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

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

Polish Politics: A Quiet Success Story

Poland has in recent years served as an example for much of Europe in many respects. It has supported Ukraine almost unreservedly, developed its own defense capabilities through significant investments, and grown its economy at a rapid pace.

In terms of defense, Poland has, in a short time, become one of the strongest—if not the strongest—nations in Europe in terms of conventional warfare. Its army of nearly 300,000 troops has at its disposal, among other things, around 1,000 modern tanks, 600 howitzers, and nearly 50 American-built F-35 or F-16 fighter jets.

Poland’s economy, meanwhile, has grown so that its GDP per capita rose from $12,464 in 2016 to a notable $22,056 by 2023. Despite this, the average wage people earn from their work has fluctuated rather than risen in recent years.

Poland has in recent years been governed by the pro-EU, center-right Donald Tusk, while the presidency has been held by national conservative Andrzej Duda. Now, the presidential election has been won by Karol Nawrocki, who promotes a political agenda similar to Duda's, so no major changes in the country’s political direction are expected.

This is likely good news for all Europeans, even if many would have preferred that Nawrocki lose to his pro-EU opponent. In that case, the country would likely have shifted its policies to resemble those of its western neighbors—both for better and for worse.

However, the fact remains that the president does not have the power to steer Poland’s political direction; at best, he can only slow the developments driven by the government and parliament. And based on the developments of recent years—as outlined above—this arrangement has worked exceptionally well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?
Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare

Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?

The American scholar John Mearsheimer has commented on Finland’s NATO membership in an extremely negative tone. According to him, joining the alliance has weakened Finland’s security situation, and furthermore, the decision was made at the worst possible time.

In Mearsheimer’s view, instead of joining NATO, Finland should have continued its post-World War II policy of "Finlandization," where the country refrained from criticizing the Soviet Union's actions, no matter what they were. During that time, politicians and the media lied directly to the Finnish people about the conditions, human rights issues, and ambitions of their eastern neighbor.

However, it is noteworthy that despite all this, most Finns lived in constant fear, day and night, that Russia would occupy the country — a country with no allies to come to its aid in times of crisis. In other words, people feared a repeat of the Winter War.

Mearsheimer has also stated that Finland joined NATO at a completely wrong moment, as the alliance is now facing deep problems. He even speculated that U.S. forces might withdraw from Europe and that NATO’s Article 5 — the obligation to assist a member state under attack — would lose its significance.

He further claimed that Finland’s President Alexander Stubb has been wrong about Ukraine from the very beginning because Stubb believes in discredited ideas promoted by Western liberal imperialists since the end of the Cold War.

* * * 

After reading Mearsheimer’s views, I found myself reflecting on his words. His credibility is bolstered by the fact that already in 1993, he predicted that Ukraine should not give up its nuclear weapons the following year.

First, I concluded that neither I nor almost any other Finn — except for some on the far left — want in any way to return to the era of Finlandization. That’s why I deeply support Finland’s NATO membership and the DCA agreement with the United States, to ensure we are never again left alone if Russia attacks.

Second, I fully understand that if NATO and the DCA were to lose their significance, it would be impossible for a country of five and a half million people to maintain its independence in the event of a full-scale Russian assault. Finland’s only option would be to make the price of conquest unbearably high for Russia — just as happened in the Winter War of 1939–40 (as a result of which Finland lost about 10 percent of its territory), during which Soviet casualties reached 321,000–381,000 in about one hundred days, despite Finland's lack of modern weaponry and allies.

* * *

In light of the threat posed by Putin, I have advocated here on this blog that Western European states must build sufficient military strength and commit — within the EU framework or otherwise — to each other’s defense. Many leading European politicians, including Germany’s new Chancellor Friedrich Merz, currently share this view.

Thus, it seems to me that by the time Russia and Vladimir Putin find a way out of Ukraine, Western Europe — including Finland — will have grown militarily strong enough that Russia will no longer have the capacity even to threaten its security. This is something Mearsheimer should be aware of as well.

Therefore, I found it puzzling and decided to look more closely into this scholar. I discovered that in 2019, he supported the far-left Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Considering the historical record of socialists worldwide, this revealed to me that Mearsheimer is completely incapable of rational thinking.

Thus, I asked myself how much weight should really be given to Mearsheimer’s views on Finland’s security policy — and I concluded: not very much after all.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
From Finnish Neutrality to Russian Ruins
Donald Trump’s Reliability as an Ally Has Proven to Be Questionable
Finally, Finland Speaks the Truth Without Fear!

The Free World Needs America’s Leadership Now

It has been difficult for us Europeans to understand why Donald Trump has been so popular among American voters. Of course, he has made some good decisions regarding immigration and the excesses of value liberalism, but on the other hand, his foreign policy endangers the unity of the Western world in the face of China and Russia and leads to a decline in the standard of living on both sides of the Atlantic.

Naturally, we do understand that behind this lies the economic self-sufficiency stemming from the greatness of American society, which slows down the impact that closing borders has on the daily lives of ordinary citizens. And, of course, the DEI/woke movements that have eroded American society from within during the Democrats’ time in power, and which many have grown thoroughly tired of.

