Search

Henri Vanhanen wrote that the discussions held in St. Petersburg once again demonstrated, in his opinion, the difficulty of negotiating with Russia. He reported that the Kremlin considered the proposals prepared in Oslo to be almost useless but simultaneously stated its willingness to continue negotiations and spoke about the approaching end of the war. Vanhanen described this as contradictory and believed Russia was holding its demands steady without revealing what it would be willing to compromise on. According to Vanhanen, Moscow sought to shift the discussion to the post-war European security order and the security guarantees that would be given to Russia. He regarded the guarantees as absurd because, according to him, Russia had started the largest offensive war in Europe in decades. Referring to previous Russian demands, he assessed that the guarantees could practically grant Moscow influence over which countries would join NATO and what kind of defense arrangements neighboring countries could make. He added that the U.S. President could not promise such things on behalf of other NATO countries or independent European states. Vanhanen argued that European security should not be built by giving an aggressor the right to dictate the defense of other countries. In his view, mutual arms control and the reduction of military risks could be negotiated, but Russia's demands for a sphere of influence should not be presented as security guarantees. He reported that Zelensky had announced Ukraine was ready to freeze the war at the current front lines. Vanhanen considered this a significant practical compromise and clarified that it did not, in his opinion, involve a legal cession of territories to Russia. He compared this to Russia's stance and wrote that Ukraine had indicated what it would accept, while Russia had stated what it would not accept. Vanhanen described the situation as revealing regarding Trump's negotiation tactics. He wrote that the United States had already loosened the pressure of sanctions on Russia and had agreed to diesel cooperation, but he assessed that there were no signs of similar political concessions from Moscow. According to him, the continuation of negotiations could benefit Russia by keeping Washington interested in economic cooperation, giving time to advance military objectives, and providing an opportunity to wait and see if Trump's impatience would again be directed toward Ukraine. Vanhanen asked how many times Trump would be willing to reward Putin for his willingness to negotiate without substantial changes in his actions. He considered the diplomatic work of Stub and Støre the previous day to be important because, in his opinion, they had restored the Americans, Ukrainians, and Europeans to a common preparation. However, he warned that a single successful negotiation day should not obscure the fact that Moscow's public demands remained unchanged. Vanhanen concluded by stating that in peace negotiations, what mattered was not the number of meetings with Putin but what he was willing to do to end the war. #Venäjä #neuvottelut #rauha (translated)

Jesse Rauhamo asked why a person who moved to Finland lived in the country if they threatened with robbery and riots while considering living costs too high. He wrote that living in Finland was not an absolute right for all people in the world and that those moving to the country should be expected to respect Finnish laws and social peace. #Suomi #maahanmuutto #yhteiskunta (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that in the negotiations held in Oslo, two main issues had been prepared according to him: the future of Ukraine, security guarantees, EU integration and reconstruction, as well as the conditions for ending the war and Europe’s future security order. He said the negotiations also concerned what would be required from Russia and how a possible ceasefire would be secured. Vanhanen assessed that Europe should bring its own goals and means to the discussions. According to him, Europe financed Ukraine's defense, made decisions regarding Russia sanctions, and would have to bear a large part of the peace security responsibilities. He wrote that Europe’s security should not be constructed according to the United States' election calendar, even though a quick agreement and a drop in energy prices would be valuable achievements for Trump before the midterms. Vanhanen highlighted the actions of President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. According to him, Ukraine specifically requested Finland and Norway to facilitate the discussions, and the leaders had established functional connections both to Ukraine and Trump’s administration. Vanhanen also mentioned that Witkoff and Kushner were involved and continuing discussions with Russia. Vanhanen considered Stubb's actions particularly commendable and said that Finland's participation and the opportunity to convey Europe’s security concerns to Trump’s inner circle were significant. He wrote that the negotiations were also about what kind of Russia Finland would have to live with in the coming decades. https://t.co/j2zyg51EJb #Ukraina #EuroopanTurvallisuus #Diplomatia (translated)

