The Regulatory Web Is Driving Europe’s Economic Decline

As you, my esteemed readers, have undoubtedly noticed, the European Union’s position as one of the world’s leading economic regions has eroded over the past two decades. This is illustrated by the chart below, which shows the development of gross domestic product (GDP).

One clear reason for this unfavourable trend is the steadily growing — indeed, quite explosive — proliferation of well-intentioned but highly diverse regulatory requirements, namely EU directives. As a researcher, I have even experienced firsthand how they form a kind of regulatory web that effectively prevents publicly funded scientific knowledge from being translated into technological solutions for businesses and drivers of economic growth in the EU.

This has naturally contributed significantly to the EU falling behind both the United States and China in technological and economic development. This is clearly illustrated, for example, by patent application figures. While the Chinese have filed 1.4 million patent applications so far this year, the Americans 262,000, the Japanese 222,000 and even the South Koreans 186,000, the three major EU countries of Germany, France and Italy have filed just over 60,000 applications combined.

* * *

In this respect, it is encouraging that a number of northern member states are seeking to cut the funding allocated to the EU’s central administration, whose bureaucratic inertia spreads into virtually every corner of the Union. That is why I noted with satisfaction a brief news report stating that Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party) had announced that Finland could not accept Ireland’s proposal to reduce the EU budget by a mere €140 billion.

According to Orpo, “some savings have been identified, but far too few, and in some cases in the wrong areas.” By the latter, he was referring to budget cuts affecting defence, research and new technologies. In other words, the cuts are being directed at the very areas of expenditure that are most important for the EU’s future, rather than at socialist-style spending, such as cohesion funds intended to reduce disparities between different regions of the Union.

* * *

It remains to be seen, however, what the EU’s administrative machinery will ultimately decide. Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Denmark share Finland’s position, but opposition is particularly strong in Southern and Eastern Europe, whose countries benefit from and advocate for cohesion funding — funding that, in many respects, resembles development aid.

Some kind of resolution may be reached at next week’s summit in Brussels. We should hardly expect miracles, however, since all political systems seem to have an unfortunate tendency to expand bureaucracy and endlessly quibble over details rather than trust in the creative power of the market’s invisible hand.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Carbon Sink Policy Lacks Cost-Effectiveness
Polish Politics: A Quiet Success Story
A New Beginning: Economic Independence in the Hands of Developing Nations

Lessons for EU Citizens from the Ceuta Episode

The events in Ceuta have led Europeans to wake up. Or at least almost all of them, since 22 EU countries – Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden – have signed a letter calling for effective protection of the external borders, action to prevent illegal entry, and support for Spain. Finland’s signatory was Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party).

It is regrettable, of course, that five countries have expressed their desire to see the continuation of the modern-day mass migration by refusing to sign the demand. They are Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal, whose motives are – at least to me – rather difficult to understand, because this is not about immigration in general but specifically about illegal immigration.

* * *

The Finnish Government evidently takes illegal immigration seriously, since Minister of the Interior Mari Rantanen (Finns Party) immediately instructed her ministry’s officials to prepare the measures required for closing Finland’s EU internal borders. According to her, the purpose is to ensure that the “decisions required to close the internal borders can, on the basis of this preparatory work, be made very quickly if the need arises.”

In other words, neither Rantanen nor Finland is unilaterally closing the EU’s internal borders, but rather creating the capability to do so quickly if necessary. This is important because, in the absence of both the necessary legislation – and the political will – the Finnish Government was forced in 2015 to stand by helplessly as large numbers of illegal immigrants poured into our country from the western border.

As a result of the preparations now under way, the steps required to close our country’s EU borders will in future already be prepared in advance, meaning that shutting them can be accomplished with a single order from the Government. And as a result, the internal movement of illegal immigrants into our northern land will come to an end.

* * *

It remains to be seen whether Finland will ever need the legislation currently being prepared. In any case, the events in Ceuta turned out to be a brief episode, possibly caused by organized – perhaps even state-sponsored – crime.

This is because there is no way to get from Ceuta to mainland Europe without border checks. Thus, it was not a route that could have led to a repetition of the events of 2015. Consequently, the Moroccans who had rushed there soon returned to their home country.

