Search

Urho Haho wrote that he had been amused by the panic of the National Coalition's Niilo Heinonen and his partners. According to Haho, Heinonen tried to commit the city to what he described as fanatical climate goals together with the Greens in the Oulu city council. Haho believed that Heinonen was now presenting himself as right-wing, even though he was not distinguishable from the Greens in Oulu. #politiikka #Oulu #ilmasto (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Finland had paid billions of euros because, in his opinion, the geopolitical risks posed by Russia were not taken seriously in time. He referred to Fortum's Uniper transactions, in which he claimed nearly six billion euros were lost, as well as Rosatom's assertion that it had won the arbitration concerning the Hanhikivi nuclear power project against Fennovoima. Vanhanen noted that the final resolution and possible compensation were still unclear. Vanhanen said the losses were in the billions and had also been a detriment to taxpayers. According to him, lessons should have been learned from these cases that geopolitics and security policy could not be separated from economic decision-making. He wrote that warnings about Russia's aggression had been issued for years, but economic interests often outweighed them, and he felt that Finland could no longer afford to ignore the realities of global politics until the billion-euro bill arrived. https://t.co/Omv0fRGsLq #geopolitiikka #turvallisuuspolitiikka #Suomi (translated)

Otto Juote wrote that, in his opinion, the YEL reform would not improve the situation for entrepreneurs during the current government term. He justified his view by saying that the law would not come into effect until 2028 and that it would not apply to any entrepreneur before the parliamentary elections in spring 2027. Juote argued that the timeline was politically intentional: according to him, the National Coalition Party could present itself as the initiator of the reform before the elections while avoiding responsibility for the consequences, which would only begin in the next term. He suspected that a blue-red government formed after the elections could annul or postpone the reform and anticipated that the SDP would demand its cancellation. Juote noted that no invoices based on the new model had yet been sent, nor had implementation decisions been made. According to him, the new parliament could repeal the law or postpone its entry into force with a simple legislative amendment, allowing the practices of the 2023 model to continue. He also questioned the information systems as an official basis for a delay extending to 2028 and assessed that the postponement would give the National Coalition Party the opportunity to leave the implementation of the reform to the next government. Juote claimed that the National Coalition Party did not want to reform YEL during any government term. #YEL #politiikka #uudistus (translated)

The author stated that the European Parliament had approved the committee proposal for legislation on psychosocial risks, stress, and mental health in the workplace. He said he had acted as the left-wing spokesperson and assessed that there were significant differences between countries in identifying and addressing these issues. According to him, common rules are needed, and the matter is now in the hands of the Commission. #työelämä #mielenterveys #lainsäädäntö #FI #EU (translated)

Henri Vanhanen demanded the publication of Tiitinen's list. He stated that he had supported its release before and assessed that the secrecy maintained for over 30 years had generated mystique around the list that was no longer beneficial. Vanhanen pointed out that the names on the list would not prove anyone guilty, in his opinion. He believed that publishing it would help distinguish known facts from the speculation that had arisen over the decades. Vanhanen also connected the issue to the open handling of Finland's Cold War history. He wrote that transparency was important in the current discussion on security policy, influence, and the actions of foreign powers. https://t.co/j8CXiiVumh #TiitisenLista #Avoimuus #Historia (translated)

Dennis Mitzner criticized Timo Stewart for suggesting that he believed Israel was an obstacle to the two-state solution. Mitzner argued that the Palestinians had not accepted Israel's state proposals in direct negotiations, the latest of which were the Camp David and Taba offers in 2000–2001, as well as Ehud Olmert's offers in 2008. He added that Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. According to Mitzner, the PLO's decades-old support for the two-state solution did not indicate that the Palestinians accepted Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Mitzner wrote that Stewart viewed the destruction of Hamas's ideology as unrealistic without killing all people. Mitzner interpreted this to mean that Stewart considered all Gazans as supporters of Hamas's ideology, but he himself said he would not go that far. He referred to Hamas's election in Gaza and claimed that no Gazan had attempted to help Israeli hostages in the past couple of years. Mitzner compared the situation to the Allies' victory over Nazism and the defeat of Japan, as well as the actions of the United Arab Emirates against the Muslim Brotherhood. He stated that the Western left should stop rewarding Palestinian violence and anti-Semitism. According to Mitzner, Stewart claimed that there was no Palestinian state because Israel occupied the territory and did not allow it to become independent. Mitzner denied this and described the area's history: according to him, it belonged to the British mandate from 1917 and prior to that to the Ottoman Empire. He wrote that the Arab leadership rejected the UN's 1947 partition plan, after which Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled Gaza without establishing a Palestinian state. According to Mitzner, the territories came under Israeli control in the 1967 war, which Jordan, Egypt, and Syria initiated with the intent to destroy, and the Arab world's negative attitude towards Israel continued with the Khartoum resolution of the three no's. Mitzner claimed that Stewart ignored Palestinian actions and concluded by asking whether the dispute ultimately related to the fact that the opposing side was the Jewish state of Israel. #IsraelinVastaisetAsenteet #Palestiinalaiskysymys #KansainvälinenPolitiikka (translated)

