Finland Shifts Stance on EU Joint Debt Amid Growing Defense and Ukraine Support Needs

As the United States grapples with the turbulence following the rise of a new administration, the European Union's role in supporting Ukraine is becoming increasingly significant. For this reason, the Finnish government is shifting its stance on EU joint debt, becoming more favorable toward it—provided it is used specifically for aiding Ukraine and strengthening collective defense.

As a sign of this shift, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party) reiterated this position on Monday upon arriving at an informal EU defense meeting in Brussels. According to him, the guiding principle of joint debt should be that investments in defense must be based on necessity and threat assessments.

To clarify his stance, he stated that “those funds should be used where Europe is being defended. In that case, Finland must clearly be among the beneficiaries.”

Additionally, Finland, along with nearly all EU member states, proposed that the European Investment Bank (EIB) should increase its financing for the European defense industry. In practice, this would mean reassessing the EIB's so-called "excluded sectors" list to align with the EU's current political priorities. This adjustment would allow the EIB to finance traditional defense industries in the future.

One point of contention has also been where defense procurements should be made. As always, France—keen to favor its domestic industry—wants EU defense acquisitions funded by joint resources to be sourced from European markets.

However, Finland’s prime minister noted that Europe’s defense needs are so vast that there will be enough demand to support both France’s and Finland’s defense industries. Furthermore, he emphasized that it would neither be reasonable nor even possible for the EU to detach itself from the United States, given that American defense systems are highly advanced and will continue to be necessary.

It remains to be seen whether Orpo’s well-argued positions will gain traction within the Union. At present, Hungary and Austria oppose them, and many other countries—such as France—are waiting for more details before taking a final stance.

That said, Europe does not have the luxury of time. Decisions must be made immediately regarding Ukraine and, as soon as possible, to enhance the EU’s overall defense readiness. At the same time, efforts must be made to prevent the trade war threatened by Donald Trump from disrupting transatlantic economic and technological cooperation—or, more critically, NATO’s ability to operate effectively wherever necessary.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland and the USA: Strong Allies with Shared Interests or a Trade Dispute?
Finnish Minister Riikka Purra: “Putin Is a War Criminal, an Aggressive Imperialist”
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization

Finland and the USA: Strong Allies with Shared Interests or a Trade Dispute?

Finland has always had excellent relations with the USA. As a sign of this, President Alexander Stubb has refrained from criticizing Donald Trump’s administration and has instead sought to understand its actions—even to the extent that some have speculated he is overly deferential to it.

There is, of course, an excellent explanation for Stubb’s and Finland’s approach: as a neighbor of Russia—and following the era of Finlandization, when the country had to be cautious in its dealings with the Soviet Union—Finland is now heavily dependent on NATO and, consequently, the USA to guarantee its military security. Nevertheless, Finland will remain a state governed by the rule of law, firmly committed to defending the inviolability of national borders against all major powers. This applies to Denmark as well.

In this context, it is extremely unfortunate that President Trump is threatening the EU—and, by extension, Finland—with trade tariffs that would hinder transatlantic commerce. Such measures would be particularly harmful to open economies like Finland’s, whose prosperity relies heavily on foreign trade. It would not be beneficial for the United States either, as it could negatively impact the very positive attitude that Finns generally have toward Americans.

It remains to be seen whether Trump and his administration understand this and seek to balance trade between the USA and the EU through other means. Moreover, in the end, high US tariffs would be paid by ordinary American voters, which is unlikely to increase Trump’s popularity in his own country.

After all, there are plenty of people in the US who struggle to cover their daily expenses. And they certainly did not vote for Trump so that he would plunge their personal finances into even greater hardship.

* * *

Finally, I would like to share a message with my American readers from my country’s Minister for Foreign Trade, Wille Rydman (Finns Party). At the end of last week, he made the following remarks:

"The United States has been focused on utilizing Alaska’s mineral resources. Here, Finland’s world-class geological expertise can offer significant contributions. The U.S. plans for Alaska have also emphasized the development of basic infrastructure, particularly in telecommunications, an area where Finland has strong capabilities."

"The U.S. has also prioritized improving its situational awareness in the Arctic. There is room for development in sensor technology, measurement and monitoring systems, and the utilization of space technology. Finland has expertise in all these fields."

"We are working to open markets through ICE Pact cooperation, which could allow Finnish shipyards to contribute their capacity to icebreaker construction. North America faces a shortage of shipbuilding capacity, making this a fantastic opportunity for our shipyards... We have the knowledge and capability to build the best icebreakers quickly and at a competitive price. Finnish maritime industry companies have supplied icebreaking technology for the most powerful polar icebreakers, Baltic Sea escort icebreakers, as well as smaller river and port icebreakers. Our expertise is extensive, and the industry operates on a global scale."

I sincerely hope that these considerations reach President Trump’s administration and encourage it to foster cooperation between Finland and the EU—natural allies of the United States—rather than risk a trade war that would harm all parties involved.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Trump’s Tariff Weapon Worked, but Will Finland’s Development Aid Strategy Succeed?
Putin, Trump, and the Prospect of Peace
Greenland's Future: A Battleground of Global Powers?

Who Tried to Abduct a Two-Year-Old Child from Their Grandmother?

An unknown man attempted to abduct a two-year-old child from the child’s grandmother in Helsinki, Finland. The child had been sitting on a bench at the railway station until the grandmother noticed the man's intentions and quickly took the child into her arms.

After his failed attempt, the man fled the scene, and the police patrol that arrived was unable to locate him. However, a description of the suspect was obtained, and he was captured on surveillance cameras.

The suspect is estimated to be around 170 cm tall, of average build, and a young man dressed in dark athletic clothing, a black jacket, and Adidas tracksuit pants. A distinctive feature was his bob haircut.

Each of you can also reflect on the skin color and religion of the person who attempted to abduct the baby based on these characteristics, even though they were not mentioned in the news. As a hint for this reflection, I will tell you that the average height of young Finnish men is over 180 cm and their eye color is usually blue.

