success in Iran Would Be Crucial for Ukraine
Iran Rejects Direct Nuclear Talks with U.S., Calls Them Pointless
Israel’s Strike on Iran: Ripple Effects for the Middle East, Russia, and Global Stability

Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?

The American scholar John Mearsheimer has commented on Finland’s NATO membership in an extremely negative tone. According to him, joining the alliance has weakened Finland’s security situation, and furthermore, the decision was made at the worst possible time.

In Mearsheimer’s view, instead of joining NATO, Finland should have continued its post-World War II policy of "Finlandization," where the country refrained from criticizing the Soviet Union's actions, no matter what they were. During that time, politicians and the media lied directly to the Finnish people about the conditions, human rights issues, and ambitions of their eastern neighbor.

However, it is noteworthy that despite all this, most Finns lived in constant fear, day and night, that Russia would occupy the country — a country with no allies to come to its aid in times of crisis. In other words, people feared a repeat of the Winter War.

Mearsheimer has also stated that Finland joined NATO at a completely wrong moment, as the alliance is now facing deep problems. He even speculated that U.S. forces might withdraw from Europe and that NATO’s Article 5 — the obligation to assist a member state under attack — would lose its significance.

He further claimed that Finland’s President Alexander Stubb has been wrong about Ukraine from the very beginning because Stubb believes in discredited ideas promoted by Western liberal imperialists since the end of the Cold War.

* * * 

After reading Mearsheimer’s views, I found myself reflecting on his words. His credibility is bolstered by the fact that already in 1993, he predicted that Ukraine should not give up its nuclear weapons the following year.

First, I concluded that neither I nor almost any other Finn — except for some on the far left — want in any way to return to the era of Finlandization. That’s why I deeply support Finland’s NATO membership and the DCA agreement with the United States, to ensure we are never again left alone if Russia attacks.

Second, I fully understand that if NATO and the DCA were to lose their significance, it would be impossible for a country of five and a half million people to maintain its independence in the event of a full-scale Russian assault. Finland’s only option would be to make the price of conquest unbearably high for Russia — just as happened in the Winter War of 1939–40 (as a result of which Finland lost about 10 percent of its territory), during which Soviet casualties reached 321,000–381,000 in about one hundred days, despite Finland's lack of modern weaponry and allies.

* * *

In light of the threat posed by Putin, I have advocated here on this blog that Western European states must build sufficient military strength and commit — within the EU framework or otherwise — to each other’s defense. Many leading European politicians, including Germany’s new Chancellor Friedrich Merz, currently share this view.

Thus, it seems to me that by the time Russia and Vladimir Putin find a way out of Ukraine, Western Europe — including Finland — will have grown militarily strong enough that Russia will no longer have the capacity even to threaten its security. This is something Mearsheimer should be aware of as well.

Therefore, I found it puzzling and decided to look more closely into this scholar. I discovered that in 2019, he supported the far-left Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Considering the historical record of socialists worldwide, this revealed to me that Mearsheimer is completely incapable of rational thinking.

Thus, I asked myself how much weight should really be given to Mearsheimer’s views on Finland’s security policy — and I concluded: not very much after all.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
From Finnish Neutrality to Russian Ruins
Donald Trump’s Reliability as an Ally Has Proven to Be Questionable
Finally, Finland Speaks the Truth Without Fear!

Keir Starmer’s Message to Ireland, Spain, and Portugal: This Is About All of Europe

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, warned Europeans that Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, aims to disarm Ukraine in peace negotiations. If that were to happen, it would be significantly easier for Russia to launch a new attack on Ukraine and bring it under its control.

For this reason, he wants both Britain and the rest of Europe to act swiftly to ensure there is a counterforce against Russia, should a Trump-led USA concede to Putin’s demands. On this matter, Starmer is not only right but also highlighting an essential condition for all of Europe and its citizens to breathe freely once again.

Therefore, Europeans—including the Irish, Spanish, and Portuguese—must understand that this is not just an issue for Russia’s border states but a matter of the future of free Europe as a whole. That is why even the westernmost nations of the continent must participate in assembling military power against Russia, just as others do—because only in this way can Putin’s imperialist dreams be crushed.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Anyone Who Hired Steve Witkoff Should Be Fired for Incompetence
Ukraine's Struggle Is Also Our Struggle
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s America: Criminal or Benefactor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Is Time for Vladimir Putin to Acknowledge the Facts and Do Dmitry Medvedev a Favor

Ukraine carried out its first strike on Russia using ATACMS missiles. The attack targeted facilities of the Main Directorate of Missiles and Artillery of the Russian Ministry of Defense located in the city of Karachev in the Bryansk region.

