Russia's Predicament Awakened the Trolls and Increased the Risk of Nuclear War

Russia has found itself increasingly cornered in its three-day special military operation in recent days. Perhaps the most striking example of this is the destruction of oil industry facilities in the Moscow region—caused primarily by Ukrainian drones, but apparently also by Russian air defense systems themselves.

At the same time, the Ukrainians have extended their attacks as far as the Tyumen oil refinery, located some 2,500 kilometers away. Nor does the plight of the Crimean Peninsula, due to the vulnerability of its supply lines, make President Vladimir Putin's position any easier.

* * *

All of this has led to a counteroffensive by Russian trolls on social media. The strikes on Moscow are claimed to be a hoax, there are assertions that Russia is preparing a new offensive in Ukraine, and there are even threats of nuclear war being triggered by the destruction of the oil industry.

In fact, the outbreak of nuclear war as a consequence of Russia's deteriorating fortunes in the war may be a real threat if Vladimir Putin fears that his position could be endangered by a military defeat. From his perspective, defeat could mean being overthrown or even losing his life.

For this reason, it would be important for Western countries—and especially the United States—to state unequivocally that the use of a Russian nuclear weapon would, under any circumstances, cross the threshold for retaliation directed at wherever intelligence indicates Putin happens to be residing at the time. Hopefully, the fear resulting from such a declaration would be sufficient in all circumstances to keep Russian nuclear weapons on their launch platforms.

* * *

At the same time, it should be emphasized to Russia's dictator that he still has the opportunity to make peace. All that would be required is the withdrawal of his forces from Ukraine and the payment of compensation for the destruction caused by his special military operation.

And that Putin still possesses at least a small measure of common sense. On the other hand, it may be—as I wrote above—that Putin no longer has a future if Russia returns from Ukraine defeated. He is undoubtedly aware of the historical precedent of Russia's defeat in the First World War, which led to the murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his family.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Can Ukraine Create Its Own “Winter War Miracle”?
The Ukrainian Lioness Will Defeat Vladimir Putin’s Army
Russia’s Shadow Fleet Exposes Gaps in International Law

Trump’s War Without Strategy: Why Iran May Come Out Stronger

I wrote in yesterday’s text that the expansion of Charlemagne’s empire "was possible because Charles was constantly at war and gave his enemies no time to recover." This came to my mind this morning when I read in the newspaper that the negotiations between Donald Trump and Iran’s leadership had come to nothing, because representatives of the latter had left the negotiation site.

However, the Americans had already received a new negotiation proposal, in which, according to Trump, Iran had "offered a lot, but not yet enough." Nor had he yet considered continuing the war.

In my view, this is foolish, because Iran’s tactics seem as if they were designed based on the history of Charlemagne’s empire. As a result—if and when it has survived the initial attack by the United States and Israel—the aim is to prolong the ongoing peace process in order to improve and develop its own military capability.

* * *

Iran’s leadership is undoubtedly encouraged by the fact that although their army was hardly able to defend itself during last summer’s attack by the USA and Israel, it has during the current military operations been able to cause considerable destruction—especially in countries allied with the USA, but also to the U.S. Air Force. This shows that Iran’s Islamist leadership has the ability to enhance the combat capability of its own army and to survive the current attack, if given the opportunity.

It therefore remains to be seen what the final outcome of the war will be. Will it turn out to be the strengthening of Islamist Iran, rather than the rise of a more moderate government or even a democracy?

* * *

That is why it has been sad to observe that Donald Trump clearly does not know world history and its lessons, but embarked on the war recklessly, without preparing for it to become bogged down in the way now seen. If this is the case, the greatest sufferers will be Iranian women, who will be subjected even more tightly to a medieval hell and killed if necessary.

But Iranians will not be the only ones to suffer; global security will also be among the losers. Iran has, after all, been known as the most significant driving force behind Islamic terrorism.

And there is no reason to doubt that it would continue on that path—indeed even more determinedly—if the political leadership of the United States and/or its military proves incapable of carrying its attack through to completion. In other words, the outcome of the war will be exactly what it currently appears to be.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony
Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?
Donald J. Trump 

Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?

Based on the latest news, it now appears that the EU will have to decide whether it is a significant actor or merely a paper tiger in world politics. I mean that the United States has pressured Ukraine to accept a peace plan dictated by Russia—or at least one that appears to be so—circulating under the name of Donald Trump.

