Aggregated public profile · Not an official account.

Henri Vanhanen wrote that the discussions held in St. Petersburg once again demonstrated, in his opinion, the difficulty of negotiating with Russia. He reported that the Kremlin considered the proposals prepared in Oslo to be almost useless but simultaneously stated its willingness to continue negotiations and spoke about the approaching end of the war. Vanhanen described this as contradictory and believed Russia was holding its demands steady without revealing what it would be willing to compromise on. According to Vanhanen, Moscow sought to shift the discussion to the post-war European security order and the security guarantees that would be given to Russia. He regarded the guarantees as absurd because, according to him, Russia had started the largest offensive war in Europe in decades. Referring to previous Russian demands, he assessed that the guarantees could practically grant Moscow influence over which countries would join NATO and what kind of defense arrangements neighboring countries could make. He added that the U.S. President could not promise such things on behalf of other NATO countries or independent European states. Vanhanen argued that European security should not be built by giving an aggressor the right to dictate the defense of other countries. In his view, mutual arms control and the reduction of military risks could be negotiated, but Russia's demands for a sphere of influence should not be presented as security guarantees. He reported that Zelensky had announced Ukraine was ready to freeze the war at the current front lines. Vanhanen considered this a significant practical compromise and clarified that it did not, in his opinion, involve a legal cession of territories to Russia. He compared this to Russia's stance and wrote that Ukraine had indicated what it would accept, while Russia had stated what it would not accept. Vanhanen described the situation as revealing regarding Trump's negotiation tactics. He wrote that the United States had already loosened the pressure of sanctions on Russia and had agreed to diesel cooperation, but he assessed that there were no signs of similar political concessions from Moscow. According to him, the continuation of negotiations could benefit Russia by keeping Washington interested in economic cooperation, giving time to advance military objectives, and providing an opportunity to wait and see if Trump's impatience would again be directed toward Ukraine. Vanhanen asked how many times Trump would be willing to reward Putin for his willingness to negotiate without substantial changes in his actions. He considered the diplomatic work of Stub and Støre the previous day to be important because, in his opinion, they had restored the Americans, Ukrainians, and Europeans to a common preparation. However, he warned that a single successful negotiation day should not obscure the fact that Moscow's public demands remained unchanged. Vanhanen concluded by stating that in peace negotiations, what mattered was not the number of meetings with Putin but what he was willing to do to end the war. #Venäjä #neuvottelut #rauha (translated)

Henri Vanhanen criticized what he believed to be excessive flattery of Putin by Americans and argued that Russia was not a superpower like the Soviet Union. According to him, the United States had nearly 2.4 times as many inhabitants as Russia, its economy was about 12 times larger, and its military spending was five times greater. Furthermore, he believed the U.S. had a global network of allies that Russia could only dream of. Vanhanen wrote that the flattery of the opposing side could be a negotiation tactic in diplomacy, but public statements also had political significance. He believed they gave the impression that Washington viewed Putin as a partner upon whose goodwill peace depended, rather than emphasizing Russia's responsibility for starting and continuing the war. Vanhanen argued that the United States' negotiating position should be strong and not rely on personal flattery of Putin. https://t.co/LMF0zpp0Q9 #Politiikka #Diplomatia #Yhdysvallat (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that in the United States, Russia was understood more than its own allies, in his opinion. He assessed that Hillary Clinton's words from ten years ago had gained new weight. Vanhanen reminded of the 2018 Helsinki summit, where Trump, in his view, appeared to trust Vladimir Putin's assurances more than the U.S. intelligence community's assessments of Russia's interference in the presidential elections. Vanhanen wrote that Russia had actively sought to promote Trump's victory in the same elections. According to Vanhanen, U.S. Russia policy changed after Trump's return: Russia was once again brought to the center of great power diplomacy, and Washington sought normalization of relations as well as economic arrangements. He also pointed out that the United States voted in 2025 at the UN against a resolution concerning Ukraine alongside Russia and that Putin was welcomed with a red carpet at the Alaska summit while Russia's invasion war continued. Vanhanen assessed that Russia had benefited from political decisions made during Trump's presidency and wrote that the United States was ready to pressure Ukraine. He wondered why Trump spoke warmly of Putin, who in Washington defined the direction of Russia policy, and why Trump occasionally showed more understanding to Putin than to his allies. According to Vanhanen, these decisions could no longer be explained as mere individual blunders or the president's unpredictability. #Trump #Venäjä #Yhdysvallat (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that in the negotiations held in Oslo, two main issues had been prepared according to him: the future of Ukraine, security guarantees, EU integration and reconstruction, as