By Matt Underwood Finland gets it, plain and simple. Their foreign minister’s message to the West cuts right through the noise. It’s a call for strength, not surrender, for Ukraine. It’s a recognition that simply offering concessions, or encouraging a truce that benefits Russia, only buys time for Russia to rearm and become an even greater threat.
The core of the matter is that Russia understands only strength. Concessions are just a temporary measure, a pause for them to digest what they learned from invading Ukraine, and rebuild their forces to be even more dangerous. This message feels like a direct challenge to certain powers that might be inclined to push for a peace that doesn’t fully hold Russia accountable, a peace that might even involve giving up Ukrainian territory. The world is watching closely, particularly when these potential ‘peace talks’ might be held in countries where actions against Ukraine might easily go unpunished.
The idea of sending in the unemployed illegal immigrants within the EU to fight Russia in Ukraine seems like an idea that has some interesting ideas within it. If the West truly wants Ukraine to win, it should already be tipping the scales in their favor. The Nordic countries consistently rank high in happiness, a testament to good leadership. The core of this argument is that deploying military forces is necessary for Ukraine to push out the invaders.
However, if Finland were to send its troops into Ukraine, that could encourage allies to follow. Of course, the reality of the situation is incredibly complicated. Some believe the fastest route to victory would be for NATO countries to enter the fight directly. The border between Finland and Russia is long, but the border between Ukraine and Russia is even longer, with Russia’s population significantly larger than Ukraine’s. Finland attacking Russia would be a form of suicide.
The core issue lies within NATO, as it is a defensive alliance. If a NATO country were to attack, the alliance’s defensive guarantee wouldn’t necessarily kick in. Furthermore, entering the war with troops on the ground, has the potential to expand into a world war. A direct confrontation between the world’s most powerful militaries would bring devastation to Ukraine. It would weaken NATO and play right into Russia’s divide-and-conquer strategy.
The Soviet-Afghan war offers a historical perspective. Supported by the West, the mujahideen inflicted heavy casualties on the USSR, contributing to its eventual dissolution. Some would say the west is clueless on how to get the correct results. Trust to keep the peace can only go so far when cities are being bombed daily for years. Russia’s actions are often compared to the brutality of historical figures like Hitler.
The conversation then turns to the idea of a volunteer army with the incentives of citizenship. Some question the morality of not pushing forward with these ideas. And Sweden and other Nordic countries would immediately defend Finland if it were attacked. It’s important to understand that no such move would happen in isolation, and Russia is not able to fight two fronts at once. Russia’s threats, especially regarding the use of weapons, is more bark than bite, as they cannot attack a NATO country. The situation is complicated, but clear.