As noted by the Finnish Minister of Defense, the use of the missiles confirmed that Russian threats of nuclear war have lost their effectiveness. And showed that Western countries can continue to support Ukrainians even more extensively and with more effective means.

Thus, Russia finds itself in a position where it must consider its response to what has happened. Therefore I will offer them—and particularly Vladimir Putin—a free piece of advice: now is the time to acknowledge the facts, recognize Ukraine’s legitimate borders, and withdraw the military from Ukrainian territory, including the Crimean Peninsula.

The strike demonstrated that Western countries will not abandon Ukraine in the future either, meaning Russia has practically no chance of winning the war. And the only reason left to continue it would be the senseless sacrifice of Russian soldiers.

At the same time, it’s worth noting that Dmitry Medvedev has once again made irresponsible threats involving nuclear weapons. He seems like a pleasant enough man, but is clearly not in his right mind. Therefore, I ask you, Comrade Putin, to do him a favor and arrange for him to receive appropriate care.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Is Putin's Administration Rational?
Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?
Russians are, Intellectually, Spiritually, and Morally, a Deficient People

 

All Russians Should Be Informed of the Staggering Losses of Putin’s Army in Ukraine

Based on open data, the BBC, together with the publication Mediazona and a team of volunteers, has identified the names of 78,329 Russian soldiers who have died in Ukraine over the past two years. The growth rate of confirmed deaths is currently at its highest since the beginning of the war. The figures for September, October, and November exceed those of last year by one and a half times, and the 2022 figures by more than double.

The increase in losses may result from offensive operations by Russian forces in Ukraine’s Donetsk region, such as the assault on Vuhledar, which was captured by early October, and the assault on Pokrovsk, where fighting on the outskirts continues.

Other possible reasons include the gradual confirmation of Russian losses in Russia’s Kursk region or the aftermath of the summer offensive campaign. The rise in reports of fatalities could also be due to a combination of these factors.

The highest number of losses is among volunteers—those who signed contracts after the full-scale invasion began. Their share of total confirmed losses continues to grow, with confirmed deaths of 16,551 volunteers, accounting for 23% of the total confirmed Russian losses.

In addition to fatalities, many Russians have also been injured. Including these, the total losses for the aggressor rise to approximately 720,000 soldiers.

These figures can be compared to Soviet troop losses in Finland’s Winter War (November 30, 1939 – March 13, 1940), often likened to the war in Ukraine. In that conflict, as many as 126,875 Soviet soldiers were killed, with total losses—including the wounded—reaching around 350,000 soldiers in just 4.5 months. This means that current Russian losses have surpassed the staggering toll seen at that time. 

It would be valuable for all Russians to receive and understand this message, as it might reduce the appeal of the large rewards promised by Putin's administration to people living in Russia. This could weaken the country’s military capability in Ukraine.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization
Ukraine’s Situation Mirrors Finland in 1944

Former President Donald Trump is Also the Upcoming President – But What Does It Mean?

Former U.S. President Donald Trump (Rep) won the election against his opponent Kamala Harris (Dem) and is now also the upcoming president. This offers Europe some food for thought.

In economic terms, Trump is expected to strongly advocate for the interests of American businesses and workers. This will likely manifest in the form of increased tariffs, making it harder for other countries to export their products to the U.S.

Europe – and other regions as well – will thus need to consider whether to respond with their own tariffs or simply criticize the Trump administration for its anti-free-trade stance. The former seems more likely, which could ultimately slow down global economic growth.

Trump is also expected to take a firm stance on the humanitarian migration flow from Mexico to the U.S.. This aligns with policies in some EU countries aiming for similar goals. However, it remains to be seen whether either will ultimately succeed in halting the flow of people from developing countries, driven by rapid population growth and a large standard-of-living gap with destination countries.

It is important to note here that, in the U.S., one must work to get by. In many European countries, on the other hand, it's been sufficient to collect social benefits and live off them comfortably.

In military terms, Trump’s overall stance is clear. He demands that NATO’s European members increase their defense spending, without which he won’t commit to guaranteeing their security in the same way the U.S. has done for decades.

Taiwan and Ukraine, of course, are special cases, and I haven’t quite grasped Trump’s stance on them. However, I assume he won’t leave Taiwan at China’s mercy, though Ukraine remains a bigger question mark.

My dear readers will undoubtedly recall that Trump promised to bring peace to Ukraine within a day. However, it’s unclear how he could even achieve that. Unless Trump issues Vladimir Putin an ultimatum to withdraw his forces from Ukraine or face the U.S. military.

