Putin's Endgame: Deception, Escalation, or Death?

According to Finnish media, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters yesterday evening that Russia had completely captured the Ukrainian city of Kostiantynivka. Meanwhile, the U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) disputed the claim, stating that while Russian forces have made tactical gains in Kostiantynivka, "the majority of the Russian presence in the town consists of small infiltration groups scattered among Ukrainian positions."

ISW argued that Peskov's exaggerated statements were intended to shape Western media coverage of the war over the weekend, when the United States is celebrating its 250th anniversary. It therefore remains to be seen whether Russia's so-called "special military operation" has genuinely advanced or whether the claims about capturing Kostiantynivka are simply another example of Kremlin propaganda.

* * *

Columnist Lauri Nurmi, for his part, speculated that Vladimir Putin could ultimately meet the same fate as Nicolae Ceaușescu. In doing so, he echoed a point I made some time ago when I argued that Putin would have no political future if Russia were to return from Ukraine having suffered defeat.

Admittedly, it is difficult to follow developments in the war in Ukraine—as the Kostiantynivka case illustrates—because both sides are accompanied by actors spreading disinformation. This is particularly true on social media, where anyone can publish virtually anything.

In any event, it has long been evident that Putin's three-day "special military operation" has fared no better than Stalin's Red Army's planned "two-week march to Helsinki" in 1939. For that reason, it is possible—perhaps even likely—that Putin will eventually have to announce at least a partial mobilization.

The consequences can only be guessed. What is certain, however, is that if compulsory mobilization is implemented, many more Russian families will lose sons, husbands, and fathers. It is difficult to imagine that those affected would thank their country's leader. At the very least, many of them might privately entertain thoughts similar to those expressed by Nurmi—or by myself.

* * *

This may also help explain why the Russian dictator has reportedly been pressuring his Belarusian counterpart to join the war. Such a move could serve two purposes at once: perhaps fewer Russians would be killed in combat, while Ukraine's military position would become more difficult as the front line expanded.

On the other hand, President Alyaksandr Lukashenka undoubtedly understands that Ukrainians would not simply surrender. They would resist with everything they have, increasing the number of Belarusian families mourning fallen relatives.

That, in turn, would heighten the risk of a coup—or at least serious unrest—in a country where dissatisfaction with his rule has existed for years. For that reason, he is likely to continue accommodating Putin in almost every respect except one: sending Belarusian troops across the southern border into Ukraine.

If Putin ultimately succeeds in forcing Belarus into the war, Europe would face a serious test. Would we merely express outrage, or would we take concrete action? Something more substantial than words and continued deliveries of material assistance to Ukraine?

* * *

Adding to these concerns are speculations that the Russian military could launch a strike against Poland via Belarus or Kaliningrad, disguising it as an "accidental" incident. Such scenarios make the overall situation appear even more serious and Europe's security environment increasingly precarious.

The most troubling question is that we do not know how nuclear-armed Russia would respond if it continued to struggle in conventional warfare. Could it resort to its most powerful weapons if its position in Ukraine deteriorated further and Belarus refused to intervene on its behalf?

And what if Polish forces were to destroy a Russian unit that had crossed the border under the guise of a "mistake"? How would Russia respond? And how would Western leaders react?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's Growing Crisis in Ukraine and an Uncertain Endgame for Russia
Russia's Predicament Awakened the Trolls and Increased the Risk of Nuclear War
Can Ukraine Create Its Own “Winter War Miracle”?

Concern About the Future Is Growing in Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin held his annual media spectacle, the propagandistic rambling of which was reported with varying emphasis by the Finnish media (Yle, Helsingin Sanomat). This morning, I then came across a post on social media by the Ukrainian Anton Gerashchenko, who is known for sharing his views, and whose content may have been more important than any information conveyed by Finnish news organizations.

According to him, as many as eight percent of the questions submitted for the program concerned Russia’s economic crisis, making it the third most popular topic—previously it had not even made the top ten. People wanted to know when the “bad period” of the economy would end, when price increases would stop, and why the government is raising value-added tax.

Sixteen percent of Russians also wanted to know when their standard of living would improve, and 21 percent were interested in when the war would end. These are likely rather uncomfortable questions for Putin.

* * *

In the same post, Gerashchenko also said that according to a recent opinion poll, 39 percent of Russians believe that the economic situation in their regions will worsen, compared to 33 percent a year ago, 34 percent in 2023, and 29 percent in 2022. The share of Russians who believe that life in Russia will deteriorate next year has also reached its highest level since 2022 (17%).

