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

Iran Exposes the Finnish Green-Left as Intellectually Dishonest or Lacking Values

A young Finnish conservative politician, Binga Tupamäki (National Coalition Party), recently expressed her astonishment on social media, asking: “Why is the Finnish left defending an Islamist state that, in the name of jihad, is seeking to develop nuclear weapons?” It’s a valid question—so let us take a look at the values of the Finnish left.

According to the Left Alliance's party platform, the party's "core values are freedom, solidarity, and equality." The Social Democratic Party of Finland lists the same values, albeit in a slightly different order: "Our core values are freedom, equality, and solidarity."

Each reader can decide for themselves how well those words describe the actions of Iran’s Islamist government—or how those principles could possibly lead to the conclusion that such a regime is in any way worth defending by members or supporters of these parties.

And what about Finland’s value-liberal Greens? They don’t have a concise list quite like the Left Alliance, but their platform includes the following description: “We work to stop climate change and the sixth wave of extinction... we fight for an equal, safe, and just future. We defend nature and people.”

Nothing in that list seems even remotely compatible with the defense of Iran’s Islamist regime. On the contrary, based on these statements, one would expect the Greens to be pleased that someone—anyone—is actively trying to stop Iran’s mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Altogether, it appears that when comparing their stated values with their actual behavior, many Finnish green-leftists are not living up to their principles. In other words, they are either intellectually dishonest or, in practice, lack values. Perhaps even both.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Does the Political Green-Left Lie, and Why Does It Resonate with the People?

Hezbollah Uses Human Shields While the Green-Left Looks Away
The European Parliament elections were a celebration for the far-left in Finland

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

A Quick Israeli Success in Iran Would Be Crucial for Ukraine

Israel's attacks today demonstrated that Iran has no means to defend itself against the Jewish state's assaults. Nor does it have the capability to inflict significant damage on Israel, as the mullahs’ failed counterattack attempt showed.

As a consequence, the conflict between Israel and Iran will be militarily uninteresting. However, it is clear that if Iran even partially closes the Strait of Hormuz, the global market price of crude oil will rise — and this, in turn, will have an indirect impact, particularly on the war in Ukraine.

This is because the price increase would result in money flowing into Russia’s war chest from oil sales more rapidly than it currently does. And this would lead to two consequences, both of which would be detrimental to Ukraine.

The first would naturally be that the increased oil revenues would provide more funding for arming Putin’s military, thus strengthening Russia’s invading army. The second is that the burden of war on Russian civilians would ease, thereby reducing the risk of a collapse in support for Putin’s regime — and thus the risk of a potential popular uprising.

For this reason, it is to be hoped that Israel achieves its objectives in Iran as quickly as possible. And if the mullahs attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, its openness must be ensured by the actions of other countries — especially the United States.

For this reason, it is especially interesting to closely follow the war between Israel and Iran over the weekend and the early part of next week. And perhaps even to hope that the Iranian people will grow tired of their Islamist regime and overthrow it through a popular uprising — just as the Shah's regime collapsed 46 years ago. And as a result, shut down Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran Rejects Direct Nuclear Talks with U.S., Calls Them Pointless
Can Peace Emerge from Horrific War Crimes?
Israel’s Strike on Iran: Ripple Effects for the Middle East, Russia, and Global Stability

Iran Rejects Direct Nuclear Talks with U.S., Calls Them Pointless

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called direct nuclear negotiations with the U.S. "pointless" as Iran refused to engage in such talks with the United States.

This was a response to U.S. President Donald Trump, who had said on Thursday that he wanted to negotiate directly with Iran. According to Trump, the parties would understand each other better without intermediaries, allowing negotiations to progress more quickly.

According to Araghchi, it is futile to negotiate directly with a party that threatens violent actions and violates the UN Charter. The minister also said that U.S. officials present differing positions among themselves.

In addition, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stated that Iran could only negotiate with the United States "on an equal footing." Iran has also denied accusations from the United States and Western countries regarding the development of nuclear weapons, insisting that its nuclear program is intended solely for civilian purposes.

It thus remains to be seen whether President Trump will succeed in enticing the Iranians to the negotiating table. However, it is already clear that if Israel has even the slightest suspicion that Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon, it would not hesitate to strike the mullah-led state with extreme force.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Israel’s Strike on Iran: Ripple Effects for the Middle East, Russia, and Global Stability
Iranian Missile Attack was Followed by Humorous Flowers
Mentally Elementary-School-Aged Were Attacked, But Will Iran Come to Their Aid?

