Suicide and Sudden Death in Russia – What's Really Going On?

A strange epidemic seems to be spreading within Russia’s Ministry of Transport. First, it was reported that Transport Minister Roman Starovoit, who had been dismissed from his post, had committed suicide. Soon after, it was announced that another official from the same ministry, Aleksei Korneichuk, had died suddenly in the middle of a meeting.

This raises the question of whether there is something behind these events that the Putin administration does not want to reveal. And if there is, could it be related in some way to the prolonged war in Ukraine, which continues to strain Russia’s economy and population?

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that we will ever get an answer to this question. However, that does not mean these cases don’t strongly point to the growing troubles faced by Putin’s administration.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Price of a Dictator’s Stupidity and Megalomania
Putin Faces a Heavy Price for His Hesitation
Number of Predators is Increasing in Russia

Instability Returns to the Balkans

I begin this blog post with a look back 111 years. At that time, on June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sophie were assassinated in Sarajevo, Bosnia, which was then part of Austria-Hungary.

The reason behind the assassination was that the Bosnian Serbs wanted to join Serbia and pursued this aim through political murder. As a result, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914.

Serbia soon gained Russia as an ally, while Austria-Hungary was supported by Germany. In an effort to avoid a two-front war, Germany attacked France through Belgium. This, in turn, led to Britain entering the conflict — and thus the First World War began. Around 16 million people lost their lives in that war.

* * *

In his recent column, retired Major General Harri Ohra-aho warned Finns about the smoldering powder keg of the Balkans. According to him, Bosnia and Herzegovina is teetering on the brink of a deep crisis, with the actions of the President of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik — the leader of the federation’s Serbian entity — at the core of the issue, as he pushes for Serbian independence.

Under Dodik’s leadership, Republika Srpska has passed laws that prevent federal authorities from operating within its territory. In addition, his administration has demanded a separate constitution for the Serbs — a step toward splitting Bosnia and Herzegovina into two separate states.

Behind this lies the strong support of Serbia itself and, lurking behind Serbia, that of Russia. Unfortunately, Hungary — an EU member state — and its president Viktor Orbán have also joined in, sending special forces to conduct joint exercises with the Serbs. In other words, this is part of Vladimir Putin’s broader strategy to shift Western Europe’s attention from Ukraine to the Balkans.

For now, however, the situation remains calm, and most Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs hope for stability and envision their future in the EU. Even within Republika Srpska, Dodik does not enjoy unanimous support. But as we well know, people’s opinions can be easily influenced by the right kind of propaganda.

* * *

For us Finns, the matter is significant in several ways. First, every military-political victory for Putin increases the risk that Russia might test the military readiness of a NATO border country through a suitably crafted special operation. Perhaps not on Finland’s border specifically, but quite possibly somewhere in our neighborhood.

Second, Bosnia and Herzegovina has served as one of the routes for humanitarian migration, and if it falls into chaos, it could lead to an increase in the number of people arriving in the EU. This, in turn, could further destabilize the internal situation in the EU countries most affected by such flows — such as Germany, France, the Netherlands, or Sweden.

For these reasons, Ohra-aho ended his column with the following hope: "Europe must therefore act wisely but decisively. Words must be followed by actions: more support for constructive forces in Bosnia, a clear message against separatism, and concrete steps toward NATO and EU integration. Stability does not arise by itself, and in the Balkans its value is often only recognized once it has already been lost."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Russians in Finland Include Both Putin’s Supporters and Loyal Citizens
Ukraine’s Justified Exit From the Ottawa Convention
NATO Sounds the Alarm on Illegal Immigration

When Demands Become Damage

Yesterday I wrote that the demands of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in particular might prevent peace from being achieved in Gaza. However, according to recent news, it may in fact be Hamas’s far more limited demands that are already doing so.

At the same time, Israel has continued its military operations in the area, causing immense suffering to Palestinian civilians. This raises the question: whose interests are the aforementioned Palestinian organizations actually serving? Their own—or those of ordinary civilians in Gaza?

The answer is not difficult to find, provided one is able to put the facts in order. The first fact is that neither Hamas nor any other Palestinian organization is capable of challenging the Israeli military. The second is that, for this reason, their attempts to present demands to Israel are unequivocally harmful from the perspective of Palestinian civilians.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Demand Block Peace in Gaza?
UN Security Council Resolution Draft Risks Encouraging Terrorism
How Hamas Exploited Aid and Lost the Support of Many Palestinians

Will Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Demand Block Peace in Gaza?

The terrorist organization Hamas is ready to begin negotiations on implementing a proposed 60-day ceasefire. It accepts the main points of the agreement but seeks some minor additions to the deal.

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization has also announced its support for the ceasefire plan in Gaza but demands guarantees that the negotiation process will indeed lead to a permanent ceasefire. At the same time, it wants to ensure that Israel will not resume military operations in Gaza after the hostages held by Hamas have been released.

The Israeli leadership, which has accepted the original text of the ceasefire proposal drafted by Qatar and the United States, is currently considering how to respond to the terrorists’ suggestions. U.S. President Donald Trump, for his part, has previously told the Palestinian organizations that they will not be getting a better deal.

It thus remains to be seen whether Gaza's exceptionally bloody war is finally coming to an end, or whether it will continue after the currently debated two-month truce concludes. However, the Islamic Jihad’s precondition for a permanent ceasefire may in itself prevent the ceasefire from materializing at all, as Israel is unlikely to commit to permanently halting its military actions in Gaza before terms for lasting peace have been agreed upon.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Some University of Helsinki Employees Demand End to Collaboration With Israeli Universities
UN Security Council Resolution Draft Risks Encouraging Terrorism
Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator

The Finnish Stabber Has a Long Track Record of Violence

I wrote yesterday about the mass stabbing that took place in Tampere, in which a Finnish man injured four people. Over the course of today, more information about the case has come to light, prompting reflection on the fairness of the Finnish justice system.

The Finnish Broadcasting Company (Yle) has reported that the man arrested for the crime has previously been convicted of multiple violent offenses. He was charged with attempted manslaughter for an incident in June 2023, in which he stabbed a sleeping acquaintance in the stomach.