well as the conditions for ending the war and Europe’s future security order. He said the negotiations also concerned what would be required from Russia and how a possible ceasefire would be secured. Vanhanen assessed that Europe should bring its own goals and means to the discussions. According to him, Europe financed Ukraine's defense, made decisions regarding Russia sanctions, and would have to bear a large part of the peace security responsibilities. He wrote that Europe’s security should not be constructed according to the United States' election calendar, even though a quick agreement and a drop in energy prices would be valuable achievements for Trump before the midterms. Vanhanen highlighted the actions of President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. According to him, Ukraine specifically requested Finland and Norway to facilitate the discussions, and the leaders had established functional connections both to Ukraine and Trump’s administration. Vanhanen also mentioned that Witkoff and Kushner were involved and continuing discussions with Russia. Vanhanen considered Stubb's actions particularly commendable and said that Finland's participation and the opportunity to convey Europe’s security concerns to Trump’s inner circle were significant. He wrote that the negotiations were also about what kind of Russia Finland would have to live with in the coming decades. https://t.co/j2zyg51EJb #Ukraina #EuroopanTurvallisuus #Diplomatia (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that a Russian drone strike had hit a park in the Kharkiv region and that a picture of a dead child in a stroller had been circulated in the media afterwards. As a parent, he described seeing the image as shocking. He criticized the statements made by Donald Trump on the same day, which claimed that Russia had acted well in Ukraine and had not done much at all. Vanhanen listed the actions taken by Russia in Ukraine, such as the execution of civilians, sexual violence, torture of prisoners of war, and the forced relocation of Ukrainian children. He also wrote about drone strikes against civilians as well as bombings of hospitals, residential buildings, and energy infrastructure. According to him, Trump had downplayed Russia's actions and blamed Ukrainian leadership, as well as being willing to discuss the war with Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping without the Ukrainian president present. Vanhanen assessed that the President of the United States should act as the moral voice of the free world, but believed that someone else should take on this responsibility if Trump was unable to do so. He stated that he understood the realities of great power politics but feared that in negotiations to end the war, Russia would retain some of the regions it had seized through violence, and the war of aggression would prove at least partially beneficial for it. He argued that such an outcome would send a very dangerous message to others. #Ukraina #Venäjä #Trump (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Finland should close the Russian consulate in Mariehamn after the Russian consul left Åland. According to him, the consulate, established in 1940 at the demand of the Soviet Union, oversaw the demilitarization of Åland, and Russia still had a special status as overseer of Finland's military arrangements in the area. Vanhanen found the situation grotesque and said there was no convincing reason to maintain the consulate in the current security environment. He referred to a previous HBL poll indicating that even 59 percent of Ålanders supported closing the consulate. Vanhanen also believed that the future of Åland's demilitarization should be discussed seriously. He described the islands as a strategically important archipelago located in the critically important Baltic Sea for the security of Finland and Sweden, stating that the starting point for defense should be military necessity. He noted that closing the consulate and dismantling the demilitarization were legally distinct issues, but both deserved a new security policy assessment. Vanhanen wrote that Russia should not dictate how Finland defends its territory. (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that he appreciated that Volodymyr Zelensky had said Trump pressured Ukraine to surrender to Russia. According to Vanhanen, this was not about individual statements but a series of decisions from 2025–2026. Vanhanen listed Trump accusing Ukraine of starting the war, halting military aid and intelligence sharing, demanding territorial concessions, and reducing the delivery of Patriot missiles. He stated that Trump also demanded Ukraine stop striking Russian oil refineries, loosened sanctions on Russia, and did not demand similar concessions from Putin. Vanhanen mentioned that Putin had proposed a summit with Trump and Xi regarding Ukraine’s future without Ukraine and European countries. He described Trump’s Ukraine policy as contradictory: according to him, Trump aimed to end the war but reduced pressure on the aggressor and increased it on the defending Ukraine. According to Vanhanen, it would suffice for Putin if Washington started to consider Ukraine’s resistance an obstacle to peace and Russia’s demands a starting point for negotiations. He assessed that this could help Russia achieve negotiating goals that it had not attained on the battlefield and encourage Moscow to continue the war in hopes of new concessions. https://t.co/r10fKzP3r3 #Ukraina #Trump #Putin (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that according to The New York Times, Trump's negotiators had suggested increasing the purchase of Russian gas by Europe as a way to get Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine. Vanhanen asked what else the Trump administration could still offer Vladimir Putin. According to Vanhanen, Europe