Who Really Rules Iran?

The Finnish Broadcasting company Yle has closely followed the funeral of Iran’s dictator, Ali Khamenei. At the same time, it has reported that the new Ayatollah, Mojtaba Khamenei, did not appear at the funeral and has not been seen in public even once.

Messages purportedly issued by Khamenei have, however, been read out in Iran before. In addition, the United States and Israel are said to possess intelligence suggesting that Mojtaba is still alive.

That may, of course, be true—or it may not. What is clear, however, is that a head of state hiding like a rat cannot truly be the one exercising power—not even in Iran. If he remains in hiding, someone else must be wielding authority in his place: someone who does not want their own name mentioned publicly and instead issues orders in Mojtaba’s name.

If, on the other hand, Mojtaba has in fact died, it would be entirely understandable that the real holder of power would not want their own name splashed across the headlines. It would instead be far more advantageous for them to claim that Mojtaba is alive and governing the country from a secret bunker, much like Adolf Hitler was said to be doing in 1945.

* * *

I readily admit that what I have written above contains elements of a conspiracy theory. Time will tell whether Mojtaba returns as Iran’s visible religious leader and head of state once peace finally returns.

For my part, to borrow the late ski jumper Matti Nykänen’s famous expression, I would put the odds at no better than “fifty-sixty.”

Before that, it remains to be seen whether Donald Trump can ultimately disengage from Iran without being seen as having suffered a humiliating defeat.

At the moment, however, it appears that Iran has no intention of giving up either its enriched uranium or its Islamist system of government. Even restoring freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz seems unlikely.

* * *

Since I began with a conspiracy theory, it is perhaps only fitting to end with a dose of hindsight.

Trump and the United States would not be in their current predicament if the U.S. military had continued its extraordinarily successful offensive against Iran in the summer of 2025.

Trump, however, chose not to let it do so. Instead, he halted the offensive, giving Iran time to recover and learn from the experience—which it did. The result was a significant improvement in Iran’s military capabilities and the stalemate now taking shape, in which the Americans can hope, at best, to restore the situation that existed before the offensive began—and perhaps not even that.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Trump’s War Without Strategy: Why Iran May Come Out Stronger
Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony
Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program

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

Can Ukraine Create Its Own “Winter War Miracle”?

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. As we all know, its success has not been what President Vladimir Putin and his generals had hoped for.

Finnish news media MTV3 published a news report according to which the intelligence service GCHQ has estimated that nearly half a million Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine during the past four-plus years, or roughly 50 months. This means that the Russians have lost an average of nearly 9,800 soldiers per month.

* * *

In Finland, the miracle of the Winter War is still remembered. That war lasted about 3.5 months, and therefore it is interesting to compare Russian losses in Ukraine with the casualties suffered by the Red Army during the winter of 1939–40.

According to Russian sources cited by Wikipedia, either 126,875 or 167,976 Red Army soldiers were killed or went missing during that conflict. These figures amount to approximately 36,000 or 48,000 killed or missing per month.

From this, one may conclude that the Finns who resolutely defended themselves during the Winter War were about 3.6 or 4.8 times more effective than present-day Ukrainians in their fight against an invasion directed from Moscow. This is despite the fact that Ukrainians in the current war have killed roughly 2.5 times as many Russian soldiers as they themselves have lost.

* * *

Of course, my text above may be criticized on the grounds that the Winter War was exceptional in rallying almost all Finns unanimously to defend our country. Therefore, it is useful to calculate the same comparison figures for the Continuation War, that is, the years 1941–44.

According to Wikipedia, during those 39 months approximately 63,204 Finnish soldiers and 201,000 Russian soldiers were killed. After doing the calculations, we see that the Finns managed to kill “only” a little over 5,000 Red Army soldiers per month. The explanation is probably the long trench warfare phase associated with that war, during which the fighting consisted mainly of minor skirmishes.