However, in January 2024, he was only convicted of aggravated assault, assault against another man, illegal threats, two cases of property damage, and obstruction of an official. According to the verdict, he was supposed to serve a total of two and a half years in prison.

Last month, the stabber also received another six-month prison sentence for assaulting a victim in the fall of 2021. In that case, he had repeatedly struck the victim in the head, strangled them, and beaten them in the upper body with a metal pipe. At the time, he was on probation. He was sentenced to only six months in prison, as his previous conviction for aggravated assault was considered a mitigating factor.

In addition, the man was sentenced to three years in prison for three robberies committed in 2020, when he was 18 years old.

In light of all this, we must ask how the justice system intends to respond to the man's actions from yesterday when the case eventually goes to court. Will he again be granted sentence reductions and be allowed to endanger others’ safety after serving only a short prison term?

Or will the court finally recognize that this is a person who, with near certainty, will sooner or later end up killing one of his victims, and who therefore must be kept behind closed doors for the rest of his life? And if it doesn’t, is it prepared to take responsibility for the death of an innocent person?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Multiple Stabbings Reported in Tampere, Finland
The Stabber Killed Three People in an Extremely Multicultural City
Why Were Violent Protests Acceptable for George Floyd but Not for the UK Child Murders?

Multiple Stabbings Reported in Tampere, Finland

According to the police, several people have been stabbed near a shopping center located in the city of Tampere, Finland. The victims are receiving first aid, and one person has been taken into custody following the incident.

So far, no motive for the stabbing has been reported, but the police are investigating the matter in any case. It remains to be seen whether this was, for example, a clash between gangs or a terrorist act targeting bystanders. At this stage, even mental illness as a motive cannot be ruled out.

PS 17.45. The police have cordoned off the area and are currently questioning eyewitnesses.

PS 19:54. According to the police's current information, there is no reason to suspect that the act had a terrorist or racist motive. The stabbing has not resulted in any fatalities, but four people have been injured. The police have not released a description of the stabber.

PS 4.7. 8:07. The suspected perpetrator is an adult Finnish man. As a result of the act of violence, four people were injured. All the victims are adults. No fatalities occurred, and according to current information, none of the victims are in life-threatening condition.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Tomorrow’s Elections in Germany Be a Turning Point? 
Gun Violence in Brussels After Swedish Massacre
The stabbing of the 12-year-old led to political revelry among the left in Finland

Russians in Finland Include Both Putin’s Supporters and Loyal Citizens

The European Parliament has affirmed the self-evident truth that Finland has the right to close its eastern border with Russia. This occurred because a representative of the pro-Russian Freedom Alliance party living in Finland—and, judging by the name, a Russian national—Alexey Bulavtsev, had appealed for the borders to remain open.

Naturally, this was an unnecessary bureaucratic twist, since Finland would have kept the border closed in any case—regardless of the EU Parliament’s decision. This is because it is the country’s legitimate right to defend itself against a military threat.

Nevertheless, the case is significant, as it demonstrates that there are individuals of Russian background in Finland who aspire to positions of power in society and who act on behalf of Vladimir Putin against the Finnish people. This is, of course, not beneficial for Finnish-Russians, many of whom are descendants of émigrés who fled to Finland during the Russian Revolution, or individuals who have escaped the current Russian regime and are well integrated into Finnish society.

Therefore, it is to be hoped that Bulavtsev’s actions will not be generalized to all people of Russian descent living in Finland, but that they too will be evaluated as individuals and as members of society. At the same time, care must be taken to ensure that Russian immigration does not, now or in the future, form a fifth column in Finland, should Russia, for any reason, challenge the country’s independence.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Expert Statement Highlights Russian Hybrid Threat Over Migration Across the Mediterranean
Human Rights Judge Pauliine Koskelo Questions Asylum Interpretation That Ignores the Threat of Hybrid Warfare
A Finnish MP Resigned After Straining Finland-Russia Relations

Russian Soldier Acknowledges War Crimes in Ukraine on National TV

War has always been a brutal game, inflicting suffering especially on the defeated side. For example, during the Thirty Years' War, it was common practice that the victorious party was allowed to plunder a conquered city for three days.

Such looting, often accompanied by rape and violence, was considered the victor's right. However, in the modern era, this kind of behavior is unequivocally prohibited under international law.

That is why it was shocking to read that Russian soldier Dugar Zhamnjanov admitted on the Russian television news channel Rossiya 1 that he had mutilated captured Ukrainian soldiers, voluntary fighters and civilians by cutting off the index fingers on both of their hands.

Of course, it has already been widely known that Russian forces have mutilated, tortured, beaten, and executed Ukrainian soldiers and civilians both in Ukraine and elsewhere. But the fact that someone would publicly admit to committing war crimes on television, showing their face and stating their name, reveals that the army, state, and leadership he serves do not take war crimes seriously at all.

For this reason—and many others—it is of utmost importance that Western democracies, which uphold the rule of law, ensure that such a morally bankrupt state—and especially its leadership—never gets to enjoy victory in the war against Ukraine. On the contrary, the war must end with justice prevailing.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Downing of the Azerbaijani Plane Is a War Crime That Must Be Condemned
Can Peace Emerge from Horrific War Crimes?
Ukraine can and will stop Putin

Ukraine’s Justified Exit From the Ottawa Convention

Ukraine is doing the same as Finland—that is, withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines. This is, of course, understandable given that by refraining from using mines, its army gives an unnecessary advantage to Russia’s invading forces, who sow mines wherever they go.

In fact, I find it astonishing that the Ukrainians have abided by the treaty for this long, even though it has likely cost the lives of many Ukrainian soldiers. That alone shows Ukraine’s genuine intent to comply with the treaty for as long as possible.

However, enough is enough, and upholding a treaty cannot be more important than a nation’s independence. For this reason, I fully support President Zelensky, who today signed the necessary decree for the withdrawal. 