According to recent information, however, it now seems that even for Americans, enough is enough. This is indicated by a fresh poll showing that 50.2 percent of Americans disapprove of the president and his administration’s actions, while only 46.4 percent approve. Even Elon Musk has noticed that Trump’s actions are becoming costly for him personally as well.

It remains to be seen how Trump will respond to these numbers — and how that will affect how he leads the country in relation to the rest of the world.

Right now, the most important thing would be to express strong support for Ukraine, both in words and actions. This is because Russia has just launched its spring offensive, and its success would be in no Western country's interest — least of all the USA’s, since Putin and Xi seem to have found common ground and, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, pose a significant security threat to the Americans.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Number of Predators is Increasing in Russia
Has President Trump Lost His Grip on Reality?
Economic Decline Awaits Americans as Trump Imposes Tariffs

Keir Starmer’s Message to Ireland, Spain, and Portugal: This Is About All of Europe

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, warned Europeans that Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, aims to disarm Ukraine in peace negotiations. If that were to happen, it would be significantly easier for Russia to launch a new attack on Ukraine and bring it under its control.

For this reason, he wants both Britain and the rest of Europe to act swiftly to ensure there is a counterforce against Russia, should a Trump-led USA concede to Putin’s demands. On this matter, Starmer is not only right but also highlighting an essential condition for all of Europe and its citizens to breathe freely once again.

Therefore, Europeans—including the Irish, Spanish, and Portuguese—must understand that this is not just an issue for Russia’s border states but a matter of the future of free Europe as a whole. That is why even the westernmost nations of the continent must participate in assembling military power against Russia, just as others do—because only in this way can Putin’s imperialist dreams be crushed.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Anyone Who Hired Steve Witkoff Should Be Fired for Incompetence
Ukraine's Struggle Is Also Our Struggle
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

Finland's Stance on NATO Defense Spending Is Linked to the Geopolitical Threat from Russia

Finnish Minister of Finance Riikka Purra (Finns Party) suggested today that the defense spending target for the military alliance NATO will be raised to three or even 3.5 percent of the member countries' gross domestic product. Such an increase would be quite high, as many European NATO countries have not previously reached the current two percent target.

However, Finland appears to be ready for such an increase, provided that the decisions are made in a way that the allocated funds are specifically directed towards enhancing the country’s military capability and addressing threats against Finland, as well as fulfilling identified defensive needs.

In practice, the Finnish military currently has the greatest needs in the development of ground forces, so investments will initially focus on that area. This is because Finland has recently or is currently investing heavily in both naval and air forces.

However, the extent of the military threat against Finland remains unknown, as it depends on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. If the outcome is such that Russia can interpret its aggression as having achieved any form of victory, the risk to Finland increases in proportion to the certainty of Russian military achievements.

For this reason, it is not in Finland's interest to support a resolution that would, for example, limit Ukraine's sovereignty, involve territorial concessions, or restrict its military capabilities. Unfortunately, it seems that such elements are included in President Donald Trump's plan for a ceasefire and permanent peace. Even more clearly, these elements are present in the demands that Vladimir Putin has set as conditions for his involvement.

Unfortunately, at the moment, it seems that Trump does not understand — or care — about the consequences of such peace for Russia’s neighboring states. Nor do European countries, due to their previous neglect of defense, possess the military strength to offer Ukraine an alternative or to pressure Russia to withdraw from Ukraine.

Therefore, the current phase of the peace process in Ukraine appears outright threatening to both Finland and other neighboring states of Russia. On the other hand, it ensures that the citizens of these countries have a strong will to enhance and strengthen their military defense capability.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Now It's Putin's Turn to Show His Hand
Shifting U.S. Foreign Policy Sparks Concerns in Estonia
Trump's Indecision Benefits Putin – Deadly Consequences for Ukraine

Too Many Finns Share Trump’s Inability to Comprehend

Today, in Germany, some idiot has once again decided to drive a car into a crowd. As a result, at least two people have died, and at least 25 others have been injured.

This case once again demonstrates that Germany – and Europe in general – is facing massive problems due to its immigration policies. That is why a complete reversal of course is necessary.

The U.S. President, Donald Trump, is an obvious fool in his approach to Russia and Vladimir Putin. Nevertheless, the latter part of his statement published by Visegrád, "We should spend less time worrying about Putin, and more time worrying about migrant rape gangs, drug lords, murderers, and people from mental institutions entering our Country – So that we don’t end up like Europe," makes a great deal of sense.

However, if he truly wanted to act in the best interest of ordinary people—both Americans and Europeans—he should address both of the issues he mentioned. In this regard, he could take inspiration from the Finnish government, which aims to tackle both the immigration problem and Russia’s imperialist ambitions simultaneously.

Unfortunately, it seems that too many Finns share Trump's inability to comprehend more than one problem at a time. This is evident from the fact that support for the left, which promotes the cause of criminal immigrants, is surging—even though nearly all Finns understand that Putin cannot be allowed to emerge victorious from his adventure in Ukraine.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions
Political Rhetoric Like Trump-Zelenskyi’s Has Deep Historical Roots
What will post-migration Europe look like in the future?