According to media reports, the pressure has taken the form of threatening Ukrainians with a reduction in American military aid and intelligence support if the plan is not accepted. This is a serious situation, because—as I understand it—it is perfectly clear that Ukraine cannot continue the war in its current circumstances without U.S. intelligence assistance, when survival against the enemy is already hanging by a thread.

If Donald Trump is serious, Ukraine is left with two options: either to accept a peace agreement highly similar to the one effectively forced upon Finland in 1944, or for Europeans to step in and fully replace American support.

That does not mean that Germany’s Merz, France’s Macron, and Britain’s Starmer can simply continue to offer verbal reassurances of their support. The major EU countries must now genuinely commit to large-scale assistance for Ukraine, because the shoulders of the Baltic states and the Nordic countries alone are in no way sufficient to stop Russia. Otherwise, Ukraine will be handed over to the Russians.

Based on current information, a decision will be made by next Thursday, as Trump is waiting until then for Zelensky’s answer. After that, he—possibly due to some form of blackmail related to his past trips to Moscow—will abandon the Ukrainians to their fate.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?
Questionable Achievements of Donald Trump's Foreign Policy

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?

Optimism and Reality of the Gaza Peace Proposal

The terrorists of Hamas have accepted part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace proposal. First, they are ready to release their remaining hostages, and second, they agree to relinquish power in Gaza – though only in favor of an independent Palestinian leadership.

As a result, Israel has announced that it will scale back its operations in Gaza to a “minimum,” conducting only defensive missions in the area – something Trump himself encouraged them to do. Thus, with their statement, Hamas fighters have at least gained a brief respite.

At the same time, it is clear that Hamas has not committed to all parts of Trump’s peace plan. One particularly crucial element is the disarmament – or demilitarization – of this terrorist organization.

It remains to be seen how the situation in Gaza and the entire Holy Land will develop from here. In other words, will Hamas manage to evade the demands placed upon it – and if not, will hostilities with Israel resume immediately after the release of the hostages?

This also gives Hamas some room to maneuver; it might seek to delay the handover of hostages in order to reorganize and strengthen its military operations. And if that happens, one must ask: at what point will Israel and Trump lose their patience?

All in all, it would of course be best if Hamas accepted all the terms of the agreement. On the other hand, the most important thing for everyone – not least for ordinary Palestinians in Gaza – would be Hamas’s disarmament, which would in any case put an end to the fighting in the region.

However, I suspect that this is the last condition on Trump’s list that Hamas would ever agree to – if it agrees at all. And therefore, it remains to be seen whether this morning’s optimism will turn out to be merely an illusion, one that shatters as soon as we return to Gaza’s grim reality and the distorted worldview of the terrorists who sustain it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland May Recognize Palestine as an Independent State
Palestine’s Statehood and International Law
When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?

Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?

Ukraine has sought to undermine Vladimir Putin’s “special operation” by bringing the war into Russians’ homes, namely by destroying infrastructure. As a result, there are occasional shortages of fuel for cars, and home heating does not always function.

The Ukrainians’ tactic seems sound in itself, but Pekka Toveri (National Coalition Party), former Chief of Intelligence at the Finnish Defence Command and now a Member of the European Parliament, reminded of one problem. According to him, “in a dictatorship, the risk of going out into the streets is great, because if you are not shot, you will spend decades in a prison camp.”

For this reason, Russians can endure the kind of misery that would lead to massive riots in Western countries. The choice is easy, since—as Toveri put it—“the alternative is a bullet in the forehead.”

It remains to be seen what the winter will bring. In the best-case scenario, heating failures and cold homes will eventually lead to a popular uprising and the collapse of Putin’s regime—along with peace for Ukraine. In the worst case, Russians will direct their anger toward Ukraine, and the people will unite more firmly than ever behind Putin’s “special operation.”

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine Got Permission to Strike – But Where is the Target?
Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?

Finland May Recognize Palestine as an Independent State

Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (NCP) stated today that Finland is ready to recognize an independent Palestine under certain conditions. First of all, the two-state solution must meet both the security needs of Israelis and Palestinians, as well as Palestine’s aspirations for statehood and self-determination. Palestine’s commitment to peaceful coexistence is a central prerequisite for recognition.