* * *

Therefore, it is also useful to calculate comparison figures for present-day Ukrainians as well as for the Finns of the Winter War and the Continuation War by dividing the scale of their own losses by the number of dead Russian/Red Army soldiers. For this, we first need the figures for their own casualties: according to Wikipedia articles, these were just under 200,000 in Ukraine, about 26,000 in the Winter War, and slightly over 63,000 in the Continuation War.

When we divide the Muscovites’ casualty figures by those of the Ukrainians or Finns, we arrive at the following comparison ratios. In the war in Ukraine, about 2.5 Russians have died for every fallen Ukrainian. In the Winter War, by contrast, about 5–6.5 Red Army soldiers were killed or went missing for every dead Finn, while in the Continuation War the figure was about 3.2.

* * *

From these figures we can see that the Winter War differs fundamentally from the other two wars under discussion. This suggests that the spirit of the Winter War not only encouraged Finnish soldiers to engage in determined resistance, but also significantly increased their effectiveness compared with the less motivated Finnish army of the Continuation War.

Therefore, it is worth asking — assuming that Russians and Ukrainians are, as fighters, roughly equal to begin with — whether the substantially higher casualties suffered by Putin’s army in the current war can be explained by the low motivation level of its soldiers. And is this phenomenon creating a Ukrainian equivalent of the spirit and miracle of the Winter War: a “spirit of the special military operation” and a “miracle of the special military operation”?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Russia’s Spring Offensive: Gains Unclear, Losses Undeniable
Concern About the Future Is Growing in Russia
The Outbreak of the Continuation War Between Finland and the Soviet Union

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 

The Forgotten Empire That Shaped Modern Europe

I would assume that most people have at least some idea of Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire, the Arab Caliphates, the British Empire, or Russia/the Soviet Union and their influence on the course of history. However, I suspect that not many are particularly familiar with the medieval Frankish Empire—let alone its significance for modern Europe.

The story of this realm truly begins in the early 8th century, when the Merovingian kings who ruled the Frankish kingdom began to lose their power to local leaders. One such figure was Charles Martel, whose son Pepin the Short inherited his position.

* * *

Pepin was not satisfied with merely holding actual power; he also wanted formal recognition in the form of a royal crown. Being a clever man, he turned to the Pope and asked: “Who is the true king—the one who has the title or the one who holds the power?” The Pope replied that the one who holds real power is the true king.

After this, Pepin deposed the last Merovingian king—who was sent to a monastery—and had himself crowned King of the Franks in 751. The new Pope Stephen II crowned him again in 754, granting him holy anointing, which made his rule religiously legitimate. At the same time, the idea began to develop that a king’s authority comes from God.

* * *

The coronation strengthened the alliance between the Pope and Pepin, which became concrete when the Lombards in Italy threatened Rome, the center of the Church. The Pope had no army of his own, so he made an agreement with Pepin, who would protect him militarily.

In return, the Holy See committed itself to supporting Pepin’s kingship. Pepin therefore invaded and defeated the Lombards and donated the territories he conquered from them to the Pope. Thus, the Papal States were established in central Italy under papal rule.

Pepin also cooperated closely with the Church in other ways: he supported monasteries, strengthened its position, and reformed religious administration. In addition, he waged wars in Aquitaine (modern southwestern France) against rebellious dukes and against Muslims in Umayyad-held territories, capturing, among other places, Narbonne in 759.

* * *

All of this laid the foundation for the future Carolingian great power, even though Pepin divided the kingdom between his sons Charles and Carloman. After the latter died in 771, Charles became the sole King of the Franks, and the wars of conquest began.

First, Charles—now widely known by the epithet “the Great”or "Charlemagne"—launched a war against the Saxons in 772. This was a long and brutal struggle in what is now Germany, motivated both by Charles’s desire to subjugate the Saxons and to spread Christianity. It also included the infamous Massacre of Verden (782), in which thousands of Saxons were executed.