In other words, the consequences of the war in Ukraine are increasingly beginning to show in Russians’ everyday lives, even though—at least so far—there have been no visible (or at least serious) protests against the war. It remains to be seen at what point ordinary Russians’ concern about their own situation will lead to visible resistance against Putin’s war policy.

Or will it ever?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?

The Outbreak of the Continuation War Between Finland and the Soviet Union

In recent days, Finland has been engaged in a discussion about the outbreak of the Continuation War between Finland and Russia as part of the Second World War. The debate began when Finland’s largest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat (HS), published an article with a headline claiming that “Elina Valtonen forgot the Continuation War on television.”

It claimed that Finland had attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, at the beginning of the Continuation War. This stirred up a lot of debate—and perhaps even some lipstick-splashing—because it is an indisputable fact that the Soviet Union initiated the hostilities of the Continuation War.

* * *

The Finnish-language Wikipedia states the matter—immediately under the subheading “The war begins”—as follows:
“The Soviet Union’s attacks against Finland began on 22 June 1941 at 6:05 a.m., when the Soviet Union opened artillery fire from the Hanko base at Finnish targets in the archipelago and on the mainland, and launched air raids against Finnish ships at sea. On the same day, the Soviet Union carried out several artillery strikes on the eastern border.

According to the same source, ‘after this, on the same day Finland participated in the mining of the southern Gulf of Finland. Germany had launched Operation Barbarossa at 3:00 a.m., and German aircraft that had conducted mine-laying flights from East Prussia to the Leningrad region landed at the Utti airfield on their return journey to refuel. The Soviet Union continued its air and artillery strikes against Finnish military targets in Finland. Finland refrained from returning fire and attempted to assert its neutrality in the new war.’”

And again, quoting Wikipedia:
“On 25 June 1941, the Soviet Air Force bombed Helsinki, Turku, Heinola, and Porvoo as well as a dozen other localities with about 500 aircraft, of which 27 were shot down over Finnish territory. Based on these bombings and previous events, in a communication submitted to Parliament the government concluded that the country had entered a state of war. Parliament accepted this position. Later that same day, 25 June, Prime Minister Jukka Rangell stated on the radio that Finland was once again at war with the Soviet Union…. War was declared on 26 June 1941. The Finnish Army and German troops stationed in Finland began the land offensive.”

* * *

HS has later attempted to correct its mistake with an addition stating that “Finland declared a state of war only after the Soviet Union had bombed Finland, but Finland had already before this made extensive offensive preparations to join the war alongside Germany. Finland’s objective was to occupy large areas of the Soviet Union beyond those that had been lost in the Winter War.”

This correction is indeed in the right direction, but it is still misleading. It was the Soviet Union that unambiguously initiated the Continuation War. And, incidentally, it committed what would today be considered a serious crime against humanity, since terror bombings—even against countries allegedly preparing for war—aimed at civilian populations are indisputably such acts.

The Red Army Air Force bombings of 25 June were unquestionably exactly that—state terrorism. And it is equally indisputable that Finland began its own offensive operations only after those attacks.

For the first three days of the war, all Finnish military operations had been defensive. And that’s not all: as can be seen even from the Wikipedia excerpts I cited above, Finland had refrained even from some defensive actions.

* * *

It must of course be acknowledged that German soldiers had arrived in Finland. It is also well known that many of Finland’s political leaders at the time wished to avenge the defeat of the Winter War.

I personally find Heikki Ylikangas’s view quite plausible—that this idea had been adopted, as a result of Hermann Göring’s persuasion, already at the end of the Winter War.

However, this does not change the truth that Finland was not the aggressor in the Continuation War; it was Stalin’s Soviet Union. It is also a fact that since history is not an experimental science, we cannot turn back time and see whether Finland would have attacked the Soviet Union without the war initiated by Stalin.

Furthermore, one should understand about the nature of the Continuation War that although Finland’s offensive into the Soviet Union—beginning several days after the Red Army’s military actions—was undeniably a war of conquest, it was not an existential threat to the communist state. This is because Commander-in-Chief Carl Gustaf Mannerheim refused to launch an active offensive against Leningrad and did not order the continuation of the conquest beyond the three isthmuses stretching from the Gulf of Finland through Lakes Ladoga and Onega to Lake Seesjärvi. Yet conditions would have been favorable for such an advance at the time.

