Search

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)

Pekka Toveri wrote that Trump started a war against Iran despite the advice of his military advisors. According to Toveri, Trump had disrupted the U.S. diesel market as the midterms approached and was now afraid of losing. Toveri added that Trump had asked for help from a person he described as a bloodthirsty dictator and thanked him. https://t.co/KyUKpbiU38 #Trump #Iran #politiikka (translated)

– The Russians are intentionally targeting civilian sites. For them, a bus full of passengers is an attractive target precisely because a single strike can kill as many people as possible, said Vadym Filashkin, the head of the military administration of the Donetsk region, according to CNN. #UkrainanSota #Venäjä #Kuolemantapaukset (translated)

The author stated that NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, General Grynkewich, would publish a new doctrine on warfare against Russia this week. According to him, preliminary information indicated that the doctrine would combine drone capabilities and traditional military force to stop Russia and for subsequent actions. #Nato #Venäjä #sotilasvoima #FI #RU (translated)

The author recounted asking Arto Luukkanen what the Russian military intelligence could do at its worst in Finland and what he would say to those who think he is trying to scare people. The author described Luukkanen's response as chilling and difficult to listen to but said that it is worth listening to. https://t.co/3gMN4FKdSd #Suomi #Venäjä #sotilastiedustelu #FI #RU (translated)

The author wrote that the situation, which had been ongoing from week to week, had begun to include the sinking of trade vessels from NATO countries, and asked how this should be responded to. According to him, the situation was being accepted as the new normal and continued as if nothing had happened. He stated that he did not support military power but considered that nothing followed from the decisions of politicians. #Nato #politiikka #rauha #FI #NATO (translated)

The author stated that the leaders of the Security Police and military intelligence had jointly opened up the situation to the Finnish people. He saw this as a strong message that the state was vigilant and that Finns also had reason to remain alert. https://t.co/bCxSJhqPj5 #Suomi #turvallisuus #tiedustelu #FI (translated)

Yaron Nadbornik asked why the United States did not label the events in Gaza as genocide, even though some researchers did. He estimated that the difference might be due to the U.S. military leadership having access to real-time military intelligence, such as satellite imagery and intelligence cooperation, which civilian researchers, according to him, did not have. He also noted that many researchers specialized in other topics. Nadbornik argued that criticism cited organizations and institutions as needed, which had expanded the interpretation of the concept of international genocide so that Israel's actions fit within it. He mentioned examples like Amnesty's report on page 101, B'Tselem's output, and a UN committee. Finally, Nadbornik described the media as a new Pravda and wrote that those who did not accept it deserved to be canceled. He compared political correctness to the Soviet Union and sarcastically noted that no researcher should be upset. https://t.co/2MNmZd6ulU #kansanmurha #Gazassa #politiikka (translated)

It is claimed that Donald Trump discussed the coup of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro with Elon Musk's AI assistant Grok, and according to Grok, Maduro is an unpopular president, which encouraged Trump to carry out a military operation. #Tekoäly #DonaldTrump #Venezuela (translated)

The author wrote that Nokia and Iceye are challenging SpaceX's Starlink. He regarded the development as excellent and believed that Europe and Finland need reliable services that are not disrupted by a billionaire's mood swings. According to him, these services are needed for both military and civilian use. https://t.co/yJVowgiRo7 #Nokia #SpaceX #satelliittiviestintä #FI #EU (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)