In the end, the whole Ceuta episode concluded happily, just like a fairy tale. Instead of the modern-day mass migration taking another step forward, it reminded EU politicians that it is better to prepare in advance than to find themselves searching for illegal immigrants all over the Union.

That is why it is difficult to understand the stupidity demonstrated by the power-holders in Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal by refusing to sign the demand mentioned at the beginning. Perhaps, in their next parliamentary elections, the citizens of those countries will understand that they would be well advised to consider giving their votes to politicians more responsible than their current rulers!

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
From Burden to Benefit: Reforming Immigration in Finland
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Why is Somalia unwilling to meet Finland’s conditions for continuing development cooperation?

Who Is Interested in the Rights of Nigerien Homosexuals?

According to a recent news report, Niger, located in West Africa, has criminalized same-sex relationships. As a result, people who engage in homosexual activity can be sentenced to up to ten years in prison and fined.

In addition, the law states that attempting to engage in "LGBTQ acts" may be punished in the same way. And that is not all: participating in the activities of organizations representing sexual and gender minorities can also result in an equally severe punishment.

* * *

The reason given for the new law is that same-sex relationships are not in line with the country's social and cultural values. It remains to be seen, therefore, how various European organizations and civil society activists will react to Niger's values and culture.

Will we see rainbow activists demonstrating in the streets of Helsinki, Stockholm, Berlin, or Paris in support of homosexual people in Niger? Will European politicians condemn the actions of Niger's government? Or will Nigeriens themselves rise up against the country's military regime as a result of the decision?

* * *

Personally, I believe that the plight of homosexual people in Niger is of little real interest to Europeans. Neither politicians nor rainbow activists are likely to be motivated to protest over the issue.

For my part, I maintain that a person's sexuality is a private matter and should concern no one other than the individuals involved, provided that it does not involve violence, coercion, or exploitation. This principle applies equally in the European Union and in Niger, and for that reason I wish to express my disapproval of the actions of the country's military government.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Free Speech Is Prosecuted: Päivi Räsänen’s Case Explained for Americans
Gender identity and the future of Finnishness
Library Scrubs Queer Creator’s Character from Moomin Exhibit

A Timely Reminder of the Failures of Europe’s Political Leaders

Next Sunday, we will once again move the clocks forward by one hour. This was reported by Uutissuomalainen, according to which “the proposal to end clock changes is still awaiting consideration by the EU Council. Not all member states have formed their positions.”

The article also stated that “the European Commission wants to promote the abolition of the daylight saving time directive. Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism Apóstolos Tzitzikostas launched an evaluation in February to examine the EU-wide impacts of clock changes.”

The report is expected to be completed by the end of the year, the Ministry of Transport and Communications said in a press release. After that, the Commission will assess further actions.

* * *

In this respect, it is rather remarkable that this is by no means a new issue. As I myself wrote already six years ago, “perhaps an even more illustrative example of the EU’s inability to make decisions was once again highlighted last night. We still had to move the hands of the clock, even though a majority of EU citizens would like to end it and both the Commission and Parliament have already made decisions on the matter.”

And that is not all, because as much as eleven and a half years ago I could state that “studies have shown that changing the clocks is harmful overall, and therefore the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare has recommended abandoning the practice.” This has not changed over the years, as a scientific review article published last year found that “the transition to daylight saving time was associated with harmful effects ranging from reduced sleep duration and quality to increased sleepiness.”

* * *

Therefore, it is worth repeating once again the fact that this endless clock-changing farce is likely to weaken people’s faith and trust in the European Union—if it has not already made it a laughing stock. And what is worse, year after year it shows ever more clearly that this is not merely about people’s feelings but about harsh reality.

Indeed, the clock-changing farce undeniably demonstrates the shocking incompetence of our continent’s leaders, which is undoubtedly one reason why we have fallen behind the United States both economically and militarily, as the striking chart of GDP development below clearly shows.

Unfortunately, clock changes and economic problems are not the only areas in which European leaders have failed. At the same time, they have also managed to fill many member states with welfare migrants from developing countries—while the birth rate of the native population has dropped dramatically.