In concrete terms, according to Orpo, this means that Hamas or any other group aiming to destroy Israel can have no role in Palestine’s governance or in building its future. It means that Finland will not recognize Palestinian independence unless Palestine is committed to releasing Hamas’s hostages, disarming Hamas, and demilitarizing the Palestinian state. In addition, Palestine must advance its own political reforms.

It remains to be seen when the Palestinians will meet the conditions set by Finland — and by what means Finns will be convinced that recognition is timely. I won’t be holding my breath.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Palestine’s Statehood and International Law
When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?
When Should We Recognize the Independence of Palestine?

Palestine’s Statehood and International Law

Many European states have recognized or are in the process of recognizing the State of Palestine. Finland is not among these countries but is instead waiting to see how the situation develops, together with, among others, the USA, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

This is reasonable in the sense that, from the perspective of international law, the existence of a state requires four basic elements – a permanent population, clearly defined borders, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Of these conditions, especially the second, third, and fourth are not met, so a rational person would sooner question the logic of the states that have recognized Palestine than that of the states that have chosen to wait.

Therefore, Palestine should be recognized as a state only when – or if – it one day fulfills all four conditions. In the meantime, every country – regardless of its stance on recognizing Palestine – can act in support of a just peace between Jews and Arabs living in the region.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?
An Unexpected Endorsement of Professor’s Views
Abu Obaida’s Death Brings Palestine One Step Closer to Peace

An Unexpected Endorsement of Professor’s Views

I have occasionally observed (example, another, third) that the greatest problem of the Palestinians in the Holy Land has been their historical aspiration to first annihilate the Jews who settled there, as well as their inability to accept the facts that have taken place. In practice, the reason for their misery therefore lies with their leaders and the terrorist organizations—foremost among them Hamas—whose actions have prevented, and continue to prevent, the emergence of a peaceful solution in Gaza and the achievement of peace throughout the region.

That is why it was interesting to note that Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of Hamas’s founder Hassan Yousef, has stated that Gaza no longer exists, and that the thanks for this go to Hamas, which has used residential buildings in the area as ammunition depots. He has also called Hamas a cult of death and described how the terrorists even use their own children as human shields.

It is good to see that my view on the causes of Palestinian suffering received support from such an unexpected source. However, it is not surprising, because when recognizing the facts and thinking logically, it is self-evident—something that can only be overlooked by an observer’s inability to free themselves from their own prejudices.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Cost of the East Jerusalem Attack for Palestinians — and Its Echo Worldwide
Abu Obaida’s Death Brings Palestine One Step Closer to Peace
Will Gaza Get a Ceasefire, or Will Hamas Hold On to Its Terrorist Capabilities?

Abu Obaida’s Death Brings Palestine One Step Closer to Peace

According to recent reports, Israel has once again taken the life of a senior Hamas member. The person in question is Abu Obaida, who was one of the key figures of the al-Qassam Brigades and served as its spokesperson.

Thus, peace in Palestine is once again one step closer. Unfortunately, especially from the Palestinian perspective, progress of this kind is unfolding painfully slowly.

This is why it would be important for Palestinian civilians themselves to report the whereabouts of Hamas terrorists to the Israeli army, so that obstacles to peace could be removed at a faster pace. Sadly, however, it seems unlikely that this will happen—at least not on a broad scale. Therefore, an end to the suffering of Palestinian civilians cannot be expected any time soon.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Gaza Get a Ceasefire, or Will Hamas Hold On to Its Terrorist Capabilities?
Hamas at a Crossroads: Are Weapons More Important Than Gaza Belonging to the Palestinians?
Hamas Continues the Suffering of Gaza's Civilians

Will Gaza Get a Ceasefire, or Will Hamas Hold On to Its Terrorist Capabilities?

Hamas had already announced earlier that it was ready for a ceasefire in the Gaza war. According to the Islamic Jihad organization, it would be prepared to release ten Israeli hostages alive, as well as the bodies of deceased individuals.

Israel took longer to respond to the ceasefire proposal. According to today’s report, it too is ready for a ceasefire in Gaza, but only on the condition that Hamas releases all the remaining 49 hostages.

In other words, Israel shifted the decision on the ceasefire back to Hamas, which in turn must consider its own position regarding the demand of the Jewish state. The central question is whether the terrorist organization will agree to relinquish its only effective means of pressure against Israel in order to initiate the peace process in Gaza.

