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)

The author claimed that the Finns he described as war hawks were trying to get citizens to support the continuation of the war in Ukraine to the last man and to reject the peace proposals of 2022 or similar proposals. He wrote that hundreds of thousands of people had already died in the war. #Ukraina #rauha #sota #FI #UA (translated)

Dennis Mitzner criticized Timo Stewart for the fact that Yle interviewed him in a news story about the war in Gaza just a day after Stewart's column was published. Mitzner saw this as an example of Stewart shifting from being a Yle columnist to being an outside researcher interviewed by the media in less than twenty-four hours. According to Mitzner, Stewart spoke in favor of open discussion and opposed the idea that hate speech should silence others. Mitzner found this position contradictory because, in his opinion, Stewart had long avoided debates on X where he and other researchers could have been directly challenged. He also claimed that the responses of researchers to critical citizens had not been convincing. Mitzner criticized Yle and Hesari journalists for allegedly supporting Stewart's message in sympathetic interviews where he was not challenged. He argued that Stewart warned against silencing discussion while avoiding situations where someone could question his views, and presented potential critics as a threat to free discussion. #keskustelu #vihakieli #mediakritiikki (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)

Tapio Puolimatka wrote that Tulsi Gabbard claimed that the EU and NATO are trying to draw the U.S. military into a war with Russia. According to Gabbard, self-interested technocrats, or the "deep state," and the intelligence community are trying to obstruct peace negotiations, among other things by leaking information to the mainstream media to spread false narratives. She argued that warmongers are inciting fear and hysteria to justify the continuation of the war and to undermine President Donald Trump's peace efforts. According to Puolimatka, Gabbard urged people to come together for peace. #rauha #SotiaVastaan #Ulkopolitiikka (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that he doubted whether Vladimir Putin had a realistic understanding of the situation in the war in Ukraine or whether he would be willing to accept information contrary to his own views. Vanhanen assessed that in Russia's system, reporting bad news to the leadership could be dangerous and that the military leadership, subordinates, or the president's inner circle might distort or filter information. Vanhanen referred to a recent assessment by the think tank ISW, which stated that Ukraine's successful counteroffensive in northern Donetsk had shattered Russia's plan to encircle the region's key defensive cities from two directions. According to him, Russia's goal of capturing the entire Donetsk region appeared to be further away as a result. Vanhanen wrote that Putin might continue the war to achieve unrealistic goals if he believed that Russia was closer to victory than reality suggests. He deemed it even more concerning that Putin might be receiving accurate information but did not want to believe it. Vanhanen emphasized that Russia's military failure, in his view, might not necessarily change Putin's goals or his desire to continue the war. He believed that an unrealistic situational picture could lead to the prolongation of the war and taking greater risks, and he appealed for continued support for Ukraine and to resist Russia's military pressure. https://t.co/Lb2advefv2 #Ukraina #Putin #sota (translated)

Henri Vanhanen criticized Donald Trump's actions in the Ukraine war, noting that he declared agreements about which there was uncertainty, while pressuring Ukraine in a way that benefited Vladimir Putin. As a recent example, Vanhanen pointed to Trump’s announced energy ceasefire. According to him, Volodymyr Zelensky heard about it practically for the first time from the media, Russia had not confirmed the agreement, and continued, according to Zelensky, attacks on Ukraine's power plants. Vanhanen asked what kind of ceasefire it was if the other party did not know what had been agreed upon. He suggested that Zelensky had to be cautious of Trump’s criticism to avoid being blamed for obstructing peace. Vanhanen referred to the Financial Times reporting that the United States threatened to cut off arms and intelligence supplies to Ukraine unless the country stopped attacks on Russian energy infrastructure. He also wrote that Trump agreed to buy Russian diesel, demanded Ukraine to cease attacks on Russian oil refineries, and encouraged a change of leadership in Ukraine. Vanhanen estimated that the war in Iran and the resulting fuel prices, the upcoming midterm elections, and the need to show results might explain Trump’s urgency to secure an agreement. According to him, Trump aimed for cheaper diesel and a visible peace political achievement, while Putin would benefit from a decrease in attacks on Russia’s energy sector. Vanhanen noted that the alignment of these goals seemed to occur at Ukraine’s expense. Vanhanen stated that he did not oppose a ceasefire if it protected Ukrainians and also bound Russia. However, he observed that for Trump, merely declaring an agreement seemed to suffice, even without information about its terms or Russia's commitment. Vanhanen assessed that Russia would benefit from a situation in which the United States sought a quick agreement and Ukraine was cautious not to offend Trump. In such conditions, he believed Putin could gain concessions from Trump without Russia needing to win against Ukraine at the negotiating table. #Ukraina #Trump #Venäjä (translated)