I also hope the country will soon have access to the mines it needs to ease its defensive struggle. Perhaps Finland and Ukraine could even cooperate on this issue!?

This case also demonstrates that treaties restricting military capabilities are a double-edged sword. While they may, in principle, reduce human suffering—as is the goal of the landmine ban—there can be even greater values at stake, such as the very survival of an entire nation.

That’s why I believe states should take a very cautious approach toward agreements that reduce their military effectiveness, especially when they share borders with nations harboring imperialist ambitions. In other words, nations like Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

NATO Sounds the Alarm on Illegal Immigration

Last week at the Hague summit, NATO signaled de facto that illegal immigration is a significant threat to national security. This decision included a provision that allows member states to count border security-related expenses toward the five percent defense spending target.

This marks a substantial shift from the situation and attitudes that prevailed among European political leaders ten years ago, when people from developing countries streamed into the continent without asking for permission, seeking better livelihoods. However, it remains to be seen what kind of measures different member states will actually take.

A crucial factor in this context is the nature of the government in power in each member state. For example, in Finland, almost all politicians condemn Russia’s instrumentalized migration. However, those who arrive independently tend to receive sympathy—especially from the green-left, but also from the liberal right. Thus, Finland's currently tightening immigration policy would change significantly if the public were to elect a government that includes the political left.

The same largely applies to other European countries. And the unfortunate reality is that effective immigration control requires participation from all nations, because under the spirit of the Schengen Agreement, immigrants entering the EU can move quite freely within the area and apply for asylum in whichever country they believe offers them the best advantages.

It is also essential to note that EU countries still lack both a plan and a practical mechanism for how to remove large numbers of people from developing countries from the Union’s territory, should such a need arise—for example, due to an economic recession. And I don’t believe such a plan will emerge for a long time—certainly not on a Union-wide scale.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Expert Statement Highlights Russian Hybrid Threat Over Migration Across the Mediterranean
Human Rights Judge Pauliine Koskelo Questions Asylum Interpretation That Ignores the Threat of Hybrid Warfare
Friedrich Merz Needs the AfD – A Precedent from Finland

National Identity in Stone: Finland’s Ancient Crust Meets Canada’s Hadean Record

The Earth began to form 4.7 billion years ago, when planetesimals—formed from material left over from the birth of the Sun—started to attract particles from the surrounding space and gradually gave rise to planets. This process eventually led, around 4.6 billion years ago, to the birth of the rocky planet on which I am writing this text.

This information was once taught to Finns of my generation. At the same time, we were told—in a spirit of patriotic pride—that Finland’s bedrock is extremely old, up to three billion years in age, though this is unlikely to be emphasized in the same way to today’s youth, who are more often guided to see themselves as global citizens.

This remains true, as the oldest known rock in Finland is about 3.5 billion years old. It is located slightly north of Finland’s geographical center, in the municipality of Pudasjärvi.

There is very little direct information about the Earth’s earliest crust, because rocks and minerals from the Hadean eon (>4.03 billion years old) are extremely rare. Even so, the age of the rock material in Pudasjärvi pales in comparison to that of the Canadian bedrock.

This is because, according to recent Canadian research, the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt in Canada has been dated to as much as about 4.156 billion years old. This means that this bedrock formed during the Earth’s earliest geologic eon, the Hadean. Studying this Canadian rock thus offers us rare and valuable insight into what the newborn Earth might have been like.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Control of Douglas fir beetles by woodborer beetles
Diverging Findings in Antarctic Ice Sheet Research
Evolution Doesn’t Just Create New Species – It Can Also Reverse It

Feminists, Woke, and DEI People Justify Violence Against Women

The International Boxing Association (IBA) demands that Imane Khelif be stripped of the Olympic medal she won in Paris in 2024 in the women’s over 60 kg category. I wrote about this individual at the time, stating that it is unethical to allow a man to compete in a women’s division.

The boxing association now bases its demand on information indicating that Khelif has both X and Y chromosomes in their karyotype—meaning that, genetically, Khelif is male. In my view, allowing such a person to compete in women’s boxing is no different from a man committing domestic violence against his wife—except that in this case, it has the approval of the International Olympic Committee.

In fact, I find it quite puzzling that neither feminists nor their organizations have spoken out much about this issue. Nor have the woke and DEI-enlightened public figures, who are usually very particular about ensuring their views on gender matters are broadly acknowledged in society.

In this regard, an interesting exception is the Finnish trans woman and former high jumper, Jade Nyström, who has clearly stated that trans women should have no right to compete in women’s sports. Her view is easy to agree with—and it also raises the question of whether the so-called woke crowd is, for some reason, unable to see that even the rights of sexual minorities can go too far—and even justify violence against women.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
UK Supreme Court Distinguishes Between the Rights of Women and Trans Women
Finnish Trans Woman Speaks Out on Transgender Rights in Sports
Everyone has the right

Some University of Helsinki Employees Demand End to Collaboration With Israeli Universities

Some University of Helsinki employees have, quite evidently, lost their minds. I arrived at this conclusion because over 700 of its employees are demanding that Finland’s largest university end its cooperation with Israeli universities.

Behind the petition is an organization called Researchers for Palestine, which I had never heard of before. They describe themselves as "a group of staff and researchers based at the University of Helsinki who are committed to pushing for an academic boycott of Israeli educational institutions, in line with BDS and PACBI guidelines."

Among the signatories, there appear to be mainly ethnically Finnish representatives of the social sciences, but with a quick glance I also found, for example, two people named Muhammad, a few named Ahmed or Ahmad, and several variations of Hassan, as well as some non-Finnish European names.

In fact, 700 is not a particularly large number, considering that the University of Helsinki employs approximately 7,800 people. So, less than 10 percent of the staff have signed the petition—unfortunately, I personally know a few of them.

Naturally, such a petition has no actual impact on inter-university relations, nor should it. If for no other reason, then because research is inherently something that connects people rather than separates them—and it is such a long-term endeavor that temporary political disagreements should not be allowed to influence it.