After reflecting on this, dear readers, you may also consider which area of politics is relevant in this (and many other) cases. And what could be done about it in Finland and other Western countries?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Police Ban Public Fight Between Neo-Nazis and Street Gangs in Finland
Immigrants, Gangs, Decisions, and Self-Interest
Is the UK's Democracy Facing an Existential Crisis?

Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine

Finland’s military self-sufficiency is increasing as a factory for producing TNT explosives is being built on the country’s western coast. This initiative also aims to address the shortage of explosives affecting Europe and the resulting problems in ammunition production. According to Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen (National Coalition Party), "the investment also enables the continued long-term support for Ukraine."

The factory will be the second large production facility in the EU for TNT explosives used in artillery and mortar shells, as currently, the only such facility is in Poland. Additionally, there is small-scale production in Serbia.

The project is being carried out by the Finnish explosives manufacturer Forcit, which expects production to begin in 2028. However, the initiative involves cooperation with Finland’s defense administration, authorities, and local communities. 

Its impact on Finland’s and Europe’s defense capabilities, military security of supply, and employment will be significant. No wonder Finland’s defense minister was excited about it.

* * *

Also, another interesting military news story was published today. According to it, Finland will deliver a defense equipment package worth nearly 200 million euros to Ukraine. The contents of the package have been planned in cooperation with the Ukrainians, taking into account both Ukraine’s needs and the Finnish Defense Forces’ resource situation. Beyond this, no further details about the package will be disclosed, as the information could also reach the Russians.

According to the Defense Minister, "We are providing exactly the kind of support that helps Ukraine defend itself in the acute situation on the front lines. Our resolve must not weaken—on the contrary, at this moment, support must be further strengthened."

This is easy to agree with. And one can only hope that other Western countries will also do their best to support Ukraine so that Russia, too, learns that it will not achieve its goals through military force but only destroy the future of its own society.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?
Rediscovered Relics: The Story Behind Finland's WWII Weapon Caches
A factory of five billion mosquitoes

The Swedish Immigration Catastrophe – A Cautionary Tale

Sweden has long been plagued by crime and violence perpetrated by immigrant-background gangs. However, since the turn of the year, this phenomenon has intensified even further, with more than 30 bomb attacks carried out since New Year's, most—if not all—of which are linked to disputes between criminal gangs.

As a result of all this, the country's Prime Minister, Ulf Kristersson (Moderates), has stated that "yet another wave of violence is underway, that is clear. Bombings are happening practically every day; on the other hand, fatal shootings have decreased. But before this is resolved, the entire 2020s will pass by."

He also admitted that "we are clearly unable to control this wave of violence right now." And the problems are only exacerbated by the fact that the uncle of a Kurdish-background gangster has been murdered, which is likely to escalate the violence even further in the coming weeks and months.

All of this should be carefully noted in other Western countries that practice so-called humanitarian immigration. The intention may, of course, be excellent, but as Sweden’s example shows, the danger is that sooner or later, it could lead to a complete disaster.

One indication of this is the violent suppression of freedom of speech. One of its literal embodiments was the murder, carried out last night by gunfire, of Salwan Momika, an Iraqi-born man known for burning Qurans in protest against the rise of Islam in Sweden.

* * *

Finland has closely followed Sweden’s struggle against immigrant-background crime and has taken lessons from it. As a sign of this, the Finnish government has proposed changes to the criminal code to impose harsher penalties for crimes committed by street gangs and for acts of humiliation violence.

Additionally, the use of a child below the age of criminal responsibility to commit a crime would be explicitly criminalized and punished more severely. This proposal has been driven by the fact that in Sweden, gangs lure preteen into carrying out violent acts they deem necessary, as these minors are not legally accountable due to the age threshold.

One can only hope that these proposals will pass in Parliament. If they do, implementing Swedish gang tactics in Finland will become more difficult—or may not happen at all.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Murder in a Well-Known Finnish Immigrant Neighborhood
Nordic Police Announce: Spread of Gang Violence Cannot Be Stopped
Managing Societal Change with a Growing Muslim Population

Javier Milei and the Great Western Opportunity

The President of Argentina, Javier Milei, criticized phenomena related to feminism, DEI principles, environmental radicalism, and gender ideology at the World Economic Forum meeting. He described mass immigration and the cultural shame of Western nations as self-destructive and called for a historical shift in the West.

By this, he primarily referred to traditional Western values, such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity. In contrast, he viewed their recent challengers—woke ideology and state interventionism—as questionable and as the root causes of the West’s current problems, arguing that they rely on collectivist ideology and work against individual liberty.

Instead of contemporary value liberalism, Milei identified the pillars of Western civilization as respect for freedom and private property, a free market economy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. He stated that these values inherently include personal responsibility for one’s livelihood, equality before the law, and equality of opportunity.

According to the Argentine president, each fundamental pillar of our civilization has been replaced with a distorted version of itself, leading to a situation where luxuries acquired at the expense of others have become human rights, and institutions have taken on the role of punishing dissenting opinions.

Thus, in Milei’s view, the DEI movement, immigration, environmental radicalism, and gender ideology serve only the expansion of the state and distort Western ideals. Feminism and gender ideology, he argued, have become detached from equality and now promote a struggle between the sexes instead of advocating for the equal treatment of men and women.

He also questioned why Westerners today see themselves as responsible for all the world’s evils and believe they must atone by opening their borders to everyone—even if this leads to reverse colonialism and the collective suicide of Western nations.

In the short term, the primary beneficiaries of this development are political movements that push a distorted worldview, but ultimately, they too will collapse as societies crumble.

* * *

According to Milei, we are now at a turning point, where a historic opportunity for great change is emerging. It remains to be seen whether the West will seize this opportunity.

Winds of change have already swept through Milei’s Argentina, my home country of Finland, Italy, and the USA. Next, it will be up to the German people, who will elect a new parliament on February 23.

At the moment, it appears that the election in Germany will be won by AfD and CDU/CSU, with the former in particular aligning closely with Milei’s stance on immigration. Meanwhile, the green-left coalition advocating progressive liberal values seems poised for a crushing defeat.