European politicians have also succeeded in weakening the continent’s military capability to such an extent that Russia has been able to wage its war in Ukraine for years without the EU being able to intervene. And even worse, they have encouraged the U.S. president to question the usefulness of NATO—developments that could ultimately lead to the loss of Europe’s future and the way of life of its people.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Carbon Sink Policy Lacks Cost-Effectiveness
Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?
Changing the Clocks Reduces Trust in the European Union

EU Carbon Sink Policy Lacks Cost-Effectiveness

Norwegian researchers Maarit Kallio and Elias Garvik published a study on the carbon sink policy of the EU and Norway (hereafter Europe), in which achieving forest sink targets would require an immediate and steep reduction in roundwood harvesting in Europe. This reduction could amount to 113–117 million cubic meters in the years 2030–2035 compared to a market-driven scenario, meaning that the costs of emission reductions would rise to more than €700 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

According to the researchers, this would simultaneously result in roughly two-thirds of Europe’s reduction in harvesting being offset by increased tree felling elsewhere in the world, particularly in North America, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia and Chile. In other words, restricting forest harvesting would ultimately lead to a massive transfer of income from Europe to the rest of the world without delivering significant climate benefits.

In addition, the researchers found that although harvesting restrictions would increase forest carbon sinks, their overall impact on the climate would remain limited because the climate benefits of wood products would simultaneously be lost. At the same time, economic activity in our continent would decline and significant income transfers to outside Europe would occur.

Thus, the cost per tonne of emissions saved—due to the economic burden placed on Europeans—would be many times higher than the prices used in the European Emissions Trading System.

This simply means that, in its current form, Europe’s carbon sink policy is not a cost-effective mitigation measure compared to other available options. Europe should therefore promptly abandon its current—naïve and ineffective—carbon sink policy, as it is simply irrational.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The EU Needs Innovations That Drive Climate Neutrality
Misleading Claims About European Forests
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Tuoreen tutkimuksen mukaan EU:n hiilinielupolitiikka on järjetöntä

Free School Education for Foreigners Ends in Finland

The Parliament of Finland approved the government’s proposal according to which students from outside the EU and EEA will in the future pay an annual fee in upper-secondary schools (lukio) and vocational institutions corresponding to the actual cost of their education. We are not talking about small sums: for example, the cost of one year of upper-secondary school can exceed 10,000 euros.

According to Statistics Finland, in 2022 there were about 35,000 foreign nationals studying in vocational education and about 3,400 in upper-secondary schools. These figures also include people from EU and EEA countries, to whom the legislative change does not apply. The largest groups in vocational schools were Estonians (around 4,500), Russians (around 4,500), Iraqis (around 3,500), Afghans (around 2,200) and Filipinos (around 2,000).

In Parliament, the proposal was opposed not only by the left-wing parties—the Greens and the Left Alliance—but also by the Centre Party. It would be interesting to know what the party’s voters think about the matter at a time when public services have been cut and will continue to be cut drastically—if not from foreigners’ services, then from Finns’.

This was also noted by MP Joakim Vigelius, who additionally stated—quite correctly—that "Finland cannot be the world’s educational hub, nor a global social service office, health centre, care home or prison. The money will not be sufficient if the number of those to be served expands to everyone crossing the border without conditions, fees or responsibilities."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Attitudes Toward Immigrants Are a Problem in Schools
Has Modern Education Strayed Too Far — and Is It Time to Change Course?
Marx in the Classroom: How Ideological Education Shaped Careers and Values

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Laitavasemmisto ja Keskusta haluaisivat Suomesta koko maailman ilmaisen koulutuskeskuksen

Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?

Based on the latest news, it now appears that the EU will have to decide whether it is a significant actor or merely a paper tiger in world politics. I mean that the United States has pressured Ukraine to accept a peace plan dictated by Russia—or at least one that appears to be so—circulating under the name of Donald Trump.

According to media reports, the pressure has taken the form of threatening Ukrainians with a reduction in American military aid and intelligence support if the plan is not accepted. This is a serious situation, because—as I understand it—it is perfectly clear that Ukraine cannot continue the war in its current circumstances without U.S. intelligence assistance, when survival against the enemy is already hanging by a thread.

If Donald Trump is serious, Ukraine is left with two options: either to accept a peace agreement highly similar to the one effectively forced upon Finland in 1944, or for Europeans to step in and fully replace American support.