had bought Russian gas worth billions of euros before 2022, but the revenue and influence Russia gained, as well as Europe's energy dependence, did not prevent Putin from invading Ukraine. He believed that Europe had sought to rid itself of Russian energy because the dependency had proven to be a serious geopolitical mistake. Restoring that would, in his view, be a gift to Putin and a setback for European security. Vanhanen wrote that peace could not be built by making war profitable business. He urged Europe to make it clear to Washington that European security and energy policy should not be used as a commodity in negotiations with Putin. https://t.co/c6meL6mr1T #Trump #Putin #energia (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Helsingin Sanomat had received nearly 800,000 Finnish individuals' location data for free from international data brokers. According to him, the data could be used to identify soldiers, members of parliament, and critical infrastructure workers, as well as to uncover their homes and movement patterns. Vanhanen assessed that the availability of location data could pose a serious vulnerability to Finland's national security and also jeopardize the privacy of ordinary citizens. He wrote that a foreign state's intelligence service might not necessarily need to breach information systems if it could purchase the data. Vanhanen suggested that Finland should begin preparing a Data Shield legislative package concerning the security of location data. He proposed that the commercial resale of precise location histories be prohibited, that the location protection of those working in security-critical tasks be strengthened, and that the responsibilities of authorities be clarified. Furthermore, he argued that Finland should advocate for stricter EU restrictions on the commercial resale of location data of identifiable individuals. https://t.co/iheRSEpv9j #Tietosuoja #KansallinenTurvallisuus #Yksityisyys (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Europe should take a greater role in defining the peace terms for Ukraine. According to him, Donald Trump tried to entice Vladimir Putin to peace with concessions, even though Russia continued the war and new flexibilities were expected from Ukraine. Vanhanen pointed out that Europe spent tens of billions of euros to defend Ukraine but largely let Washington direct the negotiations. Vanhanen demanded Germany resolve the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine and for other countries to strengthen Ukraine’s long-range strike capability. He also suggested that Europe should find a way to more broadly utilize Russia’s frozen state assets of about 200 billion euros, increase pressure on Russia’s oil revenues, and boost military support for Ukraine if the war of aggression continued. He argued that Europe should ensure that Trump’s diplomacy is not based solely on offering new concessions to Russia. https://t.co/pilGKhN9F1 #Eurooppa #Ukraina #Trump (translated)

Henri Vanhanen considered it shameful that, according to him, Donald Trump had decided not to implement actions approved by Congress that would have enabled tariffs of up to 100 percent on Russia's oil and gas for its largest purchasing countries. According to Vanhanen, Trump justified his decision with the national interest of the United States, and in Vladimir Putin's inner circle, the solution had already been described as a historic achievement. Vanhanen wrote that Russia's energy exports were significantly financing the country's war economy. He also reported that Ukraine had reported a shortage of Patriot missile defense systems, that Russia had continued bombing cities and killing civilians, and that Trump had demanded Ukraine stop attacks on Russian oil refineries. Citing sources from The Telegraph, Vanhanen wrote that Elon Musk had suggested to Trump limiting military-important Starshield satellite communications for Ukraine, which Trump had accepted. According to him, the restrictions would also hinder Ukraine's defense against Russian drone attacks. According to Vanhanen, Trump's negotiators were said to believe that concessions could bring Putin back to peace talks, even though, in his view, Russia had not shown a similar willingness to give up its military objectives. He assessed that concessions could strengthen Putin's perception of the profitability of continuing the war and that peace talks would require concessions from Russia as well. https://t.co/tTVKB82aQB #Trump #Ukraina #Venäjä (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that it was difficult to say whether Germany's Alice Weidel and France's Marine Le Pen were imitators of Donald Trump or sympathizers of Vladimir Putin, and according to him, the difference may not necessarily have mattered for the outcome. He mentioned that Weidel had declared the war in Ukraine a defeat and demanded an end to Germany's support, while Le Pen wanted to limit France's financial support to Ukraine. According to Vanhanen, politicians aiming for power in Europe's large countries had a short-sighted attitude towards Russia, European history, and security. He warned Finland not to assume that the rest of Europe would inevitably follow the same path as Finland. He did not consider the AfD's entry into the German federal government in the coming years to be likely but assessed that the strengthening of political forces like the party would pose serious security policy problems. Vanhanen also wrote that the Kremlin was monitoring Europe's electoral calendars. According to him, Putin would have no reason to rush negotiations if he believed that Ukraine's supporters would be replaced by leaders who were less sympathetic to Ukraine. Vanhanen noted that Europe's center-right parties had not responded in a timely manner to citizens' immigration concerns, which had allowed room for radical