It remains to be seen whether change will take place in Germany and across the West. And even if it does, will the people push this transformation far into the future, or will the 2020s be remembered as just another fleeting anomaly on the path of Western decline—much like the era of Constantine the Great in Roman history?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Friedrich Merz Needs the AfD – A Precedent from Finland
Prediction: Sharia law in force in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France by the year 2044
A white family does not represent real Londoners

Criminals in the Holy Land, El Salvador, and Ukraine

Israel has agreed to release 200 Palestinian criminals for every four of its citizens who were taken hostage in October 2023. Among the recently released Palestinian prisoners were 120 individuals who had been sentenced to life imprisonment.

It remains to be seen whether these individuals will return to criminal activities after their release. And if they do, how many Israeli lives it will cost.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump has arranged for the deportation of criminals who are in the country illegally—regardless of their nationality—to El Salvador. There, the country is governed by a Palestinian-descended president, Nayib Bukele, who has used tough measures to pacify a nation that was once a playground for violent criminal organizations.

In this case, it remains to be seen how Bukele’s administration will respond if the criminals sent by the U.S. start causing trouble in their new home country. Or will it happen that the newcomers, aware of the Salvadoran government’s strict policies, stay as quiet as—according to a Finnish saying—a "pee in a sock." 

In addition to these two cases, I noticed that Israel's leadership plans to deliver weapons captured as war spoils from Hezbollah to the Ukrainians. These include Kornet anti-tank weapons, which are considered highly effective.

If and when this is the case, I won’t speculate on what they will be used for. Instead, I’ll simply note that criminal Russian invaders will get a hefty taste of their own medicine. And I’m not sorry about it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:

Trump’s Tariff Weapon Worked, but Will Finland’s Development Aid Strategy Succeed?
Questions to the Winners of the Gaza War
The Responsibility for Their People's Future Now Lies with Palestinian Leaders

Trump’s Tariff Weapon Worked, but Will Finland’s Development Aid Strategy Succeed?

The leftist government of Colombia decided not to accept undocumented immigrants deported by the United States. As a result, President Donald Trump threatened the country with tariff increases: first to 25 percent and later to 50 percent.

This strategy worked, and Colombia's President Gustavo Petro reversed his decision, agreeing to accept its citizens. It remains to be seen whether any other country will refuse to take back its citizens if the U.S. deports them.

At the moment, however, it seems clear that Trump will not back down on this issue. The scope of the challenge is enormous, as millions or even tens of millions of people currently live and work in the U.S. doing low-wage jobs after arriving from developing countries in search of a higher standard of living.

This means that many individuals and businesses depend on undocumented labor. The big question, therefore, is how this labor will be replaced—if it is even possible. And if it is not, what will follow?

* * *

Finland also has a significant number of immigrants. Among them, those who have primarily arrived as refugees from North Africa and the Middle East have both struggled with employment and committed a disproportionately high number of crimes. In contrast, e.g. Ukrainians, Russians, Indians, Chinese, and Vietnamese are considered desirable and legal labor.

This is likely one reason why Finland is tightening the criteria for humanitarian immigration and aiming to remove undocumented individuals as well as foreign nationals who have committed crimes. As a small country, Finland does not have access to Trump’s “tariff weapon,” but by cutting development aid to uncooperative countries, it hopes to achieve the same result.

It remains to be seen, however, whether this “development aid weapon” will be as effective as Trump’s “tariff weapon.” Or will Finland have to develop additional measures before it can rid itself of unwanted individuals from developing countries?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Greenland's Future: A Battleground of Global Powers?
Finnish Immigration Policy Aims to Maximize Benefits and Minimize Drawbacks
Finland Suspends Development Cooperation with Somalia

Russia to Triple Its Military Presence on Finland’s Border

According to a report by Finnish military intelligence, Russia is set to triple the number of its troops stationed near Finland’s borders after the war in Ukraine ends. It is doing so because Putin’s military prioritizes its northwestern direction – essentially the area near Finland – highly in its strategic considerations.

The military intelligence assessment suggests that the number of Russian troops in the region will increase from around 30,000 combatants to an estimated 80,000 soldiers. At the same time, Russia’s behavior is “likely to become increasingly unpredictable” as Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has severed Russia’s ties with the global economy.

As a result of all this, the border region between Finland and Russia will become “tense.” Naturally, this poses a significant challenge – and risk – to Finnish society as a whole and its independence.

For this reason, it is good that Finland’s Defense Forces have been working to integrate into NATO as quickly as possible, enabling Finland to rely on NATO’s support when necessary and to fully utilize its resources. It would also be beneficial if this were understood in Russia so that they would refrain from any aggression along their northwestern border.

This would also be in Russia’s own interest, as it is clear that its army would face significant challenges in an attack on Finland, especially given the difficulties it has already faced in Ukraine. Finland’s military is far better equipped than Ukraine’s, the size of its reserves is exceptionally high due to compulsory military service, the Finnish people’s will to defend their country is the highest in the world, and all of this is backed by the United States-led world’s strongest military alliance.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors
Ukraine Plans to Recruit 160,000 Soldiers, but Will It Turn the Tide of the War?
Finnish military intelligence: the Russian army is at the limits of its operational capability

Putin, Trump, and the Prospect of Peace

President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, suggested recently that peace between Ukraine and Russia could be achieved in less than six months. This is because Russia’s economy is currently in a rather dire situation.

The situation in Russia is not helped by the fact that Donald Trump, the newly elected President of the United States, aims to lower global oil prices. This would further diminish the revenue available to Putin’s dictatorship. Most importantly, it would lower the standard of living for people living in Russia, potentially increasing their opposition to the war and even leading to rapid radicalization.

One can look to Russia’s own history for parallels in this matter—specifically the February and October Revolutions.

In the former case, the public’s dissatisfaction with Russia’s losses in war (during World War I) led to power being transferred from the Tsar to the Mensheviks. However, the Mensheviks continued the war, which prolonged the burdens it inflicted on the population. Additionally, the government’s actions caused rapid inflation, making it unprofitable for peasants to sell grain to the cities.

