Nordic state to invest millions in ‘war railway'
Finland has allocated €20 million for the planning of a new railway line connecting the Nordic nation with neighboring Sweden and Norway that would facilitate the movement of NATO military equipment in the event of war, according to the newspaper Iltalehti.
Helsinki abandoned its longstanding policy of neutrality and joined the US-led military bloc in April 2023, citing security concerns over the Ukraine conflict. Sweden followed suit in 2024, citing the same reasons. In response, Moscow vowed to beef up its defensive posture in northwestern Russia.
In the article on Wednesday, Iltalehti, citing anonymous government sources, claimed that the rail project is getting underway now that the Finnish government has earmarked the funds for its planning. According to the publication, the cost of the entire undertaking will likely run into billions of euros, with actual construction work expected to 'take place well into the 2030s.'
The article further claimed that the Finnish government is hoping to secure European Union funding for the project.
Explaining the need for the railway project in an interview to Iltalehti back in November, Finland's minister of transport and communications, Lulu Ranne cited a perceived Russian threat.
'Tanks and cannons must be able to be moved in any situation,' she emphasized at the time.
According to a NATO policy update published last month, the bloc is 'continuing to integrate [its] newest members – Finland and Sweden – into plans, forces, and command structures, including by developing a presence in Finland.'
Earlier this week, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that with NATO military infrastructure having been 'gradually appearing on Finnish territory' in recent years, Moscow is taking 'measures to improve its security that our military deems necessary.'
Speaking to French weekly Le Point, he emphasized that Russia never had 'any problems' with Finland or Sweden joining NATO, and has no intention of attacking them.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has rejected allegations that Moscow harbors any aggressive intentions toward NATO countries, calling them 'nonsense' designed to alarm Western Europeans and legitimize major increases in defense budgets.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
13 hours ago
- Russia Today
World on the brink of new arms race
The world risks plunging into a 'new dangerous arms race' as most nuclear powers seek to modernize and expand their arsenals, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has warned in its annual review. The pace of disarmament is slowing as nuclear-armed states launch 'intensive' arsenal modernization programs, the research center said in a paper published on Monday. Russia and the US, which together possess around 90% of all nuclear weapons in the world, are set to see the last remaining bilateral nuclear arms control treaty – the New START – expire in February 2026, SIPRI noted. The agreement limits the number of simultaneously deployed strategic nuclear warheads. Moscow suspended its participation in the treaty in 2023, citing the impracticality of the inspection regime due to deep Western involvement in the Ukraine conflict. However, it maintained that it remained open to dialogue on the issue if the arsenals of Washington's NATO allies were also considered. Washington, meanwhile, insists on including China in any new agreement. According to SIPRI, China possesses the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal in the world and could rival 'either Russia or the USA' in its number of intercontinental ballistic missiles by the end of the decade. The UK and France are also modernizing their nuclear forces, focusing on nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, the report said. Paris additionally aims to develop a new ballistic missile warhead. 'The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which had lasted since the end of the Cold War, is coming to an end,' said Hans M. Kristensen, Associate Senior Fellow with SIPRI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Program. 'We see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric, and the abandonment of arms control agreements.' The research institute also listed Israel among the nations 'believed to be modernizing its nuclear arsenal.' While West Jerusalem does not officially acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons, SIPRI pointed to tests of new missile propulsion systems and alleged upgrades at the plutonium production reactor site in Dimona. Israel could have up to 90 nuclear warheads at its disposal, the report stated. The findings come as West Jerusalem conducts air raids against Iranian nuclear and military facilities, claiming the Islamic Republic is nearing the creation of a nuclear bomb. Tehran, which maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful, was not mentioned in the SIPRI report.
