Search

The electricity hunger caused by artificial intelligence has become an unexpected problem for Trump's Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections in the United States, where the impact of data centers on the economy is provoking outrage among citizens. #tekoäly #Yhdysvallat #välivaalit (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that in the United States, Russia was understood more than its own allies, in his opinion. He assessed that Hillary Clinton's words from ten years ago had gained new weight. Vanhanen reminded of the 2018 Helsinki summit, where Trump, in his view, appeared to trust Vladimir Putin's assurances more than the U.S. intelligence community's assessments of Russia's interference in the presidential elections. Vanhanen wrote that Russia had actively sought to promote Trump's victory in the same elections. According to Vanhanen, U.S. Russia policy changed after Trump's return: Russia was once again brought to the center of great power diplomacy, and Washington sought normalization of relations as well as economic arrangements. He also pointed out that the United States voted in 2025 at the UN against a resolution concerning Ukraine alongside Russia and that Putin was welcomed with a red carpet at the Alaska summit while Russia's invasion war continued. Vanhanen assessed that Russia had benefited from political decisions made during Trump's presidency and wrote that the United States was ready to pressure Ukraine. He wondered why Trump spoke warmly of Putin, who in Washington defined the direction of Russia policy, and why Trump occasionally showed more understanding to Putin than to his allies. According to Vanhanen, these decisions could no longer be explained as mere individual blunders or the president's unpredictability. #Trump #Venäjä #Yhdysvallat (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)

Sammallahti wrote that the Finnish left, in his opinion, had remained silent about the riots in France. He claimed that masked antifascists had waved Palestinian flags, set major cities on fire, looted stores, and assaulted bystanders. Sammallahti assessed that the left's reaction would have been stronger if there had been features interpreted as right-wing in the riots. Sammallahti also claimed that in Finland, antifascist actors operated particularly under the protection of the Left Alliance and the Greens, and had organized events such as Kuokkavieraat, Smash ASEM, Kiakkovieraat, and Makasiinimellakat, as well as the Luokkaretki lähiöst linnaan event and the activities of Extinction Rebellion. According to him, the connections of far-left groups to current politics had not been investigated in Finland because there had been no lustration and the media had a sympathetic attitude towards the left. He added that leftist politicians had sometimes carried symbols of violent extremist groups and that some of the event organizers had advanced to influential political positions. Sammallahti hoped that leftist politicians would autonomously condemn the actions of their like-minded peers. He believed that the violence of the far-left should be prevented rather than understood, using soft and, if necessary, hard means. https://t.co/CXoRZ8GE6X https://t.co/YStFgDHL6U https://t.co/6EQpCOTZAo https://t.co/OOq0ayZ4Ou #vasemmisto #mellakat #antifasismi (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that according to The New York Times, Trump's negotiators had suggested increasing the purchase of Russian gas by Europe as a way to get Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine. Vanhanen asked what else the Trump administration could still offer Vladimir Putin. According to Vanhanen, Europe had bought Russian gas worth billions of euros before 2022, but the revenue and influence Russia gained, as well as Europe's energy dependence, did not prevent Putin from invading Ukraine. He believed that Europe had sought to rid itself of Russian energy because the dependency had proven to be a serious geopolitical mistake. Restoring that would, in his view, be a gift to Putin and a setback for European security. Vanhanen wrote that peace could not be built by making war profitable business. He urged Europe to make it clear to Washington that European security and energy policy should not be used as a commodity in negotiations with Putin. https://t.co/c6meL6mr1T #Trump #Putin #energia (translated)

Korson Jussi wrote that he had begun to understand why Finland was, according to him, in a difficult situation. He questioned the implementation of reforms if their effects could not be measured and asked who was responsible for the decisions. He also referred to an assessment stating that nothing could be said for certain in one direction or the other. https://t.co/Xf69SuM4d1 #Suomi #poliitiikka #uudistus (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that he understands Volodymyr Zelensky's frustration with Donald Trump but criticized Europe for not intervening more actively in the negotiations. Vanhanen stated that Ukraine accepted a ceasefire proposed by the United States in the spring of 2025, which Vladimir Putin rejected. According to him, Trump threatened Russia with consequences, invited Putin to Alaska, and continued to seek a deal. Ultimately, according to Vanhanen, Russia's terms for peace were shaped to be acceptable to the Americans, after which Ukraine and European countries had to amend them. Vanhanen compared Putin's negotiation style to the Soviet style, which he associated with Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko: first, a lot is demanded, concessions are rejected, and it is expected that the opposing party will offer more. He assessed that Trump needed a visible agreement more than Putin, which is why, in his opinion, Russia could wait for new initiatives from the United States. Vanhanen criticized Trump for letting Russia's demands influence what Ukraine was pressured to concede. He questioned why Europe had not presented a joint peace proposal with Ukraine or jointly decided how to respond to Russia's next refusal. Vanhanen noted that the United States' influence is undeniable and its participation is necessary, but he believed that Trump should not be given exclusive rights to define the direction of the negotiations. In his opinion, Europe did not need to be ashamed of Trump's lack of historical knowledge or understanding of Russia's negotiating tactics, but Europe's passivity was still harder to defend. https://t.co/qs68FaMyfW #Ukraina #Eurooppa #Trump (translated)