Yaron Nadbornik criticized Heikki Hiilamo's column published in Yleisradio, stating that it presented a one-sided image connecting the actions of Israel's leadership, Finnish Christian groups, and Minister Antti Häkkänen's visit to the structures of oppression. Nadbornik argued that the column's treatment of Israel and Zionism made Jews collectively responsible and expanded the criticism to also include Israel's supporters and Jews in general. According to Nadbornik, Hiilamo's text divided the parties into white and Christian oppressors and non-white and Muslim victims. He said this framing overlooked the Jewish roots, history, and vulnerability in the Middle East, as well as the fact that millions of people from various backgrounds lived in Israel. He also believed that the framework wrongly fit the conflict into a narrative of Western colonialism and racism and presented Israel as a refuge for a people without another homeland. Nadbornik wrote that the prejudices against Jews were based on their otherness. He noted that studies had shown that Jews living in the diaspora were unjustly held accountable for the actions of the state of Israel. He argued that Hiilamo's rhetoric, which connected Christian groups and ministerial visits with the suffering in Gaza, reinforced this framework. Nadbornik recalled the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, describing it as a massacre involving rapes, mutilations, and the abduction of civilians, including babies, festival-goers, and the elderly, into Israel. He called it the largest single act of violence against Jews since the Holocaust. According to Nadbornik, Hiilamo overlooked the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah openly sought the destruction of Israel in connection with Israel's military actions. He believed that framing the terror attack merely as a security threat or comparing it to Russia's invasion of Ukraine ignored the rights of Israeli citizens to exist and be protected. https://t.co/PFvBFdaoiQ #Israel #Juutalaiset #Rasismi (translated)

Niko A. Kauko pondered what would happen to the EU-Finland's support for Ukraine and the cooperation agreements between the countries if Ukraine were to hold elections, choose a new president, and the war were to end. He estimated that with a change in presidency, relations between Ukraine and Russia could also improve. Kauko asked whether Finland's support for Ukraine had ultimately been directed more towards Zelensky and the war than towards Ukraine itself. He referred to Stubbs' statement that the war was "his war," and wondered if Finland's "unwavering Ukraine first" line would fade as the war receded. Kauko described the war fundamentally as a great power conflict and believed that neither side had clean hands. According to him, Finland should not have participated in the conflict other than through diplomacy and mediation. He considered such an approach wise, which, in his assessment, was no longer visible in Finland's stance. #Ukraina #EU #sota (translated)

Edvard Vapaamieli claimed that Finland was deliberately being driven towards electricity and food shortages, unrest, diseases, economic collapse, and war. He wrote that in his opinion, the situation could only be explained by a power grab and the fact that the state leadership was implementing a foreign agenda. https://t.co/JG2VKzE2je #Suomi #kriisi #valtapolitiikka (translated)

The author believes that drones will not resolve the war, but they can cause significant losses if people do not learn to operate with them. He regarded the matter as serious and emphasized that nothing is more valuable than the life and health of a Finnish reservist. #draonit #suojelu #puolustus #FI (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that he had been calling for a clearer situational picture of Russia's intelligence and influence activities towards Finland for some time. He viewed positively that, according to him, the message from the Security Police and the Defense Forces about the situation was now serious: Russian intelligence operations against Finland had intensified, cyber intelligence was active, and the interest was particularly focused on the defense industry. Vanhanen noted that the chief of the intelligence department of the General Staff had assessed that the intelligence operations targeting society and critical systems could be preparation for sabotage. According to him, Finland could thus become a target of Russian sabotage activities. He also wrote that, according to the Security Police, at least one small Finnish technology company had already been subject to verifiably increased intelligence activities. Vanhanen assessed that Russia aimed to weaken Ukraine's ability to continue the war by also influencing countries, businesses, and supply chains related to Western support. He warned that problems arising for companies supporting Ukraine could raise questions in Finland about the risks of support and serve Russia's objectives. Vanhanen suggested that the security of defense and technology companies should be proactively strengthened. He urged companies to check, among other things, their cybersecurity, the protection of their facilities, approaches to personnel, data access rights, supply chains, and unusual cooperation, recruitment, and investor contacts. He stated that especially small companies should be provided with easily accessible government support for identifying threats and improving security. According to Vanhanen, Russia's goal was to get Western countries to reduce their support for Ukraine. He believed that Finland should respond to possible pressure by better protecting the people and companies enabling support rather than changing its policies. https://t.co/f0INfDq1Zf #Venäjä #Suomi #Kyberturvallisuus (translated)

The author stated that he had spoken on Yle's morning show about Ukraine's new weapon systems and robotization. According to him, humanoid robots would hardly solve the war in Ukraine, but robots and autonomous systems would already be commonplace in the next war. He added that it was easy to laugh at the current clumsy robots. https://t.co/EVRBr71spg #Ukraina #robotit #teknologia #FI #UA (translated)

The author assesses that Trump did not seek a traditional peace treaty with Russia but rather a business-based agreement. According to him, the solution would be politically unsustainable but would provide economic relief, and it would escalate the war and lead to a bad outcome. #Trump #rauha #politiikka #FI #RU (translated)