Nuclear Debate in Sweden and Lithuania’s Treaty Withdrawal

Donald Trump's foreign policy as the President of the United States is leading to an increase in Europe's defense capabilities. Two interesting news stories emerged on this topic yesterday.

The potentially more significant of the two was the report that Swedes are considering developing their own nuclear weapon—meaning a withdrawal from the international nuclear arms treaty. While the country's political leadership has denied such intentions, the discussion on the matter remains heated.

What adds credibility to this possibility is the fact that Sweden was developing its own nuclear weapon until the 1970s. This gives the country a significant scientific and technological advantage over many other nations. Therefore, it would not take long to produce the weapon necessary to secure peace in the Nordic region.

The other news concerned Lithuania, which today withdrew from the Convention on Cluster Munitions. As a result, Lithuania became the first country to exit the treaty, which has over a hundred signatories, and, more broadly, the first nation to withdraw from any so-called humanitarian disarmament agreement.

This, of course, is driven solely by the security threat posed by Russia, combined with uncertainty about U.S. support in the event of an attack. The same reasoning naturally applies to Sweden's nuclear debate as well.

All of this demonstrates that the grand political landscape in Europe, which had remained relatively stable since 1945, has been completely transformed by Russia’s war against Ukraine and Trump’s election. And the consequences are certainly not in line with the hopes of peace activists.

However, it remains to be seen whether, for example, France’s President Emmanuel Macron's promise of a nuclear umbrella will be enough for Sweden. A major issue with this, however, is the limited number of such weapons, meaning that the resulting destruction on enemy soil would still be relatively contained. And that could tempt a reckless dictator, in the vein of Joseph Stalin, into pursuing adventurist policies.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?
Will Russia Test NATO's Article Five?

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

 

Will Russia Test NATO's Article Five?

Member of the European Parliament, General Pekka Toveri, has considered the possibility in his latest blog post that Vladimir Putin might test NATO's reaction to an attack limited to one of its smaller member states.

In his writing, he called this possibility the "Narva scenario," where the Russian army would cross a border under some pretext - similar to the Mainila shots that started the Winter War with Finland - for example in the Estonian border, and threaten to use nuclear weapons if the Western military alliance acted according to Article Five to defend its member state.

In such a case, NATO would have two options. According to the first, "Washington, Paris, Berlin, and London would start shaking, thinking they can't go to nuclear war for the sake of one and a half million Estonians. This would be a huge victory for Putin, and the entire NATO would crumble."

The second - and much more likely - option would be that NATO would act according to Article Five and destroy the Russian attacking forces. In this case, Putin's bluff would be exposed - and he would not use a nuclear weapon. 

According to Toveri, "Putin might lose a couple of thousand soldiers, but so what? Over a hundred thousand have already been killed in Ukraine. It would not affect his power. The gains are so great that the risk is worth it."

Toveri's thought experiment is frightening because the Narva scenario puts every Russian-bordering NATO country at risk. Though Finland, due to its strong army, is unlikely to be targeted, the risk is real for the Baltic countries - Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Therefore, it would be important for NATO to show the Russian dictator already in Ukraine that it is not to be trifled with. And finally ensure that Ukrainians receive the weapons they need and the right to use them, so that the Russian military is unequivocally defeated in Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine can and will stop Putin
Finland and Western Europe: Effectively at War
The most effective Russian agent in the UK

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

Palestinian responsibility

I believe that it is in the interest of both Israel and Palestine to establish lasting peace, a two-state solution, and cooperation between these historically mutually hostile nations. I also think that many, perhaps even the majority of people belonging to these nations, share my view.

So the question remains, why hasn't such an understanding been reached despite more than seven decades having passed? The answer consists of several parts. 

By far the most crucial aspect to understand is that while Palestinians may lose a hundred battles, Israel cannot suffer a single defeat. This is because Israel as a democratic state does not annihilate defeated Palestinians, whereas among the Palestinians, there are millions of people and even numerous organizations, with the most significant being the Hamas controlling the Gaza area, whose sole aim is to drown the Jews in the Mediterranean sea.

As an outcome of what I have written above, the citizens of Israel understandably do not dare to take any unnecessary risks. And since Palestinians occasionally launch minor or major attacks against them, they prefer to rely on their military power rather than peace-oriented agreements, even if backed by any superpower.