The Lombard kingdom fell in 774 after Charles invaded northern Italy. He captured the capital, Pavia, and assumed the title King of the Lombards. Thus, his realm extended southward close to Rome.

* * *

Charles also fought Muslims along the Iberian frontier in Spain and in the Pyrenees, where he established a buffer zone against the spread of Islam. This is connected to the famous Battle of Roncevaux Pass (778).

It began when the rear guard of Charles’s army, retreating from Spain, was ambushed in the Pyrenees at Roncevaux Pass. Local Basques attacked and almost completely destroyed it. Among the fallen was Charles’s commander Roland. The event was not militarily decisive, but it later gave rise to the famous epic The Song of Roland, in which the attackers were transformed into Muslims and Roland into a heroic figure.

* * *

Charles also expanded his realm eastward against the Avars, advancing as far as the Danube in present-day Hungary. In doing so, he acquired great wealth and strengthened his position.

As a result, Charlemagne’s empire—or its semi-independent vassal states—extended from the Pyrenees in the southwest to the borders of Denmark in the northeast, and from the Balkans to the English Channel. In other words, a vast empire had once again emerged in Europe.

* * *

All of this was possible because Charles was constantly at war and gave his enemies no time to recover. This, in turn, was made possible by his well-organized army, which was based on a feudal system: Charles determined how many and what kind of soldiers each region had to provide. The wealthiest supplied several warriors, while the poorest provided one.

Heavy cavalry was the most important force in the army. It consisted of nobles or wealthy men equipped with swords, spears, shields, and often chain mail. Their military service was tied to land ownership.

The infantry was composed of ordinary men with lighter equipment. They formed the majority but mainly supported the cavalry and participated in sieges.

* * *

Charles also developed battle tactics: campaigns were usually conducted in the summer, and the army was often divided into several groups that attacked from different directions, making defense difficult. He secured his conquests by building fortifications and supplying his army both from stored provisions and from resources taken from local populations.

Soldiers were motivated both by the fact that Charles often led campaigns personally and by the idea of spreading Christianity. Administration was organized by dividing the realm into counties, whose loyalty was overseen by royal inspectors.

All of this led to—and culminated in—his coronation as Emperor in Rome by Pope Leo III in the year 800.

* * *

A description of Charles survives, written by his courtier Einhard. According to it, he was tall and strongly built, about 190 cm in height, fair-haired, and dignified.

He reportedly ate moderately, favored roasted meat, and avoided excessive drinking. He valued learning, attempted to learn writing, spoke Latin, and understood Greek. He bathed in the Roman manner and often invited friends to join him. As a leader, he was both religious and practical, and he valued order and discipline.

* * *

After Charles, the empire was ruled by his son Louis the Pious, who emphasized Christian morality, repentance, and atonement for sins. He even performed public acts of penance and sought to live as an example. In church policy, he supported monasteries and the Church and worked to unify ecclesiastical discipline and monastic life.

Administratively, Louis followed in his father’s footsteps but was a weaker ruler. He did not carry out major conquests, though he defended the realm against rebellions and external threats. For example, he made an agreement with the Viking leader Harald Klak to secure the coastal regions.

* * *

Louis wished to divide the empire among his four sons. However, this did not suit his older sons—Lothair, Louis the German, and Pepin of Aquitaine—who had a different mother than Charles the Bald. As a result, the empire descended into prolonged civil wars, during which Louis himself was even briefly deposed as emperor.

The decisive battle in this power struggle was fought at Fontenoy in 841. It pitted Lothair, the eldest brother who claimed the entire empire, against Louis and Charles the Bald, who joined forces and later affirmed their alliance with the Oaths of Strasbourg (842), sworn in both a Romance vernacular and Old High German.

Both armies consisted of Frankish nobles and their forces, but neither side had a clear tactical advantage, so the outcome was decided in close combat. The battle became extremely bloody and claimed the lives of a large portion of the Frankish nobility, to the extent that it was regarded as a “tragedy of the nation.”

