Search

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 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 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)

According to the author, Russian oil refineries would be safe if Russia stopped killing Ukrainian children. He wrote that a ballistic missile capable of reaching Moscow was being developed in Ukraine in case Russia continued to kill children. #Ukraina #rauha #sodankäynti #FI #UA #RU (translated)

Henri Vanhanen thanked Charles Lindbergh for addressing military issues based on facts. He assessed that Sanna Marin's demand to shoot down every Russian plane violating NATO airspace did not hold up under closer scrutiny, even though it sounded resolute. Vanhanen wrote that Russia's repeated violations of airspace should not be underestimated, but shooting down an armed fighter during peacetime would be a different scale of solution than intercepting a drone that has invaded airspace. According to him, it would be essential to assess whether it was a short violation or a deep incursion into Finnish territory that disregarded warnings and posed a real military threat. Vanhanen warned that shooting down a fighter could lead to the deaths of Russian soldiers and trigger a chain of events whose consequences Finland would not decide alone. He also viewed that Russia aimed to provoke and test the West's reactions, and it should not be allowed to dictate the timing or conditions for an escalation in the military situation. According to him, credible defense required both the readiness to use force and discretion in its application. https://t.co/uT4UMwcIib #turvallisuuspolitiikka #Venäjä #Nato (translated)

According to the author, Trump received a promise of diesel from Putin, of which Russia had hardly any for export, while Putin got everything else. He assessed that Trump used concessions instead of pressure tactics and believed that peace was promoted through business agreements. He described the situation as a shame for the West and claimed that one phone call to Moscow led to the United States granting something to a Russian entity. https://t.co/RwflhxrVjy #Trump #Putin #politiikka #FI #RU #US (translated)

Jarno Limnell assessed that Volodymyr Zelensky made a strategically skillful move by suggesting that Ukraine hold elections if Vladimir Putin agreed to a 60-day ceasefire. According to Limnell, Zelensky linked Ukraine's internal political issue to Russia's military decision and brought the matter to Donald Trump's attention. He believed the ball was in Moscow's court, where, according to him, there was no genuine desire for peace. #Ukraina #Zelenskyi #Venäjä (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Volodymyr Zelensky was ready to hold elections in Ukraine if Vladimir Putin agreed to a 60-day ceasefire. Vanhanen noted that this was not a new concession, as Zelensky had made the same proposal in February and required sufficient security guarantees to hold the elections. Vanhanen interpreted the proposal as a message to Donald Trump, who, in his view, had repeatedly questioned Zelensky’s position and called for elections in Ukraine. According to Vanhanen, holding elections would require the United States to get Russia to stop hostilities for a sufficient period. He found it contradictory that Ukraine was being asked to hold elections in the midst of an invasion, while Russia had not agreed to a ceasefire that would allow for it. Vanhanen also pondered how strong Trump’s pressure on Zelensky had become, referring to Trump’s recent statements regarding Ukrainian leadership. He believed that the replacement of the Ukrainian president should not become a substantive goal of peace negotiations, but rather that Ukrainians should choose their own leader. According to Vanhanen, Trump should have used his influence to promote a ceasefire rather than forcing Ukraine to defend the legitimacy of its democracy. #Ukraina #Zelenskyi #Trump (translated)

Mika Hentunen wrote that, in his opinion, there was joy in Moscow over the diesel deal between Trump and Putin. He assessed that the Kremlin had built its strategy from the beginning on the assumption that Trump would be on Russia's side, and considered the deal once again as evidence of this. https://t.co/kKi80hzh6W #Trump #Putin #Venäjä (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that the agreement announced by Donald Trump with Vladimir Putin to bring millions of tons of Russian diesel to the global market would be very bad news for Ukraine. According to Vanhanen, the arrangement would give Russia new opportunities to earn from energy exports, even though its war of aggression in Ukraine would continue. Vanhanen assessed that the agreement could help Russia mitigate the economic impacts of the strikes on Ukraine's oil refineries. He wrote that the strikes had caused problems and fuel shortages for Russia. In his view, facilitating Russia's energy exports would also reduce the pressure on Putin to negotiate an end to the war. Vanhanen considered it possible that the promised deliveries might not materialize, as he claimed Russia's refining capacity had suffered from the strikes. Vanhanen speculated that Trump was aiming for lower fuel prices in the United States before the midterm elections, but questioned the agreement's impact on prices. He also found the political message of the agreement concerning: in his view, the Kremlin could present it as evidence that Russia is not isolated and that the U.S. president is willing to do business with it. According to Vanhanen, the agreement could place Ukraine's strikes on Russia's oil industry in conflict with Washington's fuel price objectives. He urged Europe to prepare for greater responsibility in supporting Ukraine and pressuring Russia, and maintained that Russia's war economy should not be helped to recover. https://t.co/gpRe9acHoW #Ukraina #Venäjä #Trump (translated)

Henri Vanhanen warned about Finland's security and wrote that according to Denmark's Security and Intelligence Service PET, Russia had begun sabotage operations against Danish defense companies. According to him, companies supplying weapons and equipment to Ukraine were particularly targeted. Vanhanen stated that PET assessed that Moscow had aimed to reduce European support for Ukraine through intimidation and harassment and was now trying to harm weapons production and supply chains. Vanhanen wrote that perpetrators of the strikes were recruited via social media and were first paid for photographing and gathering intelligence on targets, and later for sabotage. According to him, this allowed operations without the direct involvement of Russian intelligence officers. He warned that Russia aimed to extend the effects of the war to NATO countries and also assessed that Finland's defense industry's production facilities, subcontractors, personnel, and supply chains could be targets. Vanhanen believed that protecting them required cooperation between companies and authorities, and urged NATO to assess when individual sabotage attacks would constitute a systematic campaign against the alliance's defense capability. https://t.co/CgjnDAjDhY #Turvallisuus #Ukraina #Venäjä (translated)

The Danish security and intelligence service (PET) has announced that Russia has begun to sabotage Danish companies, especially those supplying materials to Ukraine, which indicates a significant escalation in Moscow's hybrid warfare. #Venäjä #Tanska #hybridsodankäynti (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Vladimir Putin turned 74 today and reminded that journalist Anna Politkovskaya was shot in the elevator of her apartment building in Moscow on Putin's birthday, October 7, 2006. According to Vanhanen, Politkovskaya had documented the atrocities of Russian troops in Chechnya, torture, and abuses of power, and was one of the sharpest critics of Putin's Russia. Vanhanen assessed that Politkovskaya's murder on Putin's birthday could have been a message or a grotesque gift from the mafia state he described to the pinnacle of power. He wrote that the murder reminded of the system that Putin built: power became concentrated, violence became a tool of politics, and those defined as enemies of power could pay for their resistance with their lives. Vanhanen urged to remember also those who tried to tell the world what kind of Russia Putin was building, according to him. #Putin #Politkovskaja #Venäjä (translated)