Russia traps Finland over Alan Islands

Accession to NATO by Finland got into legal snag as the Alan Islands on Gulf of Bothnia has Russian lands incorporated with that provided that Finland maintains Neutral status. Once Finland renounces neutrality Russia has the right to enforce her claim over the Island. More on the business strategy move that trapped Finland: 

The Åland Islands (Alan), are a group of small islets located on the Gulf of Bothnia between Sweden and Finland.  Comprising around 6,700 islands out of which only, 60 are inhabited by Swedish speaking people numbering around 30,000. The capital of this archipelago is Mariehamn, located on the main island called Fasta Åland. Its port caters to trade & travel between three countries namely Estonia, Sweden and Finnish mainland. Total land area of the group is estimated as 610 square miles.

Alan is a self-governing province of Finland. Although sovereignty is rested with Finland, Alan which was awarded to Finland as a solution to dispute between Sweden and Finland by the League of Nations mandate in 1921, she enjoys wide ranging autonomy. This mandate was made on the basis that Alan remains as demilitarized entity under international law. 

Recently, Russia's permanent representative to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov has raised couple of issues regarding accession of Finland to NATO which is a militarized body. The first one obviously, is the status of Alan under international treaty which mandates it as neutral & demilitarized entity. 

Second issue is the status of Saimaa Canal which was built back in the times of the Russian Empire, connecting Finland's internal waterways and lakes to the Gulf of Finland in the Baltic Sea. In point of fact Russia actually leased a strip of land along the Saimaa Canal to Finland in accordance with the provisions of the Russian-Finnish intergovernmental agreement which was executed taking into account of Finland's permanent neutrality.

As the most important of all canals in Finland, the Saimaa Canal is 43 kilometres long connecting Lake Saimaa to the Gulf of Finland near Vyborg in Russia. Built during 1845 – 1856 about half of the canal runs through a plot of land Russia graciously leased to Finland.

Finland is now trapped by a master move in Russian business strategy; either she foregoes NATO ambition or be done with Saimaa Canal!

 

Cheers!

 

Muthu Ashraff Rajulu

Business Strategist

Mobile: + 94 777 265677

E-mail:   cosmicgems@gmail.com

Blog:   Business Strategist

 

Snippets of US policy towards Russia in Ukraine

Change is everywhere. The more you change the more you remain the same. US policy towards Russia is one such ever changing change that never changes. Because the concept behind US policy is that Russia must remain an indispensable enemy forever. Here are snippets from Ukraine quagmire:

1. Bleed Russia white whenever possible is a fusion of political, economic & military (PEM) strategy.  Ukraine offered golden opportunity, so US thought. Upending original position of not engaging in proxy war with Russia, America went overdrive imposing plethora of sanctions financial and otherwise urging friends and foes to follow suit as well. Rubble the Ruble was given primary importance, by shutting out Russia from trading in Dollars and using SWIFT.  But Russia quickly came on top of it.

2. Knowing very well that Ukr has no chance of winning the land war with Russia, US egged the Ukr regime on to intensify warfighting by providing weapons with state–of-art technology ignoring the fact that the complexity of using such weapons requires intense training for several months. As a result the weapons did not effectively fire upon opponents. Most of these exploded in the hands of amateurish Ukr soldiers. Incidentally, large portion of the weapons did not reach soldiers in the frontline as they were destroyed by Russians using long range missile attacks with precision.

3. Anchored on the policy of highlighting military problems and pushing political issues to back burner, the supply of weapons did not succeed the war fighting to go in favour of Ukros. America turned Nelsonian Eye towards atrocities committed by Ukros not only in Donbass areas but in the entire stretch of south & east crescent of Ukraine proper. Consequently, it was the Ukr oligarchs who made the field day. Approximately 50% of the weapons supplied so far found its way to the Russians with whom oligarchs have Faustian bondage.

4. At the beginning, US got the nod from Ukr to fight the war till the last Ukrainian. When this was not feasible she enthused Ukros to go for guerrilla type offensive and surprise attack elsewhere away from the Ukraine theatre. A case in point is the Snake Island attack by Ukr Special Forces that was a total fiasco as whale of a lot of western supplied arms, ammunition and Helis were destroyed instantly by Kalibr missiles form Crimea.

5. A significant snippet is the way America poeticized the war in media as of liberating Ukraine from the shackles of Russia and militarized American public that Ukr war is a winnable proposition. While most arms from US reserves and finance from US coffers went via presidential executive orders, the latest attempt to send a walloping amount of 40 billion US Dollars is currently being blocked by influential senators who are asking for transparency and end-use certification.

On my assessment American strategy of treating Russia as indispensable enemy is teetering on the edge!

 

Cheers!

 

Muthu Ashraff Rajulu

Business Strategist

Mobile: + 94 777 265677

E-mail:   cosmicgems@gmail.com

Blog:   Business Strategist

 

Lack of manpower dogs Ukraine

Mathematically speaking, ideal manpower ratio in war is 2.5 to 1 where the probability of winning goes to the higher integer holder. When war started Russia had about 90,000 soldiers thrown in against more than 200,000 of heavily armed Ukraine soldiers. But it is Ukraine that runs out of her soldiers. Why? 