Nevertheless, I offer a suggestion to all the petition’s signatories: “No force in the world can stop you from ending your own cooperation with Israeli universities and researchers. Therefore, you are entirely free to set an example for others and return any funding you may have received for such cooperation.”

However, if you don’t personally have any such cooperation, then I view your demand as rather ridiculous. It seems to be a clear case of virtue signaling on matters that require no personal sacrifice from you, but would demand that others break their commitments. That is simply spineless.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
University of Helsinki gained an anti-Semitic reputation
Demonstrations cause trouble in Helsinki and Sweden
International Master´s degree is an opportunity to be used

Jesuit Morality in Crime Reporting on Immigrants

Attitudes toward the problems of humanitarian immigration in the UK took a strange turn after Keir Starmer came to power. He began arresting people participating in protests and those complaining about abuses, and even started releasing criminals from prisons to make room for these political prisoners.

Since then, Starmer has changed direction and ordered investigations into the most serious crimes. From here in Finland, I can't say how seriously those investigations have been pursued.

* * *

In Finland, too, efforts were made to conceal the problems of immigration for a long time, but gradually this became difficult as the general sense of security—or lack thereof—became increasingly widespread. At some point, Finnish media decided that the names of criminals would be published if their sentences were at least two years long.

However, the fact remains that hardly anyone is interested in the names of those convicted. Rather, what is important—especially in terms of people's views on immigration policy—is that the ethnic background of those who commit crimes should be reported in all, or at least in more than minor, offenses.

* * *

Today’s crime news concerned a man about ten years older who had provided intoxicants and sexually exploited a girl who was originally 12 years old over a two-year period. Nothing is said about the man's ethnic background; instead, it’s stated that “the name of the convicted is withheld to protect the victim.”

This practice has become more common in most media in recent years. As a result, essential information about the perpetrators of sexual crimes—particularly those against teenagers—is increasingly being withheld. This is the case even though people aren’t interested in the offender’s name, as I stated earlier, but in whether the person belongs to the native or immigrant population.

This sharply contradicts the guidelines used by the Finnish press, which remind journalists that—quote—“journalism that strives for truth helps the public form a picture of society and the world.” Instead, it seems to follow the centuries-old Jesuit morality, in which "the end justifies the means."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Commission Should Take Migration and Related Crime Seriously
The Increasing Criminality Among Swedish Students Stems from Their Values
Is the UK's Democracy Facing an Existential Crisis?

Donakd J. Trump

The President of the United States, Donald John Trump, accidentally misspelled his own name as Donakd J. Trump, which has naturally caused amusement around the world. However, the reason is most likely a simple typo, as the letters L and K are adjacent on a computer keyboard.

In Finland, it is customary to say to children who burst into fits of laughter, for one reason or another, that "even a snot-nosed kid can grow into a man, but not a mindless giggler." This saying came to mind unbidden when I saw the glee Trump’s blunder sparked among those who despise him.

Of course, I don’t mean to imply that I consider this particular Donald to be an especially good president for the United States, even though I do acknowledge that his strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons program was both necessary and seemingly successful. On the other hand, he has shown an inability to take a clear stance on the war between Ukraine and Russia, along with idiotic threats—and their hasty withdrawals—regarding massive import tariffs aimed at his own allies.

The fact remains, however, that Donald Trump is still the President of the United States and will continue to lead the world’s most powerful superpower for another three and a half years. And that is something all the people of the world will have to live with—whether laughing or not. Or, as another saying goes—perhaps one borrowed from the mafia—"either you accept it, or you cry and accept it."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Trump Jeopardizes NATO Progress
Newsom Rising, Unity Fading
Trump Speaks from Putin’s Pocket – A Perilous Shift in the Ukraine War

Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program

Former Commander of the Finnish Defence Forces Jarmo Lindberg has commented on last night’s U.S. strikes on Iran. According to him, Trump likely achieved his objective: halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Lindberg stated that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, even though some have doubted its existence. This is because, “nuclear enrichment facilities are not needed for normal nuclear power plant operations. The type of nuclear material used in energy-producing power plants, like those in Finland, cannot be used to make bombs. Separate enrichment plants are required to produce material suitable for nuclear warheads.”

Regarding the U.S. Air Force strike itself, Lindberg said that “a very limited strike was carried out against three specific targets—bunkers located deep inside Iran. In addition, only a small number of precision weapons were used, such as B-2 stealth bombers, MOP bombs, and cruise missiles.”

Lindberg also noted that Iran had no real chance to defend itself from the strike because Israel had crippled its air defenses by destroying radar systems and surface-to-air missile batteries. Thus, “Iran essentially had no eyes to see it coming. And even if it had seen it, it wouldn’t have had the means to intercept it.”

As for Iran’s ability to respond to the U.S. strike, Lindberg sees it as limited. Furthermore, the U.S. has prepared for possible retaliation by moving its ships away from ports near Iran, meaning “there are currently few viable targets for the ayatollahs’ military or missiles.”

Iran could also “declare the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and threaten to attack maritime traffic passing through it. Since a significant portion of the world's oil supply flows through that strait, such a move would immediately spike oil prices, which the markets would then react to.”

However, it is also certain that closing the Strait of Hormuz would lead to retaliatory actions by the United States and likely also by the United Kingdom and France—actions against which Iran has virtually no effective weapon other than fanatical religious fervor. While that could result in some kind of suicide attacks, possibly against civilian populations, “from a military standpoint, their significance is negligible.”

For this reason, Lindberg believes the greatest focus now shifts to the future of Iran’s clerical regime. In other words, “what will their reactions and fate be in a situation where the United States has entered the war.”

For my part, I hope their reaction would be a flight to Moscow and leaving power to the Iranian opposition. Or alternatively, a revolution by the opposition, followed by proper punishment of the ayatollahs for the sins of past decades.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran Exposes the Finnish Green-Left as Intellectually Dishonest or Lacking Values
Will Power Change Hands in Iran?
A Quick Israeli Success in Iran Would Be Crucial for Ukraine

Trump Jeopardizes NATO Progress

A while ago, President Donald Trump announced that NATO countries should increase their defense spending to five percent of their gross domestic product. A large portion of the European members of NATO have appeared ready to accept this goal after NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated that this could be achieved by raising actual military spending to 3.5 percent, with the remaining 1.5 percent consisting of other security-related activities.