Such an approach might indeed work, but in that case, there would be a risk that Russia’s cornered dictator would resort to nuclear weapons. And that would be disastrous for everyone in this world.

Be that as it may, Donald Trump is taking responsibility for U.S. policy, and others must accept that. For Finland’s part, President Alexander Stubb summed up the situation by stating that Finland will get along with the U.S. regardless of who leads the country. On this, I have no further comments.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Message From and To Vladimir Putin
Finland Will Thrive with Any US President, Trump Survived the Assassination Attempt
Trump is leaving Africa

 

Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?

The Estonian Defense Forces have begun to significantly develop their naval combat capabilities. One example of this is that the northernmost Baltic country has acquired Blue Spear anti-ship missiles this year, which can also be used against land-based targets. The range of these missiles extends from Estonian territory to areas off the coast of St. Petersburg and as far as the northern parts of Kaliningrad. Additionally, the missile's guidance system cannot be electronically disrupted.

Estonia is also accelerating its weapons, ammunition, and drone production. To facilitate this, it plans to build a defense industry park, which is expected to attract €150 million in investments within just a couple of years.

Estonia already has Korean K9 Thunder howitzers, and more are on the way. Furthermore, it has ordered Caesar howitzers from France and HIMARS rocket systems, which have proven extremely effective in Ukraine.

However, Estonia's navy is very small, and the country also lacks a proper air force. For this reason, the effectiveness of its defense forces depends heavily on the support of other NATO countries in the event of a crisis. In this regard, Finland is likely to play a key role.

Nevertheless, Finnish military historian Martti Turtola has expressed doubts about the Estonians' willingness to defend their country. This was also lacking in 1939 when the country, under pressure from the Soviet Union, signed an agreement that gave the Red Army free access to Estonia.

As a result of this decision, the Soviet Union occupied all of Estonia without resistance in 1940, and after World War II, it remained a part of the "workers' paradise" ruled by Stalin and his successors for five decades. In this sense, one can only hope that Turtola is wrong and that Estonians have learned something from their history. One would hope they would defend their country as resolutely as the Finns did in the Winter War of 1939–1940, thereby preserving their independence and Western way of life.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
NATO's Northern Europe Headquarters to be Established in Mikkeli, Finland's Former Military Command City
Will Russia Test NATO's Article Five?
Estonias voted for economic liberalism

Turning Points in the War in Ukraine: New Threats and Unexpected Allies

Ukraine's successful offensive against Russia has undoubtedly caused headaches for Putin's administration. And it is not impossible that the Russians might decide to do something extraordinary to rid themselves of this embarrassing situation.

One possibility, of course, would be to divert the Ukrainians' attention elsewhere. This could happen in cooperation with Belarus, for example, by inciting Lukashenko to involve his army in the war.

Such a move would obviously not be in Belarus' best interest, especially given that its military is weak compared to Russia and even Ukraine. However, the fact remains that Belarus has gathered a large contingent of troops near the Ukrainian border.

The most likely reason for this, however, is not an attack on Ukraine but the annual joint military exercises held with Russia. This would also explain the presence of Russian units in the area, such as the Wagner Group.

From the Ukrainians' perspective, it is clear that the troops gathering in the north cannot be ignored, and Zelensky will need to deploy his own military units in response. Therefore, Lukashenko will end up assisting Putin’s army, even if the Belarusians do not carry out a single operation across the Ukrainian border.

One can only hope that this doesn’t halt Ukraine’s well-advanced progress on the Russian side of the border. This is important because the further they advance, the more they will affect Russia in the same way that the Belarusian troops are affecting Ukraine: by forcing Putin to halt his own sluggish but progressing offensive operations in eastern Ukraine and relocate his units away from Ukraine.

There is a fourth card in this game as well—one that has remained hidden so far—namely Poland. Militarily strong, Poland could, if it chose to, significantly alter the military balance in Ukraine. That’s why the recent incursion of a Russian drone into Polish airspace was extremely bad news for the Russians, as it gives the Poles a legitimate reason to intervene in the war in Ukraine.

One clear reason for such an intervention could be the resolution of World War II, in which Poland was shifted about a hundred kilometers westward. The lost territories likely still stir strong emotions among many Poles, which might lower the threshold for seizing the opportunity to right the wrongs experienced by their grandparents. Especially when Russia's army in Ukraine has proven to be more of a paper tiger than a real military force.

