Search

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)

The author considered the proposal a good start and suggested next sending a battle group composed of NATO countries' naval forces to Romania and Bulgaria's economic waters to protect the area's maritime traffic, including Ukraine's maritime traffic. According to him, this way Russia would understand that provocation is not always worthwhile. #Nato #Meriliikenne #Ukraina #RO #BG #UA #RU (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 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)

A-J Hirsimäki asked Karoliina Parta from the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party if anyone still believed in the explanations from the National Coalition Party. He considered it a good thing that the National Coalition Party had challenged the Finns Party by disclosing internal matters of the government. According to him, this would give the Finns Party the opportunity to start their own struggle, in which the National Coalition Party would come second. #politiikka #suomi #vaalit (translated)

The author estimates that the recent actions of the United States have increased Europe’s need to more strongly support Ukraine's fight against Russia. According to him, Europe has already done so. The author argued that the war and senseless killing must come to an end on terms that would be acceptable to Ukraine and Europe. #Ukraina #Venäjä #Sota #US #EU #UA #RU (translated)

Jari Mäkäräinen criticized Yle for what he perceived as giving Timo R. Stewart, whom he describes as a Hamas activist, an unchallenged platform to present his book. According to Mäkäräinen, the article adopted Stewart's view regarding the destruction of Gaza, genocide, and Finland's responsibility due to trade with Israel, without hearing the opposing side. Mäkäräinen emphasized that, in his opinion, genocide does not equate to heavy war. He wrote that the International Court of Justice had not ruled on the case against Israel and that interim measures were not a judgment. In his view, civilian casualties can occur in urban warfare where Hamas places rockets, command centers, and tunnels among civilians without the intent of destroying the group. He compared this to the battles of Mosul, Raqqa, and Fallujah, claiming that Stewart began using the term genocide after Israel succeeded in its war against Hamas. According to Mäkäräinen, the Yle article also lacked the starting point of the war: the attack on October 7, in which he claims over 1,200 people died, and which involved rapes and kidnappings. He wrote that Hamas aims for the end of Israel instead of a Palestinian state. He criticized the figures presented by the Palestinian Ministry of Health in the article—over 21,600 by December 2023 and over 1,400 after ceasefires—and claimed that the ministry was subordinate to Hamas and that its figures did not differentiate between fighters and civilians. In his view, the article also lacked Israel's perspective that a significant portion of the dead were fighters. Regarding the two-state model, Mäkäräinen wrote that its failure was not solely due to Israel. He claimed that Hamas had rejected the model multiple times and that the Palestinian Authority had turned down offers, such as at Camp David in 2000 and Annapolis in 2008. He added that according to polls, the majority of both Palestinians and Israelis had abandoned the model. He described the cessation of support for UNRWA as a reaction to an organization that, according to him, had ample evidence of connections between its facilities and personnel to Hamas. Mäkäräinen believed that Yle, as a publicly funded media, should not advertise a single essayist as an expert. According to him, the article could have included opposing researchers, Israel's official stance, or addressed Hamas's responsibility for hostages and the use of civilians as shields. He concluded by asking why this had not been done. https://t.co/sHriNitmMo #Gaza #Israel #Hamas (translated)

The Owls stated that the points remained in Finland and said the fight for the group victory will continue next week. According to the team, the Nations League will culminate in a home match in November. https://t.co/PxFZvZmGTJ #Huuhkajat #MeOlemmeSuomi https://t.co/HrrTm3Ty4w #Huuhkajat #MeOlemmeSuomi #NationsLeague (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Ukraine had announced the use of its own FP-7 ballistic missile in battle for the first time. According to him, President Volodymyr Zelensky had reported on the first combat use and stated that the next phase would be production. Vanhanen noted that the missile manufacturer, Fire Point, claimed the FP-7 had a range of about 200 kilometers, a warhead weight of 150 kilograms, and a speed of up to 1,500 meters per second. He stated that the missile could target command posts, air defense systems, air bases, and ammunition depots, for example. Vanhanen pointed out that there had been no information on the first launch about what it struck or whether the missile hit its target. He wrote that the military significance of the system would depend on whether the missiles could be produced sufficiently, affordably, and accurately. According to him, approximately seven months had passed since the first known test launch. Vanhanen mentioned that Fire Point was also developing the FP-9 missile, which aimed for a range of over 800 kilometers and a warhead of up to 800 kilograms. He emphasized that the FP-9 was not yet an operational weapon. According to Vanhanen, the significance of the FP-7 would ultimately depend on whether it could be put into production. https://t.co/MWd1JlMbu8 #Ukraina #ohjukset #sota (translated)