alternatives. He viewed the problem not as a demand for stricter immigration policies, but in that these movements were also bringing to power forces that represented admiration for authoritarianism, opposition to Ukraine, and sympathy for Russia. He assessed that decisions about Europe's security would be made both on the battlefields of Ukraine and in European elections, emphasizing that this should also be understood in Finland. https://t.co/3s94O0WUiT #Eurooppa #Politiikka #Turvallisuus (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Trump has repeated Russian propaganda by blaming Ukraine, claiming that Volodymyr Zelensky is unwilling to make peace, and depicting Vladimir Putin as an easier negotiating partner. According to Vanhanen, Trump called Ukraine's attacks on Russian oil refineries shameful, even though Russia continued to bomb Ukraine's energy infrastructure. He also referred to a Reuters report on the restrictions imposed by the United States on the Starshield satellite system used by Ukraine. Vanhanen said he did not remember Trump condemning Russia's systematic winter attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure in the same way. He described the consequences: according to him, newborns had to be warmed with hot water bottles, and elderly people had been trapped in their apartments as elevators stopped working. He also mentioned the murders, rapes, and other war crimes committed by Russian troops against civilians and assessed that Trump was particularly concerned about the price of diesel and the global availability of oil. According to Vanhanen, Trump could not credibly act as a neutral peace broker if he only pressured one side of the conflict, the victim of the attack, rather than the aggressor. He wrote that Russia started the war and continued it, and he believed that peace would not be achieved by weakening Ukraine's defense capabilities and rewarding Russia for the attack. #Ukraina #Trump #Venäjä (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that he understands Volodymyr Zelensky's frustration with Donald Trump but criticized Europe for not intervening more actively in the negotiations. Vanhanen stated that Ukraine accepted a ceasefire proposed by the United States in the spring of 2025, which Vladimir Putin rejected. According to him, Trump threatened Russia with consequences, invited Putin to Alaska, and continued to seek a deal. Ultimately, according to Vanhanen, Russia's terms for peace were shaped to be acceptable to the Americans, after which Ukraine and European countries had to amend them. Vanhanen compared Putin's negotiation style to the Soviet style, which he associated with Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko: first, a lot is demanded, concessions are rejected, and it is expected that the opposing party will offer more. He assessed that Trump needed a visible agreement more than Putin, which is why, in his opinion, Russia could wait for new initiatives from the United States. Vanhanen criticized Trump for letting Russia's demands influence what Ukraine was pressured to concede. He questioned why Europe had not presented a joint peace proposal with Ukraine or jointly decided how to respond to Russia's next refusal. Vanhanen noted that the United States' influence is undeniable and its participation is necessary, but he believed that Trump should not be given exclusive rights to define the direction of the negotiations. In his opinion, Europe did not need to be ashamed of Trump's lack of historical knowledge or understanding of Russia's negotiating tactics, but Europe's passivity was still harder to defend. https://t.co/qs68FaMyfW #Ukraina #Eurooppa #Trump (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Russia's frozen assets should be used for the benefit of Ukraine instead of being returned to Vladimir Putin's control. According to the Financial Times, the United States had suggested partially releasing the assets to entice Russia into peace negotiations. Vanhanen deemed the proposal absurd and assessed that Putin would not abandon his war of aggression without reciprocal concessions. Vanhanen believed that Europe had been discussing for years the use of frozen assets for the benefit of Ukraine but had not properly addressed the principal amount itself. He wrote that the United States was now even suggesting transferring the assets to Washington's oversight. According to Vanhanen, Russia should pay for the destruction it has caused, and Europe should find ways to use the assets to support Ukraine instead of making them a bargaining chip. https://t.co/9zBKU31Qb4 #Ukraina #Venäjä #rauhanneuvottelut (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that NATO's commander for European forces, Alexus Grynkewich, had described the alliance's strategic thinking in preparation for a possible Russian attack without revealing classified operational plans. According to Vanhanen, the speech aimed to convey that an attack on NATO territory would fail, and to reassure Europeans. He noted that the speech did not indicate, in his view, that NATO was anticipating an immediate attack. Vanhanen mentioned that Grynkewich summarized the theory of victory in three phases: the attack would be halted, its advance would be paralyzed, and if necessary, the military system supporting the attack would be broken. According to Vanhanen, this could mean strikes not only against the attacking troops but also against their logistics, command, and other support systems, if necessary, within Russian territory. The goal, in his interpretation, would not be to defeat Russia as a state, but to prevent it from seizing even part of NATO territory and pressuring the alliance to accept the situation. Vanhanen also highlighted from the speech that the plan took into account a situation where U.S. forces would be tied up in another war. He considered this a crucial issue for Europe and referred to the limited military resources of the United States and Trump's Russia policy, which he believed had made Washington's decisions difficult to predict. Vanhanen proposed that alongside NATO's plan, Europe needs its own plan for victory. Its goal would be for European NATO countries to be able to repel and defeat a large-scale conventional Russian attack over the next ten years even without U.S. combat troops. He believed this would require a joint assessment of the shortcomings in European defense, regular exercises without the assumption of U.S. participation, and binding decisions to correct the deficiencies. Vanhanen wrote that the purpose of a credible deterrent would be to make the initiation of war unprofitable for Russia. #Nato #Venäjä #turvallisuus (translated)