The positive attitude of European countries is due to the undeniable fact that Vladimir Putin’s Russia has demonstrated its ruthlessness in Ukraine, and Europeans are unwilling to risk their security — especially not the United States' commitment to the continent’s security arrangements. Only Spain’s socialist president, Pedro Sánchez, has clearly voiced disagreement.

The continuation of this positive development is now in jeopardy, as Trump announced that the five percent rule would not apply to the United States. His justification is the — admittedly accurate — claim that the U.S. has so far borne the lion’s share of NATO’s military capabilities and their costs.

It remains to be seen how Europeans will react to Trump’s statement. Will it prompt other financially weaker countries, especially those far from the Russian border and thus at lower risk, to join Pedro Sánchez in resisting the NATO spending demands?

Such an outcome would be extremely unfortunate for both Europe and the United States — for Europe, because its security would not improve as much as it recently seemed it might; and for the U.S., because it would clearly weaken its influence in global politics. The winners would include not only Vladimir Putin’s Russia but also — and even more clearly — Xi Jinping’s China, which is looking forward to seizing Taiwan for itself.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Pedro Sánchez Sides with Europe's Fifth Column on Russia
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Ukraine’s Former Foreign Minister Warns Against Another 1939

Pedro Sánchez Sides with Europe's Fifth Column on Russia

In the last century, it was quite natural for the political left in Western countries to form a fifth column in support of the Soviet Union. After all, socialists and communists shared a common worldview based on the philosophy outlined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

However, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and as a result, a large number of more or less democratic, non-socialist states emerged in the area of the former socialist superpower. The largest of these was Russia, whose new leader, Boris Yeltsin, together with his administration, began to steer the country toward a market economy system, which had proven to be vastly superior to the socialist planned economy.

At the time, there was also a belief that the previously divided world would unite, and that its eastern part would develop toward a Western-style welfare state. There was even talk of “the end of history.”

* * *

As I wrote yesterday, Finland has decided to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel mines. The decision was made with an overwhelming majority, but most of the current far left voted against it. This is largely the same group that has opposed measures aimed at preventing Russia from exploiting asylum seekers as part of its hybrid warfare.

In Spain, the country is governed by socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. He, too, appears to be siding with Russia by asking NATO to exempt Spain from raising its defense spending to five percent of its gross domestic product.

Behind this may be Sánchez’s calculation that Spain, being far from Russia’s border, is not in danger—even if Vladimir Putin’s army were to cross the border into the territory of the European Union. Or perhaps, like the Finnish far left, he is simply unable to recognize the threat that the heir of the former Soviet Union poses to the West.

In any case, it is clear that Ukraine’s harsh fate as the target of Putin’s imperialist aggression has taught nothing to the socialists in Finland and Spain. That is why they form an ideological fifth column within the European Union.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the socialists in other EU countries will also display a similar nostalgic sympathy toward Putin’s Russia as the left in Finland and Spain. And, of course, how NATO and U.S. President Donald Trump—who originally set the five percent target—will respond to the situation.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?
Ukraine’s Former Foreign Minister Warns Against Another 1939
Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?

Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?

Parliament decided today by a clear majority that Finland will withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, allowing its Defence Forces to once again utilize anti-personnel mines in their operations. The vote result was 157 in favor and 18 against.

Thus ended the risky decision taken in 2011 by Finland’s Social Democratic President Tarja Halonen and the National Coalition Party’s Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen. At that time, the only parties voting against the treaty in Parliament were the Finns Party and a small number of Centre Party representatives.

Today, those who voted against the withdrawal agreement — effectively voting in favor of Putin — included ten members of the Left Alliance parliamentary group (1), seven members of the Greens (2), and one representative of the Swedish People's Party (3). These individuals are widely regarded in Finland as errand boys and girls for Putin.

All other members present supported the reintroduction of anti-personnel mines as a means of defense, to ensure that Russia remains on the eastern side of the approximately 1,300-kilometer border between the two countries. Many recognized the urgency of this need already in 2014, when Putin’s "little green men" occupied Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. For those slower to grasp the situation, the reality became clear in 2022, when the Russian army invaded Ukraine.

* * *

In this context, I cannot help but express my astonishment at UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who took it upon himself to interfere in Finnish decision-making by strongly advocating for Finland to remain in the treaty. The reasons for this are anyone’s guess, as it would seem quite strange if the head of the United Nations were somehow under the influence of the Russian dictator.

Of course, it’s also possible that Guterres was simply unaware of how Finland uses anti-personnel mines and feared they would pose a danger to civilians. However, this fear is unfounded, because — unlike in developing countries — Finnish mines are not scattered randomly in the terrain.

Instead, the Finnish army lays minefields only when there is a clearly identified threat, and even then, their locations are recorded both on paper and in electronic systems. This ensures that minefields can be dismantled immediately when no longer needed — and therefore do not pose a threat to civilian lives or health.

1. Timo Furuholm, Veronika Honkasalo. Mai Kivelä, Anna Kontula, Minja Koskela, Pia Lohikoski, Laura Meriluoto, Aino-Kaisa Pekonen, Hanna Sarkkinen and Johannes Yrttiaho)
2. Fatim Diarra, Tiina Elo, Bella Forsgrén, Inka Hopsu, Saara Hyrkkö, Jenni Pitko and Oras Tynkkynen
   
3. Eva Biaudét

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?

Why Is Keir Starmer Commissioning an Inquiry Instead of Taking Action?

From the perspective here in Finland, it seems strange that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, has decided to commission an investigation into grooming gangs. This is because the existence of these gangs and their ethnic composition have been known in Finland for a long time already.

For example, I first wrote (in Finnish) about the subject back in 2017, that is, about eight years ago. At the time, I specifically stated that "the worst known case is probably the Rotherham rape ring, which operated in the UK for 16 years and was covered up by the authorities for years out of fear of being labeled racist."

