Friday, October 17, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Finnish military leaders want to re-militarize the Åland Islands

The new cold war

Published 19 April 2023
– By Editorial Staff
Pekka Toveri wants to see the militarization of Åland, despite its internationally demilitarized status. On the right, the harbor in the central town of Mariehamn.
3 minute read

Up to half of the candidates in the parliamentary elections as well as former top military officers in Finland have expressed a desire to abolish the special international status of the autonomous Åland Islands as a demilitarized zone.

However, the statements are simultaneously being dismissed by experts in international law and also by Åland’s experts in the field.

If it should ever become relevant, there must first be an initiative from the government, which must then be dealt with internationally, says Roger Nordlund, former speaker of the Ålandic parliament and Chairman of the Åland Islands Peace Institute.

Before the parliamentary elections in Finland in early April, almost half of the candidates in the Finnish state channel Yle’s election compass stated that they wanted to abolish the demilitarized status of Åland. Among those is former General Pekka Toveri, the Defence Forces’ Chief of Intelligence for 2019-2020, who was also elected to parliament for the right-wing National Coalition Party, which is now in the process of forming a new government.

Russia’s warfare in Ukraine, a combination of Stalinist terror and looting, has shown that it does not shy away from brutal and criminal methods. Therefore, my opinion on abolishing demilitarization has been further strengthened in the past year, Toveri tells the Finnish newspaper Hufvudstadsbladet.

Ex-colonel Kjell Törner, commander of the Uusimaa Brigade 2014-2017, also expresses a desire to abolish the demilitarization, while the former commander of the Finnish Defence Forces, General Jarmo Lindberg, partly agrees.

In this situation, when Finland’s security policy is in great upheaval, I believe that all aspects that promote the country’s security should be openly reviewed and discussed, Lindberg tells Hufvudstadsbladet.

The Åland Islands Peace Institute, which focuses on peace research based on Åland’s special international status, expresses itself in diplomatic terms about the demands for re-militarization of Åland. The institute’s chairman Roger Nordlund, former Åland head of government and speaker of the Åland parliament, tells the public radio Ålands Radio that, he is not surprised by the call from Finnish politicians to militarize Åland in light of the general change in public opinion over the past year.

We have to think about the environment we are living in right now with the Ukraine war and the enormous change in the Finns’ view of NATO, for example, from a minority in favor of NATO membership that in a short time changed to a strong majority in favor of Finland joining NATO. I think these things are somewhat connected, says Nordlund.

Roger Nordlund on the left together with Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin and Åland’s Vice President Katrin Sjögren during Marin’s visit to Åland in March. Photo: Government of Finland/CC BY 2.0

To abolish demilitarization, Finland would have to notify all ten states of the 1921 Convention on Åland, as well as Russia. However, given the international law surrounding Åland’s status, Roger Nordlund does not believe that it is possible in practice to re-militarize Åland.

In peacetime, I think it is almost impossible to remilitarize Åland, but if it should ever become relevant, there must first be an initiative from the government, which must then be dealt with internationally. Then you have to remember that Russia is also a party to this, and you probably want to avoid that discussion as long as possible, he says.

International law expert Ove Bring describes demands to change Åland’s status as “unrealistic” and says that there are no signs that NATO will demand the militarization of the islands in connection with Finland’s entry into the military alliance.

There are no such signals at all, and the Finnish government has reminded NATO that Åland is demilitarized, says Bring in a comment to the Swedish newspaper DN.

Painting of the negotiations on the Åland issue at the League of Nations in Geneva in 1921.

Facts: Demilitarization of Åland

Åland's demilitarization and autonomy is the result of a conflict between Sweden and Finland that was resolved diplomatically in 1921 in the predecessor of the United Nations - the League of Nations - a solution that later became known as the Åland Model. The background was Finland's recent independence from Russia in 1917 and the so-called Åland Movement, which worked for Åland's accession to Sweden, something that was also seen as desirable by Sweden, primarily for military strategic reasons, as the islands are situated very close to Stockholm.

