Search

Lauri Illukka viewed the National Coalition Party as deserving to be beaten and criticized the party as having become leftist, a so-called right-wing party that had turned its coat, lacking direction and backbone, in his opinion. He asked where the economic balance was and stated that it had not been achieved. Illukka wrote that he no longer recognized the National Coalition Party as his own party and that his political home was therefore in search of a new one. #politiikka #perusasiat #kansalaisaktivismi (translated)

Petteri Vaara criticized the government's decision to grant a 150 million euro tax support to Anglo American's subsidiary, Sakati, through Business Finland. According to him, the value of the metal deposits located in Viiankiaapa in Sodankylä, a Natura 2000 area, was tens of billions of euros: about 15 billion euros for copper and over ten billion euros for nickel, gold, and palladium. Vaara believed that the mining company would receive the extracted metals and the vast majority of the economic benefits, while the risks of the project would remain with nature and taxpayers. Vaara wrote that the state was preparing and partly funding mining projects but handed the responsibility for leading them to multinational companies. He also criticized the National Coalition Party member of parliament, Pia Kauma, who stated that protected nature calmed and comforted people, but metals were needed for batteries and electrical cables. Vaara mentioned that Sakati had met with several ministers, their assistants, and members of parliament and had used consultants from the law firm Borenius. Vaara claimed that 79 percent of Finns opposed mining in nature conservation areas. According to him, the government was pushing for the project to gain the status of an EU strategic raw materials initiative to expedite the permitting process. He also criticized Anglo American's plans to purchase old-growth forests in Inari and to restore drained wetlands to replace Viiankiaapa. Vaara referred to a statement from the Permit and Supervision Agency, which indicated that the actions proposed by the company were insufficient to mitigate the environmental harm of the project as required by the nature directive. https://t.co/spQ6nEoAhG #Suomi #Luonto #Kaivosteollisuus (translated)

Katleena Kortesuo hoped that the editors of the opinions section of Helsingin Sanomat would check the roles and reference groups of the writers so that readers would not have to figure them out themselves. According to her, it would be unfair if a political actor or a representative of an interest group presented themselves as an ordinary citizen. https://t.co/VKj96hbwNm #mielipide #journalismi #politiikka (translated)

Seida Sohrabi wrote that FEMYSO had issued a statement with other NGOs, in which the Islamist resolution was described as a new peak in Islamophobic attacks on civil society. Sohrabi claimed that FEMYSO did not oppose political Islam but labeled the opposition to Islamism as Islamophobia. According to her, the left supported this line, which she termed "useful idiocy." #Islamofobia #PoliittinenIslam #Vasemmistolaisuus (translated)

Jari Mäkäräinen criticized Sanna Ukkola's writing about the Prime Minister's meeting with Imam Sharmarke Said Aw-Mussen. According to Mäkäräinen, Ukkola regarded the meeting as ordinary work and believed that the imam, who was born in Turku, was being asked impossible questions regarding Sharia. Mäkäräinen argued that asking the imam was not a misunderstanding: in his view, the imam left open whether Sharia would be applied in Finland in family or criminal law matters. Mäkäräinen wrote that, according to him, freedom of religion did not justify the establishment of a parallel legal system alongside Finnish laws. He claimed that in Muslim-majority countries, freedom of religion, women's equality, and individual rights were not realized in liberal democracies due to Islamic doctrine and Sharia. He cited Lebanon as an example, where he believed the growth of the Muslim population and political organization undermined previous balance and led to civil war. In France, Sweden, Belgium, and Britain, he mentioned the visibility of parallel societies, honor-based violence, segregation of areas and schools, and pressure to accept practices related to Sharia. In Finland in the 2000s, Mäkäräinen claimed that groups with a Muslim background who had immigrated were connected to the overrepresentation of sexual offenses, unemployment, use of social security, and demands for their own rules. He believed that distinguishing criticism of Islam from calls for deportation did not make questions about Sharia suspect. According to Mäkäräinen, the primacy of the Finnish Constitution and criminal law should be clear in all matters, and Finland did not need to repeat the experiences of countries where the application of Sharia had been tried. https://t.co/bGpZ7VaTux #uskonnonvapaus #integratio #muslimit (translated)