Since then, I have continued to write about the topic. The following year, in 2018, I brought up a prostitution ring that had operated in Telford, England, for decades, "which may have had up to a thousand child victims, mostly from the native population."

In other words, the Asian grooming gangs in the UK—and the related issues with authorities—have been quite well known to us Finns for a long time. And we are also aware that Keir Starmer's administration tried to sweep the matter under the rug by blaming those who aimed to draw official attention to child rapists.

An example of this is my own English-language article, in which I stated: "this is why it is necessary to ask the people of Britain and the world—especially those who see far-right extremism and racism everywhere—why they consider violent protests acceptable in the case of George Floyd, but not in response to the child murders that have shocked the United Kingdom?"

So, if there is no ambiguity here in Finland about the existence or composition of the UK’s grooming gangs, then why on earth is Keir Starmer only now—in the summer of 2025—starting to take action... excuse me, ordering an investigation into the matter? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to ensure that there is no room for such gangs in British society in the future?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Reform UK’s Landslide: Wake-Up Call for Labour and Tories Alike
Why Is the Case of Issam Rafil, Convicted of a Sexual Offense in Finland, Important for Britain?
Is the UK's Democracy Facing an Existential Crisis?

António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might

UN Secretary-General António Guterres made an appeal to countries planning to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty and reintroduce anti-personnel landmines. Among these countries, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland are neighbors of Russia.

Their departure from the treaty is justified precisely by this geographical fact — and by the fact that Russia is an aggressive and imperialist great power that has invaded the territory of several of its neighbors. There is no doubt that its current regime might also decide to test the security guarantees NATO has given to these countries — once it is done with Ukraine.

That is why it is fair to ask Mr. Guterres how he intends to prevent Russia’s intentions, should it decide to attack, for example, my own homeland. And whether, in such a situation, he would take responsibility for the Finnish lives that would have been saved by effective mining.

I do not expect an answer from the UN Secretary-General, but I remind him that Finland once sought help — in vain — from the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, before the Winter War that began in 1939. No help came then, and I do not believe Guterres would be able to provide any in the 2020s either, should Russia’s Putin choose to repeat Stalin’s move and order his army to seize Helsinki and strip Finland of its independence.

For this reason, I believe the UN Secretary-General would do well to keep quiet about the affairs of Eastern Europe, and instead focus on achieving a just peace in Ukraine, resolving the conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and ensuring that Iran does not continue its nuclear weapons program after its war with Israel comes to an end.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia
Highlights of the BRICS Meeting in Kazan, Russia
United Nations, corruption and terrorism

Iran Exposes the Finnish Green-Left as Intellectually Dishonest or Lacking Values

A young Finnish conservative politician, Binga Tupamäki (National Coalition Party), recently expressed her astonishment on social media, asking: “Why is the Finnish left defending an Islamist state that, in the name of jihad, is seeking to develop nuclear weapons?” It’s a valid question—so let us take a look at the values of the Finnish left.

According to the Left Alliance's party platform, the party's "core values are freedom, solidarity, and equality." The Social Democratic Party of Finland lists the same values, albeit in a slightly different order: "Our core values are freedom, equality, and solidarity."

Each reader can decide for themselves how well those words describe the actions of Iran’s Islamist government—or how those principles could possibly lead to the conclusion that such a regime is in any way worth defending by members or supporters of these parties.

And what about Finland’s value-liberal Greens? They don’t have a concise list quite like the Left Alliance, but their platform includes the following description: “We work to stop climate change and the sixth wave of extinction... we fight for an equal, safe, and just future. We defend nature and people.”

Nothing in that list seems even remotely compatible with the defense of Iran’s Islamist regime. On the contrary, based on these statements, one would expect the Greens to be pleased that someone—anyone—is actively trying to stop Iran’s mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Altogether, it appears that when comparing their stated values with their actual behavior, many Finnish green-leftists are not living up to their principles. In other words, they are either intellectually dishonest or, in practice, lack values. Perhaps even both.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Does the Political Green-Left Lie, and Why Does It Resonate with the People?

Hezbollah Uses Human Shields While the Green-Left Looks Away
The European Parliament elections were a celebration for the far-left in Finland

Will Power Change Hands in Iran?

After Israel attacked Iran few days ago, it didn't take long before Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced his willingness to discuss the nuclear deal aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The reason for this is most likely the Jewish state's military superiority compared to Khamenei’s forces.

So far, Western countries have not, at least publicly, responded to the Iranians' announcement, instead choosing to watch from the sidelines as an uneven struggle unfolds, in which Israel demonstrates that it is militarily and technologically vastly more capable than Iran. This is the case even though Iran has managed to launch some missiles into Israel.

For the world at large—and especially for the Iranian people—it would likely be best if Iran’s Islamist regime were to collapse as a result of the war and be replaced by a religiously neutral government that would free its citizens from the religious terrorism imposed by the current regime. However, this would require a sufficiently strong force to emerge from within Iran, one capable of channeling public dissatisfaction into a revolution.

Another possibility for regime change could be the use of force by Israel or Western nations. However, I strongly doubt that anyone has the will to undertake such an operation, even though, for example, many Iranian refugees in Finland (an example and another) would undoubtedly wish for it.

It remains to be seen what consequences this ongoing and likely very short-lived war will have for the Iranian regime. Will it manage to maintain its position even in defeat, or will the Iranian people finally gain their freedom?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Quick Israeli Success in Iran Would Be Crucial for Ukraine
Iran Rejects Direct Nuclear Talks with U.S., Calls Them Pointless
Israel’s Strike on Iran: Ripple Effects for the Middle East, Russia, and Global Stability

Ukraine’s Former Foreign Minister Warns Against Another 1939

Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba gave an interview to the British magazine Metro, where he reminded mothers in Britain that they will soon have to decide whether they will send their sons to fight against Russian soldiers in Europe, or suffer the end of NATO.

The Ukrainian politician also painted a devil on the wall by predicting that “Putin may invade Nato territory soon – so now what? Is Nato going to send a division to fight back?”