Tänään kerrottu JEF-uutinen on paljon suurempi asia Suomen turvallisuudelle kuin ehkä vielä ymmärretään. Kyse ei ole vain uusista taistelujoukoista tai Britannian ydinaseista. Pohjois-Eurooppaan rakennetaan parhaillaan järjestelyä, jonka avulla Britannia ja joukko Suomen lähimpiä kumppaneita voivat pahassa paikassa ryhtyä sotilaallisesti toimeen nopeasti myös ilman Natoa. Tämä on iso muutos. Jos Venäjä joskus haluaisi testata länttä, sille olisi edullista synnyttää mahdollisimman epäselvä tilanne. Sellainen, jossa 32 Nato-maata joutuvat pohtimaan, mitä oikein tapahtuu, onko kyse hyökkäyksestä ja miten siihen vastataan. JEF vaikeuttaa tällaista peliä. Se ei tarvitse edes kaikkien kymmenen JEF-maan yhteistä päätöstä. Britannia voi lähteä toimimaan esimerkiksi Suomen, Ruotsin ja muiden halukkaiden maiden kanssa. Jokainen maa päättää itse joukkojensa käytöstä. Nyt tämän taakse rakennetaan myös enemmän sotilaallista voimaa. JEF-maat perustavat uusia taistelujoukkoja, ja erityisesti merellä tarkoitus on pystyä kokoamaan eri maiden voimat nopeasti yhteen ja tarvittaessa myös taistelemaan yhdessä. Suomelle tämä on valtava asia. Olemme riippuvaisia Itämerestä ja yhteyksistä länteen. Britannia puolestaan on Euroopan vahvimpia merivaltoja, ydinasevaltio ja maa, joka pystyy tuomaan tänne oikeasti merkittävää sotilaallista voimaa. Britannia ei siis vain lupaa tukea Pohjois-Eurooppaa. Se rakentaa jo rauhan aikana järjestelmää, jonka kautta se voisi tarvittaessa tulla tänne taistelemaan. Mitä valmiimmaksi tämä tehdään etukäteen, sitä vähemmän kriisin hetkellä jää arvailtavaksi. Nato on Suomen puolustuksen perusta, mutta kaikkea ei kannata jättää yhden kortin varaan. JEF tarkoittaa, että tarvittaessa Britannia ja muut halukkaat maat voivat toimia nopeasti myös keskenään. Venäjä ei voi siis laskea sen varaan, että epäröinti Natossa ostaisi sille aikaa. Siksi pidän JEF:n vahvistumista yhtenä Suomen puolustuksen tärkeimmistä kivijaloista juuri nyt. #SuomenPuolustus #JEF #Nato

Tämä on todella iso ja tärkeä uutinen Suomen puolustukselle. Britannia, Suomi ja muut JEF-maat perustavat uudet taistelujoukot, joiden tarkoitus on pystyä toimimaan nopeasti, jos jokin jäsenmaista joutuu uhatuksi. Olennaista on, ettei kaikkea tarvitse odottaa Naton kautta. JEF-maat voivat toimia myös itse. Juuri näin Suomen puolustusta pitää mielestäni rakentaa. Nato on puolustuksemme tärkein perusta, mutta meidän ei kannata laittaa kaikkia munia samaan koriin. Mitä enemmän Suomella on ympärillään vahvoja maita, jotka ovat harjoitelleet kanssamme, tehneet yhteisiä suunnitelmia ja ovat tarvittaessa valmiita toimimaan nopeasti, sitä vaikeampi Venäjän on kuvitella voivansa testata meitä. Britannia on Euroopan vahvimpia sotilasmahteja, ydinasevaltio ja maa, jolla on kyky tuoda Pohjois-Euroopan puolustukseen kaikkea F-35-hävittäjistä laivastoon ja sukellusveneisiin. Nyt näitä kykyjä kytketään entistä tiiviimmin Suomen ja muun Pohjois-Euroopan puolustukseen. Tällaisessa maailmassa turvallisuutta kannattaa rakentaa useamman lukon taakse. Nato on niistä tärkei, mutta JEF, Britannia ja muut läheiset puolustuskumppanit tekevät kynnyksestä hyökätä Suomeen vielä korkeamman. https://t.co/K7GZVIzQSF #SuomenPuolustus #Nato #JEF

Ukrainan sodan tärkein oppi Suomelle ei ole drooni vaan taistelukentän muuttuminen läpinäkyväksi. Jos vihollinen näkee sinut, se pystyy yhä useammin myös iskemään sinuun nopeasti. Siksi joukkoja hajautetaan, asemia naamioidaan, liikkumista vähennetään ja jopa varusmiehen tapa nukkua metsässä muuttuu. Samalla olisi virhe päätellä, että droonit tekevät tykistöstä, panssarivaunuista tai jalkaväestä vanhentuneita. Tulevaisuuden sodassa ratkaisee kyky yhdistää vanha ja uusi nopeammin kuin vastustaja. Siksi Suomenkaan ei pidä opetella vain Ukrainan tämän päivän sotaa. Meidän pitää yrittää ymmärtää, miltä sota näyttää viiden vuoden päästä. https://t.co/GiOFePIdZx #Sota #Ukraina #Puolustus