* * *

Based on all this, I must deeply wonder why HS, even while correcting its article, failed to present an accurate picture of the events of June 1941. Instead, it gave support to the false propaganda spread across social media in recent times by Putin’s Russia and its trolls (example), claiming that Finland was a Nazi state that attacked the innocent Soviet Union. The fact is that Finland never had a Nazi party in its Parliament; the only far-right party represented there, the Patriotic People’s Movement, was relatively small and not a Nazi party.

* * *

At the same time, it is necessary to correct the notion—indeed, an urban legend—that the Soviet Army was not prepared for Germany’s attack. In fact, its forces had been massively strengthened after the Winter War, so that in the summer of 1941 it was—at least on paper—much stronger than the German armed forces. And Hitler’s intelligence had failed to discover this fact.

I even consider it possible that this very fact—the presumed strength of the Soviet Army—explains the Red Army’s attack on Finland immediately after the start of Barbarossa. It is, after all, irrational that Stalin opened a new front—against a new enemy—after being forced into a defensive war against the Germans.

I justify this by arguing that Stalin may have imagined his unprecedentedly strong Red Army capable of stopping and destroying the attacking German forces, unlike the French the previous year. And as we know, that is ultimately what it did—although only after years, and with the support of massive American aid packages.

The Finnish Army, on the other hand, Stalin failed to defeat, and Helsinki remained unconquered. And therefore our history does not include a 50-year period of misery under communist dictatorship.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

Kremlin’s Provocations Echo Pre-War Rhetoric on Ukraine

Vladimir Putin’s Russia once again tested Estonia’s air defense by sending fighter jets flying “dark” – that is, without transponders – toward Tallinn. However, the planes turned back after first Finnish and then Italian fighter jets appeared to meet them.

The details of the encounter have not been made public, so we do not know whether the mere appearance of NATO aircraft was enough to make the Russians retreat, or whether the jets had to make it clear in some way that they were serious—perhaps using some kind of signaling, or even weapons, to drive the message home.

In any case, this was the fourth such incident this year, so it cannot be dismissed as a navigational error. Rather, it was a deliberate action—and therefore a dangerous game that relies on the assumption that airspace violators will not be shot down.

* * *

The situation is, of course, extremely difficult for Estonia and for NATO’s defense as a whole. Previous airspace violations have lasted around a minute, but this time the incursion was stretched to four times that length. And as noted above, the course was set toward Tallinn.

The obvious question is whether NATO has agreed on some kind of threshold after which Russian fighters will be actively intercepted—that is, shot down, as happened recently with drones flying in Polish airspace.

Naturally, the threshold for such an action is very high, since downing aircraft would almost certainly trigger extreme military and political tension. At the same time, it is equally clear that Russian fighter jets flying dark and without permission cannot be allowed over Tallinn; they must be stopped in time, and by any means necessary if required.

* * *

It remains to be seen whether these Russian violations of Estonian airspace will continue and lengthen in the coming days and weeks—and whether they might extend into Finnish airspace as well, testing Finland’s readiness in the same way.

This possibility may be hinted at by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s claim that the Finnish government’s “façade of neutrality has fallen away,” and that a politics of retribution has “literally arisen” in our country. A similar goal also seems to be served by statements from Russia—apparently aimed at undermining Finnish unity—suggesting that Finland’s population is dissatisfied with the government, and that the absence of Russian tourists in eastern Finland has led to “population decline” and economic weakening in Southeast Finland.

According to the American think tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW), these narratives resemble the kind of rhetoric the Putin regime used to justify its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. That is why Finland’s—and NATO’s—communication toward Russia must be firm and unequivocal, making it clear that Russia has nothing to gain beyond its northwestern borders.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The War in Ukraine Came Close to Me
Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?
Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?

When Diversity Beats Doctors: Three UK Healthcare Realities to Make Stalin Envious

I just read a news story about the United Kingdom which, in all its absurdity, seemed downright unbelievable. According to it, a radiographer is “obliged to inquire about possible pregnancy even, for example, from middle-aged men.”

In other words, this is about the impact of diversity, equity, and inclusion—DEI—on the way hospitals operate. But the detail I just mentioned wasn’t even the most ridiculous part of the article. At least not in my opinion; it only took third place.

Second place in this intellectual somersault went to the claim that the health system in England spends over 45 million euros annually on salaries for staff working in diversity roles. And as a result, there apparently isn’t enough money for things like new office chairs. 

