The Ukrainian Lioness Will Defeat Vladimir Putin’s Army

Happy Finnish Mother’s Day to all mothers!

People say that mothers fight for their children like lionesses. In the same way, the Ukrainians have acted by stretching Vladimir Putin’s three-day “special military operation” into a war that has now lasted for more than four years.

As a result, the Russian army had to settle for a rather modest Victory Day parade yesterday. Unlike in previous years, there were no missiles on display — nor even the T-34 tank designed in the 1930s, which was still present in 2023. Perhaps the last of those is already on its way to Ukraine as well?

* * *

In one respect, however, Vladimir Putin may well be right. In his speech, he stated that the war “is moving toward its conclusion, but it nevertheless remains a serious matter.”

Unfortunately for Putin, the war has reached its culmination point, and his army’s offensive has stalled much like Hitler’s forces at Stalingrad in 1942. Nor does the future appear any brighter for him, because Ukrainian technical ingenuity is set to reverse the course of the war: new drones and missiles are already pounding Russia’s arms and oil industries, while armed robots have begun supporting — and when necessary even replacing — Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield.

* * *

Many Russians who have supported Putin up to this point have noticed this as well. But for now, fear of failure has reportedly prevented a coup.

This too is familiar from Hitler’s Germany, where the Austrian corporal remained in power so long that he ultimately chose to end his own life. By then, the Red Army had already reached Berlin, meaning Germany’s defeat in the war had been obvious for quite some time.

Putin’s advantage, of course, is that he ultimately has nuclear missiles at his disposal, and fear of them undoubtedly prevents the Ukrainians from attempting to conquer Russian territory. Thus, he cannot end up in a situation similar to Adolf Hitler’s in 1945 — even though such an outcome would undoubtedly be viewed by many as roughly equally positive for humanity as a whole.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony
Russia’s Spring Offensive: Gains Unclear, Losses Undeniable
Concern About the Future Is Growing in Russia

Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?

As my esteemed readers know, yesterday the United States and Israel struck Iran, killing a large number of the country’s leaders, beginning with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran, for its part, has launched its own missiles at least toward the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, Syria, Iraq and Bahrain, as well as, of course, Israel. In addition, it has closed the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranians have reacted to the events—at least according to Iranians living in Finland—by celebrating in the streets. Women symbolically with their hair uncovered, and at least some shouting the name of Reza Pahlavi, the current head of the country’s former monarchical dynasty.

On the other hand, social media also contains video material of demonstrations supporting the Iranian government. Based on what I have seen, the crowds at these demonstrations appear to be quite large.

* * *

It remains to be seen, then, how the situation in Iran will develop from here. In this respect, the absolutely central factor is the Iranian army: will it remain loyal to the Islamist regime, or will it shift to the side of those demanding change? Or, as I could well imagine, will it split into two camps that begin to wage a civil war against each other?

In any case, it is clear that neither the United States nor Israel will send their ground forces into Iran. For that reason, the country’s future is still entirely open, and it would not be surprising if it were to continue its existence in a medieval atmosphere in the future as well.

This alternative becomes more likely the longer the people demanding liberation remain without military force—that is, the longer the country’s leadership is given time to recover from its losses.

* * *

In order to clarify the situation, I asked the Gemini AI for the very latest information. It replied that “there have been reports that parts of Iran’s regular army and local security forces have refused to follow orders or have even joined the side of the protesters. Wikipedia sources and news agencies now mention ‘armed civilians’ and ‘police and military defectors’ as part of the ongoing unrest.”

In addition, according to Gemini, “there have been reports of local clashes in the regions of Kurdistan and Baluchistan. In particular, Kurdish groups (such as PJAK and PDKI) have moved from a state of readiness to actively taking up positions in their own areas.” It also stated that “there have been reports within the country of arson attacks and assaults against symbols of the regime as well as local offices of the IRGC.”

I interpret this to mean that it is not yet possible to draw conclusions about Iran’s future. In any case, however, Iranians now have an opportunity to replace their Islamist theocracy with a more civilized form of government—but the window of time for doing so may not be very long.

* * *

Finally, one observation about the possible effects of a change of power on Finnish society. It may well happen that refugees set out from the country toward Europe.

In this sense, it should be understood that these people would not be ordinary Iranians, as such people would rather return to their homeland if conditions there were to normalize. Instead, those who may set out could be Islamists who have served and/or supported the country’s tyrannical regime.