The result was the victory of Charles and Louis, which ultimately led to the Treaty of Verdun. The empire was divided into three parts, two of which gradually evolved into France (Charles’s share) and Germany (Louis’s share). Lothair received Italy and a central strip stretching to the North Sea, as well as the imperial crown, but his realm was eventually overshadowed by the other two and has no clear successor today.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Is French military history repeating itself in Ukraine?
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony

The Iranian government threatened to destroy water desalination plants in the Persian Gulf countries if the United States begins destroying its energy facilities. As a result, millions of people would face a horrific situation—assuming water production were severely disrupted—since the region’s natural water resources are insufficient to meet their needs.

With this threat—or at least by carrying it out—the Iranians would violate international agreements that prohibit attacks on infrastructure vital to civilians, such as drinking water systems and dams. In doing so, they would act just as the Russians have in Ukraine—without facing any particularly serious consequences. And they continue to do so.

Thus, in Putin’s “three-day special operation,” a precedent has been created that encourages the Iranians to act in a questionable manner. At the same time, it demonstrates the toothlessness of international law when it comes to protecting civilians.

* * *

The Houthi rebels in Yemen are one of the most significant proxy actors of Iran against other states and their governments in the region. However, they have been remarkably passive during the attack against their “patron”—perhaps purely out of self-preservation.

Now, however, the Houthis have announced their intention to join the war on the side of the Iranian government if the United States or Israel use the Red Sea against it. In practice, however, the Houthis’ capabilities would likely be limited to harassing ships traveling by sea.

Unfortunately, even that alone would have significant economic consequences for global trade. And therefore—if that were to happen—the rest of the world might have to consider whether the time has finally come to take real action to dismantle the terrorist Houthi regime.

* * *

If the two threats discussed above are extremely serious, the third case that caught my attention is rather amusing. I am referring to Russia’s threat to halt gasoline exports abroad. This comes after its oil infrastructure has been repeatedly destroyed—most recently even in ports along the coast of the Gulf of Finland.

Of course, the Russian threat shows that they have understood how to make use of the situation. They are scoring points by turning necessity into a virtue. It remains to be seen, however, whether this threat will have any impact on the course of the war, in which Ukraine has clearly gained the upper hand this year and now appears likely to emerge as the victor.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Houthi Leaders Risk Their Lives to Cling to Power

The Taiwan Question: A Conflict That Could Turn Nuclear

At the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the army of the old regime led by General Chiang Kai-shek retreated to the island of Taiwan. The communists led by the victor, Mao Zedong, did not pursue them, and thus a new poor island state came into being.

At first, Taiwan was unequivocally a developing country, into which large amounts of development aid still flowed in the 1960s. At the same time, it represented the whole of China in the United Nations — and even held a seat on the Security Council — until 1971, when the Taiwanese were expelled from the entire organization and Mao’s communist government took their place.

Over time, Taiwan transitioned to democracy and adopted a capitalist economic model. As a result, the country has become a small economic giant with a significant position in the electronics and engineering industries as well as in petrochemical products — and in semiconductor components it even holds a leading position worldwide.

* * *

At the same time, with the support of the United States, the Taiwanese have armed themselves to the teeth. The reason for this is the threat posed by China, which continues to covet the island and which appears to be a more significant issue for U.S. President Donald Trump than the war in Ukraine.

For this reason, it was noteworthy that Member of the European Parliament and general Pekka Toveri predicted on social media that China would attack the island state in the near future. As a sign of this, he points to extensive purges carried out within China’s military leadership.

If Toveri is right, we will witness a clash between the two greatest military and economic powers of our time, in which the United States will side with Taiwan in a fight against Xi’s army. One can of course hope that this will not happen.