And the gold medal? That went to the revelation that DEI trainers in Britain’s healthcare system can indeed be paid several times more than doctors. Yes—you read that correctly, dear reader: a doctor is no longer the most important figure in healthcare, at least if measured by salary. That role now belongs to a political commissar spreading left-liberal propaganda and keeping watch over others.

My apologies to all the British readers, but at this very moment I can’t think of much positive to say about you. Unless, of course, one counts the fact that even the late dictator of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, would be envious of your achievements.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Unintended Consequences of Modern Value Shifts
Feminists, Woke, and DEI People Justify Violence Against Women
The Free World Needs America’s Leadership Now

Russian Soldier in Finland – A Sign of Crumbling Morale?

A former fighter who served with the Russian-aligned Wagner Group in Ukraine has appeared in Finland as an asylum seeker. He has previously participated in Russian war propaganda but has recently harshly criticized Russia for its treatment of its own soldiers and for lying to their families.

The man could, of course, be a genuine asylum seeker—or alternatively, a Russian agent. This is a matter Finnish authorities will undoubtedly investigate. At this stage, however, the most interesting aspect is what he has revealed about Putin's army.

The soldier, who has now arrived in Finland, published a video last February in which he denounced the Russian military leadership and accused it of mistreating Russian soldiers. He also threatened to track down those responsible.

In June, the man released another video in which he accused Russian commanders of being traitors who "leave soldiers to rot in the fields." At the time of this video’s release, he was already in Finland. On the other hand, he has continued publishing Wagner propaganda until quite recently.

In Finland, any possible involvement by the Russian soldier in war crimes will be investigated, and if necessary, he will be prosecuted. For that, the judiciary will need information about his actions in Ukraine, so cooperation with the local authorities there is essential.

At the same time, it is clear that he will not be extradited to the warring Ukrainians for prosecution; rather, he will be investigated specifically in Finland. For now, however, he is not suspected of committing war crimes.

It remains to be seen what will happen to the Russian soldier next, but his appearance in Finland may signal a decline in the fighting morale of Russian troops. And that would not be to the benefit of Vladimir Putin or his administration, but – in contrast – good news for the Ukrainian army.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Suicide and Sudden Death in Russia – What's Really Going On? 
Russians in Finland Include Both Putin’s Supporters and Loyal Citizens
Russian Aircraft Violated Finnish Airspace – But What’s the Point?

Marx in the Classroom: How Ideological Education Shaped Careers and Values

Assistant Professors of Economics at the Stockholm School of Economics and the University of Helsinki, Jaakko Meriläinen and Matti Mitrunen, have investigated the long-term effects of an experiment conducted in Finland in 1974–75 on fifth-grade schoolchildren.

The experiment involved exposing children to pro-Soviet and Marxist interpretations of history. The educational materials used were essentially copied from Soviet textbooks and emphasized class struggle. The researchers were particularly interested in whether the pupils’ views would shift in favor of socialism.

In 1975, news of the experiment leaked to the public, prompting Finland’s then Social Democratic Minister of Education to admit that the handout used in teaching did not meet the required educational standards. As a result, the experiment was discontinued.

According to the findings of Meriläinen and Mitrunen, the children exposed to the experiment earned approximately 10 percent less over their lifetimes compared to control groups. Statistically, this effect is equivalent to ending formal education a year earlier.

They worked less and were more likely to choose socially-oriented, lower-paid professions such as teaching and nursing, and were less likely to pursue managerial positions.

However, the experiment had no measurable effect on educational attainment, cognitive abilities, or academic performance. The lower earnings were therefore not due to a lack of competence but rather to a conscious choice influenced by the propaganda they were exposed to in childhood.

As possible explanations for the reduced labor participation, the researchers suggest weakened materialistic values and a reluctance to work within a capitalist society. In other words, the findings demonstrate that propagandistic education can have a significant impact on individuals’ later economic behavior, political views, and values—even in a democratic, market-based society.

This study highlights the importance of ensuring that school education is grounded in scientific knowledge rather than political ideology. At the same time, it helps explain the paradox of why socialist societies based on planned economies have repeatedly lost the economic competition to free democratic societies—and why they have time after time produced outcomes contrary to their stated goals.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
May Day Reflections from a President—and a Student
The Increasing Criminality Among Swedish Students Stems from Their Values
An African and an Iranian Immigrant Educated a Woke-Blinded Deputy Mayor

Vladimir Putin Places His Trust in the Bottom-Feeders of Humanity

Today, I read an absurd news story. According to it, fifteen Finns attended a meeting held in St. Petersburg, Russia, at the end of September, under the name "Peace, Nature, and Cooperation in the Baltic Sea and Arctic Regions."