Pekka wrote that comments from Broadcom's CEO Hock Tan were said to have pressured AI sector stocks and weakened, among others, CoreWeave's bond markets. According to him, funding would be sufficient for data center projects if demand for AI or its growth rate remained high and investments were deemed profitable. Pekka estimated that large technology companies would continue to expand data centers rapidly in the coming days in their earnings, outlooks, and investment reports. He mentioned a rumor circulating among investors that Meta, which will publish its earnings tomorrow, might seek funding for data centers by diluting its shares, as Google had done. Pekka pondered whether Meta's shareholders would respond positively to this but believed the rumor supported the view of an increased need for data centers. He stated that companies were broadly considering how to utilize AI to enhance their business operations. He assessed that this would increase AI investments, particularly in purchasing tokens from leading Western AI companies, and believed that supply would lag behind demand for years to come. Pekka described the investor sentiment towards data center companies as weak and said they already appeared attractive to him, despite the increased risks. He cited CoreWeave as an example, whose market value, according to him, was below the revenue forecast based on analyst consensus for 2029. Pekka wrote that Nvidia owned 10 percent of CoreWeave and had promised to purchase the company's unsold GPU capacity until 2032 for up to $6.3 billion. He mentioned that he did not own shares in CoreWeave but was considering investing in it. He also justified the bears' question about why Nvidia needed to make such an agreement, speculating that the company would sell fewer chips without it. Pekka noted that AI stocks had risen strongly on average this year and did not believe that easy money was still available for investors. He considered indexes a good alternative for those who did not want to leverage their market view and said he was writing about his views to promote quality investment discussions and better decision-making. He added that this was not an investment recommendation. #pekka #tekoäly #datakeskukset #sijoittaminen (translated)

Binga Tupamäki wrote that the events in France were finally treated as riots rather than peaceful student protests, but he criticized the media coverage as still having a strange tone. According to him, Helsingin Sanomat suggested that the videos circulating from the riots promoted the far-right agenda and emphasized that the involvement of immigrants could not yet be confirmed. Tupamäki asked why the editorial teams were hesitant in this case, even though they had previously speculated on matters before official confirmations. He believed that comments from Donald Trump and Sebastian Tynkkynen should not become main news stories instead of the violence, and called for a deeper analysis of the causes and consequences of the events. According to Tupamäki, contemplating the connection between immigration failure and social unrest does not make a person far-right. He referred to the decades-long discussion in France about the segregation of suburbs and the problems of integration, and assessed that there were no common norms or respect in an increasingly unequal environment. He urged an examination of the role of the radical left and claimed that the streets of France were primarily places of rioting for the far left. Tupamäki mentioned that Greta Thunberg participated in the protest and praised students for rising against the system, even though he claimed there were no concrete demands. He assessed that the unrest was more related to revolutionary fantasies than to a shortage of teachers and budget cuts. According to Tupamäki, the rigid reporting by Helsingin Sanomat and other media ironically benefited the far-right: if people saw videos and heard that only far-right individuals thought about the conclusions drawn from them, they might begin to identify with it. He considered honest and fair reporting as a means to prevent radicalization. #Ranska #mellakat #media (translated)

Matias Turkkila wrote that he found it strange that, according to him, HS did not strongly condemn the burning of cities and attacks on police. Instead, he said that HS criticized the conservative right, which opposed the attacks carried out by immigrants incited by the left. Turkkila asked why the media, in his opinion, no longer helped understand what was happening in the world. #media #Suomi #keskustelu (translated)

Jukka Lepikkö wrote that AI stocks were, in his opinion, mispriced because the analysts following them did not understand reality. He mentioned that a Nomura analyst estimated that one gigawatt of data center capacity would generate $20 billion in sales for Anthropic. According to Lepikkö, the correct figure would be about $80 billion per gigawatt: he justified his estimate by noting that 25 percent of Anthropic's 5 gigawatt capacity, or 1.25 gigawatts, was used for inference and total sales were $100 billion. Lepikkö estimated that Anthropic would increase its computing capacity by 7 gigawatts next year. He said it was unclear how much of the new capacity would be used for training and how much for inference, but he assumed that the share for inference would be larger than it is now. If one third of the additional capacity were allocated to inference, it could, based on his $80 billion per gigawatt estimate, generate $185 billion in new revenue. In this case, Lepikkö suggested that Anthropic's ARR could be nearly $300 billion by the end of 2027. #AI #Osakkeet #Teknologia (translated)

The Day's Bureaucrat asked how many cities should burn before France would declare a state of emergency and the country would be, in his opinion, on the brink of a leftist Islamist uprising. He also asked if Yle would report on the events at that point as protests by dissatisfied students from their schools. #Ranska #mielenosoitus #kansalaisoikeudet (translated)