For Hamas and the residents of Gaza, the situation is extremely difficult, as the latter are suffering disproportionately from the terrorists’ determination to preserve their armed forces—which, though militarily insignificant, are sufficient for the purposes of terrorism—in this situation. Hamas’s leadership is also under pressure from Israel, which more than a week ago declared that it was preparing for a new ground offensive aimed at destroying the remainder of Hamas’s underground facilities.

For these reasons, I greatly fear that the residents of Gaza will still not be able to enjoy peace, as Hamas’s leadership will once again put its own survival ahead of an ordinary, livable life for the people. But since nothing has yet been decided, we can still hope that reason will prevail, that peace will finally come to Gaza, and that Hamas will either be dismantled or at least lose its significance as a major player in the Middle East.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Denies Blanket Asylum for Gazans, Confirms Tighter Immigration Policies
New Framework for Post-Hamas Gaza
Hamas at a Crossroads: Are Weapons More Important Than Gaza Belonging to the Palestinians?

New Framework for Post-Hamas Gaza

Israel’s Security Cabinet has announced that it will take control of Gaza and destroy the terrorist organization Hamas, which previously ruled the area. Additionally, it has outlined five principles to be applied in the region.

These principles include the disarmament of Hamas, the release of hostages, the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip, Israeli security oversight in Gaza, and the establishment of an entirely new Arab civil administration. The final decision on implementing these principles will be made by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s full cabinet, which is set to convene no earlier than Sunday.

To carry out this plan, Israel has repositioned its troops near the Gaza border in formations suggesting the beginning of a new large-scale ground offensive. It remains to be seen whether the war, sparked by Hamas’s terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, is now moving into a phase that could lead to a peaceful resolution.

* * *

At first glance, the plan raises many questions. It is certain that Hamas fighters will do everything they can to avoid capture—potentially even by using human shields. At the same time, they will undoubtedly seek to prevent the release of hostages.

I also approach with great skepticism the idea that an entirely new Arab administration could be established in Gaza without any involvement from previous powerholders. And even if such an administration were created, could it build enough military strength to prevent Hamas from resurging? One problem could be that such a government would likely be seen as an Israeli puppet regime, making it difficult to gain the trust of the local population—many of whom have traditionally supported Hamas.

On the other hand, any attempt to end the war in Gaza—and to achieve long-term, sustainable peace—is undoubtedly welcome from both the Palestinian Arab and Jewish perspectives. That is why I hope the proposed plan can materialize into an authority that wields real power in the region and succeeds in suppressing the terrorism that has taken root there for decades.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Hamas Continues the Suffering of Gaza's Civilians
A Night at the Opera
When Demands Become Damage

Will Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Demand Block Peace in Gaza?

The terrorist organization Hamas is ready to begin negotiations on implementing a proposed 60-day ceasefire. It accepts the main points of the agreement but seeks some minor additions to the deal.

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization has also announced its support for the ceasefire plan in Gaza but demands guarantees that the negotiation process will indeed lead to a permanent ceasefire. At the same time, it wants to ensure that Israel will not resume military operations in Gaza after the hostages held by Hamas have been released.

The Israeli leadership, which has accepted the original text of the ceasefire proposal drafted by Qatar and the United States, is currently considering how to respond to the terrorists’ suggestions. U.S. President Donald Trump, for his part, has previously told the Palestinian organizations that they will not be getting a better deal.

It thus remains to be seen whether Gaza's exceptionally bloody war is finally coming to an end, or whether it will continue after the currently debated two-month truce concludes. However, the Islamic Jihad’s precondition for a permanent ceasefire may in itself prevent the ceasefire from materializing at all, as Israel is unlikely to commit to permanently halting its military actions in Gaza before terms for lasting peace have been agreed upon.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Some University of Helsinki Employees Demand End to Collaboration With Israeli Universities
UN Security Council Resolution Draft Risks Encouraging Terrorism
Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator

UN Security Council Resolution Draft Risks Encouraging Terrorism

The United States has used its veto power to block the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. It justified its use of the veto by arguing that the draft resolution was not linked to the release of Israeli hostages.

The resolution also failed to meet two other U.S. demands. The United States had wanted the resolution to condemn the October 2023 attack on Israel by the extremist group Hamas, which started the war. The bloody assault claimed the lives of over a thousand people. The draft resolution also lacked the U.S.-requested clause stating that Hamas should be disarmed and withdraw from Gaza.

