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.
Most popular posts right now
-
Belarus is one of the last dictatorships in Europe. The country is ruled by President Aleksandr Lukashenko , whose hold on power is supporte...
-
At least for me, it has been difficult to understand exactly what has happened in the war between Ukraine and Russia during the current year...
-
I just read a news story about the United Kingdom which, in all its absurdity, seemed downright unbelievable. According to it, a radiograph...
22 September 2025
Palestine’s Statehood and International Law
22 February 2025
Will Tomorrow’s Elections in Germany Be a Turning Point?
16 February 2025
Will European Culture Collapse Under the Weight of Islamic Immigration?
3 February 2025
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
25 November 2024
A Major Victory for the Freedom Party in Austria's Regional Elections
The ultra-liberal immigration policies of Europe’s traditional parties are heading for a dead end. One sign of this is the local elections held in Styria, Austria, where the immigration-critical Freedom Party achieved as much as approximately 35% of the vote.
The Styrian conservatives received 26.8% of the vote, and the Social Democrats 21.1%. Thus, these parties have the possibility to form a majority coalition if they ally, for example, with the Greens or the Liberals.
In such a situation, smaller parties would have a disproportionate opportunity to influence policy. However, such a solution would not diminish the policies that 35% of voters opposed. Moreover, forming such an "unholy alliance" against the Freedom Party would intensify societal polarization.
A similar situation applies across Europe. In Finland, democracy has been taken seriously, meaning that the immigration-critical Finns Party has participated in responsible governance as part of a coalition led by the National Coalition Party. As a result, immigration policies have been rationalized in many ways and will continue to be so until the end of the government’s term.
However, it appears that in many European countries, normal democratic practices are being opposed by labeling parties with support from tens of percent of voters as unsuitable for cooperation. This, in turn, continues to polarize society, election after election. I wouldn’t call such an approach either reasonable or constructive.
Previous thoughts on the same topics:
The Fall of Germany’s Government Could Open the EU’s Path to a Better Future
Cancellation of Taylor Swift's Concert in Austria Was a Success for the Terrorists
French Election Results: A Deep Dive into Tactical Voting and Its Implications
9 August 2024
Cancellation of Taylor Swift's Concert in Austria Was a Success for the Terrorists
Sweden's Rapid Demographic Shift Causes Challenges
Two out of three Palestinians support October 7 attack
Prediction: Sharia law in force in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France by the year 2044