For this reason, Finland should already now state very clearly that it will not grant asylum to potential Iranian refugees in the event of a change of government, but rather that Iran will be regarded as a safe country for all its citizens—and that this assessment will not be altered by possible reports of representatives of the Islamist regime being held accountable for crimes committed over the course of half a century.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
UN Congratulates an Executioner – Credibility in Free Fall
What’s Next, Iran?
Iran at a Crossroads: From Islamist Rule Toward Democracy?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Vaihtuuko Iranissa valta?

Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin

The meeting between the Presidents of the United States and Ukraine led to some rather interesting perspectives, as Donald Trump called for an end to the war along the current front lines — and Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to accept the idea. According to the latter, “we must stop where we are — he is right, the President is right.”

At the same time, Trump announced that he was not ready to provide Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles, which could be used to destroy Russian military and infrastructure targets deep inside the country. Not, at least, before he meets with Vladimir Putin in Hungary.

Before the meeting, Zelenskyy stated that security guarantees are the most important issue for Ukraine. However, Finnish media, the BBC, USA Today, and CBS did not report on what the presidents discussed regarding those guarantees. According to Finland’s President, Alexander Stubb, support for Ukraine remains strong and “includes military and economic assistance, security guarantees, a ceasefire, and a peace process.”

It therefore remains to be seen how Putin will respond in Hungary to a peace initiative that he could, if he wished, present to his people as some kind of victory. Yet compared with his previous statements, such an outcome would clearly be a failure — one that has already resulted in more than a million Russians being killed or disabled.

Thus, peace along the current front lines would be an obvious risk for Putin, since it is impossible to predict in advance which narrative — victory or failure — would ultimately prevail in the minds of Russians. And what might follow from that.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Ukraine’s Drones Fly 2,000 km, Putin’s Confidence Shakes
Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?
Ukraine Got Permission to Strike – But Where is the Target?

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

Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program

Former Commander of the Finnish Defence Forces Jarmo Lindberg has commented on last night’s U.S. strikes on Iran. According to him, Trump likely achieved his objective: halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Lindberg stated that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, even though some have doubted its existence. This is because, “nuclear enrichment facilities are not needed for normal nuclear power plant operations. The type of nuclear material used in energy-producing power plants, like those in Finland, cannot be used to make bombs. Separate enrichment plants are required to produce material suitable for nuclear warheads.”

Regarding the U.S. Air Force strike itself, Lindberg said that “a very limited strike was carried out against three specific targets—bunkers located deep inside Iran. In addition, only a small number of precision weapons were used, such as B-2 stealth bombers, MOP bombs, and cruise missiles.”

Lindberg also noted that Iran had no real chance to defend itself from the strike because Israel had crippled its air defenses by destroying radar systems and surface-to-air missile batteries. Thus, “Iran essentially had no eyes to see it coming. And even if it had seen it, it wouldn’t have had the means to intercept it.”

As for Iran’s ability to respond to the U.S. strike, Lindberg sees it as limited. Furthermore, the U.S. has prepared for possible retaliation by moving its ships away from ports near Iran, meaning “there are currently few viable targets for the ayatollahs’ military or missiles.”

Iran could also “declare the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and threaten to attack maritime traffic passing through it. Since a significant portion of the world's oil supply flows through that strait, such a move would immediately spike oil prices, which the markets would then react to.”

However, it is also certain that closing the Strait of Hormuz would lead to retaliatory actions by the United States and likely also by the United Kingdom and France—actions against which Iran has virtually no effective weapon other than fanatical religious fervor. While that could result in some kind of suicide attacks, possibly against civilian populations, “from a military standpoint, their significance is negligible.”

For this reason, Lindberg believes the greatest focus now shifts to the future of Iran’s clerical regime. In other words, “what will their reactions and fate be in a situation where the United States has entered the war.”

For my part, I hope their reaction would be a flight to Moscow and leaving power to the Iranian opposition. Or alternatively, a revolution by the opposition, followed by proper punishment of the ayatollahs for the sins of past decades.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran Exposes the Finnish Green-Left as Intellectually Dishonest or Lacking Values
Will Power Change Hands in Iran?
A Quick Israeli Success in Iran Would Be Crucial for Ukraine

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

The Poor Can't Afford to Buy Second-best

The defense industry of my home country produces high-quality equipment. For example, the future standard firearms for Finnish and Swedish soldiers are expected to be based on the entirely new Sako M23 system, covering everything from assault rifles to precision weapons. When it comes to troop transport, one of the best options already available is the 6x6 armored personnel carrier, considered the best in the world and recently sold, for example, to Germany.

Still, it is clear that a country the size of Finland cannot rely solely on domestically produced weapons systems. It also needs weaponry manufactured elsewhere. Therefore, attention must be turned toward systems regarded as the best in the world in each category.