Flávio Bolsonaro, son of the former president Jair Bolsonaro, with his surprising victory in the first round of voting, posed a strong challenge for the second round of the Brazilian presidential election, where if he wins, he would grant mercy to his father. #FlávioBolsonaro #brazilválasztások #politika (translated)

Matti H. Virtanen asked Sari Multalalta why Finland should always strive to actively influence matters. He inquired whether Finland would be separated from the union if the country announced it would maintain the old system, which he considered better than the proposed one. #Suomi #EU #vaikuttaminen (translated)

Jari Mäkäräinen criticized Yle for what he perceived as giving Timo R. Stewart, whom he describes as a Hamas activist, an unchallenged platform to present his book. According to Mäkäräinen, the article adopted Stewart's view regarding the destruction of Gaza, genocide, and Finland's responsibility due to trade with Israel, without hearing the opposing side. Mäkäräinen emphasized that, in his opinion, genocide does not equate to heavy war. He wrote that the International Court of Justice had not ruled on the case against Israel and that interim measures were not a judgment. In his view, civilian casualties can occur in urban warfare where Hamas places rockets, command centers, and tunnels among civilians without the intent of destroying the group. He compared this to the battles of Mosul, Raqqa, and Fallujah, claiming that Stewart began using the term genocide after Israel succeeded in its war against Hamas. According to Mäkäräinen, the Yle article also lacked the starting point of the war: the attack on October 7, in which he claims over 1,200 people died, and which involved rapes and kidnappings. He wrote that Hamas aims for the end of Israel instead of a Palestinian state. He criticized the figures presented by the Palestinian Ministry of Health in the article—over 21,600 by December 2023 and over 1,400 after ceasefires—and claimed that the ministry was subordinate to Hamas and that its figures did not differentiate between fighters and civilians. In his view, the article also lacked Israel's perspective that a significant portion of the dead were fighters. Regarding the two-state model, Mäkäräinen wrote that its failure was not solely due to Israel. He claimed that Hamas had rejected the model multiple times and that the Palestinian Authority had turned down offers, such as at Camp David in 2000 and Annapolis in 2008. He added that according to polls, the majority of both Palestinians and Israelis had abandoned the model. He described the cessation of support for UNRWA as a reaction to an organization that, according to him, had ample evidence of connections between its facilities and personnel to Hamas. Mäkäräinen believed that Yle, as a publicly funded media, should not advertise a single essayist as an expert. According to him, the article could have included opposing researchers, Israel's official stance, or addressed Hamas's responsibility for hostages and the use of civilians as shields. He concluded by asking why this had not been done. https://t.co/sHriNitmMo #Gaza #Israel #Hamas (translated)

Riikka Purra wrote that, according to her, it is practically impossible to exit the euro because there is no clear mechanism in the agreements for doing so, unlike the EU, from which one can exit under Article 50. She stated that the monetary union was intentionally made as binding as possible so that member states could not easily disengage in times of trouble, and she assessed that wise individuals had been left out of this. Purra noted that various exit models had been developed, but she considered all of them to be difficult and risky. She also assessed that the future of the euro is likely to be difficult. #euro #EU #rahaliitto (translated)

According to the author, Finland's basic education has failed miserably in the education of immigrants: the differences between the native population and immigrants were the largest in the OECD comparison. He also described Sweden's result as almost equally weak and asked what the reasons for the differences were. https://t.co/EgMgv5xZvr #maahanmuutto #koulutus #OECD #FI #SE (translated)

Jari Mäkäräinen criticized Timo R. Stewart's column, stating that Stewart had already decided in advance that those who disagree are stupid and racist. According to Mäkäräinen, Stewart defined racism as evaluating individuals based on their ethnic or religious background and concluded that such individuals had nothing useful to say about international politics. Mäkäräinen mentioned that the column likened the observation of group differences to climate denialism, young Earth creationism, vaccine resistance, and reptilians. He also claimed that it had asserted that the Finnish media, researchers, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had adopted their Middle Eastern stance from Hamas. Mäkäräinen argued that the claim about the absence of pure races did not refute the phenomena indicated by statistics, attitude surveys, and street views. He highlighted religion, cousin marriages, concepts of honor, fertility, and renouncement of religion, adding that the common goals of Muslims could be examined from their own polls. According to Mäkäräinen, explaining unpleasant phenomena solely with prejudices and labeling dissenters as racists was essentialism. He criticized a sense of moral superiority and argued that it led to a lack of fact-checking, distinguishing between immigrant groups, or noticing that one's own media repeated Hamas's casualty figures. He believed that placing morality above observations weakened empathy. https://t.co/dglVfEEw2o #rasismi #media #ilmasto (translated)

Arto Satonen wrote that he had seen many kinds of no-confidence motions, but this was the first one in which Antti Häkkänen's removal was demanded due to his trip to Israel. According to Satonen, Häkkänen had visited the David sling, which was a key part of Finland's air defense. #eduskunta #puolustusministeri #eduskunta #puolustus #Israel (translated)

