Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

The defense ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland have recommended in a joint statement to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, which bans anti-personnel mines. The reason cited is the increasing security threat posed by Russia.

Finland is also expected to join this group soon, as discussions have been ongoing about reintroducing anti-personnel mines. According to Jukka Kopra (National Coalition Party), chairman of the Defense Committee, Finland could withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty within the next few months.

This would enable the eastern border states of Russia, from Lapland to the Belarusian border, to defend themselves better against potential Russian aggression. And considering Belarus as a puppet state of Russia, this extends further down to Ukraine’s border.

Finland and Poland, in particular, have strong and well-equipped armies, which are undoubtedly capable of independent defense long enough for other NATO countries to come to their aid. If necessary, they can also help counter an attack against the Baltic states.

Since this text may be read in Putin’s dictatorship, it is important to state that none of the aforementioned NATO countries—let alone NATO as a whole—are planning any military operation on Russian soil. Any claims by Putin’s administration suggesting otherwise, now or in the future, are nothing but attempts to mislead ordinary Russians, much like Stalin’s administration did in 1939–40 when it ordered its army to occupy Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and eastern Poland, as well as launch an unsuccessful invasion to occupy Finland, which resulted in approximately 350,000 casualties for the Red Army in just three months.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?

Victims of Russian leaders

According to the BBC, Russians are reportedly buying cheap apartments from Ukrainians in the captured city of Mariupol. However, the news does not specify who the sellers are.

Based on recent military events (example and another), it's evident that the city won't remain under Russian control for long, and the Ukrainian army will eventually take over, sooner or later. This means that those who have purchased property in Mariupol will inevitably lose their investments, sooner or later.

Both Ukrainians and even Russia's leadership, including Vladimir Putin, are aware of all of this. However, it seems that this information hasn't been conveyed to the Russian populace seeking inexpensive housing in prime locations.

The question arises whether this implies that the sellers are either the Russian government or the leadership of the Russian military, or individuals close to them. Thus, could this be the final cashing in for these entities before the ultimate downfall of their "special operation"? A scheme in which the victims are the misled citizens of their own country?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Should Putin´s regime be overthrown by supporting Russian opposition?
Russian standard of tanks
Incapable of learning but capable of genocide

The Guardian misleads its readers

The internationally acclaimed Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, has decided to step down as the leader of the Social Democratic Party of Finland. At the same time, she announced that she will not seek a position as a minister in the upcoming government or run for president.

I have previously expained that despite her international success, Prime Minister Marin has been an inadequate leader. While she is certainly able to present herself convincingly, in the last few years she has been unable to maintain Finland's economy in good condition. Additionally, she has displayed inappropriate behavior by attacking her coalition partners and encouraging voters from other left-wing parties to vote for her own party.

Therefore, it was incomprehensible that the Guardian got excited about writing about Finnish misogyny in Marin's case. If this were the case, could the top three candidates in the elections have been women, or not?

It remains to be seen what kind of government will come to Finland in the coming years. However, it is clear that the voters did not want a new left-wing government: after all, the environmental and left-wing parties only received a third of the votes. And the same amount of seats in the Parliament.

Therefore, it would be appropriate for Finland to have a government that represents the will of the people, with the two largest winners of the election, namely the National Coalition and the Finns Party. It should also be noted that the latter party is not associated with the right-wing ideologies of the parties in the 1930s as insinuated by the Guardian. Instead, it is a conservative and market-oriented popular movement.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 
Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin is quickly losing her national credibility
Elections in Finland enlight journalistic views
A notable difference between Social Democrats in Sweden and Finland