In this regard, it is significant that the Israeli Defense Forces have recently demonstrated their effectiveness in Syria, Iran, Gaza, and Lebanon. Following these displays, there can be no doubt that the armed forces of the Jewish state possess top-tier weapons systems.

This applies to both imported and domestically produced military equipment. That, in turn, means that Finland—located right next to Russia—is extremely interested in such systems. However, the security-policy-irresponsible left, which sympathizes with the Palestinians, has taken a stance against this.

The most controversial case has been the Israeli-made David’s Sling, a high-altitude air defense missile system. Its necessity has been recently demonstrated by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Given that Finland has a vastly larger and extremely dangerous neighbor, only the best available equipment should be considered for procurement—and David’s Sling systems have indeed already been ordered.

Finland is also renewing its navy, and for that purpose, both new and older vessels are being equipped with Gabriel surface-to-surface missiles from Israel. Additionally, counter-battery radars were acquired, as their necessity became apparent early on in the war in Ukraine.

Beyond these, the Finnish Defence Forces use a range of Israeli-made weapons, including Spike anti-tank and coastal missiles, Orbiter 2 mini-drones, and communication and information systems. When you're poor, you can't afford to buy second-best.

Of course, one can only hope that none of the aforementioned weapons—or others, such as the recently ordered F-35 fighters or Leopard tanks—will ever need to be used. If that turns out to be the case, it will demonstrate that a top-tier army equipped with the best weapons available is a sufficient deterrent even against an imperialist like Vladimir Putin. One would hope that this is also understood by the political left, who are still dreaming of their own fantasy world where all nations are happy and friendly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
From Finnish Neutrality to Russian Ruins
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine
Russia to Triple Its Military Presence on Finland’s Border

Israel’s Strike on Iran: Ripple Effects for the Middle East, Russia, and Global Stability

Israel apparently destroyed virtually the entire Iranian air defense system in an attack about a month ago. At the same time, Iran's military capability proved to be a paper tiger, unable to compete in the same arena as technologically superior Western countries. This fact might have intriguing consequences.

The first of these relates to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has unsettled Tehran after the attack by releasing two video messages urging the Iranian people to rise up against the country’s Islamist regime. This raises the question of whether the regime’s time has come to an end.

This view is supported by the fact that the fall of the government would be an excellent outcome for almost all Iranians, and especially for women. However, the Islamists hold power and with it the means to continue terrorizing their citizens far into the future.

Thus, a revolution would require both unity and courage from Iranians, but it would not be impossible. The West could, of course, assist if necessary, but I fear that the memory of the failed 1980 Operation Eagle Claw strongly discourages interference in Iran’s affairs.

Therefore, I sadly suspect that Iran’s regime will not fall for a long time. And women will continue to long in vain for their human rights.

The second consequence of Israel's attack concerns Russia. Iran's air defense has been based on Russian systems, which proved ineffective against Western equipment. This might influence Putin’s policy toward the West or the war in Ukraine.

In other words, the attack will undoubtedly increase the caution of Putin's regime in relation to the West. This, in turn, reduces the risk that - as a result of Western arms systems being supplied to Ukraine - Russia would escalate by deploying weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, this dynamic is unlikely to work in both directions. Despite recognizing the inadequacy of Russian weaponry, the West is unlikely to decide to end the war by providing Ukraine with the kind of military power that would neutralize Russian missile and air strikes. For this reason, the bloodshed in Ukraine will continue, at least until the new U.S. President Donald Trump begins advancing his promised peace deal.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
It Is Time for Vladimir Putin to Acknowledge the Facts and Do Dmitry Medvedev a Favor
Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?
A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women

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

 

Is Putin's Administration Rational?

According to news reports, outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden has given Ukrainians permission to strike Russian territory using American missiles. Member of the Finnish Parliament and Doctor of Military Science Jarmo Limnell (National Coalition Party) has supported the decision.

This is because, as Limnell explains, "Ukraine, defending its independence, has had to fight in the 'boxing ring of war' with one hand tied behind its back. Now, the other hand is freed."

In Russia, however, the reaction was far from enthusiastic, and threats resumed. For example, a Russian politician, Vladimir Dzhabarov, ominously claimed, “This is a very large step toward the start of World War III.”

Thus, we must ask: is a Third World War on the brink of breaking out, something that, at least in my youth, was feared capable of destroying humanity as a whole—and along with it, all advanced life forms? Or are we once again simply witnessing typical Russian rhetoric?