It remains to be seen how the war in Ukraine will continue from the current situation, and whether a resolution will eventually be reached that all parties can accept. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukrainian Offensive Encircles Russian Forces, Echoes of Past Defeats
Ukraine Gives Kursk Residents a Clear Choice: Russia or Refuge
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare

Ukrainian Offensive Encircles Russian Forces, Echoes of Past Defeats

The Ukrainian offensive in the Kursk region and its western surroundings is encircling a large Russian army behind the Seim River. According to recent reports, this force is rather inexperienced and poorly motivated, with no intention of fighting against the Ukrainians.

This would, of course, be a bitter blow to Vladimir Putin and the Russian military leadership, who have repeatedly boasted about their army's great capabilities. If it turns out that Putin and the war leadership are unable to save the unwilling Russian soldiers and they refuse to fight, both will become laughingstocks in the eyes of the world.

What makes this situation particularly interesting is that both the Russians and the Ukrainians likely remember the Battle of Raate Road during Finland’s Winter War. There, Finnish soldiers managed to encircle and destroy units that were twice as strong, primarily consisting of Russians and Ukrainians.

According to Soviet sources, the final outcome was 1,001 enemy soldiers killed, 1,430 wounded, 2,243 missing, and 82 frostbitten, in addition to 1,100 prisoners of war captured by the Finns and a huge amount of weapons and other military equipment. On the Finnish side, around 402 soldiers were killed or went missing, and 618 were wounded.

One can hope that the Ukrainians have learned from the Battle of Raate Road and that the Russians are aware of the enormous losses their compatriots suffered back then. Ultimately, perhaps this battle will also turn out to be one where Russia must admit it is incapable of completing Putin's special operation and will refuse to carry out the orders of a leader who has become a laughingstock.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
What’s the Issue With Russians?
Ukraine Gives Kursk Residents a Clear Choice: Russia or Refuge
Finns Feel Sympathy for Ukrainians Because They Share a Similar Experience

Ukraine Gives Kursk Residents a Clear Choice: Russia or Refuge

News channel CNN reported that Ukrainians are ready to accept refugees from the Kursk region, which has been captured by the Ukrainian army. However, they also allow people to move to areas still under Russian control.

This idea is excellent, as it provides a way to gauge the satisfaction of the people in the Kursk region with Putin's administration. And if it so happens that many people from Kursk decide to move to Ukraine, it would demonstrate to the whole world the incompetence of Putin's administration towards Russia's own citizens. 

At the same time, it would also be a shameful humiliation for the president himself. So let's wait and see how many people from Kursk take advantage of the opportunity offered by Ukraine, and how many believe they will receive better treatment in Russia.

Apart from that, it's great that the Ukrainians have once again managed to make the operational capabilities of the Russian army a laughingstock. After all, this is supposedly a superpower army, according to the Russians themselves.

This is despite the fact that, in recent days, it has managed to be the second most successful military force operating in Russia. Right after the Ukrainians.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finns Feel Sympathy for Ukrainians Because They Share a Similar Experience
Stalemate in Ukraine
Russian Tax Overhaul: Citizens to Bear the Burden of War Losses

Finns Feel Sympathy for Ukrainians Because They Share a Similar Experience

Most Finns feel compassion towards Ukrainians who have been forced into war against Russia. This is largely because Finland found itself in a similar situation in 1939 when Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union agreed on a sphere of influence division in Eastern Europe with Hitler's Germany. The Winter War broke out, which united the entire Finnish nation just 21 years after the end of the civil war.

Therefore, it was interesting that according to a recent opinion poll, as many as one in four Finns would like Finland and other Western countries to send armed troops to Ukraine. This is a surprisingly high figure even though the number of opponents is higher, about 40 percent.

One in three men supported sending troops, but only one in six women. In addition to women, people over sixty also viewed the idea unfavorably.

When viewed from a political perspective, the supporters of the political right, that is, the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party, were the most in favor of sending troops. The greatest number of opponents were among the supporters of the Social Democrats and the Centre Party.

However, the fact is that official Finland will not send even a single soldier to fight in Ukraine, even though it has provided fairly generous material aid. Instead, voluntary Finnish soldiers are already fighting in Zelenskyy's army against the "old enemy."

In practice, Ukraine's future will largely be determined by who wins the U.S. presidential election and what the winner thinks about the matter.

If the winner wants to withdraw American support from Zelenskyy's army, the Ukrainians will find themselves in a difficult situation. European arms aid is unlikely to be enough to win the war, and the country will be forced to make an unpleasant peace with Russia.

Such a situation would also unite Finns and Ukrainians, as this happened after the Winter War. A large part of Finland was cut off and made part of Russia, largely because the Western powers—mainly Britain and France—did not come to help despite their promises. 