That does not mean that Germany’s Merz, France’s Macron, and Britain’s Starmer can simply continue to offer verbal reassurances of their support. The major EU countries must now genuinely commit to large-scale assistance for Ukraine, because the shoulders of the Baltic states and the Nordic countries alone are in no way sufficient to stop Russia. Otherwise, Ukraine will be handed over to the Russians.

Based on current information, a decision will be made by next Thursday, as Trump is waiting until then for Zelensky’s answer. After that, he—possibly due to some form of blackmail related to his past trips to Moscow—will abandon the Ukrainians to their fate.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?
Questionable Achievements of Donald Trump's Foreign Policy

A Professor’s Ten-Point Plan to Fix Europe’s Immigration Policy

Finnish emeritus Professor Vesa Kanniainen has made a list related to immigration policy.

1. The EU member states must abandon the universal social security model throughout Europe.

2. The processing of asylum applications must be moved outside Europe.

3. Financial aid must be stopped for those countries of origin of refugees that refuse to take back their citizens who have not been granted asylum and whose return would therefore not violate the Geneva Convention.

4. Those who have received a negative asylum decision must be required to cooperate and be housed in return centers while waiting for their journey home.

5. Crossing European borders by land, sea, or air must be criminalized when a person does not have a positive asylum decision or valid travel documents.

6. Transport vehicles (such as boats in the Mediterranean) financed by criminal organizations must be confiscated.

7. International cooperation with various countries must be strengthened in order to relocate refugees outside Europe.

8. Visits by those who have been granted asylum to their home country must be prohibited.

9. Family reunifications of asylum seekers must be prohibited or frozen.

10. All foreigners who have received an unconditional or conditional prison sentence must be deported, regardless of how long they have lived in an EU country.

I think the professor’s list is quite good. So good, in fact, that it should be implemented as it is. For that reason, all its points should serve as guiding principles both in the humanitarian decisions of the current European Commission and in Finland’s immigration policy program after 2027.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Two Men Sentenced for Raping Underage Girls
Is Immigration Driving the Nordic Countries Apart?
Why is Somalia unwilling to meet Finland’s conditions for continuing development cooperation?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
https://professorinajatuksia.blogspot.com/2025/11/vesa-kanniaisen-lista-kannattaisi.html

Responding to Russia’s Challenges Is Essential

This morning’s news reported that Poland’s air defense destroyed Russian drones. And this did not happen in Ukraine, but in the airspace of Poland, a NATO member.

Taking into account the recent interference with the aircraft carrying the president of the European Commission, as well as the earlier bombing of a factory in Ukraine owned by Americans and the damaging of EU and UK buildings, it is becoming clear that this is not about accidents but deliberate actions. And such actions can only have one purpose: to test the unity and readiness of Europeans and especially NATO.

At the same time, it is clear that the more loosely the West responds to Russian actions, the more certain it is that Russia will continue to challenge them. The only question is where and in what way.

In this situation, the greatest danger lies with the smallest border states, namely the Baltic countries. Estonia, for instance, has recently been subjected to several airspace violations, the latest just a couple of days ago.

Thus, the question arises: if the West responds weakly or not at all to Russia’s provocations related to the war in Ukraine, could a surprise attack be ahead? For example, a blitzkrieg directed at one of the Baltic states, with the goal of occupying the entire country so quickly that a reluctant NATO would not have time to intervene?

To prevent such a scenario, it is important that Western countries pull themselves together, recognize the obvious facts, and respond forcefully to Russia’s provocations in Ukraine and in its immediate border areas. In doing so, they would send Vladimir Putin the clearest possible message: that there are no easy victories for him in EU and NATO countries—only bitter defeat.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine’s Missiles and Russia’s Forced Recruitment Set to Topple Putin’s Regime
The War in Ukraine Came Close to Me
Donald Trump’s Meeting With Vladimir Putin: The Advice He Needs

Patria TRACKX: Next-Generation Vehicle for Emerging Challenges

The war in Ukraine has undoubtedly been a shock to military leadership worldwide, as old doctrines of warfare have been put to the test there – and in many respects, outright discarded. As a result, every army’s leadership has been forced to consider how to respond to these newly emerged challenges. For arms manufacturers, the task has become figuring out how to meet these needs.