As a result, food supply in urban areas worsened continuously, while living costs rose rapidly, and unemployment began to increase. Ultimately, the Bolsheviks launched another revolution, taking control by promising work and bread—and an end to the war that was devastating the population.

* * *

All of this is undoubtedly known to both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. This is why the former has good reasons to carefully listen to what the newly elected U.S. president offers him.

It is also worth noting that if a significant portion of the Russian population turns against the war, the situation will become untenable for Putin, much like what happened to the Germans at the end of World War I. At that time, a revolution began in the navy and quickly spread among the people.

In Germany, too, the rebellion was fueled by war fatigue and economic difficulties. The difference compared to Russia was in the outcome—Germany avoided the yoke of socialism, and the deposed Kaiser survived, unlike in Russia.

The question remains whether President Stubb is correct—can Donald Trump push Putin into a corner from which there is no way out other than agreeing to peace? It will also be interesting to see what terms are set for peace.

In this regard, the Russian revolutions of 1917 and the German revolution of 1918 provide fascinating points of comparison. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia’s territory was significantly reduced as several states—including Finland—gained independence. Similarly, Germany lost territory as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I.

* * *

It remains to be seen, however, whether Trump is willing to push Putin’s Russia into a position as desperate as that of the Tsarist Empire in 1917, forcing it to withdraw entirely from Ukraine. Or will he ultimately offer Putin an opportunity to retain at least part of the territory he seized in and after 2014?

If it is true, as Trump has claimed, that Ukraine is ready to “make a deal,” the terms are unlikely to be favorable for Putin. And they will certainly not improve if Russian public support for the war vanishes.

And what about Putin’s own position? If and when he is forced to negotiate a peace that is a loss for Russia, will he suffer the same fate as the Russian Tsar or the German Kaiser in the revolutions of just over a century ago? Or will he somehow manage to retain his grip on power?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors
Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?

Friedrich Merz Needs the AfD – A Precedent from Finland

Germany's likely future chancellor, Friedrich Merz (CDU), has promised to implement significant changes to the country's immigration and asylum policies on his very first day in office. From that moment on, entry to Germany will be prohibited for anyone who does not possess valid travel documents or the European freedom of movement—this includes those seeking asylum.

According to Merz, "The state must utilize old barracks and container villages located on isolated properties to house individuals designated for deportation. Deportations of those who entered illegally must be carried out daily. The powers of the federal police responsible for border control will be expanded."

This stance comes in the wake of recent terrorist acts in Germany, the latest of which involved an Afghan illegal immigrant who killed two children with a knife. This individual had been ordered to leave Germany long ago. Merz stated that these knife attacks are a direct consequence of asylum and immigration policies pursued in Germany over the past ten years.

* * *

It remains to be seen, however, whether Merz will follow through on these promises. First, he must win the upcoming elections, and second, he must find a coalition partner. In practice, this would mean that—if Merz sticks to his current promises—the AfD (Alternative for Germany) would need to be brought into the government. This would not be possible unless the two parties secure a majority in the national parliament, as none of the other parties would accept collaboration with the AfD.

At the moment, however, the situation looks promising for Merz. According to polls, the CDU/CSU is projected to win just over 30% of the vote, while the AfD is expected to gain over 20%. In other words, they could govern Germany together.

* * *

The situation bears some resemblance to Finland, where the government is also based on cooperation between an established conservative party (the National Coalition Party) and a value-conservative party (the Finns Party), which has risen to prominence through its criticism of immigration policies. However, the difference is that Finland's government also includes significantly smaller, traditional right-wing parties (the Christian Democrats and the Swedish People's Party).

It should also be noted that Finns Party, apart from its stance on immigration, is a fairly typical conservative party. For instance, Finance Minister Riikka Purra has even pushed more strongly than other government members to balance the state budget by cutting funding for public services. The party was also the first in Finland to clearly recognize the threat posed by Putin's Russia and, as a result, began strongly supporting Ukraine long ago.

By contrast, there are greater differences between the AfD and Germany's Christian Democrats, particularly regarding Russia. The former seems entirely naïve about the threat posed by Russia. Cooperation in government could also be complicated by some AfD members' negative attitude toward Jews, and the AfD's social-populist policies might not resonate well with the Christian Democrats.

The fact remains, however, that in both Finland and Germany, political parties have their differences, but despite these, they must be able to form a common government program. If the CDU/CSU and AfD succeed in doing so, they could govern Germany together in the coming years—and in doing so, they could set an example for the rest of Europe, particularly in rationalizing immigration and asylum policies.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges
Why It’s Crucial for Germans to Vote Wisely

Why Does the Political Green-Left Lie, and Why Does It Resonate with the People?

Today we saw a textbook example of the rhetoric employed by the political green-left. This concerns the chair of the Green Party, Sofia Virta (Green), who commented on Prime Minister Petteri Orpo's (NCP) statement that the Finnish right wing government will not cut state spending beyond the previously decided nine billion euros.

Virta claimed that "this is purely an election speech" and suggested that the government would resume making spending cuts immediately after the county elections and municipal elections in April. She was supported in this by the chair of the Green Party's parliamentary group, Oras Tynkkynen, who speculated that "if the main government parties go into these elections without revealing everything about the policies they plan to pursue in the coming years, it is problematic for democracy."

Virta also made another odd comment. She claimed that Orpo's statements contradict earlier comments by Minister of Finance Riikka Purra (Finns Party) regarding budget cuts. This was based on a Green Party press release that alleged the Finance Minister had stated in December that further cuts would be needed in the spring budget negotiations.

In reality, however, Purra did not say this. She had earlier noted that additional savings could be made in the spring if necessary but recently added that "this political coalition does not appear to have the capability to identify significantly more savings."

The comments by the Greens and their leaders are an unfortunate example of a phenomenon that has become increasingly common in green-left rhetoric in recent years: outright lying to voters. 

The most striking example of this was seen a few years ago, when the then-chair of the Left Alliance's parliamentary group, Paavo Arhinmäki, told voters that the state never has to repay its debts and emphasized that Finland barely pays any interest on them. The truth, however, is that the Finnish government paid as much as 3 billion euros in interest alone in 2024, meaning that a third of the savings previously made by the state administration was spent solely on that.