This decision by the Western powers had unfortunate consequences, as Finland, disappointed by the Western countries, joined Hitler´s Germany when it attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. Finland only disengaged after stopping Stalin's army's major offensive in Southeastern Finland in the summer of 1944.

It is to be hoped that history does not repeat itself in this matter, and that Ukraine can rely on Western aid long enough for the aggressor to be subdued. Then, the Ukrainians can peacefully build their own future as they wish and are able to do.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Stalemate in Ukraine
Ukraine can and will stop Putin
A woman's logic, Putin's test, and the Netherlands' change

Finnish military intelligence: the Russian army is at the limits of its operational capability

Finnish military intelligence has reported that Russia has relocated about 80 percent of the troops near the Finnish border to other areas, specifically to Ukraine. This particularly concerns ground forces, where, in addition to personnel, the remaining equipment shows signs of obsolescence.

The same is most likely happening in other military bases across Russia. Therefore, even if the ongoing war in Ukraine were to end at this moment, it would take several years for the Russian army to regain its previous level of combat capability.

This indicates that Vladimir Putin's army is at the limits of its endurance in its invasion of Ukraine. It also means that it would not be capable of launching large-scale military operations elsewhere at this time.

This also implies that Russia currently lacks the ability to defend against a conventional military attack directed against it. This might explain why Russia has recently brought up the possibility of changing its nuclear doctrine.

From the perspective of the war in Ukraine, the weakening of the Russian army is naturally a good thing, especially now that its ground attack in the Kharkiv direction has resulted in nothing but significant personnel and equipment losses for the attacker. This does not mean that Putin will abandon his plans, but it perhaps gives hope that the operational capability of the Russians will continue to weaken on the other Ukrainian fronts as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Former President of Finland, Tarja Halonen, suggested that Ukraine should cede part of its territory
Finnish weapons are being tested against the Russians in Ukraine
Technically backward, miscellaneous group of gunmen

Risk of dementia in the U.S. presidential elections

In Finland and the USA, presidential elections are taking place. We have two middle-aged men facing each other, both in good health, with no significant decline in mental and physical condition expected in the upcoming term. In this sense, things in Finland are quite exemplary.

It's a different story in the world's leading superpower. The Democratic candidate and the incumbent president, Joe Biden, was born in the midst of World War II in 1942, making him 82 this year and, if he were to serve another term, he would be 86 at its end. At times, there have been signs of both mental and physical deterioration in him.

Biden's likely opponent in the presidential election is the former president of the USA, Republican Donald Trump. He is slightly younger than Biden, also an older man. Thus, it is clear that the onset of old age symptoms is likely for him during a potential upcoming presidential term.

If the scenario unfolds in the U.S. elections where these two candidates are pitted against each other, there is a significant risk that the grip of the world's leading superpower on realpolitik weakens. In the worst-case scenario, power transfers to the vice president, but a president turning senile may hold onto power for an extended period.

This, in turn, implies that undemocratic forces gain more weight in global politics. This is especially true for the strongest among them, China, but Russia will undoubtedly seek to exploit such a situation as well, potentially even militarily.

Therefore, it would be excellent if Americans across party lines understood that their country needs a younger leader, one likely to remain functional throughout his term. This is particularly crucial now, as European leaders believed that world history ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and allowed their crisis response capabilities to deteriorate – capabilities they certainly won't be able to fix over the next four years.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Military confrontation between China and USA highly probable in near future
Will China ally with Russia against Ukraine?
Leaders infected by a parasite

Desperate cry of Russians

The war between Russia and Ukraine is currently in an interesting phase. Russia has managed to advance on some fronts, but at the same time, it has suffered a significant loss of personnel.

According to a recent Finnish assessment, Russia has suffered tens of thousands of casualties, including both dead and wounded, on the Andrivka front, along with a substantial loss of military equipment. In addition to this, Ukrainians have successfully destroyed a large warship and five fighter jets.

At the same time, the Putin government is definitively losing credibility among Russian citizens, as only one in four Russians now believes in the news reported by media under its control. In contrast, Ukrainians' belief in the victory of their country remains high.

In this situation, Russia's large-scale missile attack on Ukrainian civilian targets is better understood as a sign of desperation rather than a show of strength. Therefore, it is even more crucial for Western countries to continue their military support to Ukraine so that the war achieves an inevitable outcome where Russia is forced to withdraw from Ukrainian soil, and its current administration is ousted through some form of coup.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish general praised the Ukrainian air strike
Is French military history repeating itself in Ukraine?
Victims of Russian leaders