Search

Korson Jussi assessed that France could perhaps be removed from NATO's strength, as it likely would no longer have enough troops abroad. He wrote that Spain had announced it would not participate in anything and claimed that Germany had no weapons. Finally, he asked who else was involved. #Nato #Eurooppa #Puolustus (translated)

Fibonazzo wrote that his early investment decision made with a large amount was a mistake. According to him, Friday's trading and the closing price indicated that no buyers had still been found and the decline could continue. He estimated that the next week would show the direction. Fibonazzo stated that the return accumulated since the beginning of the year was still 362 percent and had occurred in the same way as recent returns. He said he was contemplating how to proceed and mentioned considering a more defensive strategy after giving up EQR, but had abandoned that idea at the time. He stressed that his writings were not intended as investment recommendations. If the market were moving into a broader bear market, Fibonazzo said he would likely sell everything and take a break from investing. He described the past year as intense overall. #Fibonazzo #sijoittaminen #markkinat #talous (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 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)

According to the author, young people had taken to the streets in France, Belgium, Albania, and other European countries. He estimated that this had triggered a defensive reaction among conservatives, rooted in the fear of losing privileges. The author described that the autumn of Europe had begun and that hierarchical power structures had been challenged. #Eurooppa #Nuoret #Mielenosoitus #FR #BE #AL (translated)

Maria Rautanen wrote that Russian nickel was still used in Finland for battery and defense industry needs, while climate policy, in her opinion, had reduced the energy use of domestic peat. She described it as contradicting that the availability of a critical raw material was wanted to be secured while domestic security of supply reserves were being aimed to eliminate. Rautanen questioned the concept of security of supply if dependence on imports was accepted but domestic alternatives were rejected. (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)

According to Antti Häkkänen, active international support had been built for the TNT factory in Finland, and the work had started to produce results. He reported that nearly 20 million euros of support from the United States had previously been announced for the project and that the EU had now granted it 30 million euros. According to Häkkänen, the project increased domestic defense industry and strengthened supply security. #huoltovarmuus https://t.co/oESsZEg0GA #puolustusteollisuus #kansainvälinen #tuki (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)

The author claimed that Russia had mapped out targets for sabotage in Finland's defense industry and threatened the management of companies. He described the actions as a weakening intimidation by Russia, targeting what he claimed were Europe's will and Ukraine’s supply routes. The author called for improved protection and the continuation of support. #Suomi #Venäjä #Puolustus #FI #RU #UA #EU (translated)