According to him, “The first day the EU – which is no big bother to England – is going to spend discussing its response to Russia, is going to be the end of it,” and continued, “the real test will be whether British mothers will actually accept that their sons have to die for Finland or Estonia or Poland. If they don’t, there is no NATO.”

Kuleba also noted an analogy to the year 1939 by reminding that “This is how World War II started. 'Why fight for Danzig? Let’s give it to Hitler, it is just a city in Poland. Why should we die for it?’”

At the same time, the foreign ministers Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov had agreed on a pact according to which Finland, the Baltic countries, and the eastern part of Poland would be turned into Russian territory. As a consequence, all those areas ended up as parts of the Soviet Union for seven decades — except Finland, which decided to fight for its independence and saved 90% of its territory in the Winter War.

Even though that war is considered a miracle, it is not an honour for the French and the British, who had promised to help Finland in many ways. Namely, they made many promises but ended up fulfilling only a small fraction of them regarding military material, and completely refused to send armed forces despite talks that those would also be sent via Norway and Sweden.

Based on this history from my grandparents’ generation, I certainly hope that history will not repeat itself — but that the difference will be an active NATO upholding its Article 5, and accordingly taking care of the agreed arrangements. And that it would show Kuleba that today’s Western Europe and the USA are more reliable pillars of European security than the Western powers of the late 1930s.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans
Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

A Quick Israeli Success in Iran Would Be Crucial for Ukraine

Israel's attacks today demonstrated that Iran has no means to defend itself against the Jewish state's assaults. Nor does it have the capability to inflict significant damage on Israel, as the mullahs’ failed counterattack attempt showed.

As a consequence, the conflict between Israel and Iran will be militarily uninteresting. However, it is clear that if Iran even partially closes the Strait of Hormuz, the global market price of crude oil will rise — and this, in turn, will have an indirect impact, particularly on the war in Ukraine.

This is because the price increase would result in money flowing into Russia’s war chest from oil sales more rapidly than it currently does. And this would lead to two consequences, both of which would be detrimental to Ukraine.

The first would naturally be that the increased oil revenues would provide more funding for arming Putin’s military, thus strengthening Russia’s invading army. The second is that the burden of war on Russian civilians would ease, thereby reducing the risk of a collapse in support for Putin’s regime — and thus the risk of a potential popular uprising.

For this reason, it is to be hoped that Israel achieves its objectives in Iran as quickly as possible. And if the mullahs attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, its openness must be ensured by the actions of other countries — especially the United States.

For this reason, it is especially interesting to closely follow the war between Israel and Iran over the weekend and the early part of next week. And perhaps even to hope that the Iranian people will grow tired of their Islamist regime and overthrow it through a popular uprising — just as the Shah's regime collapsed 46 years ago. And as a result, shut down Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran Rejects Direct Nuclear Talks with U.S., Calls Them Pointless
Can Peace Emerge from Horrific War Crimes?
Israel’s Strike on Iran: Ripple Effects for the Middle East, Russia, and Global Stability

Newsom Rising, Unity Fading

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s chances of becoming the next President of the United States increased significantly after the current head of state, Donald Trump, decided to use tough measures to quell the riots in Los Angeles.

If—and when—this happens, it will mean a further deepening of the divide within the United States. This is because Newsom belongs to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and will likely face off against a Trump-aligned Republican. 

This does not bode well for the global superpower that has led the world for a long time, and which is increasingly being challenged by China economically, militarily, and politically. Nor is it good news for Western Europe, where people have, for far too long, operated under the assumption that the U.S. will selflessly take care of global security matters without EU countries investing in their own defense to the same extent.

That’s why it is important for Americans, after the Trump era, to succeed in finding more common ground rather than allowing politically opposed leaders to dig even deeper trenches between different segments of the population. And neither Newsom nor his potential Trumpist opponent is the right person to lead such a unifying process.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ego at the Altar
Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?
Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions

Russian Aircraft Violated Finnish Airspace – But What’s the Point?

The Finnish Ministry of Defence issued a terse statement reporting that a Russian aircraft had violated Finnish airspace. This was by no means the first such incident—something similar occurred most recently in late May.

Such actions are, of course, inherently irrational coming from a state that has entangled itself in a years-long war. If this were to lead to a military confrontation on Finnish territory, it would significantly complicate Russia’s position in Ukraine, as part of its armed forces would have to be redirected to a new front.

However, there appears to be little risk of that happening. The Russians seem to trust that Finland will handle the matter through diplomatic channels. In this case, that meant summoning the Russian ambassador to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, where he was given a message to take back to Moscow.

I find it difficult to understand Russia’s behavior in the Baltic region, as it yields no visible benefits. Not even testing the readiness of Finland’s air force qualifies, since the Russians have seen that many times before.

Therefore, the reasons are likely to be found in Russia’s domestic politics. Perhaps this kind of low-risk saber-rattling offers the Kremlin a sense of satisfaction—or even a narrative to present to ordinary Russians worn down by the war in Ukraine.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?
The Downing of the Azerbaijani Plane Is a War Crime That Must Be Condemned
Finns - Among the World’s Best

EU Citizens Don’t Want More Migrants – But How Can the Flow of Asylum Seekers Be Slowed?

As many as seven out of ten citizens of the European Union believe that their country receives too many immigrants. In addition, 85 percent of respondents think that the European Union should do more to combat illegal immigration. In contrast, only 39 percent believe that Europe needs more immigrants.

This reflects the will of the people, but at the same time, part of the political elite—detached from the public—such as the former chairperson of Finland’s Green Party, Maria Ohisalo, would like to open more legal pathways into Europe for migrants.

In this regard, it was interesting to note that Finland’s Minister of the Interior, Mari Rantanen (Finns Party), has proposed a solution in the form of a so-called "three-basket model." In this model, asylum seekers would be categorized into different baskets based on their actual motives.