However, there’s no need to wonder about the Greens' and the broader green-left's comments, as they have recently helped to boost their support. This is evident in the latest party approval poll, which indicates that the combined support for the governing coalition parties has dropped to 42.4%.

For this reason, rational people should focus less on the green-left’s rhetoric and more on their supporters. In other words, we must try to understand why they allow themselves to be swayed by deceptive rhetoric and, after enlightenment, address the problem one way or another.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Green Movement of Finland is Lost
The stabbing of the 12-year-old led to political revelry among the left in Finland
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics

Finnish Trans Woman Speaks Out on Transgender Rights in Sports

In the United States, one of Donald Trump’s goals is to ban trans women from women’s sports. The issue is real, as demonstrated by last summer’s boxing matches at the Paris Olympics, where men won two women’s Olympic gold medals.

In this context, it was interesting to notice that a Finnish trans woman and former national-level high jumper, Jade Nyström, has taken a stand on the matter. And it has nothing to do with DEI or wokeness.

Nyström stated, “I fully support the idea that, in my opinion, biological men who are trans women should not compete in women’s categories... There’s a very clear advantage they gain. Hormone therapy alone does not change the entire person, especially if they’ve gone through puberty in their biological sex. It’s not fair to switch competition categories at that stage. This is not about discrimination or taking away rights – it’s more about realism.”

He also expressed a wish: “At the very least, I hope this moves in a direction where the sports of biological women are not ruined. This is not about discriminating against or taking rights away from trans women; it’s more about thinking rationally... I’m not going to switch to the women’s category because I think it would be unfair, and it wouldn’t feel right for me personally.”

It would be wonderful if the perspective of this Finnish athlete gained worldwide recognition. And if its inherent wisdom were understood by international sports leaders, including those at the International Olympic Committee.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Homosexual Rape Underscores the Need for Change in Immigration Policy
Everyone has the right
Mistreatment of Women at the Olympics?

Acts of Vandalism Against a Political Party

Societal polarization is increasing around the world. Unfortunately, the same trend can be seen in Finland.

One recent example of this was an act of vandalism targeting the office of a Finnish governing party, the Finns Party, in Finland's fifth-largest city, Turku. The party's local leader reported that "at around 1:30 AM, two individuals dressed in black with hoods over their heads threw rocks and pieces of concrete at the office window dozens of times."

The rocks pierced the newly installed triple-glazed window, but the perpetrators did not gain entry. However, they left a message on the window containing a grammatical error: "rasisti pellet" (racist clowns).

The same party office has been the target of vandalism before. According to the local leader, "almost every month we experience some kind of graffiti or written messages."

He also rightly stated that "all political parties should condemn such actions. This kind of behavior has no place in Finnish society or politics. Regardless of one’s opinion, it should be possible to engage in politics safely."

The Finns Party’s secretary, for his part, stated that "a police report will be filed regarding the incident. For now, we will let the police do their job and hope the perpetrators are caught." This is the third police report concerning acts of vandalism against this particular office in this decade.

I would also add that I personally expect our country's most prominent media outlets—Yleisradio (the Finnish Broadcasting Company) and Helsingin Sanomat—to clearly and unequivocally condemn this act in their editorials. These outlets have often written very negatively about the party now targeted by vandalism, which has likely not discouraged those inclined toward such actions. This is an excellent opportunity to correct that mistake.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Over a Hundred Child Abusers Caught, and the Far-Left's Paavo Arhinmäki Gains Followers in Finland
The demands of the vandals
Is the Finnish left-wing radicalizing?

Why Is the Case of Issam Rafil, Convicted of a Sexual Offense in Finland, Important for Britain?

I begin this text with a court decision that I hope will gain attention in Britain, particularly at 10 Downing Street. The quote is from Finland's largest daily newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, and reads as follows: "Helsinki District Court sentenced Issam Rafil, born in 1984, to three years and four months in prison for two rapes."

I mention this because, although such crimes—occurring with increasing frequency—are often left unspoken in Finland, they occasionally make their way into the country's leading media outlets. This was also the case with the aforementioned rapist. In this matter, the real winner is, above all, freedom of speech, which the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has recently sought to curtail (see also this text).

More generally, Finland finds itself in a difficult position as sexual crimes are rising rapidly. According to the country's statistics agency, approximately 6,700 sexual offenses were reported between January and September 2024. Of these, around 1,400 were classified as rapes under the new sexual offense law, marking a 40% increase compared to the previous year.

According to a police inspector, the high numbers can partly be explained by the fact that sexual crimes occurring online easily create spikes in police statistics. On the internet, the number of victims can quickly rise to hundreds.

I believe this explanation is accurate. Nevertheless, I also think that certain cultural factors play a role in this issue. For this reason, I find it highly necessary that Petteri Orpo's government program for 2024–2027 includes as many as 32 measures. These include learning the Finnish language, gaining employment, familiarizing oneself with Finnish society, and learning to adhere to its rules. In relation to the theme I am addressing here, the last of these is the most important.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges
Finnish Immigration Policy Aims to Maximize Benefits and Minimize Drawbacks
The UK Prime Minister Took a One-Sided Stance on the Country's Protests

Are We on the Brink of World War III?

The Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), has given an interview in which he has, so to speak, painted devils on the wall. In other words, he has expressed fears that the Third World War may already be underway, but people are unwilling to recognize it.

According to him, the current situation is similar to the one leading up to the Second World War in the late 1930s. Therefore, I thought I would remind you, dear readers, of what happened back then.

* * *

One of the causes of the Second World War is considered to be the Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed after the First World War. Its terms were regarded as overly harsh in Germany. After all, German soldiers had still occupied enemy territories in both the east and the west at the end of the war, unlike at the conclusion of the Second World War.

In addition to territorial losses, Germany’s military was drastically reduced. However, Hitler disregarded this and began rebuilding his country's military strength in the mid-1930s. This went unchallenged; for example, Britain signed a naval agreement with Germany, allowing its navy to be 35% the size of Britain’s own – then the most powerful in the world.

