Search

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)

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)

In a protest organized in Moscow demanding the downfall of the tsar, Russian authorities detained at least 65 people, which shows how protests against President Putin's administration are increasing as a result of the Ukraine war's impact on Russian society. #Venäjä #Mielenosoitus #Kommunismi (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that he wanted to correct the interpretations of an article by Helsingin Sanomat that dealt with nuclear weapons and said he remained uncertain about what the article ultimately claimed regarding Finland's security. According to him, Finland did not join the NATO nuclear deterrent with little discussion or unnoticed, but rather joined an alliance whose deterrence and defense had been based on nuclear weapons for decades. He described the strategic nuclear forces of the United States as a key basis for NATO's nuclear deterrent. Vanhanen considered that the bombing of Nagasaki was not an example of the current type of nuclear deterrent because Japan did not have a nuclear weapon nor the ability to respond to a U.S. strike. In his view, Nagasaki demonstrated the destructiveness of nuclear weapons and the human risks of their use, whereas the current deterrent was based on the assumption that an attacker had to consider the possibility of retaliation and uncontrolled escalation. Vanhanen assessed that Trump had increased uncertainty regarding the United States' commitment to the conventional defense of Europe and believed Europe would have to bear more responsibility for it. However, he distinguished this from the claim that the U.S. nuclear deterrent had weakened. According to him, the U.S. ability to use nuclear weapons had not diminished, NATO was not dismantling its nuclear plans or arrangements, systems were being modernized, and F-35 aircraft were being introduced into NATO's nuclear missions. Vanhanen stated that the NATO Nuclear Planning Group had confirmed in June that strategic nuclear forces, particularly U.S. forces, remained the ultimate guarantee of the allies' security and had decided to continue strengthening and modernizing the nuclear deterrent. Vanhanen considered it a central uncertainty whether Moscow would believe that the U.S. president would be willing to use nuclear weapons to defend an ally in an extreme situation. He reminded that the question of the U.S. willingness to endanger its own cities for the sake of Europe had been a concern throughout the history of the extended nuclear deterrent and there had been no complete certainty during the Cold War or at the present time. According to him, Finland's option was not a nuclear deterrent or a nuclear-free security environment, as Russia would have its nuclear weapons in any case. Vanhanen wrote that the crucial issue for the deterrent was that the Russian leadership could not be certain that the United States would defend Finland. https://t.co/3C8aAkuMwj #ydinaseet #Nato #Suomi (translated)

There may be something much larger happening in Russia than it appears outwardly. We are used to thinking of mobilization as an event. Putin gives a speech, a decision is announced, and reservists are called to service. The next mobilization may look completely different. Russia may gradually call men to service, decentralizing actions across the country, pressuring people to sign contracts, and sparing politically sensitive cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg. There may never be a single day when we could state that a new mobilization has begun. If this does not produce enough soldiers, the situation could become even bleaker. Russia could even stage an attack on its own soil and blame it on Ukraine or NATO. The goal would not be to convince us, but rather the Russians, that the country is under attack and needs more men for the war. This is also significant for Finland. If Russia manages to mobilize hundreds of thousands of new soldiers, the issue is not just about the front in Ukraine. At the same time, it is worth watching whether Russia begins to build a new strategic reserve and fill its new units in the Leningrad military district near Finland. There is no immediate threat of attack against Finland, but right now decisions can be made that determine Russia's military power at our borders for years to come. https://t.co/zWneprVedN #Venäjä #SotilaallinenVoima #Ukraina (translated)

Kaksi oligarkkia pois listalta. ”Kauppa” näyttää järkevältä, mutta se syö poliittista legitimiteettiä. Suomikin sen hyväksyi. Pakotteista selkeästi voi neuvotella, kun ottaa eurooppalaisia vankeja. Moskova huomasi tämän. Neuvosto liikkui vaaralliselle pinnalle Saksan #oligarkit #pakotteet #PoliittinenLegitimiteetti #FI #RU #DE