Saara Huhtasaari wrote that Sanna Marin had been in Italy promoting her book and told Corriere della Sera that she would likely not run for office unless Russia attacked Finland. In that case, according to Huhtasaari, Marin would have said she was available. Huhtasaari interpreted the statement as positioning herself rather than expressing a willingness to be a victim. According to her, Marin implied that conventional political work did not match her capabilities and that only a crisis threatening Finland's existence would be a sufficiently significant task. Huhtasaari compared this to the scale of historical leaders such as Kekkonen, Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Lee Kuan Yew, and George Washington, using the metaphor of the "Napoleon syndrome" to describe the phenomenon. She specified that she did not mean it as a diagnosis. Huhtasaari also criticized the contradiction between Marin's book discussing hope and the self-image conveyed in the interview. She argued that the role of politics was to build structures that functioned without a single politician. As examples of such builders, she mentioned Lee Kuan Yew, who influenced Singapore's development, and Mart Laar, who made economic and institutional decisions in post-independence Estonia. Huhtasaari believed that there had not been similar builders in Finland for decades and that Marin did not belong to their ranks. According to Huhtasaari, statesmen did not announce in advance when they would return to politics, but either did their job or stepped aside. She criticized Marin for traveling to present her book, which discussed decisions made behind closed doors, and for associating a potential return with Russia's attack. Huhtasaari described this as a fantasy of seeing herself as a historical exception. #SannaMarin #Politiikka #Historia (translated)

Riku Ranta wrote that he thought Marin would have understood that she had been a good politician for a time and aimed for her own career. According to him, however, Marin seemed to consider herself a wartime stateswoman. https://t.co/lyvYjZbOxh #politiikka #ajatukset #Suomi (translated)

Mari Rantanen wrote to Niilo Heinonen and Otto Juote that, in her opinion, the publication of the list was not a political decision but a decision by the Supo that the KHO had upheld. She criticized the National Coalition Party for being erratic and urged it to stop the "nonsense." #politiikka #Suponpäätös #Suomi (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Volodymyr Zelensky was ready to hold elections in Ukraine if Vladimir Putin agreed to a 60-day ceasefire. Vanhanen noted that this was not a new concession, as Zelensky had made the same proposal in February and required sufficient security guarantees to hold the elections. Vanhanen interpreted the proposal as a message to Donald Trump, who, in his view, had repeatedly questioned Zelensky’s position and called for elections in Ukraine. According to Vanhanen, holding elections would require the United States to get Russia to stop hostilities for a sufficient period. He found it contradictory that Ukraine was being asked to hold elections in the midst of an invasion, while Russia had not agreed to a ceasefire that would allow for it. Vanhanen also pondered how strong Trump’s pressure on Zelensky had become, referring to Trump’s recent statements regarding Ukrainian leadership. He believed that the replacement of the Ukrainian president should not become a substantive goal of peace negotiations, but rather that Ukrainians should choose their own leader. According to Vanhanen, Trump should have used his influence to promote a ceasefire rather than forcing Ukraine to defend the legitimacy of its democracy. #Ukraina #Zelenskyi #Trump (translated)

The day's Bureaucrat described the political situation in the United States as tragicomic. According to him, the Democrats could have won the presidential election by nominating a candidate who was conventional in intellect and demeanor, but they failed to do so. #politiikka #Yhdysvallat #presidentinvaalit (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Donald Trump's Russia policy may not have been guided by a coherent strategy. According to him, Trump made decisions one by one, seeking quick political gains, and then had to fix the consequences. In his assessment, Vanhanen linked Trump's diminished commitment to arming Ukraine, the energy price increases resulting from the war in Iran, and the recent diesel trade with Russia. He believed that trade could bolster the Russian economy and give Vladimir Putin a means to pressure Ukraine into halting strikes on Russia's oil refineries. Vanhanen also criticized Trump for condemning strikes that he claimed weakened Russia's war economy. Vanhanen noted that Trump’s administration had not sought significant new funding from Congress for arming Ukraine. According to him, previously agreed deliveries had continued, and European countries had purchased American weapons for Ukraine. He stated that Trump was not fundamentally on the side of Ukraine or Europe but was primarily pursuing his own interests. According to Vanhanen, Finland's security should not be built on the assumption that there is a plan behind Trump's decisions that would turn in favor of Europe. He urged preparedness for the possibility that U.S. aid could be delayed or smaller than expected, to strengthen the availability of defense equipment and air defense, and to deepen cooperation with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Britain, Poland, and the Baltic countries. He also believed that Europe should be able to support Ukraine and maintain economic pressure on Russia by its own means. #Trump #Venäjä #Ukraina (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that the agreement announced by Donald Trump with Vladimir Putin to bring millions of tons of Russian diesel to the global market would be very bad news for Ukraine. According to Vanhanen, the arrangement would give Russia new opportunities to earn from energy exports, even though its war of aggression in Ukraine would continue. Vanhanen assessed that the agreement could help Russia mitigate the economic impacts of the strikes on Ukraine's oil refineries. He wrote that the strikes had caused problems and fuel shortages for Russia. In his view, facilitating Russia's energy exports would also reduce the pressure on Putin to negotiate an end to the war. Vanhanen considered it possible that the promised deliveries might not materialize, as he claimed Russia's refining capacity had suffered from the strikes. Vanhanen speculated that Trump was aiming for lower fuel prices in the United States before the midterm elections, but questioned the agreement's impact on prices. He also found the political message of the agreement concerning: in his view, the Kremlin could present it as evidence that Russia is not isolated and that the U.S. president is willing to do business with it. According to Vanhanen, the agreement could place Ukraine's strikes on Russia's oil industry in conflict with Washington's fuel price objectives. He urged Europe to prepare for greater responsibility in supporting Ukraine and pressuring Russia, and maintained that Russia's war economy should not be helped to recover. https://t.co/gpRe9acHoW #Ukraina #Venäjä #Trump (translated)