The Second World War was preceded by the Spanish Civil War, which ended with General Francisco Franco coming to power by overthrowing the democratically elected left-wing government. In this conflict, Germany and Italy supported Franco, while the Soviet Union backed the Republicans. This war provided an opportunity for these powers to test their weaponry and assess their military needs.

In 1936, Hitler capitalized on Germany's increased military strength by remilitarizing the demilitarized Rhineland. France protested, but Britain accepted the action, and no military threat was posed to Germany. Instead, Hitler orchestrated a "referendum" in the Rhineland, where 98.8% of those who voted supported his actions.

Hitler also engineered Austria's annexation into Germany, despite this being prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles. He received support from Italy for this move.

Some Austrians opposed the loss of independence and organized protests. However, these ended when Austrian Interior Minister Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who facilitated the unification, invited Hitler's army to restore order.

The next step in Hitler’s march towards war was the annexation of the Sudetenland, the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia. The Czechs wanted to defend themselves, but their allies, France and the Soviet Union, refused to assist them. Thus, the issue was resolved through the Munich Agreement, led by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, which granted the Sudetenland to Germany.

After acquiring the Sudetenland, Hitler annexed the Czech region outright and reduced Slovakia to a puppet state. Shortly thereafter, Hungary annexed the Hungarian-speaking areas of Slovakia.

Following these events, Hitler demanded the transfer of Memel (now Klaipėda) to Germany. Once again, the victim, Lithuania, sought help from foreign powers, but assistance was denied.

It should also be remembered that before the Second World War, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Eastern Europe between them. Under this agreement, Hitler invaded Poland in early September 1939, and the Soviet Union occupied the eastern part of the country.

As a result, France and Britain eventually declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union. Thus, the Second World War had begun, even though little fighting occurred along the German-French border until May 1940. Before that, Hitler had already occupied Denmark and advanced into northern Norway, prompting a response from France and Britain – though, at this stage, they suffered defeats.

* * *

If we examine the events I described earlier in light of Halla-aho’s perspective, we can make the following observations.

Firstly, it seems that Putin views the collapse of the Soviet Union as a comparable event to the Treaty of Versailles for Germany. After all, Russia lost a vast portion of the territories it controlled, from the Baltic states to the newly independent nations of Central Asia.

Russia’s actions in Syria were successful and undoubtedly reinforced Putin’s perception of the effectiveness of his military, much like the Spanish Civil War shaped the views of Hitler and Mussolini. However, unlike Hitler’s army, Putin’s forces have not been able to use their experiences in Syria to improve their available weaponry. A particularly striking example of this is the widely advertised Armata tank, which has proven incapable of participating in the war in Ukraine despite being a flagship product of Russia’s defense industry.

We have yet to see an event analogous to the unification of Austria and Germany, but the recent discussions surrounding Belarus being integrated into Russia would correspond quite closely. Additionally, it seems to me that Russia’s annexation of Crimea mirrors the events in Czechoslovakia in 1938: Ukraine wanted to fight, but Western nations at the time denied it military support and left it just as isolated as Czechoslovakia had been.

Furthermore, parts of occupied Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk) were, for a time, turned into puppet states of Russia, much like Hitler had done with Slovakia. The West sought to legitimize all this through the so-called Minsk Agreement, which closely parallels the Munich Agreement of 1938, which sealed Czechoslovakia’s fate.

Hitler’s invasion of Poland can, of course, be quite effectively compared to Ukraine’s situation from 2022 onward. Western nations have not declared war on Russia, but then again, the Western Front of 1939 didn’t see much actual fighting either.

However, Western countries are providing Ukrainians with some military aid, which—alongside the courage of the Ukrainians themselves—has enabled them to defend their country, though not to drive the aggressor out entirely. Poland, on the other hand, received no such support during the rapidly progressing war and wasn’t even provided with weapons in time.

* * *

And is there a modern-day Chamberlain and a 1930s-style Britain? Isn’t this self-evident?

What else are we to think of Germany’s Olaf Scholz, who has done his utmost to minimize military aid to Ukraine, thereby playing into Russia’s hands in much the same way as Britain’s prime minister did back then?

What I’ve written above shows that the Speaker’s view of the similarities between the current situation and the events leading up to the Second World War is astonishingly accurate. However, I also see some differences.

The most significant of these is that Putin’s Russia is not a great power comparable to Hitler’s Germany. Certainly, Russia possesses nuclear weapons, but wars fought with them have no winners. At least not in a large-scale war, where a U.S. counterstrike would be inevitable and therefore too great a risk for the Russians.

* * *

On the other hand, we also have China, which is rising as an increasingly powerful military force. It certainly has its own interests, particularly regarding Taiwan, but would it go to war as Russia’s ally against the entire world?

In my view, the answer is unequivocal. And it is a resounding "no"—especially regarding direct warfare. China will not engage in a large-scale war against the West, at least not as long as it can gain power and wealth through other means.

However, the question remains whether China might exploit Russia’s weakness and seize old Chinese territories in East Asia. Since the situation is quite similar to Taiwan, the answer is "possibly yes." But in that case, we are no longer talking about a Third World War but rather localized military actions.

Finally, I want to emphasize that although I do not believe, for the reasons outlined above, that a Third World War is about to break out, I do agree with Speaker Halla-aho (and many others) that it is better to prepare for war before it begins than to be naïve.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?
Strategic Experts Predicted Russia’s Collapse but Fell into Wishful Thinking
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization

Sabotage in the Baltic Sea Sparks Calls for New Maritime Borders

The Baltic Sea has risen to the center of global politics after acts of sabotage targeted its underwater infrastructure. As a result, Finnish authorities stopped an oil tanker and conducted an inspection, which revealed that the vessel required repairs before it could continue its journey.

The perpetrator of the sabotage is officially unknown, but there is near-unanimous consensus that Russia and Vladimir Putin are behind it. In other words, this is part of Putin's hybrid warfare against Western nations.

It was therefore intriguing when Finnish international politics researcher Risto E. J. Penttilä raised the idea that Finland and Estonia could divide the international waters of the Baltic Sea between themselves. In other words, these countries would agree on a border line such that their boundaries would meet directly, leaving no international waters in between.