Joakim Vigelius wrote to Pia Kauma that, in his opinion, lowering the distribution obligation could reduce prices by about 15–20 cents without decreasing state tax revenues. He estimated that a similar effect from a tax cut would cost the state one billion euros and considered a package of 60 million euros to be minor in comparison. #verotus #talous #alennus (translated)

Joakim Vigelius asked Pia Kauma whether she had accidentally or deliberately omitted from the quote the information that the effect concerned a reduction of one percentage point. Vigelius wrote that the distribution obligation this year was 19.5 percent and that the proposed reduction was much greater than one percentage point. #tiedonvaihto #politiikka #talous (translated)

Miko Bergbom wrote that he supports lowering the distribution obligation because, in his opinion, its impact on the pump price of fuel is undeniable. He estimated that the reduction would cost the state nothing, but would strengthen public finances through an increase in fuel tax revenue. Bergbom stated that neither he nor the Finns Party as a whole had questioned climate change and accused his discussion partner of inventing new claims as the previous ones, according to him, had lost their basis in reality. #ilmastonmuutos #politiikka #talous (translated)

Jouni Raiskio questioned the calculation stating that a one percentage point change in the distribution obligation would affect pump prices by about 1.3 cents and the average driver's monthly expenses by about one euro. He asked whether the purpose of the calculation was to mislead and noted that the distribution obligation was reported as 19.5 percent in 2026 and 22.5 percent in 2027. According to Raiskio, the calculation only considered a one percentage point change. He urged that the impact of reducing the distribution obligation by 10 or 15 percent should also be calculated. He said he understood that the other party supported the chemical industry's viewpoint and referred to a saying for the National Coalition Party that a person's opinion is influenced by who pays their livelihood. #jakeluvelvoite #pumppuhinnat #autoilu (translated)

Miko Bergbom asked why the person who shared the link had changed its text. According to Bergbom, the text stated that a one percentage point change in the distribution obligation affects pump prices by about 1.3 cents and the monthly expenses of the average driver — 14,000 kilometers per year and consumption of 7 liters per 100 kilometers — by about one euro. He called the alteration of the text a cheap attempt to mislead people. #politiikka #talous #autoilu (translated)

Saara Huhtasaari criticized Petteri Orpo's presentation of the National Coalition's 60 million euro fuel package and wrote that it would not lower the pump price of gasoline or diesel. She reported that Orpo had accused the Finns Party of stalling the package, to which Riikka Purra responded that it contained no measures to reduce pump prices. Huhtasaari agreed with Purra's assessment. According to Huhtasaari, road traffic in Finland consumed about 3.3–3.5 billion liters of fuel annually. If 60 million euros were distributed evenly, it would mean less than two cents per liter, she estimated. However, in her view, the package was targeted at commuting tax deductions and professional transport, and it would not be reflected in the filling station bill of an average motorist. Huhtasaari wrote that the pump price could be lowered by temporarily easing the distribution obligation or reducing fuel taxation. According to her, Purra and the Finns Party had proposed easing the distribution obligation, but the National Coalition and RKP did not support either measure. She criticized the package as a constructed image before the elections and claimed that the National Coalition was not ready to make decisions that would actually lower the price of fuel. #polttoaineet #suomi (translated)

Otto Eriksson wrote that the impact of the gasoline package proposed by the National Coalition Party on fuel prices and people's daily lives would remain very minor, in his opinion. He believed that this was why no agreement was reached, and he claimed that Finnish drivers did not matter much as long as the climate was saved. https://t.co/d11FlshhWe #polttoaine #ilmasto #autoilu (translated)

Henri Vanhanen criticized Rosatom's leadership and wrote that the company's arrogance seemed to have no limits. According to him, as Russia commenced the largest invasion of Europe since World War II, the head of the state-owned company responsible for Russia's nuclear weapons program had stated that he expected Finland's "special behavior" to end and the country to return to the Hanhikivi nuclear power project. Vanhanen believed that Finland would no longer negotiate strategic dependencies on the Kremlin's terms. He described the Hanhikivi project as a cautionary example of Russia's efforts to bind Finland's critical infrastructure to its influence for decades. According to Vanhanen, Finland's energy policy should no longer give the Kremlin leverage over the country's security, and Finland's stance or decision not to return to the project with Russia would not change. https://t.co/v2qPS0PMHs #Suomi #Venäjä #ydinenergia (translated)

Mika Treuthardt wrote that he generally did not comment on it if someone blocked him, as he considered it each person's own choice. He stated that Sanna U had decided to remove him from her sphere of influence. Treuthardt referred to sayings about the moment of reckoning and the truth coming to light, and assessed that the facts he mentioned would become clear to Sanna U sooner or later, likely soon. #vapaaehtoisuus #totuus #sosiaalinenmedia (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)