The significance of the latter has become even more essential after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014, despite the safeguarding of its independence by superpowers. An agreement was made when Ukraine obtained independence, where it agreed to hand over the Soviet nuclear weapons located on its territory to Russia. Without that agreement, Russia would not have dared to invade Ukraine in 2014 or again in 2022.

All of this means that it is specifically the responsibility of the Palestinians to promote peace between Israel and Palestine. It requires actions that inspire trust among the two nations so that even Israel finally dares to agree on the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Palestinians: acknowledging facts is the beginning of wisdom!
A new Government for Israel, but why doesn´t it solve anything?
Explanation of Finnish attitudes towards Israeli and Palestinians

Should Putin´s regime be overthrown by supporting Russian opposition?

In the United States, Swedish economist Anders Åslund contemplated how the war in Ukraine could be brought to an end. According to him, Jevgeni Prigožin's recent attempted coup "demonstrated that Russia is practically defenseless on its own territory, as Putin has sent all his real troops and weapons to Ukraine. Apparently, it is better to attack Russia directly than the fortified and mine-saturated occupation zones in Ukraine."

He also noticed that the rebels were not punished, and Vladimir Putin even agreed to negotiate with them after the insurgency. According to Åslund, this showed weakness, and "this weakness could be potentially fatal for Putin."

Therefore, Åslund suggests that Western countries should strive to overthrow Putin's regime from within by supporting Russians opposing him. This way, results could be achieved faster than by causing the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians in well-fortified Russian frontlines.

Åslund also reminded us that we should learn from history: "The threat is not Russia's instability, but Putin! Nobody, including Putin, benefits from the use of nuclear weapons. The sooner Putin is defeated, the lower the risk of nuclear war. Defend freedom and democracy!"

* * *

It would be desirable if the Russians themselves were to overthrow Putin's regime. However, a significant problem may arise, especially because during his long rule, the dictator has managed to eliminate any credible opposition within the country. Consequently, it might be impossible for Western countries to find a force that would be willing and capable of toppling Putin from power.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that if such a force were to emerge, perhaps even from Putin's inner circle, the new administration could be even more insane than Putin himself. There is a historical example of this, referring to the developments following the Russian March Revolution. Initially, democratic forces toppled the Tsar from power, but later, the hardline Communists, led by Lenin, took control in October Revolution.

Thus, Russia's democratic development came to a halt, leading to a communist authoritarian regime with long-lasting effects that are still visible today, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union more than 30 years ago. The Moscow government continues to violate human rights and allow political elites to plunder national assets. As a result, we face a wicked problem for which an easy solution may not even exist.

Nevertheless, the downfall of Putin's criminal regime, by any means, is in the best interest of the entire world, not least the Russian people - even if they don't fully comprehend it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin´s Russia got mad about the Finnish chairman of the Parliament
Does the attack by Russian rebels pose a problem for Ukraine?
Incapable of learning but capable of genocide

 

Putin is in a political and military impasse

After Ukraine defeated Russian army in Lyman, the officers of Putin´s military forces reacted in a very interesting way. 

Ramzan Kadyrov - the leader of Chechen forces - demanded use of nuclear weapons. He also blamed Alexander Lapin - the commander of the Central Military District of Russian army - for the loss of the town. And not only that, but he also said that Valery Gerasimov - the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces and First Deputy Minister of defense - had been covering the mistakes made by Lapin.

Furthermore, Kadyrov was supported by Yevgeny Prigozhin - the owner of the Wagner Group. And both were backed up by some TV persons and war bloggers, who blamed military leaders of Russia on corruption and indifference. 

In other words, collaboration within Russian army has been seriously damaged as the key persons are quarreling with each others. And as we all know, that makes their fight against Ukrainian army even more difficult than thus far. Therefore - in my opinion - there are no obstacles in further success for Zelenskiy´s troops - not even due to expected fresh soldiers appearing to the front after the ongoing mobilization of poorly trained Russian reserves.

This all may increase the risk of Putin making a decision of using tactical nuclear weapons. He should - however - consider that western powers could not look aside if that happened. And that there is no doubt they would respond strictly and strongly. 

In other words, it is becoming clear that Putin has driven himself into a political and military impasse. Therefore, we have to ask, how long will the Russian military remain loyal to Putin? And when they finish it: what will they do to him?

 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Tradition of low professional ability among Russian security agency and dictators
How can Vladimir Putin survive from his propaganda after the Russian loss in Ukraine?
Russian army not comparable to western military services