Åland became an autonomous part of Finland, with international guarantees from major powers such as Britain, France and Russia to preserve its Swedish language and culture. The demilitarization of Åland after the Crimean War in 1856 was also consolidated as a guarantee to Sweden that there would be no military activity or fortifications on the islands.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Slovakia: EU must prioritize economy over Ukraine

The new cold war

Published today 12:27
– By Editorial Staff
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico's Slovakia is one of the few EU countries that has refused to deliver weapons to Ukraine and opposed Ukrainian NATO membership.
2 minute read

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico accuses the EU of concealing its own fundamental problems by constantly focusing on Ukraine – and refuses to discuss new Russia sanctions until the union’s economic crisis is taken seriously.

Ahead of next week’s European Council summit, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico is launching a frontal attack on the EU’s priorities. In a post on X, he states that the union’s constant focus on Ukraine masks its inability to handle the bloc’s own serious challenges.

At the summit, EU leaders are expected to discuss increased defense spending, military cooperation and continued support for Kyiv. But Fico argues this is happening at the expense of more urgent problems within the union.

“Not interested”

On Wednesday, the Slovak leader stated that he is “more and more convinced” that the EU, by “”constantly discussing Ukraine, we in the EU are covering up our inability to deal with our most fundamental challenges and problems”. He says he has raised the issue with European Council President António Costa.

Fico then issues an ultimatum:

— I am not interested in dealing with new sanctions packages against Russia until I see, in the conclusions of the EC summit, political instructions for the European Commission on how to address the crisis in the automotive industry and the high energy prices that are making the European economy completely uncompetitive.

Automotive industry and energy prices in focus

The criticism doesn’t come from nowhere when it comes to Slovakia. The country’s economy is heavily dependent on automobile manufacturing, a sector under severe pressure from EU green policies and global competition. At the same time, Slovakia remains heavily dependent on Russian gas and crude oil under long-term contracts, despite Brussels demanding a complete phase-out of Russian energy imports by 2027.

Bratislava plans to present more concrete proposals on the automotive sector and energy prices at the summit than what is currently in the draft conclusions.

Fico continued:

— I refuse to let such serious issues be handled in the EC conclusions with general phrases, while detailed decisions and positions are devoted to aid for Ukraine and support for the war.

Divergent line

Slovakia stands out among EU countries in its stance on the war in Ukraine. Unlike most member states, the country has refused to deliver weapons to Ukraine, opposed Ukrainian NATO membership and repeatedly turned against EU sanctions on Russia.

The majority of EU countries maintain that Western support for Ukraine must continue and support rapid military rearmament, citing the alleged threat from Russia. The Kremlin has dismissed these claims as “nonsense” and accuses Western governments of using them as a pretext for increased military spending.

Hegseth to Europe: Buy more American weapons for Ukraine

The war in Ukraine

Published 15 October 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Pete Hegseth together with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
2 minute read

Western military support to Ukraine has nearly halved over the summer. Now the US Secretary of Defense is demanding that NATO countries once again open their wallets for more American weapons deliveries – but several major European nations are hesitating.

Pete Hegseth had a clear message when he met with his NATO counterparts in Brussels on Wednesday: Europe must invest even more money in American weapons for Ukraine.

The US Secretary of Defense pointed to a report from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy showing that military support to Kiev fell dramatically during the summer months – a 43 percent decrease compared to the first half of the year.

Hegseth was explicit about his view on how peace is achieved.

— You get peace when you are strong. Not when you use strong words or wag your fingers, you get it when you have strong and real capabilities that adversaries respect, he declared to assembled journalists.

Zelensky wants more

At the center of discussions is the PURL program – Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List – which has fundamentally changed how the U.S. supports Ukraine militarily. Previously, Washington donated weapons directly, but now NATO countries must pay for the deliveries themselves.

According to Hegseth, the logic is simple: The more Europe buys, the faster the war can be concluded.

— Our expectation today is that more countries donate even more, that they purchase even more to provide for Ukraine, to bring that conflict to a peaceful conclusion, he said.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced that $2 billion has been pledged so far through the PURL system, and that he expects additional contributions. But the figure falls far short of the $3.5 billion that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had hoped to secure by October.