In fact, I find it strange that the Security Council even attempted to draft a resolution that would leave hostages in the hands of terrorists and not even require their disarmament. And that is why I question the attitude of other Security Council members toward the war in Gaza.

Moreover, it is logically indisputable that the proposal as presented would, globally, encourage the use of terrorism to advance various political causes, while failing to offer—even in theory—a credible solution to enable coexistence between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs.

Such a resolution may well reflect current political realities, but its outcome would clearly not lead to lasting peace—neither for the Jews nor the Arabs of the region. And for that reason, pursuing such a resolution cannot be considered a legitimate goal of international political will.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
How Hamas Exploited Aid and Lost the Support of Many Palestinians
Finnish International Law Experts Viewed as Political Influencers by Peers
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare

What Would It Take to Make Peace in the Holy Land?

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, wrote the following on social media regarding the situation in Gaza:

"The suffering of civilians in Gaza must end.

Finland calls on Israel to assume its responsibilities under international law and to ensure access for humanitarian aid. The UN and humanitarian aid organizations must be allowed to operate fully and impartially. Humanitarian aid must not be politicised. Forced displacement of populations is a war crime and cannot form part of any solution.

We call on Hamas to release hostages and encourage the parties to return to the ceasefire.

Israel's security must be guaranteed in accordance with international law. Peace negotiations must be started immediately on the basis of a two-state solution."

* * *

I am pleased with the President’s statement because he addressed both sides of the issue. And sadly, this stands in contrast to the remarks of nearly all other politicians who have taken a stance on the matter—especially those directly involved.

If the leaders and influential voices - as well as all ordinary people - within both Jewish and Palestinian communities of the Holy Land were to read Stubb’s comment and abide by it, the problem would be resolved. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe that this will happen. For the Palestinians, it would mean accepting Israel’s right to its current borders and ensuring that no more rockets are fired from Palestinian territories into Israel, nor any other terrorist acts committed.

For the Jews in the region, it would mean treating Palestinians—whether independent or part of Israel—as equal neighbors, with whom trade and interaction would be conducted as with any other people. Furthermore, it would require ensuring that no one—such as Jewish settlers in the West Bank—is granted any rights to touch Palestinian property, except through fair, voluntary transactions based on mutual agreement.

* * *

Regrettably, I doubt this will come to pass after nearly 80 years - with roots going even much further in history - of hostility. There always seems to be a small group of people who refuse to accept the status quo and take justice into their own hands, especially when they feel they have been wronged.

Of course, the problem described above would be “resolved” if Israel were to carry through with the idea of forcibly displacing the population of Gaza to completion. Or if the Palestinians, by some miracle, succeeded in destroying the Jewish state.

But the reality is that neither of these outcomes would be in accordance with international law, nor would they respect human rights, and therefore they are not justifiable in any way. And that’s why I fear that, despite Stubb’s principle—which, tragically, is disarmingly simple in theory—we are likely to witness another 80 years of hostility in the Holy Land. And the overwhelming majority of both Jews and Palestinians will continue to suffer because of it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Could Mohammed Sinwar’s Death Mark a Turning Point Toward Peace
Why Hamas Is Unwilling to Give Up Its Weapons
Understanding of Facts is Increasing in the Middle East

Could Mohammed Sinwar’s Death Mark a Turning Point Toward Peace

Israel has come under increasingly critical scrutiny in Western media due to its ongoing fight aimed at destroying the terrorist organization Hamas, a fight in which it has used questionable tactics such as blocking aid shipments and relocating populations from one place to another, even abroad. So far, however, Western criticism has not appeared to influence the actions of the Israeli military.

It is, of course, extremely unlikely that Israel will succeed in completely destroying Hamas. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that the organization’s ability to continue operating will be significantly diminished.

In this context, the reported discovery of the body of Hamas's military wing leader, Mohammed Sinwar, in a tunnel located in the grounds of a hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, is excellent news for Israelis and for all people around the world who oppose terrorism.

So far, however, the discovery has not been confirmed by either Hamas or the Israeli military, so it is still wise to hold off on major celebrations in Jerusalem or anywhere else. And to hope that Hamas will finally understand that it must release the remaining hostages and lay down its arms, so that the rebuilding of a future for the Palestinian people can, once again, begin.