Henri Vanhanen recalled working in the parliament in February 2022 when Russia launched its full-scale attack on Ukraine. According to him, Finland had not yet sent defense aid to Ukraine at that time. Vanhanen stated that he had suggested to the National Coalition Party’s parliamentary group that the government should be required to provide military assistance. Vanhanen wrote that Finland was sending its 35th defense assistance package to Ukraine and had delivered defense materials worth approximately 3.6 billion euros to the country. He described the support as a long-term national commitment that had been continued across government terms and party lines. According to Vanhanen, supporting Ukraine's defense was also necessary for Finland's security. He assessed that the repelled Russian attacks in Ukraine would reduce Russia's ability to threaten other countries in Europe. Vanhanen wrote that Finland's support should continue for as long as it was needed. https://t.co/SGRsbSx53P #Ukraina #Suomi #Puolustusapu (translated)

Arto Koskelo said he wants to see Purra as prime minister. He said he would completely lose faith in humanity if Purra turned out to be a mediocre compromiser in her role, an indifferent politician to her values, who seeks to please an imaginary average. #PurranPääministeri #Politiikka #UskonKysymykset (translated)

Venla Manninen wrote that, in her opinion, there was evidence presented regarding the effects of mass immigration on Western countries and that the situation in Germany, France, and Britain, as well as statistics on sexual crimes, unemployment benefits, prisoners, and gangs could not be ignored. She believed that the differences between parties were evident in how willing they were to address the problems of immigration. According to Manninen, the Finns Party was the only credible party to solve these issues. She criticized the green-left for focusing on multiculturalism and stated that the Social Democrats had voted against nearly all of the government's immigration tightening measures. She also highlighted the border security law, claiming that six social democrats, including the party's vice-chairman, voted against it. Manninen criticized the Centre Party for its lack of direction and noted that the party had announced it was aiming for 40,000 net immigrants per year in this electoral term. She described the National Coalition Party as contradictory: according to her, the party spoke about deporting criminals while simultaneously wanting tens of thousands of immigrants for low-wage jobs. Manninen argued that only a small portion of labor immigrants found employment in jobs requiring special skills and that nearly all directed towards low-wage sectors. Manninen believed that the Finns Party was advancing Finland's and the Finns' interests and dared to say things that, in her opinion, other parties did not acknowledge. However, she pointed out that no party could change laws on its own. She stated that without the Finns Party in government, concrete legislative actions would not be taken to address immigration issues, and instead, tightening measures might be lifted and rules loosened. #maahanmuutto #Suomi #politiikka (translated)

Jussi Korson questioned whether the EU can have a common value base when, according to him, Austria bans political Islam while Finland wants more of it. He referred to an unnamed green politician who had promised champagne when Finland gets a Muslim minister. According to Jussi, attitudes towards political Islam, whether very negative or positive, lead to different outcomes. He asked which country should be kicked out of the EU, Finland or Austria. #EU #poliittinenislam #maahanmuutto (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)