Three countries made new pledges on Wednesday: Sweden, Estonia, and Finland. Corresponding commitments from European heavyweights such as Spain, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom are still lacking.

USA – the big winner?

The Russian government has accused Kiev’s European financiers of prolonging the conflict at the expense of Ukrainian lives, and Moscow claims that European countries are unwilling to acknowledge the failure of their strategy.

Meanwhile, European NATO members continue to bear the economic consequences of their sanctions policy against Russia. After rejecting Russian energy, many EU economies have been hit by rising production costs and widespread bankruptcies in industry.

The United States, however, has benefited from developments through increased investment flows and higher sales of liquefied natural gas to Europe.

“A celebration of peace – not a show of force”

The new cold war

Published 14 October 2025
An air echelon attends the victory day parade in Beijing , capital of China, September 3, 2025.
3 minute read
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.

China’s Victory Day parade in early September drew wide attention both at home and abroad. While Chinese audiences saw it as a solemn moment of remembrance and confidence, some foreign media outlets rushed to label it a “show of force,” a “signal to the West,” or even evidence of new global division.

These interpretations ignore the deeper significance of the event and the consistent principles guiding China’s approach to global affairs.

At its heart, the parade was an act of remembrance—marking China’s victory in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the global triumph over fascism. It was a tribute to the sacrifices of millions and a powerful reminder that peace is never easily won.

The presence of numerous foreign leaders in Beijing during the parade was a statement in itself. They were there not to take sides or escalate tensions, but to stand together in honoring the past and fostering a future built on peace. Their participation underscored a shared commitment to dialogue, not division.

Building capabilities to uphold principles

The weapons and equipment displayed at the parade should be understood within the framework of China’s long-standing defense policy, one based on peace and restraint.

Consider China’s nuclear posture: China remains the only nuclear-weapon state to publicly commit to a No-First-Use policy under any circumstances. This reflects a profound belief that nuclear weapons must never be used, and that a nuclear war can have no winners. China’s nuclear arsenal is kept strictly at the minimum level required for national security.

In terms of conventional forces, the unveiling of new-generation tanks, aircraft, and missile systems such as hypersonic weapons does showcase progress in China’s military modernization. Yet this progress is guided by a doctrine of active self-defense. These systems are designed to protect sovereignty and territorial integrity, not to project power globally. They serve as an anchor for national security and a stabilizer for regional security, deterring interference rather than provoking conflict.

The parade also featured unmanned and AI-enabled systems, highlighting China’s progress in technology and innovation. Importantly, this display went hand-in-hand with China’s call for international dialogue on regulating military uses of artificial intelligence. China has consistently advocated for a balanced approach—one that prevents misuse and humanitarian risks without stifling beneficial technological progress.

A message for the future

Yes, the parade was grand in scale. Yes, it displayed advanced weaponry systems. But above all, it conveyed a message of responsibility, transparency, and an enduring commitment to peace.

In times of rising mistrust and uncertainty, that message carries weight. The real choice before the international community is not between holding parades or staying silent, but between pursuing dialogue or confrontation, cooperation or suspicion. By honoring history and demonstrating its defensive posture, China has extended a hand of reassurance, not a fist of provocation.

The lesson of history is clear: peace is built through openness, cooperation, and mutual respect. This parade was, in that spirit, a step forward—a visible pledge of China’s dedication to a peaceful and stable world.

 

Hua Gesheng

About the author

Hua Gesheng is a commentator on international and multilateral affairs, writing regularly for Xinhua News Agency, Global Times, China Daily, CGTN, etc.

From trade war to industrial warfare – the battle for rare earth metals

The new cold war

Published 13 October 2025
– By Editorial Staff
China controls 90% of the world's rare earth metals, minerals found in everything from smartphones to fighter jets.
8 minute read

On October 10, China detonated a bomb – not with missiles, but with minerals. New export controls on rare earth metals now threaten to suffocate the entire global high-tech supply chain.