The aim would not be to hinder maritime traffic to Russia’s ports at the far end of the Gulf of Finland, but rather to significantly improve the ability to monitor vessels in what would become national waters instead of international waters. This would make it easier to repeatedly catch ships involved in potential sabotage.

It remains to be seen whether Penttilä's proposal will lead to changes, as Russia would almost certainly oppose it. In doing so, Russia would inadvertently confirm its involvement in the sabotage and its intention to continue such actions in the future.

However, Russia is unlikely to refrain from such activities, no matter how much embarrassment they cause. This is because the country lacks a free press and freedom of speech, meaning that its citizens would have no understanding of the fact that Putin’s regime is once again making their nation a subject of ridicule.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Detains Russia-Linked Ship Suspected of Cable Damage
Nordic Nations Unite Against the Growing Threat of Cross-Border Organized Crime
Military confrontation between China and USA highly probable in near future

Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?

The American think tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW) speculates in its latest publication that Russia may soon absorb Belarus into its own territory. This would significantly expand Russia's border with NATO countries, thereby heightening tensions between Western Europe and Russia.

Today, Belarus is particularly known for its dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka and his close ties with Russia. Despite this, Belarus has not participated in Russia’s war against Ukraine but has remained separate from it.

The fact remains, however, that little is known about Belarus in Finland—or, as far as I can tell, elsewhere in the world. That’s why I thought I’d share a few words about its history.

Belarus is a region inhabited by a Slavic people who have their own language, spoken by about 85 percent of the country’s citizens. In other words, Belarusians are not Russians, nor do they wish to be.

Belarus also has a long history, although for most of it, the rulers have come from outside its borders. Between 1068 and 1069, the Belarusian Prince of Polotsk ruled the entire Kievan Rus for a few months, but the tables turned in 1129, when Kievan Rus subjugated the region. In 1240, it became part of Lithuania, and in the 16th century, it fell under the rule of the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth.

In the 18th century, it was incorporated into Russia during the partitions of Poland and remained under Russian control until the First World War. During the war, the Germans occupied the area and established the short-lived Belarusian People's Republic, which quickly became part of the socialist Soviet Union after the war, though Poland seized about half of it in 1921.

At the beginning of the Second World War, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact resulted in Belarus once again becoming fully part of Russia. The war swept over the region in both directions, and afterward, most of Belarus remained part of the Soviet Union. It declared independence once more in 1990 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In summary, what I have written above means that if Russia were to annex Belarus once again, it would return to its historical "normal" of being subjugated by others. However, it remains to be seen whether the Belarusian people will find the will and ability to avoid this fate and—contrary to my own expectations—retain their independence and keep their future in their own hands.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Elections in Georgia and Japan: The Future of Democracy on Different Paths
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

Questions to the Winners of the Gaza War

The Palestinians began celebrating immediately after the ceasefire took effect. Many believed they had achieved a victory (example, second, and third).

This made me think that now is the time for the victor to call all Palestinians settled in the EU back to the Middle East to rebuild the new Gaza area. This is important, among other reasons, because having lived in Western countries and often also been educated there, they surely have a good understanding of what a society that guarantees good living conditions for its residents looks like.

At the same time, the EU would part with an immigrant group associated with societal challenges. This would mean addressing the cultural burden linked to the rapidly growing Muslim population, which has contributed to issues such as rape, crime, and gang activity in their new host countries.

On another note, I would like to ask ordinary Palestinians in Gaza whether it was worth allowing Hamas to come to power in the 2006 elections. And whether they regret at all the celebrations that followed the terroristic events of October 7, 2023.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Responsibility for Their People's Future Now Lies with Palestinian Leaders
Time for Hamas to Accept the Facts
What will Happen Tomorrow, on the Anniversary of the Attack by the Terrorists on October 7th Last Year?

Police Ban Public Fight Between Neo-Nazis and Street Gangs in Finland

Humanitarian immigration has led to the polarization of Western societies. This is also the case in Finland, which has, in many ways, followed in Sweden's footsteps, repeating the mistakes made there one after another.

In this context, an interesting piece of news emerged, reporting that Finnish neo-Nazis and street gang members were planning an event where they could fight each other. The matches would end with a knockout, surrender, or interruption. Participants could kick opponents who were down on the ground, and there would be no rest rounds. However, eye-gouging and causing damage to areas such as the groin would not be allowed.

The idea of the event was essentially a brutal bare-knuckle fight, and the organizer believed that bringing opposing groups together in the same event could reduce confrontation. Tickets for the fight had already been sold, and the organizer expressed a desire to turn such fights into international events.

However, the authorities intervened and banned the event, stating that, according to the police, "it did not appear to be a sports event… The compliance with rules and the health risks involved in the event could potentially constitute a criminal offense."

As a result, Finland will not follow Sweden's example in this case. In Sweden, such matches have reportedly already been held. However, I am not aware of any data on the extent of health consequences or the alleged reduction in conflict between neo-Nazis and street gangs. In any case, it’s a relief that Finland refrains from adopting every foolish idea the Swedish society might offer.

The Responsibility for Their People's Future Now Lies with Palestinian Leaders

Fresh reports indicate that Israel and Hamas have agreed on a draft deal for a Gaza ceasefire and the release of hostages. The proposed agreement would be implemented in three stages, starting with the gradual release of 33 hostages over six weeks. Among them are five female Israeli soldiers, each of whom would be exchanged for 50 Palestinian prisoners.

In return, Israel would release hundreds of Palestinian women and children in detention, along with 30 security prisoners serving life sentences. During this period, Israeli forces would withdraw from population centers over 42 days, allowing Palestinians to begin returning to their homes in northern Gaza. Additionally, humanitarian aid to the region would increase significantly.

The term "ceasefire" refers to the temporary suspension of war or other armed conflict. It does not, therefore, signify peace, nor does it imply the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Achieving peace would require mutual trust. However, at this moment, such trust appears to be lacking among both Jewish and Palestinian communities.