If it does, however, it is to be hoped that the confrontation would avoid the use of nuclear weapons and be limited to conventional warfare. This would certainly be the case at first — but would both sides refrain from nuclear weapons even if one of them were facing defeat?

For this reason, the Taiwan question is extremely important. So far, nuclear weapons have been used against people only at the end of the Second World War, but we do not know whether either Xi Jinping or Donald Trump would be willing to resort to them — if defeat were looming — in order to avoid losing face.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Former President Donald Trump is Also the Upcoming President – But What Does It Mean?
Military confrontation between China and USA highly probable in near future
Once upon a time in China and Taiwan

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Taiwanin kysymys uuteen vaiheeseen?

The Frog in the Pot: Russia’s Baltic Strategy

According to Ukraine’s intelligence chief, Putin is planning to seize the Baltic states as early as 2027. According to him, “the Russian Federation was supposed to be ready to launch operations in 2030. Now the plans have been adapted and revised so that the deadlines have been shortened to 2027.”

As Putin’s motive, the intelligence chief cited a somewhat undeniably mysterious idea that an empire must “always be moving somewhere in order to expand its influence and territories.” He believes the selection of the Baltics as the target of an attack, in turn, is due to their weakness in the Arctic region compared to the United States and China, which Russia would face in other directions.

* * *

The fact, however, is that all three Baltic states are members of NATO, and as such they enjoy the security guarantees of the world’s most powerful military alliance. According to Article Five, "the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all".

It further states that “each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence… will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”

* * *

However, Article Five does not define the level of force with which an attack against a member state would be answered. It therefore does not state that an attack on a member state would be met with sufficient force, or with NATO’s full military power, or that tens of thousands of NATO troops would be deployed to the Baltics after an attack.

Let alone that the attacker would be threatened with full-scale nuclear war in such a situation. Instead, Article Five merely states that the response will consist of actions deemed necessary.

* * *

Therefore, the key question from Russia’s perspective—if it wishes to attack the Baltics—is the nature and scale of the actions that NATO countries would deem necessary. And I do not consider it impossible that Russia might—most likely only after the war in Ukraine has ended—want to find out.

This could of course occur through a large-scale offensive or by carrying out—successfully—a blitzkrieg (“special operation,” po-russkii), in which the Baltics would be occupied in a matter of days. Such an approach, however, would involve enormous risks—even the possibility of nuclear war—which Russia would more likely seek to avoid by using the so-called “frog in a pot of water” method and increasing its power in small steps.

The beginning of such actions could already be seen in past hybrid operations exploiting migrants from developing countries, airspace violations, balloon flights, and most recently armed border guards entering Estonian territory. For this reason, especially in Europe, it is necessary to closely monitor whether increasingly serious border violations are directed at the Baltic states in the future. And if they occur, to raise the level of readiness.

In my view, the most sensible course for NATO would be to make it clear that it will use sufficient force in all attacks directed at NATO countries to stop the attacker’s army—i.e., that it would, if necessary, ensure by all available means that the attacker is halted.

* * *

Unfortunately, there are good reasons to doubt that all NATO member states—particularly the strongest one under its current administration, or the states of Westernmost Europe—are willing to make such a commitment. And even if they were, Putin’s Russia might still choose to observe how the “frog” reacts to cautious measures to heat the pot.

For this reason, the Baltic states, other countries bordering Russia, and—next in line to attract the interest of Russian dictators—their western neighbors must themselves ensure that any potential aggression by the Moscow regime is met decisively. And they must ensure that their military capabilities are sufficient for that purpose.

Only by acting in this way can it be made clear to Putin that Russia should not even consider taking the kind of risk that Ukraine’s intelligence chief spoke of.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Should Ukraine Trust Donald Trump After Being Let Down by Barack Obama?
Estonia Needs Its Own Air Force
Kremlin’s Provocations Echo Pre-War Rhetoric on Ukraine

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?