Henri Vanhanen appealed to the President of the Republic and the Council of State to prepare without delay a joint, public and up-to-date security situation assessment for Finns regarding the threats from Russia, preparedness for them, and responses to them. He stated that he had repeatedly proposed such an assessment. Vanhanen wrote that Finland's intelligence services and European authorities had warned about Russia's sabotage and influence operations. According to him, Europe had seen sabotage projects targeting the defense industry, drone disturbances, assassination plans, and serious airspace violations. He added that according to the Security Police, possible sabotage targets had been identified in Finland. Vanhanen believed that serious sabotage or other hostile influence by Russia could also happen in Finland, and in his view, discussion should not be postponed until the first serious strike. He hoped that the assessment would convey the seriousness of the threats, the actions taken to counter them, and citizens' own preparedness measures. Additionally, Vanhanen suggested that the assessment explain Finland's actions together with its allies in serious disturbance situations, as well as the support offered by NATO membership, intelligence cooperation, and joint operational possibilities. He justified his proposal with the need for transparency and trust and expressed his hope that the government leadership would address it without delay. #turvallisuus #suomi #venäjä (translated)

Henri Vanhanen called for a halt to the issuance of Russian tourist visas to Europe and stated that he agreed on the matter with Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen. He justified his stance with both moral reasons and European security. According to Vanhanen, Russian sabotage and other hostile activities in Europe had increased, and Russia had adapted its methods following European countries expelling Russian intelligence officers and complicating the conditions for diplomatic cover operations. He wrote that intermediaries, criminals, and individuals disguised as ordinary tourists were being used in the operations. Vanhanen assessed that a tourist visa issued by one Schengen country allowed for extensive movement in Europe, and this opportunity was exploited to prepare hostile actions. He stated that Schengen countries had issued nearly half a million tourist visas to Russians last year, which he regarded as impossible to justify in the context of an ongoing offensive war for the fifth year. Vanhanen believed that humanitarian exceptions, family reasons, and the status of those fleeing persecution should be secured, but he distinguished regular leisure travel from these grounds. He urged Europe to end the opportunities it offered to Russia, which he claimed were being used against Europe. https://t.co/AZTRFAHrwP #Eurooppa #Venäjä #Turismi (translated)

Henri Vanhanen described the recent message from the Security Police as very serious. According to him, Russia had identified possible sabotage targets in Finland's defense industry, although there were no indications of an immediate strike. Vanhanen wrote that the threat situation could change quickly and that Russia aimed to disrupt European defense industry and weaken support for Ukraine. Vanhanen demanded a systematic review of security arrangements for defense sector companies. He highlighted the importance of guarding production facilities, personnel security, subcontractors, and information systems, as well as the timely sharing of threat information by authorities and joint training for potential strikes. He suggested that the government initiate a national security assessment in cooperation with security authorities and the defense industry. According to him, this would help identify critical vulnerabilities, agree on protective measures, and ensure their funding. Vanhanen argued that securing the operational capability of the defense industry should not be left solely to the responsibility of the companies. https://t.co/wPB5qovW5y #Puolustusteollisuus #KansallinenTurvallisuus #Venäjä (translated)

Henri Vanhanen criticized Rosatom's leadership and wrote that the company's arrogance seemed to have no limits. According to him, as Russia commenced the largest invasion of Europe since World War II, the head of the state-owned company responsible for Russia's nuclear weapons program had stated that he expected Finland's "special behavior" to end and the country to return to the Hanhikivi nuclear power project. Vanhanen believed that Finland would no longer negotiate strategic dependencies on the Kremlin's terms. He described the Hanhikivi project as a cautionary example of Russia's efforts to bind Finland's critical infrastructure to its influence for decades. According to Vanhanen, Finland's energy policy should no longer give the Kremlin leverage over the country's security, and Finland's stance or decision not to return to the project with Russia would not change. https://t.co/v2qPS0PMHs #Suomi #Venäjä #ydinenergia (translated)