The key lies with the latter; the Arabs of the Holy Land must abstain from terrorism and warfare against Israel. This means no rockets launched from Gaza or the West Bank into Israel, and ideally no deranged terrorists attacking Jewish targets.

At the same time, it is crucial for Israel to act decisively, particularly in the West Bank, to prevent the construction of new settlements and to avoid other aggressive actions against Palestinians. Furthermore, the current and future governments of Israel must work in ways that foster Palestinian trust in their own future.

If these efforts succeed, it might be possible for Israel’s Jewish population to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, as envisioned in 1993. However, if these efforts fail, the conflict will revert to square one, likely leading to renewed hostilities in the Holy Land sooner or later.

Personally, I believe that in this particular situation, the responsibility for the future of the Palestinian people lies primarily with their leaders. If they are capable and grounded in realism, the future of the Palestinian people can be excellent. However, if they repeat the inability of their predecessors to acknowledge facts and act accordingly, the ordeal of the people they lead will continue far into the future.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Two out of three Palestinians support October 7 attack
Palestinian responsibility
Palestinians: acknowledging facts is the beginning of wisdom!

Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges

The text above is my thought that "As long as a society has a true freedom of speech it cannot be completely rotten. However, all totally rotten societies are lacking the true freedom of speech."

The text is placed there because Finns seem to have significant difficulties in accepting freedom of speech. The most recent example of this was provided by the Finnish Green Party, which has decided to leave the social media platform known as X.

According to the party, societal discussion on X is no longer relevant due to the systematic hate speech, conspiracy theories, and disinformation spreading on the platform. They are correct in that all three undeniably occur frequently on X. However, they are wrong in claiming that societal discussion is no longer relevant on that platform, as it has been conducted specifically, explicitly, and practically only there.

Sure, the world is full of social media platforms, but it is precisely on X where open societal discussion has taken place. And it is precisely there where anyone could directly comment on anyone else's posts and provide reasoning. Of course, this often happens in an inappropriate manner, but in my view, both political extremes have been especially guilty of this.

If the Finnish Greens and the broader political left leave X, there is a risk that societal discussion will revert to a time when each ideological group had its own insular forum, making fruitful dialogue—or achieving mutual understanding—practically impossible. And it might not be possible in the future either, not even in the utopian world of the Greens. 

* * *

This relates to the perspective of Finnish Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, who has stated that the EU can impose significant fines and penalties on X if the platform does not meet the Union's requirements. According to her, "In Europe, everyone has freedom of speech and opinion. However, X has a specific obligation, derived from our laws, to assess and mitigate systemic risks related to our electoral systems and public discourse."

Virkkunen's comment arose after X conducted an interview with Alice Weidel, the vice-chair of Germany's second most popular party, the AfD. However, under EU legislation, platforms are required to ensure that certain political views are not favored over others. In other words, the commissioner would like to compel X to also interview representatives of other German parties.

It remains to be seen whether Elon Musk will comply with such demands—or if he will allow others to organize similar interviews on their own, which could then be featured on X. From the perspective of freedom of speech, it would be beneficial if this were possible—after all, Musk himself has emphasized that X is a platform for citizen journalism, where everyone can create their own content.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Criticism from the Left Brought a Small Association’s Independence Day March into the Spotlight
Freedom of Speech in Danger
Finnish MEPs Saramo and Tynkkynen Engage in Social Media Clash Over Ukraine Support

Why It’s Crucial for Germans to Vote Wisely

Japan has been one of the countries that shut down its nuclear power plants. The reason for this was the Fukushima plant accident that occurred in 2011.

However, the Japanese relatively quickly came to their senses and restarted their first nuclear power plant already in 2011. Now, 14 nuclear power plants have been restarted in the country.

In Europe, Germany has shut down its nuclear power plants—the last ones in 2023—as it transitioned to using Russian fossil energy. As a result of the war in Ukraine, however, Europe’s economic powerhouse has found itself in a difficult position, as its natural gas purchases are financing Putin's war campaign.

Therefore, it is time for Germany to follow Japan’s example and restart its own nuclear power plants. By doing so, it could join the international group of countries that are genuinely trying to help Ukraine emerge victorious from Russian aggression.

In this matter, the decision-making power lies with German voters, who have the ability to shape the outcome. It is therefore to be hoped that they will recognize the importance of voting wisely. Failing to do so could make all of Germany a laughingstock.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Germany Then and Now Resemble Each Other
The Fall of Germany’s Government Could Open the EU’s Path to a Better Future
Elections in Georgia and Japan: The Future of Democracy on Different Paths

Germany Then and Now Resemble Each Other

In the early years of the Weimar Republic, during the 1920s and the early 1930s in Germany, power was held by the Social Democrats. Nevertheless, the far-left caused unrest and incited workers to go on strikes. Eventually, they even attempted a violent revolution, inspired by Vladimir Lenin.

As a result of all this, a backlash arose among the German populace, which was temporarily interrupted when moderate parties formed governments in the mid-1920s. However, the far-left increased its popularity towards the end of the decade, as the runaway inflation caused by war reparations made life increasingly difficult for the people.

For the same reasons and due to the unrest caused by the far-left, national socialism—or the Nazi Party—also gained traction, ultimately taking power in January 1933. This led the country, after various developments, into two interlinked catastrophes: the Second World War and the Holocaust.

* * *

This came to my mind when I read that in Germany, thousands of leftist protesters gathered on Saturday in front of the party congress of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. As a result, the start of the congress was delayed by two hours because the protesters blocked party members from entering the venue.

A large police presence was also on-site, dispersing a sit-in protest that had partially blocked an intersection. They also intervened to stop acts of violence, as some protesters launched fireworks at the police.

It would be worth asking these protesters whether they have any understanding of what happened in Germany between the world wars, and whether they realize that their current actions bear an unsettling resemblance to the behavior of the German left during the Weimar Republic era, which, as a backlash, resulted in the rise of the Nazi regime.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Strengthening Christmas Market Security: Lessons from Magdeburg
The Fall of Germany’s Government Could Open the EU’s Path to a Better Future
Will immigration give rise to a National Socialist party in Finland