Ukrainian and Finnish Cases of Desertion

Financial Times published a report on Ukrainian soldiers deserting the front. According to it, as many as 60,000 charges have been filed this year alone against soldiers who have abandoned their posts.

For this reason, I would like to remind you – my esteemed readers – that Finns faced similar problems in 1944. However, they were resolved swiftly and effectively, which demonstrates that desertion can be brought under control quite quickly – if there is the will to do so. Undoubtedly, this applies to Ukraine as well.

* * *

During the Winter War, Finnish soldiers held their positions admirably, and morale remained high. But when the Karelian Isthmus front collapsed in 1944 under the pressure of the Soviet Union’s massive offensive, many Finnish soldiers also abandoned their posts. As a result, it was estimated in June 1944 that around 30,000 soldiers had gone missing from their units – some lost, but many deliberately fleeing.

This led Parliament to enact a law strengthening the military penal code, allowing for the death penalty for “cowardice in battle,” that is, desertion. This resulted in summary judgments by field courts and, in some cases, officers taking justice into their own hands. Consequently, roughly fifty Finnish deserters and war resisters met their end at the hands of their own countrymen.

* * *

These events have later been condemned with the infallible morality of hindsight – or, as Veikko Huovinen put it, with the “sweetest and most self-satisfied kind of wisdom.” The fact remains, however, that it was precisely those summary punishments – and the word of them spreading rapidly through the ranks – that brought desertion among Finnish soldiers under control.

Thus, swift and sufficiently firm action against desertion made possible, among other things, the defensive victory at Tali–Ihantala – the so-called Miracle of Ihantala, which stopped the Red Army’s great offensive and saved Finland’s independence. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Ukrainalainen ja suomalainen rintamakarkuruus

Ukraine Must Defeat Corruption Before Joining the EU

In addition to waging war, Ukraine is also striving to root out the rampant corruption in the country. And no wonder — in 2024, the nation ranked as low as 105th on an index measuring corruption levels. That means Ukrainians are slightly more corrupt than those in Morocco, the Dominican Republic, or Serbia, but still less prone to bribery than people in Algeria, Brazil, or Malawi.

Incidentally, the least corrupt countries in the world were Denmark, Finland, Singapore, and New Zealand. At the very bottom of the list — in positions 178 to 180 — were Venezuela, Somalia, and South Sudan.

* * *

Let us return, then, to Ukraine, which is fighting desperately for its independence against the Russians, with strong support from Western nations. Its leadership has also expressed a firm desire to join the European Union.

In my view, the EU — which itself struggles with corruption — must, despite all sympathy toward the Ukrainians, firmly maintain that this goal cannot be achieved unless corruption is thoroughly eradicated from the country. In this respect, Ukrainians are on the right path, but unfortunately still far from the finish line.

It was therefore rather foolish that President Volodymyr Zelensky tried during the summer to limit anti-corruption investigations — a move that raised doubts, both in me and surely in many others, about whether Ukraine can ever leave behind its Slavic legacy of corruption and one day embrace a Western way of life. 

To be sure, he quickly reversed course, but it is clear that the damage was already done and the stigma of corruption attached to Ukrainians only grew stronger. Erasing that image will not be easy — it will require revelations and punishments that may also reach into Zelensky’s own apparently corrupt inner circle.

It remains to be seen how Ukraine will tackle corruption in the future — and whether the problem can ever truly be brought under control so that the country’s EU membership might one day become even theoretically possible.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine Risks Losing Western Trust by Muzzling Corruption Watchdog
A New Beginning: Economic Independence in the Hands of Developing Nations
Can Trump Resist the Kremlin’s Lure?

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?

When Ukraine’s Drones Fly 2,000 km, Putin’s Confidence Shakes

According to the Kyiv Post, Ukraine has carried out a drone strike more than 2,000 kilometers beyond its border. The target was an oil refinery in Tyumen, Russia, which was reportedly damaged in the attack.