In addition, all Palestinians should consider whether it might finally be time to acknowledge the facts and seek to build their future by recognizing the existence of the State of Israel and striving to establish cooperation with its Jewish residents. And to hope that such a path is still possible after nearly 80 years of ongoing hostility.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Hamas Is Unwilling to Give Up Its Weapons
Understanding of Facts is Increasing in the Middle East
Western Countries Have Neither a Reason Nor a Need to Accept Asylum Seekers from Syria or Gaza

It’s Time to Teach Putin: The Age of Empire Is Over

Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen does not have high expectations for the peace negotiations taking place in Istanbul, Turkey, on Thursday. Her view does not even depend on whether Russia's dictator, Vladimir Putin, attends or not.

Valtonen stated that Putin’s presence would make little difference. This is because, according to her, Putin has demonstrated through his actions that he merely wants to continue subjugating Ukraine and will not agree to any solution that Ukraine could accept in the long term.

Her statement reflects a realism grounded in facts. And for that reason, Western countries — both in Europe and North America — and especially the administration of Donald Trump, should take her view as the starting point when considering a resolution to the war in Ukraine.

This point was also emphasized by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who announced that he would travel to Turkey regardless — but made it clear that Trump must understand Putin is the true obstacle to peace in Ukraine.

According to Zelensky, Trump must, above all, accept that Putin lies, while Ukraine is doing its part to pursue peace and has no intention of delaying the process. He also noted that if Putin fails to appear, it would serve as definitive proof that he has no intention of ending the war.

The significance of the Istanbul meeting remains to be seen. But it underscores the urgent need for EU countries to finally ramp up arms production to meet the demands of today’s geopolitical reality — and, through that, provide Ukraine’s military with sufficient support to first force the Russian army onto the defensive and ultimately drive them back, militarily defeated, to Russian soil.

In other words, the time has come for EU decision-makers to show Putin that the era of imperialism is over — even for Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Warnings from Jussi Halla-aho and Igor Girkin About Europe's Near Future
When the War Comes Home to Moscow
Putin Faces a Heavy Price for His Hesitation

What the U.S.–Ukraine Mineral Agreement Means

Today, we’ll be hearing politically charged speeches from the leaders of various Finnish parties on current issues—which, of course, is above all entertaining.

But the most significant May Day event was likely already reported early this morning.

I am, of course, referring to the fact that the United States and Ukraine have indeed signed a mineral agreement. According to the deal, the U.S. and Ukraine will establish a joint investment fund intended, among other things, to support Ukraine’s reconstruction and to facilitate investments related to Ukraine’s natural resources.

The agreement explicitly states that Russia initiated the war, enables U.S. military aid to the victim of the aggression, and recognizes Ukraine’s right to control the minerals within its territory. At the same time, it offers Americans the opportunity to invest in Ukrainian mineral assets through the newly created fund.

According to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, “The United States is committed to helping end this cruel and senseless war. This agreement sends a clear message to Russia that the Trump administration is dedicated to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine.”

Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, for his part, described the agreement as “good, fair, and favorable.” And there’s no reason to doubt that he meant what he said.

It remains to be seen how this new agreement will influence American realpolitik regarding the war in Ukraine. In other words, will it lead to increased or decreased military and diplomatic engagement by the U.S. on Ukraine’s behalf?

On one hand, it could be argued that since Americans now have a deal concerning Ukraine’s natural resources, their interest in ensuring those resources remain under their partner’s control may grow. That could even lead to actions aimed at liberating at least the most mineral-rich areas currently occupied by Russia.

On the other hand, it’s equally possible that the U.S. and President Donald Trump will begin pressuring Ukraine to make peace at any cost, in order to begin exploiting the deal quickly. In the worst case, this might take the form of increased pressure on President Zelensky’s government to accept peace terms reflecting the current front lines—playing into Putin’s hands.

At this stage, the only thing that’s clear is that the war in Ukraine has entered a new phase, one that will most likely differ in nature from what we’ve seen so far. One can only hope that, at least from a European perspective, it doesn’t take a turn for the worse—that is, in favor of the Russians.

In that regard, it sounds particularly encouraging that Bessent also stated that “no entity that financed or equipped Russia’s war machine will benefit from Ukraine’s reconstruction project.”

It’s as if Trump’s Ukraine policy made a complete U-turn overnight—but let’s not count our chickens before they hatch. Instead, for now, let’s focus on May Day traditions."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
May Day Reflections from a President—and a Student
Trump Speaks from Putin’s Pocket – A Perilous Shift in the Ukraine War
Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?