First, it must be noted that Vladimir Putin’s earlier threats concerning Western support for Ukraine have not materialized. Second, it’s essential to recognize that Russia would inevitably face defeat if the situation escalated into a full-scale war against the United States. This is because there is a vast disparity in military technology between the two countries, as shown by Israel’s successful strikes using Western technology against Iranian forces equipped with Russian arms.

On the other hand, it’s also crucial to remember that this gap in technology would hardly matter if Russia decided to use nuclear weapons. Even if it’s clear that most, if not all, of these missiles would be intercepted, those that made it through would cause such extensive devastation that there would be no true victors in the war.

Additionally, it’s evident that Russia lacks the capacity to defend against a possible Western retaliatory strike with nuclear weapons, meaning the resulting destruction in Russia would be catastrophically vast. This is why responsible leadership in Russia cannot consider using nuclear weapons unless it faces an existential threat.

The use of U.S.-provided conventional missiles with standard warheads within Russia poses no such existential threat, though it would increase the cost of the war for Putin’s administration. Thus, a rational Russian leadership would not resort to nuclear weapons on this account.

This leads us to the question: Is Vladimir Putin, along with the rest of Russia’s leadership, rational? And we must hope that, despite everything we have seen so far, the answer is still "yes."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine Plans to Recruit 160,000 Soldiers, but Will It Turn the Tide of the War?
Turning Points in the War in Ukraine and the West's Responsibility
Finnish weapons are being tested against the Russians in Ukraine

Iranian Missile Attack was Followed by Humorous Flowers

Iran launched around 200 missiles at Israel, most of which were intercepted. However, some missiles managed to get through the defense in central and southern Israel, resulting in the death of a Palestinian in the West Bank. Additionally, some material damage occurred as missiles hit empty homes and cars. According to American sources, minor damage was also inflicted on one of Israel’s military bases.

Against this backdrop, I found it somewhat incredible to read the writings of Muslims on social media. Or what do you, dear reader, think of these flowers of humor?

First, according to an account with a female figure (most probably not a woman): "Iranian state TV just ran this", followed by a flamboyant video clearly made using artificial intelligence or some other tricks.

Second, according to Iran’s military: "90% of our weapon systems successfully struck their intended targets".

Third, according to the Lebanon Times: "Pakistan’s Shaheen III missiles can strike Israel in a few minutes. This is the right time—Pakistan must provide its missiles to Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, and Palestine. Long live Iran."

My interpretation is that Iranian state TV is spreading unwieldy false information, the Iranian military is simply lying, and the Lebanon Times wants to subject Pakistan to Israel’s counterattacks. However, an ordinary Iranian has no chance of being factually informed.

I tell you, during the Winter War, Finns were not adequately informed about the situation on the front, and when Finland agreed to peace, including the loss of large areas, ordinary citizens were furious. Having learned from this, the events of the Continuation War were reported honestly. This made life much easier for both politicians and the people after the war.

The difference between today’s Iran and 1940s Finland is that the former is a dictatorial theocracy that doesn’t care about its people's lives and health. In contrast, the latter was a true democracy serving its inhabitants.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Mentally Elementary-School-Aged Were Attacked, But Will Iran Come to Their Aid?
Hassan Nasrallah Has Been Killed, but Lebanon Is Unlikely to Become the Switzerland of the Middle East Again
What Does the Failure of Hezbollah's Attack Tell Us?

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

Ukraine can and will stop Putin

Finnish President Alexander Stubb said yesterday, during the NATO summit, that Ukraine will leave the meeting satisfied. One reason for this is that the United States, Germany, Romania, and the Netherlands confirmed in a statement released at the NATO summit that they are providing Ukraine with Patriot air defense systems.

This comes at a more than opportune time, as Russia has shown that it aims to destroy the entire Ukrainian society instead of just the Ukrainian army by launching missile attacks on a children's hospital. This is, of course, such a war crime that overlooking it with a shrug would be almost a crime against humanity in itself.

This was also noted by US President Joe Biden, who stated that "Putin wants nothing more than the complete defeat and erasure of Ukraine from the map." Additionally, he was pleased to note that NATO countries have invested more in their defense forces in recent years.

However, the most important outcome of the meeting was the agreement to grant a 40 billion aid package to Ukraine for next year. It is hoped that this will help Ukrainians protect themselves from Russia's war of destruction against civilians and, at the same time, turn the tide of the war permanently against Putin's army.

Biden also believed this, stating that "Ukraine can and will stop Putin."

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Finnish military intelligence: the Russian army is at the limits of its operational capability
Finnish weapons are being tested against the Russians in Ukraine
Technically backward, miscellaneous group of gunmen