In this regard, an illuminating example is provided by Patria, a manufacturer of military vehicles, which has unveiled a new armored personnel carrier equipped with a machine gun – the Patria TRACKX. This is a next-generation vehicle that specifically incorporates lessons learned from the war in Ukraine.

One such lesson is the threat posed by drones, which until now has scarcely been taken into account in military vehicle design. TRACKX brings a change in this area, as its protection is designed specifically to neutralize drone attacks.

Another key issue highlighted by the war in Ukraine for military vehicle design is the requirement for high performance in challenging conditions. For this reason, TRACKX runs on rubber tracks but can also move at high speed when needed. This has been demonstrated in practice, as TRACKX set a new world speed record for tracked vehicles in the spring – 88 kilometers per hour.

Patria expects that, due to these innovative features, there will be significant demand for the vehicle both within the EU and beyond. According to the company, serial production will begin in 2027.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Palestine Action Suomi - a Bona Fide Actor or False Flag Organization?
Renaissance of the Finnish Defense Industry
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine

Is Immigration Driving the Nordic Countries Apart?

The bigger Nordic countries – Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland – are generally seen as a highly unified group of states, where democratic decision-making works exceptionally well. At the same time, however, they have undergone major demographic changes as a result of humanitarian immigration, which will likely have a significant impact on their future.

Sweden, as a former great power, is the largest Nordic country, governed by the local EPP together with a smaller EPP party and a liberal RE party. The government is also supported in parliament by an ECR party outside the coalition, whose immigration policy goals have been included in the government program.

This unusual arrangement stems from the fact that Sweden’s immigration policy has been extremely liberal, which has made the country’s population more multicultural than in the other Nordic countries. At the same time, the related challenges have also been greater.

This is reflected in the support for Swedish parties. The largest party in the country is still the Social Democrats (S&D group in the European Parliament), with around 34% support, but a party belonging to the ECR group that is critical of multiculturalism has risen to compete with the EPP for second place, with about 20% support. The country’s other parties are small.

Denmark is currently governed by a three-party coalition consisting of the Social Democrats (S&D) and two RE parties.

Unlike in the other Nordic countries, Denmark’s S&D has long pursued a strict immigration policy, which has reduced immigration-related problems. This helped their support rise a few years ago to very high levels – even around 35% – but in recent years it has dropped to about 20%. Despite this, the party remains clearly the most popular in the country.

Denmark’s second most popular party has been the Greens (G/EFA), with support around 15%. They are followed slightly behind by the RE-affiliated Venstre party, and behind them an ECR party at about 10%, which is slightly higher than the Danish PfE group, whose support has risen significantly this year. In addition, a large number of smaller parties influence Danish politics, including the smallest RE party in government.

In Norway, the country is currently governed by a minority government of the local S&D party, but parliamentary elections are being held today and tomorrow, after which a new government will likely be formed.

Humanitarian immigration in Norway has been more limited, and thus the related problems have been smaller than in Sweden. Nevertheless, the local ECR group has in recent years competed for the position of the country’s largest party alongside the S&D and the EPP. Meanwhile, the far left (SV) has lost support.

In my home country of Finland, the government is formed by two EPP parties, an ECR party, and an RE party representing the interests of the Swedish-speaking population. The government has pursued a strict economic policy driven by the larger EPP party, while also following the relatively strict immigration policy demanded by the ECR party in its government program.

During the current parliamentary term, the support for Finland’s EPP parties and the language-based party has remained relatively stable (around 20%, 3%, and 4%, respectively). By contrast, the Finns Party’s support collapsed under government responsibility, falling from around 20% in the 2023 elections to about half of that, though in recent months it has started to rise again.

Among the opposition parties, support has grown for the S&D party, which has risen to 26%, making it clearly Finland’s most popular party at the moment. Another recent gainer has been the former agrarian party (around 15%), which for some reason belongs to the RE group in the European Parliament. Meanwhile, the Greens’ support has long been in decline (8%), while the far-left party belonging to the LEFT group has remained fairly stable in 10%.

As this brief overview of Nordic politics shows, there are significant political differences among these countries regarding immigration. It remains to be seen how these differences develop in the future – and especially whether Sweden’s long-standing open immigration policy will lead it to diverge from the other Nordic countries.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors
Nordic Police Announce: Spread of Gang Violence Cannot Be Stopped
Nordic Nations Unite Against the Growing Threat of Cross-Border Organized Crime

Understanding of European Terrorism by Left-wing and Value-liberal Politicians

The terrorism situation and trend report published by Europol showed that jihadist terrorism was once again the deadliest form of terrorism in the EU in 2024. It claimed five lives and left 18 people injured.