On strategy analysis I gleaned the following: 

1.  The element of surprise was on the Russian side. Ukr thought Russians are all talk and no action.

2. Russians opted for initial blitzkrieg in spreading the war theatre from Kiev cauldron to Mariupol. Later they adjusted by making tactical withdrawal from largely populated centres like Kiev and cities close to border with Belarus. Russians followed this strategy of surrounding an area and then vanishing overnight. Their manpower losses in the initial phase was more than what they could bear. Therefore moving from less active war zone to vital areas where Ukr is thinly spread was resorted to with speed and for lasting gains.

3. Moving soldiers from one theatre to another in orderly manner but keeping some kind of rear guard forced Ukr to move legions to these areas to proclaim victory. By doing so they were stuck as the real action has passed elsewhere. Ukr concentrated her manpower in these areas where very little fighting is on the board. In the course of time Russians bombarded or struck with missiles these areas killing more Ukr soldiers as they were sitting ducks.

4. Donbass saw heavily armed and well trained Ukr soldiers numbering close upon 100,000 who do not engage with Russian fighters but fire artillery salvos to residential areas. Neither they can make tactical withdrawal lest they lose control over Donbass region nor they can move towards frontline manned by Russian artillery.

5. Attrition was damning to Ukr. Each day saw on average 450 soldiers put out of action being killed, wounded or missing in action. For the past 90 days total manpower losses is estimated as 25,000 which is about one eighth of the active armed personnel.

6. More sponging of manpower was done not due to manning counter attack or offensive but for in-situ training that took large slice of active soldiers away from frontline. Approximately 30,000 soldiers are following one or other intense training course in handling modern western weapons. To Ukr soldiers these are toys that they cannot come to terms with ease unlike the Soviet era weapons.

7. A campaign to recruit one million soldiers initiated recently appears to be still on the design table as youth are more interested to emigrate. Incidentally more than 5 million refugees have moved out to western countries so far.

8. Finally, Ukr is toying with the idea of getting mercenaries or volunteers. But there again problems of assimilation to terrain, open space warfare, linguistic and cultural characteristics dampen the spirit. Contracting out is the only option. But who will foot the bill?

Cheers!

 

Muthu Ashraff Rajulu

Business Strategist

Mobile: + 94 777 265677

E-mail:   cosmicgems@gmail.com

Blog:   Business Strategist

 

Wooing NATO, Finland wagers neutrality

Finland is notable in introducing the strategy of “Finlandization”, which technically means major power prevailing upon smaller one imposing neutrality in terms of foreign policy, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence.  By wooing NATO, Finland wagers on just that!

Once part of the Russian Empire, Finland got its independence in 1907. Its untenable post-World War Two situation saw her being bound by the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance signed in Moscow on April 6, 1948 that rammed on her throat the strategy of “Finlandization” which technically means Finland would remain neutral and would not allow foreign armies to wage war against Russia through her land. 

Neutralization has kept Finland going sheepishly from 1948 till the collapse of Soviet Union in 1992. A new protocol was signed in the aftermath between Finland and Russian Federation with several clauses dealing in the area of finance and commerce. Significantly exchange of notes mutually accepted Finland as a peer nation along with Russia. Never the less military non-alignment is implied as one reads between the lines.

Finland meaning “End of land” has 810 miles border with Russia. On the north it shares vast Lapland and in the south it borders on the Gulf of Finland. Incidentally Russian port city of St. Petersburg is much closer to Finnish border than Moscow. Gulf of Finland is the major artery to Russia and St. Petersburg is sacrosanct in Russian psyche.

Bilateral trade between two countries is going stronger than ever. A whopping two – way trade of US$ 13 Billion grants Russia a major trade surplus around US$ 5.5 Billion. Finland imports 65% of her fuel & gas from Russia. Electricity generation using Russian gas is about 6% whereas Russian fuel drives 24% of it. As the westernmost neighbour of Russia, Finland has deftly managed her relationship with Russia with a strategy of overt neutrality and co-operating with NATO in covert operations. Be that as it may, relationship between both countries sallied forth without much of hassle.

The current government headed by Ms. Sanna Marin is locking horns with Putin who once reportedly said that he has no problems Finland getting in cahoots with EU or other economic & political organization. None the less he has cautioned regarding NATO and its grey zone operations. Finland is in mighty hurry to get on bed with NATO after Ukraine hostilities. Recent announcement conveying that Finland is to be formally inducted sooner than later got a measured response from Russia. One came from Sergey Lavrov, beseeching Finland to abide by Finno Russo protocol of 1992 and from Putin a casually worded statement whose ominous content laid bare what is in store: military-technical response. 

Just now I heard Russia turning off the gas tap. Fuel might be the next. These are of technical nature. Here comes the military steps. Lurking in the shadow lies peerless modern weaponry that can wipe out Finland as a nation within two minutes.  Mind you, Ukrainians are fellow Slavic, Fins are not!

 

Cheers!

 

Muthu Ashraff Rajulu

Business Strategist

Mobile: + 94 777 265677

E-mail:   cosmicgems@gmail.com

Blog:   Business Strategist