There, they demanded that the escalation of the war in Ukraine "must be stopped immediately and that Western countries should cease arms deliveries to Ukraine." Additionally, they called for Russia to be allowed to participate in next year's "Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe" summit.

In a declaration crafted at the meeting, they stated that "peace will be achieved through diplomacy, cooperation, cross-border actions, active involvement of the diaspora, and a feminist agenda that emphasizes protection, meaningful participation, and prevention at all stages of conflict." In other words, they were spreading Russia’s dishonest propaganda.

It’s unfortunate that fifteen of the signatories are Finns, including, among others, the chair of the Finnish Communist Party (Liisa Taskinen) as well as two representatives of the Finnish Women for Peace movement (Ulla Klötzer and Lea Launokari).

Neither of these movements has any notable support, and I can’t recall ever hearing of any of the people mentioned above. I also don’t recognize the names of any of the other Finnish attendees, and the list does not include Finland’s most well-known Putin supporter, Johan Bäckman, who recently obtained Russian citizenship – and will hopefully be sent to the Ukrainian front as cannon fodder.

In other words, the gathering consisted of a group of traitors whose foolishness is being exploited by Russia’s dictator, Vladimir Putin. Perhaps the most telling aspect of this news is what it reveals about the situation of Russia and Putin, as it’s difficult to imagine that anything but desperation would drive the self-made tsar to rely on such bottom-feeders of humanity.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Highlights of the BRICS Meeting in Kazan, Russia
Vladimir Putin is Leading Russia into an Economic Ruin
The Social Democrats of Germany Supporting Putin

An Iranian Student's Fantasy of Two Missiles and a U.S. Aircraft Carrier

Iranian Muslims are displaying a strong sense of bluster. One example of this is a message from a user named Aryan, who has 113,500 followers, stating that it is "impressive: Iran says it has monitored US warships including US aircraft carrier ‘USS Theodore Roosevelt’ in Strait of Hormuz few days ago... Iran said that the aircraft carrier could be sunk by 2 Abu Mahdi cruise missiles, & accompanying destroyers will only require 1 missile."

I don't know if this self-identified student is making this statement purely for propaganda purposes, or if they genuinely believe in Iran's ability to sink American aircraft carriers. If it’s the latter, it sadly speaks to the lack of realism that the Iranian educational, information, and propaganda systems have created.

Of course, it could be that the Iranian is inspired by Ukraine’s successful strikes against the Russian fleet, but they forget that there is a significant difference in the scientific and technical capabilities of the US and Putin's armies. Therefore, Iran has no real chance of sinking an American aircraft carrier with a missile attack. And this should also be well understood among the leaders of Tehran´s warfare troops.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:

The End of the Holy Soldier of the Arabs
Putin's understanding and the battle between the gods
Religious authority and the Iran strike on Israel

How can Vladimir Putin survive from his propaganda after the Russian loss in Ukraine?

United Stated has delivered HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems) to Ukrainians. Thereafter they have been used extremely successfully against the invader. 

According to a Finnish professor of National Defence University of Finland, Ukraine has used HIMARS to destroy Russian command centers and ammunition depots, which has forced attackers to draw their artillery backwards. As a result, we have seen a dramatic reduction in Russian shelling during the last few days. 

This all gives Ukrainians hope that they could survive the Russian attack. And for us in the Western world, the important lesson is that bloodthirsty dictators can be stopped only using brute force created by highly developed weaponry. And that should encourage us for giving more support to the victim to help it to beat the attacker.

At the same time Russians are kept completely unaware about the developments in the front. Instead, they are told that Russia´s war is not against the Ukrainian people, but against their government, and urge Russia´s military to kill the entire Ukrainian government.

It is well known that truth is the first victim of a war. But Vladimir Putin will undoubtedly be hit hard if and when his troops are defeated. How could he survive after his becoming military loss in Ukraine after all bullshit propagated to ordinary people? The answer is: he will not.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is Gerhard Schoeder of Germany ignorant, troll or stupid?
Russian army not comparable to western military services
Is President Putin on his way to repeat the destiny of Czar Nicholas II?