During 2024, EU member states reported a total of 58 terrorist attacks. Of these, 34 were carried out, five failed, and 19 were foiled. Attacks were reported in 14 different countries. Of the attacks, 24 were considered to have been committed by jihadist terrorists. In 21 cases, the perpetrators were left-wing or anarchist terrorists.

On the other hand, a total of 40 attempted attacks were prevented in the European Union. Of these, 18 were jihadist-motivated, 21 left-wing or anarchist-motivated, and one far-right-motivated. The foiled jihadist attempts targeted in particular large public events, whereas the left-wing and anarchist attempts were mostly directed at industrial and private-sector targets.

I believe these figures speak for themselves about the consequences of European immigration policy, without me having to spell them out. Such an understanding would be especially important for left-wing and value-liberal politicians, who have been active supporters of this development.

Unfortunately, however, I am skeptical as to whether they would be able—or even willing—to draw logical conclusions from the figures I have presented, since immigration has long since ceased to be a fact-based issue and has instead become a kind of religious confession, in which dissent automatically leads to exclusion from one’s own reference group—and thus to the end of a political career.

Previous thought on the same topic:
Burning a Man Alive Led to Life Imprisonment
Will Tomorrow’s Elections in Germany Be a Turning Point?
Will European Culture Collapse Under the Weight of Islamic Immigration?

Ukraine Risks Losing Western Trust by Muzzling Corruption Watchdog

The Ukrainian parliament decided yesterday to approve a law that limits the independence of the country's anti-corruption bureau and the anti-corruption prosecutor's office. The law came into force immediately with the signature of President Zelensky.

In practice, this means that corruption investigations will now fall under the authority of the Prosecutor General – who is appointed by the President – thereby stripping the investigation process of its independence from the country’s top leadership. As a result, it effectively prevents any meaningful investigation into corruption linked to Zelensky and his administration.

The change is reportedly driven by suspicions of collaboration between anti-corruption bodies and Russian operatives. If these allegations are true, the matter is of course extremely serious and cannot be ignored. This is the case even though, from an external perspective, the measures taken by the administration appear questionable.

On the other hand, it is clear that – as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe – Ukraine has no place in the European Union until its deeply rooted “customary” corruption has been thoroughly eradicated. Therefore, this decision may seriously damage the country’s aspirations to become part of the Western community. And if the new law is found to enable corruption within the top leadership, it is highly likely that it would also collapse the EU countries' willingness to continue military support for Ukraine.

For this reason, perhaps the most important domestic political task for Zelensky’s administration is to demonstrate through its future actions that the purpose of the new law was not to shield the country’s elite from corruption investigations, but solely to eliminate the identified security risk linked to Russia. To support this, it is essential that the actions of Ukraine’s top officials are closely and credibly monitored as a condition for continued Western economic and military support.

PS 21:20. It seems that Zelensky has understood the risks brought by the change, or at least is yielding to the pressure from citizens. That’s good, because – as I wrote – the risks were too great. Nevertheless, Ukrainians must figure out how to keep the Russians out of Ukrainian affairs.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Can Trump Resist the Kremlin’s Lure? 
Finnish Winter war showed the way to help Ukraine
Will an attitude lead Ukraine into EU?

Military Support Is Needed to Reinforce EU Sanctions

The European Union has decided to support Ukraine in its defensive struggle against Vladimir Putin’s Russian imperialism through the following measures: 

1. The use of the Nord Stream gas pipelines will be prohibited.
2. The price cap on Russian oil will be lowered from $60 to approximately $47 per barrel.
3. Sanctions will be imposed on 105 additional vessels linked to Russia’s shadow fleet, which have been used to circumvent existing sanctions.
4. The exclusion of Russian banks from the international SWIFT payment system will be expanded into a full trade embargo.
5. An additional 22 Russian banks will be included in the trade embargo.
6. Trade bans targeting entities in third countries will continue if they are found to be assisting Russia in evading sanctions.
7. The EU proposes sanctions against the Russian Direct Investment Fund, its partners, and its investment targets.
8. The EU is proposing new export bans to Russia worth over €2.5 billion. These bans would target machinery, metals, plastics, and chemicals used in industry.
9. The export of dual-use goods to Russia will be prohibited. This includes items that could also be used for manufacturing weapons.
10. The EU has identified 22 new Russian or international companies that have supported Russia’s war economy.