Two superpowers stand face to face in what has become an industrial war. The Nordic Times summarizes the dramatic escalation that has changed the playing field between the USA and China.

The development has been described by analysts as an “economic Pearl Harbor”. This is no longer just about trade policy countermeasures, but about mutual economic mass destruction where both sides are prepared to take major damage to win.

What began as a trade war about tariffs has transformed into a battle for control over the elements that drive the modern world.

What happened on October 10?

On October 10, 2025, China imposed new tightened export controls on rare earth metals and related technology. The regulations require special licenses for export of products containing more than 0.1% rare earth metals from China – or manufactured with Chinese production technology.

It sounds technical, but the implications are explosive. As journalist Mario Nawfal states: “That’s laptops, batteries, EVs – basically the modern world”.

With a stroke of the pen, Beijing gained veto power over large parts of the world’s high-tech production.

President Donald Trump responded within hours. He threatened an additional 100% tariffs on Chinese goods “on top of all tariffs they are currently paying,” with start on November 1. Trump called China’s move “absolutely unheard of in International Trade, and a moral disgrace”.

The market reaction was brutal – in a single day, $2 trillion in market value disappeared from American stock markets. The Dow Jones fell by 879 points (1.9%), the S&P 500 dropped 2.71%, and the Nasdaq plunged 3.56% – the worst days since April.

Why are rare earth metals so important?

To understand why the world now stands on the brink of an economic crisis, one must understand what rare earth metals are – and why China controls them.

China accounts for 70% of global rare earth metal mining and 90% of the world’s processing and refining. The country produces as much as 95% of the world’s rare earth magnets.

These minerals are used in everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to military equipment and renewable energy technology. Rare earth metals are critical components in advanced military technology – from fighter jets to submarines, these critical minerals power essential systems.

The figures are striking: A single F-35 fighter jet contains over 400 kg of rare earth metals, while a Virginia-class submarine requires a full 4,600 kg. Rare earth metals are also critical for medical technology in laser surgery and MRI scanning.

Already in 1992, the then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping stated that “the Middle East has oil and China has rare earths”. It wasn’t just an observation – it was a long-term strategy that is now reaching its culmination.

From trade war to industrial war

The trade conflict between the USA and China began in 2018 during Donald Trump’s first presidential term, when the USA imposed tariffs on Chinese goods to limit the growing American trade deficit with China.

During the Joe Biden administration (2021-2025), the tensions continued, with Trump’s tariffs remaining and Biden imposing restrictions on American exports of technological knowledge and advanced chips to China.

When Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, the conflict quickly escalated. On April 2, 2025, during what Trump called “liberation day,” the USA imposed an additional 34 percent tariff, which increased the total tariff against China up to 54 percent.

China responded on April 4 with export restrictions on seven rare earth metals, and tariffs quickly escalated to a minimum of 145 percent during the spring, and stock markets nearly entered a bear market in April.

In May, the parties agreed to a ceasefire to negotiate a new trade agreement, and both China and the USA significantly reduced tariffs. In June, a framework agreement was concluded in which China committed to continue giving the green light for export of rare earth metals to the USA.

But the peace was fragile. In October 2025, China announced the strictest export controls on rare earth metals and permanent magnets to date – and the ongoing trade war transformed into something entirely different.

China’s new weapon

For the first time, China applied the so-called “foreign direct product rule” (FDPR) – a mechanism that the USA has long used to restrict semiconductor exports to China. Now China is turning the tables.

“Under the new regime, any product containing ≥0.1% Chinese rare earths or magnet material now requires a Chinese export license, even if it’s made abroad. In other words: if your phone, drone, or fighter jet includes Chinese-origin materials anywhere in its supply chain, Beijing gets a veto,” comments Mario Nawfal.

“This isn’t about dirt or ore – it’s about control of the midstream, where minerals become tech. The move turns rare earths into a geopolitical weapon”, he continues.

China doesn’t just control the mines, but the entire value chain from raw materials to finished products. And now that power is being used as a weapon.