Jari Sarasvuo criticized the title and perspective of the article that reported on Elon Musk's flying Tesla. According to him, the title should have mentioned that Musk introduced the flying Tesla, and in the introduction, it should have stated that Tesla's new Roadster turned in the air with the help of SpaceX's propulsion engines. Sarasvuo wrote that currently, a flying Tesla would be illegal and unsafe in traffic, and that its entry into road traffic could take a long time or might not happen at all. He considered the comments about safety and legality as opinion manipulation and the presentation event as a grand show. He stated that deliveries had previously been more professional. #Tesla #ElonMusk #journalismi (translated)

Heikki Pursiainen wrote that the tests themselves did not improve learning outcomes, but according to him, they could be used to determine which measures were effective and what should be focused on. He assessed that if effective means were already known, they would have already been implemented. Pursiainen found it bleak that the teachers' union opposed, in his opinion, the first step towards solving the education crisis. #koulutus #tiede #opetus (translated)

Markku wrote that the opposition had been repeating the same question for half an hour and compared their manner of discussion to that of five-year-olds. He praised the minister's patience in explaining the matter and described the members of parliament as childish, doubting that they would understand even with repetition. https://t.co/lbJxjM3GuE #politiikka #eduskunta #keskustelu (translated)

Juho Hirvelä wrote that there had been discussions in Finland about lowering the fuel distribution obligation and that the Finns Party was said to support it, while according to him it did not seem suitable for the National Coalition Party and the Swedish People's Party. He asked whether fuel taxes in Finland were too high and whether it would be reasonable for the government to return half of the extra tax revenue from high fuel prices to motorists as a tax reduction. According to Hirvelä, the state was collecting unprecedented amounts of money in taxes. #polttoaine #verotus #Suomi (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that NATO's commander for European forces, Alexus Grynkewich, had described the alliance's strategic thinking in preparation for a possible Russian attack without revealing classified operational plans. According to Vanhanen, the speech aimed to convey that an attack on NATO territory would fail, and to reassure Europeans. He noted that the speech did not indicate, in his view, that NATO was anticipating an immediate attack. Vanhanen mentioned that Grynkewich summarized the theory of victory in three phases: the attack would be halted, its advance would be paralyzed, and if necessary, the military system supporting the attack would be broken. According to Vanhanen, this could mean strikes not only against the attacking troops but also against their logistics, command, and other support systems, if necessary, within Russian territory. The goal, in his interpretation, would not be to defeat Russia as a state, but to prevent it from seizing even part of NATO territory and pressuring the alliance to accept the situation. Vanhanen also highlighted from the speech that the plan took into account a situation where U.S. forces would be tied up in another war. He considered this a crucial issue for Europe and referred to the limited military resources of the United States and Trump's Russia policy, which he believed had made Washington's decisions difficult to predict. Vanhanen proposed that alongside NATO's plan, Europe needs its own plan for victory. Its goal would be for European NATO countries to be able to repel and defeat a large-scale conventional Russian attack over the next ten years even without U.S. combat troops. He believed this would require a joint assessment of the shortcomings in European defense, regular exercises without the assumption of U.S. participation, and binding decisions to correct the deficiencies. Vanhanen wrote that the purpose of a credible deterrent would be to make the initiation of war unprofitable for Russia. #Nato #Venäjä #turvallisuus (translated)

Henri Vanhanen thanked Charles Lindbergh for addressing military issues based on facts. He assessed that Sanna Marin's demand to shoot down every Russian plane violating NATO airspace did not hold up under closer scrutiny, even though it sounded resolute. Vanhanen wrote that Russia's repeated violations of airspace should not be underestimated, but shooting down an armed fighter during peacetime would be a different scale of solution than intercepting a drone that has invaded airspace. According to him, it would be essential to assess whether it was a short violation or a deep incursion into Finnish territory that disregarded warnings and posed a real military threat. Vanhanen warned that shooting down a fighter could lead to the deaths of Russian soldiers and trigger a chain of events whose consequences Finland would not decide alone. He also viewed that Russia aimed to provoke and test the West's reactions, and it should not be allowed to dictate the timing or conditions for an escalation in the military situation. According to him, credible defense required both the readiness to use force and discretion in its application. https://t.co/uT4UMwcIib #turvallisuuspolitiikka #Venäjä #Nato (translated)

Mikko Välimaa wrote that Magnus Ranstorp is one of the most respected researchers in the Nordic countries and said that he posed a question that he hoped would also come up in Finland. Välimaa mentioned that so far only Iltalehti had reported on the exceptional stance of Finnish Members of the European Parliament in the vote concerning the Muslim Brotherhood. #tutkijat #Suomi #politiikka (translated)