This package is a good step, and hopefully it will lead to the gradual collapse of Russia’s war economy. However, what is needed right now is also more concrete military assistance for the Ukrainian army, so that the front-line situation turns in favor of the Ukrainians instead of the Russians constantly having the upper hand.

The United States – at least according to President Donald Trump – is already delivering a new military aid package to Ukraine. Therefore, now is also the right time for EU countries to do their part, so that the shift in the balance of power between the warring parties will be as significant as possible.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine’s Former Foreign Minister Warns Against Another 1939 
Warnings from Jussi Halla-aho and Igor Girkin About Europe's Near Future
Supercell’s Ban: The Sanction That Hit Russians the Hardest

Precedent from France Opens EU Pathway for Gaza Palestinians

The French National Asylum Court has issued an important precedent-setting decision, stating that a Palestinian from Gaza must be granted asylum. This is based on the court's opinion that the military operations carried out by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip are now sufficiently severe to be considered a form of persecution.

This sets a legal precedent according to which every Palestinian from Gaza — from infants to Hamas terrorists — is entitled to settle in France. And thereafter, under the Schengen Agreement, they would be able to move freely throughout the EU.

It remains to be seen, however, how many Palestinians will take advantage of this newly opened opportunity and seek to move from Gaza to France — and how many will actually succeed in doing so.

From Israel's perspective, the possibility is extremely tempting, because if moving to France becomes popular, it could be a way to empty the Gaza Strip and repurpose it for use by its own population. On the other hand, this very possibility might limit the willingness of Palestinians to leave the area.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 
When Demands Become Damage 
Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator
Western Countries Have Neither a Reason Nor a Need to Accept Asylum Seekers from Syria or Gaza

Estonians Have Learned from Their History — and Defend Accordingly

One of the countries that regained its independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union was Estonia—the northernmost and smallest of the Baltic states. It has a population of just under 1.5 million people, of whom 68.5 percent are ethnic Estonians, 21 percent Russians, 5.4 percent Ukrainians, and the rest people of other ethnic backgrounds.

This nation has built a prosperous state, where GDP per capita has risen from $2,685.90 in 1993 to an impressive $31,170. In other words, it has grown more than elevenfold—or by 1,160 percent.

Estonia was independent from 1918 until 1940, when the Soviet Union occupied it along with the other Baltic states, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact it had signed with Nazi Germany. Incidentally, Stalin also issued ultimatums to Finland on similar grounds and eventually launched a full-scale military invasion. However, the Finns did not yield and managed to preserve their independence.

Having learned from all this, Estonians have taken national defense seriously since regaining independence. As a sign of this commitment, Estonia joined NATO as quickly as possible, and the country’s defense minister, Hanno Pevkur, has stated that Estonia allocates five percent of its gross domestic product to actual military spending.

Unlike in many other countries, high defense spending enjoys broad public support in Estonia. Among Estonian speakers, 41 percent believe defense spending should be increased to five percent of GDP, and 34 percent support a defense budget of 3.5 percent. Even among Russian speakers, 17 percent favor 3.5 percent, and five percent support increasing it to five percent.

This strong public backing allows Estonia’s defense forces to develop their capabilities further. In practice, this has included the acquisition of HIMARS air defense systems and long-range missiles capable of striking deep into Russian territory. The rationale behind the latter is the principle that if Russia attacks Estonia, the war must be taken immediately to Russian soil.

I believe that Estonia’s perspective is worth listening to not only in neighboring countries that share a border with Russia but also in Central Europe—and even along the Atlantic coast.

This is because people in those countries can only remain secure if the whole of Europe sends a clear signal that Russia has no chance of success—neither in the borderlands nor further west—thanks to overwhelming support available to frontline countries like the Baltics, should it ever be necessary.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?
Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?
Shifting U.S. Foreign Policy Sparks Concerns in Estonia

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

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?

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

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