The first basket would be for international protection and would include people with a genuine need for asylum—something the applicant themselves must demonstrate. The second basket would include those applying for asylum for other reasons, such as studying, working, or generally seeking a better life. The third basket would be for those seeking asylum as part of a hostile state’s hybrid warfare tactics targeting the EU.

Different approaches and regulatory frameworks should be applied to these different baskets, instead of placing all asylum seekers into one and the same category. According to Rantanen, the current one-size-fits-all system has not worked so far and will not work in the future either.

It remains to be seen whether Finland's Minister of the Interior will gain support for her proposal in other EU countries. And of course, whether the system she proposes could actually work in practice.

In my view, a key factor in regulating the number of asylum seekers is the pull factors in EU countries. The better the conditions and benefits offered to newcomers, the more people will try to cross borders for reasons other than a genuine need for asylum. For this reason, it is extremely important that EU politicians stick to offering only the minimum benefits to asylum seekers.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Commission Should Take Migration and Related Crime Seriously
Hope For a Better Life Is Not an Acceptable Basis for Asylum
Finland to Tighten Citizenship Requirements Further

EU Commission Should Take Migration and Related Crime Seriously

A Finnish district court has sentenced Kerime Örcel, 30, and Johan Araf Josef Otterdahl, 22, to long prison terms in a criminal case involving the manufacture of a thermos bomb and aggravated drug offenses. In a press conference, the police stated they suspect the planned bombing attack was commissioned by a Swedish criminal organization.

Otterdahl had agreed to detonate the thermos bomb at the entrance of an apartment building in an immigrant-dominated suburb in the Helsinki region and had received the assignment from a Swedish criminal group, which had promised him a reward for carrying out the act. The bomb had a lethal blast radius of approximately three meters and could have caused shrapnel injuries within an 11-meter range.

Örcel was apprehended at the end of September when she transported 157 kilograms of amphetamines and 20,000 ecstasy tablets across the border into Finland. This is the largest single amphetamine seizure in Finnish criminal history. Otterdahl, on the other hand, was arrested later in the autumn.

* * *

The above case is just one example of how the problems of Swedish society are also spreading to Finland as immigrant-background criminals expand their territory across the Baltic Sea. So far, the Finnish police have succeeded quite well in preventing larger problems, but time will tell how long this can continue.

That is why it is important that Swedes also take their problems seriously and prevent them from spreading across the Baltic. Toward Denmark, however, it is already too late, as Swedish criminals now move rather freely across the Danish straits to commit crimes (example).

All of this also demonstrates that the migration-related problems faced by European countries are by no means local, and therefore cannot be resolved solely through local measures. That is why the EU Commission and politicians should take migration into Europe and the related crime seriously—unlike what has happened in recent years.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Getting Populists to Govern Responsibly: What the Netherlands and Finland Can Teach Us
Police to Finnish Graduates: Leave Fireworks, Blades, and Booze at Home
Why Integration Policy Must Confront Cultural Conflicts

Greta Thunberg in Search of a Greater Thrill

Swedish Greta Thunberg originally became known as a teenage climate activist with Asperger's syndrome, supported by her ambitious parents. As she has grown older, she has evolved into a professional activist who makes a living by staging various stunts — in her view — for good causes.

Currently, there is a sailing mission underway, followed by journalists from around the world. The idea is to deliver a small shipment of food to Gaza, which, in the bigger picture, is unlikely to have any significant impact. What is essential, however, is that Thunberg once again gains media visibility — something she consistently seems to achieve successfully.

This time, however, her actions involve a greater-than-usual risk, as Israel has prohibited the delivery of aid to the territory it occupies. This is due to previous aid shipments having partly ended up in the hands of terrorists, thereby functioning as a channel of funding for them.

If and when Thunberg's group attempts to forcibly reach Gaza’s coast, it is possible that Israel will resort to strong measures to stop them. According to Finnish professor Hannu Juusola, the situation could escalate so severely that lives may be lost.

Therefore, it is worth asking — if not Thunberg herself, then those behind her — whether personal media visibility is truly worth the potential loss of human life? Or is it indeed the case that an activist behaves like an addict, who must get their fix over and over again, each time seeking a greater thrill?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
How Hamas Exploited Aid and Lost the Support of Many Palestinians
The demands of the vandals
Preventing future fires in Hawaii is possible, but the question remains: Are animal activists and politicians prepared for the necessary measures?

Getting Populists to Govern Responsibly: What the Netherlands and Finland Can Teach Us

The Dutch government collapsed because the Freedom Party (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, withdrew from the coalition. The reason for this was that Prime Minister Dick Schoof's coalition government failed to implement the strict immigration policy outlined in the coalition agreement quickly enough.

In other words, Schoof and the other coalition parties did want the Freedom Party to support their policies, but they were not, in turn, willing to advance the issues that are of utmost importance to the PVV. As a result, new parliamentary elections will be held in the Netherlands on October 29.

This case is interesting from a Finnish perspective, as Finland also has a government that includes an immigration-critical party, the Finns Party. It has supported initiatives important to the other coalition parties, and as a consequence, has lost much of its support and its position in local politics in municipal and regional elections.

Nevertheless, the Finns Party remains strongly committed to the coalition because the government has, at the same time, pursued a much stricter immigration policy in line with the party’s demands—thus advancing issues crucial to itself and its core voter base. As a result, current, or remaining, supporters of the Finns Party are more satisfied with the government's actions than supporters of other parties.

This is something that should be noted in other Western countries as well. In most of them, immigration policy has been at odds with the will of the people, so a change is bound to happen sooner or later.

This means a stricter immigration policy, in exchange for which immigration-critical parties brought into government understand the necessity of supporting parts of the coalition program they may otherwise dislike. At the same time, forming coalition governments becomes easier and the will expressed by citizens in elections is more accurately implemented.

After all, isn't that ultimately the purpose of democracy? To carry out policies that reflect the will of the people as expressed in elections?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Should the Dutch Do Something About the Fact That Immigrants Don't Tolerate Visiting Jews?
A woman's logic, Putin's test, and the Netherlands' change
Attitudes towards immigrants are not becoming more positive in Western countries