Regardless of the extent of the damage, the incident is significant in that it demonstrates that Russian infrastructure is increasingly within Ukraine’s reach. Consequently, Russia’s war economy is becoming ever more vulnerable — just as Vladimir Putin turns 73.

For example, fuel shortages in many regions of Russia are already severe and are making civilian life difficult. One can only imagine how the situation will unfold in the coming months, with homes left unheated as temperatures drop to –20 or even –30 degrees Celsius.

For this reason, there now appears to be considerable potential in the air for an uprising to ignite. And this seems enough for Putin to be paying very close attention to his own security.

This is underlined by reports that even Vyacheslav Leontyev, the 87-year-old former publisher of Pravda, the leading newspaper of the Soviet Union, is said to have fallen from the window of his fifth-floor apartment in western Moscow. The man is believed to have been well informed about the secret wealth of Russia’s elite — undoubtedly including Putin himself — the existence of which is unlikely to provide much comfort to ordinary Russians facing the coming winter’s cold.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?
Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?

Finland’s Foreign Minister Explained Why the States That Have Recognized Palestine Are Well-Meaning Fools

Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians are set to begin in Cairo, Egypt. The starting points are promising, as a representative of the extremist group Hamas assures that the organization seeks to reach an agreement to end the war in Gaza.

However, right at the outset, the organization has demanded that Israel immediately cease all military operations in Gaza if it wants to reach an agreement — a stance that has hardly helped build trust in the terrorists. On the positive side, Hamas has also expressed its own willingness to stop fighting, provided Israel does the same.

In other words, the situation remains tense, and there is no certainty about the outcome. Therefore, the rest of the world should aim to help facilitate the formation of an agreement.

* * *

Finland’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen (National Coalition Party) has stated that she hopes a ceasefire can be implemented immediately, as the release of hostages has been awaited for nearly two years. This, she says, would hopefully also allow sufficient humanitarian aid to reach Gaza and help calm the situation across the region.

According to Valtonen, Finland’s position is that Hamas must be disarmed. In her words, “the point now is that disarmament simply must be achieved. We cannot accept any kind of terrorist organization at the helm of any territory — and especially not of a future state.”

She also emphasized that “we support the two-state model. That in itself means that the State of Palestine will be recognized. But this requires that the Palestinian administration be a civilian government committed to nonviolence and to ensuring security for Israel, neighboring countries, and its own people.”

In other words, it is not yet sensible to recognize the State of Palestine; instead, the promise of independence should be used as an incentive to achieve a positive outcome in the peace negotiations. Unfortunately, most of the world’s countries have already, in their folly, played that card.

Thus, their actions — the premature recognition of Palestine — can well be described as the work of well-meaning fools, which will hopefully not have too great an impact on the outcome of the negotiations. However, should that happen, it would be wise to learn from it when resolving future crises.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Optimism and Reality of the Gaza Peace Proposal
Finland May Recognize Palestine as an Independent State
Palestine’s Statehood and International Law

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?

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?

Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?

Vladimir Putin’s three-day “special operation” in Ukraine is becoming ever more visible in Russia. Fresh examples of this include the derailment of two trains in the Leningrad region and a drone strike on the Primorsk (Koivisto) oil terminal, which has left Russian oil exports from this port still suspended.

According to a social media account called The War Action, during the past August Ukraine struck 22 oil- and gas-related facilities, 12 railway infrastructure targets, six defense industry companies, three ports and warehouses, and two airports. As a result, this month ten Russian regions have faced such severe fuel shortages that some independent gas stations shut down entirely—and where operations continue, gasoline prices have risen.

At the same time, the balance of power on the battlefield has shifted. For instance, near Dobropillia, Ukrainian armed forces units have advanced west of Volodymyrivka. Several Russian detachments remain encircled near Kucheriv Yar—and even the reinforcements sent to assist them are themselves facing encirclement.