AI and the defense industry in the crosshairs

The two biggest losers are expected to be the AI industry and the military-industrial complex. China’s new export controls stipulate that materials used for chip production below the 14 nanometer node must seek approval from China.

The nanometer node is a measure of how small the transistors in a chip are – the lower the number, the more advanced and powerful the technology, and modern AI and advanced military technology require chips below 14nm.

Even products with dual-use applications – that is, technology that can be used both civilly and militarily – must be approved. Beijing will decide each case individually.

This creates a potential bottleneck for the entire advanced chip supply chain. TSMC, the world’s largest contract manufacturer of semiconductors, is already prohibited from manufacturing chips below the 14nm node for China at the USA’s request.

Now China is reversing the logic: if we can’t get your most advanced chips anyway, maybe the world doesn’t need them either. China’s own chip manufacturer SMIC can produce equivalent 7nm to 5nm chips.

The stock market reaction showed which sectors are hit hardest. The technology and green energy sectors, both of which are heavily dependent on rare earth metals such as neodymium and dysprosium, bore the heaviest burden.

Nvidia fell by nearly 5 percent, AMD by 7.7 percent, and Tesla dropped over 5 percent. Chinese tech giants were hit even harder – Alibaba fell by 10 percent, Baidu over 8 percent, and JD.com by more than 6 percent.

USA’s desperate countermoves

Trump administration’s top officials have convened executives from technology and rare earth companies in an intensive effort to accelerate the development of the entire supply chain for domestic production.

“The Pentagon launched a $1 billion buying spree to stockpile cobalt, antimony, scandium, and other critical minerals – a modern version of Cold War hoarding”, states Nawfal.

In July 2025, the Department of Defense (recently renamed the Department of War) invested $400 million in equity in MP Materials, making the US government the company’s largest shareholder. The deal also includes a 10-year price floor of $110 per kilogram for the company’s NdPr products.

But reality is brutal: even when these facilities are fully operational, MP Materials will only produce 1,000 tons of neodymium-boron-iron magnets by the end of 2025 – less than 1 percent of the 138,000 tons that China produces.

American officials have acknowledged that the overall effort will still take time and therefore leave the country and its allies vulnerable to Xi’s strategic whims in the short term.

“But time is China’s ally. The U.S. can’t build refining and magnet plants overnight, and global alternatives (Australia, Brazil, India) remain in early stages”, argues Mario Nawfal further.

A new geopolitical reality

A former White House advisor warned that China’s strict controls on rare earth metals represent “the power to forbid any country on Earth from participating in the modern economy”.

The market reaction reveals something fundamentally new: the divergence between the dollar and gold shows that markets are now trading tariffs as if they’re striking back against the USA, not against the rest of the world.

During previous crises, the dollar has strengthened as a safe haven – now it’s falling instead.

The trade wars are an expression of a deeper power struggle between the USA and China that has the potential to shake the world economy and create a new international order.

Mario Nawfal summarizes: “Beijing’s goal isn’t total collapse – it’s pressure through precision. By tightening supply just enough to make the West sweat, China gains leverage”.

What happens now?

Trump threatened to cancel his planned meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping at the APEC summit in South Korea on October 31-November 1, although he later clarified that he had not completely cancelled the meeting but was uncertain whether it would take place.

Both Trump and Xi Jinping under no circumstances want to appear weak, which especially applies to Xi Jinping and the Communist Party, which bases its power position on having made China strong and standing up to Western nations.

China’s Ministry of Commerce said in a statement: “China’s stance is consistent – we do not want a tariff war but we are not afraid of one”.

The 100% tariffs are set to take effect on November 1 – or earlier. The Pentagon is buying critical minerals in panic, allied countries are rushing to build alternative supply chains, and stock markets around the world are holding their breath.

Nawfal concludes his analysis with a grim prognosis: “This isn’t a tariff skirmish anymore – it’s a war over the atoms that make the modern world spin. Forget trade war. This is industrial warfare… and both sides are ready to bleed to win”.

The question is who can endure the pain the longest.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.