Russia Today
14 hours ago
- Russia Today
Oil, war, and distraction: What the Iran–Israel conflict means for Russia
There are no quiet days in the Middle East. Armed conflict is a constant presence, but this time the stakes are higher. Israel has found itself in direct confrontation not with a proxy or insurgent group, but with Iran – its principal geopolitical adversary and a likely future nuclear power. Strictly speaking, the Israel-Iran war did not begin on June 13. The two countries exchanged direct strikes as far back as April 2024. For decades before that, they waged what is commonly known as a 'shadow war,' primarily through intelligence operations, cyberattacks, and support for regional proxies. But now, at Israel's initiative, the conflict has escalated into open warfare. Unlike the largely symbolic strikes of the past, this new phase targets strategic infrastructure, decision-making centers, and even cities. The tempo and scale of the exchanges mark a sharp escalation. With every new volley, the flywheel of war spins faster. Still, this will not resemble the Ukrainian conflict. Iran and Israel do not share a border, so ground operations are unlikely. What we are witnessing is an air war – a remote conflict defined by long-range strikes and missile exchanges. The side that exhausts its military and political capital first will be the one that loses. Victory here is less about territory than stamina and strategic patience. Who is likely to break first remains uncertain. Iran has the largest missile arsenal in the Middle East. Israel, however, enjoys unwavering US support. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to believe that sustained pressure will destabilize what he calls the 'ayatollah regime,' forcing it to collapse under external and internal strain. But Netanyahu himself is politically vulnerable. His government has been marred by scandals and internal dissent. A prolonged and inconclusive conflict could easily threaten the survival of his cabinet. The ideal outcome for Israel would be a swift, decisive campaign, similar to its past clashes with Hezbollah. In those instances, air superiority and rapid operations forced the enemy into submission. Statements from Israeli officials suggest that this remains the objective: a two-week operation designed to cripple Iran's offensive capabilities. However, there is one crucial difference: Iran is not Hezbollah. Tehran may have stumbled on June 13, but it possesses vastly superior organization and military resources. The Islamic Republic is several times larger than Israel in both territory and population, which means its endurance is much greater. Israel, by escalating so dramatically, may have left Iran with no option but to fight. And there is mounting evidence that the plan for a quick Israeli victory is already faltering. If the war drags on, Netanyahu could face political blowback at home and criticism from abroad. In my view, that is the most likely scenario. Netanyahu is not the only leader with something to lose. Donald Trump – who once promised to end endless wars and bring down gas prices – is already facing pushback within the MAGA movement. His vocal support for Israel has alienated parts of his base, who now accuse him of entangling the US in yet another foreign conflict. So Trump faces the same dilemma as former President Joe Biden. Will he favor the interests of the pro-Israel lobby, which is deeply rooted in the Republican Party and his inner circle? Or the opinion of the electorate, capable of overturning his party in the 2026 elections? And if he chooses Israel, will he be ready for the consequences?' Trump has promised to lower gas prices for Americans. He also claimed he would resolve the Middle East crisis. If Iran accelerates its nuclear program in response to Israeli aggression, that will spell the end of Trump's Iran policy, which began with the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018. Meanwhile, in Moscow, the situation is being watched with interest. Rising oil prices would benefit Russia economically. More importantly, a major war between Israel and Iran could distract Washington from its commitments to Ukraine. Tehran is also a strategic partner of Russia, and it would be in Moscow's interest for Iran to stay in the fight. Yet questions remain about how much Russia can or will do. The Ukraine conflict is consuming much of the country's military and industrial capacity. Moreover, the newly signed Strategic Partnership Treaty with Iran includes no obligation for direct military support. It simply states that neither party will aid an aggressor. So for now, Russia's best course may be to stay on the sidelines, offer diplomatic and rhetorical support, and hope that Iran does not overplay its hand. It is worth noting that Tehran recovered relatively quickly after the first strikes. Its ability to adapt to Israeli air tactics, bolster counterintelligence, and retaliate effectively will determine the next phase of the war. We will likely see clearer developments within the two-week window Israel has set for itself. But if that deadline passes without a decisive result, it may be Netanyahu – not Tehran – who finds himself running out of article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
18 hours ago
- Russia Today
Israel uninterested in Russian mediation of conflict with Iran
Israel has so far shown no interest in peacefully settling the conflict it initiated with Iran, despite Russia's offer to mediate a dialogue between the two nations, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Commenting on the recent series of mutually devastating strikes between Israel and Iran, Peskov sounded the alarm over what he described as 'galloping escalation'. 'The situation is continuing to escalate rapidly. The level of unpredictability is absolute,' Peskov told reporters on Tuesday. He emphasized the need for both sides to exercise 'maximum restraint' in order to prevent tensions from completely spiraling out of control. Peskov underscored that Russia stands ready to play its part in facilitating a potential diplomatic solution. 'President [Vladimir] Putin said that Russia would be ready to provide such mediation services,' Peskov told reporters on Tuesday. 'At present, we see reluctance, at least on the part of Israel, to seek any kind of mediating services or to move onto a peace track.' After Iran-US talks on a potential new nuclear deal ended up at an impasse, Israel last week launched several waves of strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, killing top commanders and nuclear scientists. Iran, in turn, retaliated with massive missile strikes on the Jewish state. In another sign of escalating tensions, US President Donald Trump, a long-time ally of Israel, urged residents of Tehran to flee the city, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to hint that eliminating Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be considered an option for ending hostilities. Following the strikes, Putin held separate phone calls with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss options for de-escalation. Later, Trump held a phone call with Putin, which also revolved around the Middle East conflict, saying he was open to his Russian counterpart taking on a mediating role.