If these developments continue, it is clear that Vladimir Putin’s position as Russia’s dictator will begin to weaken. His situation is made no easier by the fact that Donald Trump has called on all NATO countries to stop buying oil from Russia, to impose tougher sanctions against it, and to levy 50–100 percent import tariffs on China.

As a carrot, Trump has offered that if all his demands are met, the United States will also be ready to impose major sanctions against Russia—thereby forcing Vladimir Putin to end his special operation, or at least compelling the Russian people to rid themselves of their dictator.

Putin’s difficult situation is also evident from the fact that even Belarusian dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenko has begun to distance himself from his regime. This was seen, for example, when Belarusian authorities warned the Poles about drones that had recently crossed the border through Belarusian airspace.

Or what do you think, my dear reader? Could all this be a sign that Vladimir Vladimirovich’s countdown has now begun? Or am I just dreaming?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Responding to Russia’s Challenges Is Essential
Russian Oil Giants Suffer, But the Real Reasons Remain Hidden
Ukraine’s Missiles and Russia’s Forced Recruitment Set to Topple Putin’s Regime

Responding to Russia’s Challenges Is Essential

This morning’s news reported that Poland’s air defense destroyed Russian drones. And this did not happen in Ukraine, but in the airspace of Poland, a NATO member.

Taking into account the recent interference with the aircraft carrying the president of the European Commission, as well as the earlier bombing of a factory in Ukraine owned by Americans and the damaging of EU and UK buildings, it is becoming clear that this is not about accidents but deliberate actions. And such actions can only have one purpose: to test the unity and readiness of Europeans and especially NATO.

At the same time, it is clear that the more loosely the West responds to Russian actions, the more certain it is that Russia will continue to challenge them. The only question is where and in what way.

In this situation, the greatest danger lies with the smallest border states, namely the Baltic countries. Estonia, for instance, has recently been subjected to several airspace violations, the latest just a couple of days ago.

Thus, the question arises: if the West responds weakly or not at all to Russia’s provocations related to the war in Ukraine, could a surprise attack be ahead? For example, a blitzkrieg directed at one of the Baltic states, with the goal of occupying the entire country so quickly that a reluctant NATO would not have time to intervene?

To prevent such a scenario, it is important that Western countries pull themselves together, recognize the obvious facts, and respond forcefully to Russia’s provocations in Ukraine and in its immediate border areas. In doing so, they would send Vladimir Putin the clearest possible message: that there are no easy victories for him in EU and NATO countries—only bitter defeat.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine’s Missiles and Russia’s Forced Recruitment Set to Topple Putin’s Regime
The War in Ukraine Came Close to Me
Donald Trump’s Meeting With Vladimir Putin: The Advice He Needs

Russian Oil Giants Suffer, But the Real Reasons Remain Hidden

According to a recent report, the results of all Russia’s major oil companies collapsed in the first half of the year. A year ago, the country’s largest oil producer Rosneft reported half-year earnings of 773 billion rubles, equivalent to 85 billion euros. Now the result was only 245 billion rubles, or 27 billion euros.

Lukoil’s profit fell from last year’s 65 billion euros to 31.5 billion euros. Gazprom Neft’s earnings dropped by more than half to 16.5 billion euros. Tatneft’s and Russneft’s profits declined even more sharply, but the worst result came from Surgutneftegas, whose performance turned into a loss of 50 million euros.

The companies cite as their problems, among other things, oil overproduction resulting from OPEC countries’ policies, the overvaluation of the ruble, and Russia’s high interest rates. However, their financial statements make no mention at all of the drone strikes by Ukrainians against Russia’s oil industry or the sanctions imposed by Western countries.

It remains unclear whether this silence stems from fear of Vladimir Putin, from Russian dishonesty — or perhaps both.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Deep Roots of Violence and Disregard for Human Dignity in History
Russian Soldier in Finland – A Sign of Crumbling Morale?
Russia’s Economy Set to Slow, Says Bank of Finland