Imran Salim
Oriental Review

Helsinki’s entry into the Alliance broke the entire system of Russian-Finnish relations that had been built up for decades.

For many years, in Soviet and then in Russian society, Finland was considered exclusively as a small friendly, neutral country – our closest northern neighbor, which, on the rights of broad autonomy, was part of the Russian Empire for 108 years and had broad powers granted by Emperor Alexander I (had its own authorities, monetary unit, post office, customs, and police).

During the Cold War, following the Western model of development, the Finnish leadership managed to maintain a neutral middle ground in the global confrontation in its policy of limited sovereignty, following the Second World War, maintaining even relations with all sides of the geopolitical conflict in the interests of developing the Finnish economy and improving the well-being of the population.

At that time, this concept of “subordinating” a weaker state to a stronger one in order to ensure security received the term “Finlandization” in Western political circles, in which, even in the context of an ideological struggle against capitalism, Moscow did not exclude the possibility of establishing and maintaining mutually beneficial relations with countries with a Western model of a market-oriented economy. During the years of “Finlandization”, the Finnish side adapted to a certain profile of cooperation with the USSR, which exported cheap raw materials (wood, oil, cement), and in return received products with high added value (paper, lumber, petrochemicals).

Imran Salim
Oriental Review

The results of the jubilee summit of the Euro-Atlantic Alliance, which ended in Washington on July 11, 2024 and the adoption of political decisions and the final declaration, predictably demonstrated that NATO wants only victory for Ukraine and defeat for Russia. An unbiased analysis of the situation around the Russian–Ukrainian armed conflict over the past two and a half years of confrontation shows that this is an unattainable result neither now nor in the foreseeable future. If the collective West does not come to terms with this reality, then the most likely outcome for Kiev will be an imminent military defeat, which will entail the loss of territories of the entire left-bank Ukraine, including Kharkiv, Poltava, Dnipro and Chernihiv, as well as the loss of access to the Black Sea with the loss of Odessa and Nikolaev, rather than it was set in the mandatory conditions put forward by the Russian President in June this year, regarding possible negotiations on the Ukrainian crisis, including on the neutral, non-aligned and nuclear-free status of Ukraine.

Then Zelensky regarded these conditions as an ultimatum of capitulation. According to Western experts, without serious changes in the military objectives of the West and Ukraine, Putin‘s ultimatum has a high degree of implementation. Kiev‘s most realistic hope is to try to hold on to all the territories it currently has and try not to surrender any more land and negotiate a cessation of hostilities. But experts have to admit that it may be too late to achieve even such a limited result.

Patrick Mac Manus in Palestine
Patrick Mac Manus Blog

The Deir Yasin massacre

Targeting the weakest and the most vulnerable is neither new nor surprising.

It is the mentality of all occupations. It is the mentality of an Israeli army who write on their helmets: Born to Kill and who wear T-Shirts with images of dead Palestinian children. It is proud of slogans showing images such as that of a pregnant Palestinian woman with a target sign on her belly and the inscription: 1 shot, 2 kills.

During the Nakba, there are countless massacres. Often it is the women and the children who are first targeted as a warning and to frighten others and force them to leave.
nts of the Deir Yassin massacre mention that among the 254 Palestinians victims are 25 pregnant women who are bayoneted in the abdomen while still alive. Another 52 children are maimed in front of their mothers before being killed.

After the village of Beit Darras has been surrounded, the Zionists call on Palestinian residents to leave the village safely from the south side. The villagers decide that it is safest for the women and children to leave. Upon leaving the village, all women and children are massacred.