The press conference today clarified the suspicions related to parliamentarians' homes. According to Speaker Halla-aho, there is a significant number of cases. It is suspected that residences have been entered in the absence of the representatives. No signs of forced entry have been found, and nothing has been stolen, but traces have been left in the homes. The suspicions involve members of different parties, and the first case may go back as far as a year. There is currently no confirmed information about the perpetrator or motive. The background may involve criminal activity, harassment or stalking targeted at individual politicians, domestic extremist groups, or the actions of a foreign state. Not all reported cases may necessarily be related to each other. Now, it is the police's task to distinguish real intrusions from other observations and investigate possible connections between them. The possibility of a state actor must still be taken seriously. An especially interesting detail is the marks left in the homes. If the intention were solely to obtain information secretly, a successful intrusion would fundamentally be attempted to be concealed. If, instead, traces are deliberately left behind, being noticed may itself be part of the operation. In that case, intelligence is combined with psychological influence. Such methods are known in the history of Russian security services. There have been intrusions into the homes of diplomats, officials, and other individuals deemed interesting, with deliberate traces left behind. This does not prove anything about the perpetrators of these cases. It indicates why the possibility of a foreign state’s action must be thoroughly investigated. If it ultimately turns out to be state influence, the selection of targets would in itself be significant. Parliamentarians decide on Finland's defense policy, NATO cooperation, support for Ukraine, relations with Russia, and numerous other decisions in which foreign states may have strong interests. Coercion does not have to mean an attempt to change one vote in a single ballot. The aim could also be to gather information, map networks and vulnerabilities, or generate uncertainty about whether the consequences of political decisions extend to an individual's own home and loved ones. That is why Finland now needs a more open discussion about the kind of foreign intelligence, influence, and pressure directed at it. Confidential information should not be disclosed, but Finns should have a realistic understanding of the security environment in which we live and whether its change requires anything from decision-makers, companies, or ordinary people. And above all, keep a cool head. If the purpose of such acts turns out to be to generate fear and uncertainty in Finland, that is precisely the effect that should not be allowed. Serious suspicions will be investigated, efforts will be made to identify the perpetrators, and appropriate action will be taken if necessary. Finland's decisions will continue to be made in Finland, without fear and pressure. #turvallisuus #politiikka #tiedustelu (translated)

This is no longer just a political blunder, but probably the most humiliating national failure in the history of Finland's industry. This analysis reveals black on white how totally and blindly the Finnish state leadership has sold the interests of its own citizens in front of the marketing department of Silicon Valley. Let's break down this "sleight of hand" into three devastating facts that make the government's actions completely inexcusable. First of all, despite all the prime minister-level hype, promises, and the liturgy of the green transition, the outcome is harsh. As a result of Google's massive investments, no new electricity production is being built in Finland—zero megawatts. The company's marketing department worded it so cleverly that the government, desperately thirsty for economic growth, swallowed the bait completely baffled. The leadership was smilingly taken in front of cameras as a guarantor for a project that will not bring a single new watt to the Finnish grid. The second issue is the hijacking of national base power. This is the real, chilling bomb of the news. Since no new electricity will come, where will these massive data centers draw their power? The answer: from our nuclear power. The analysis reveals that as much as 500 megawatts of Finland's nuclear power capacity is dedicated exclusively to Google until 2050. This nuclear power is not just any electricity. It is precisely that stable, weather-independent base power that is vital for Finland's price stability and security of supply. The government is thus surrendering half a gigawatt of infrastructure intended to safeguard Finnish citizens during cold days to a multinational monopoly for the next quarter century. Thirdly, the master has definitively become a servant. When 500 megawatts of stable nuclear power is tied to Google's inflexible use, and no new capacity is brought in, the mathematical equation is devastating for the Finnish consumer. When a calm cold spell strikes in January, our electricity grid will lack that 500-megawatt lifesaver. It is dedicated to AI computation, and the ordinary Finnish citizen will pay for it with horrendous spikes in market electricity prices and increased transmission fees from Fingrid. The Finnish government allowed a multinational company to blind itself with platitudes and let a foreign entity walk straight into the national switchboard. This is not an investment in Finland. This is a hostile resource grab, which the country's own leadership blessed with a smile, sacrificing the energy security and purchasing power of Finns at the altar of the company's marketing trick. In democracy, there is one simple and ruthless rule: if the highest leadership of the state cannot defend the interests of its own people, it must step aside. Looking at this chain of events and the facts revealed by Talouselämä, the demand for Prime Minister Orpo's resignation is no longer just political shouting. It is the only logical conclusion in a situation where the head of government has shown a total lack of judgment in securing national infrastructure and the economy. The prime minister's job is to be the master in his own country. His task is to sit at the negotiating table, look the world's richest companies in the eye, and say: "This is our grid, our nuclear power, and our nature. You will pay for the infrastructure, you will build the new electricity, and you will pay the royalties here. Otherwise, you can take your servers elsewhere." If the prime minister is not capable of this—if he is so desperate that he can be led by a marketing department's word games like a measuring cup—he does not have the backbone that leading Finland requires in this global squeeze. Then there is only one right action: hand the keys back to the people and resign. #Suomi #politiikka #energiapolitiikka (translated)