What will post-migration Europe look like in the future?

The German election result was what it was because of the kind of immigration policies that have been pursued in Germany and the EU in general. And these policies have not been beneficial either to the native European population or to immigrants arriving from elsewhere—let alone to their descendants.

Right now, however, it seems that many immigrants want this negative development—especially from the perspective of their own reference group—to continue. As a sign of this, two Afghan men were recently arrested in Germany for planning a terrorist attack on the Swedish parliament.

Fortunately, the plans of these men, who were linked to the ISIS-K organization, were uncovered, and as a result, they received prison sentences of four and a half years. However, one would have to be quite the optimist to believe that this case will improve the behavior of other immigrants who share the convicted men's mindset.

That is why I believe that the shift in support towards genuinely nationalist parties, as seen in the German elections, will continue in future elections across the EU. And this makes the entire European future uncertain because these parties are not really united by much except for their critical stance on immigration policy.

A case in point is Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is socially conservative and at least partially pro-Russian, and Finland’s Finns Party, which has clearly understood the threat posed by Putin’s Russia to Europe and advocates right-wing conservative economic policies. Beyond immigration issues, the only real common ground between these parties seems to be value conservatism.

Thus, the question must be asked: What will post-migration Europe look like in the future? Will it be a united continent capable of competing—economically and in terms of security policy—with the world's other power centers, a fragmented collection of quarrelsome states, or even a collapsed and underdeveloped society? Or even a province of Russia?

I do not have an answer to this question, but I am certain that the decisions influencing it will be made within the next ten years. And that is why Europeans should pull themselves together sooner rather than later.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Tomorrow’s Elections in Germany Be a Turning Point?
The Complete Demilitarization of Gaza: What Would It Mean for the Palestinians?
Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?

Strategic Experts Predicted Russia’s Collapse but Fell into Wishful Thinking

Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security surveyed the future, asking 167 global strategists and foresight practitioners around the world to answer questions about the biggest drivers of change over the next ten years.

Interestingly, 40 percent of respondents expected Russia to break up internally by 2033 due to revolution, civil war, political disintegration, or some other reason. Europeans were particularly pessimistic about Russia’s future: forty-nine percent of them foresee such an event, compared with 36 percent of Americans.

As a Finn, I naturally hope that the experts who participated in the survey are correct. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with them but view the survey results as wishful thinking rather than serious conclusions drawn from expertise.

My reasoning is that Russia did not collapse during the 1917 revolution or after its preceding defeat in the First World War. It also withstood the German offensive during the Second World War and the fall of communism in 1991.

Nor did Russia break apart during the famine of 1693 and the subsequent Time of Troubles, during which a Finnish army led by the Swedish Jacob de la Gardie captured Moscow in 1610. Nor when Napoleon did the same in 1812.

I do consider it possible, even inevitable, that Vladimir Putin’s reign will end within the next ten years, but the country will still be ruled by an undemocratic leader—be they called a czar, the chairperson of the Politburo, or a president. However, I do not believe that life for the average Russian will improve under a new leader.

I also do not believe that Russia will become a friendly state toward its neighbors or that its future rulers will abandon their imperialist policies.

For this reason, the rest of the world—and especially border states like Finland, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, and others—must ensure the humane, economic, and military strength of their societies. In other words, citizens must see their homeland as worth defending and possess the necessary resources and military capabilities to do so.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors
Message from Finland's President to Vladimir Putin
Western Nations Should Act Decisively On Two Fronts Against Russia

Rising Trade Tensions Between the EU and China

It is well known that China has in recent years conquered global markets by generously supporting its own industry. As a result, it has brought, for example, the European automotive industry almost to its knees, and some of it has already been relocated to China.

However, now the European Union member states are planning to impose permanent tariffs on electric cars manufactured in China. This would increase the cost of importing cars from China to Europe by five to ten thousand euros at current prices, depending on the manufacturer, assuming the tariffs are passed directly onto the prices.

It remains to be seen what will happen if the decision is implemented. It is likely that at least some sort of trade war will break out, unless a miracle happens and a fair agreement is reached on the level of state subsidies.

This would, of course, require that China understands the reason why the EU is imposing tariffs and accepts the principle of fairness, which would include mutual respect. However, this is probably too much to expect, at least until enough damage has been done to both parties' economies through mutual squabbling.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
China uses Western universities to educate its youth
China is betting on scientific excellence
Does China prove the superiority of market economy?

General Pekka Toveri, the Chair of the European Parliament's Delegation for Ukraine

I have occasionally written about the Finnish General Pekka Toveri (example, another), who was elected as a Member of the European Parliament in the last elections. That’s why it was interesting to notice that he has now become the chair of a the European Parliament's Delegation for Ukraine. 

The delegations of the European Parliament are its official representatives, and they are part of its foreign relations. The task of these delegations is to maintain and develop relations with non-EU countries and international institutions.

After being elected, Toveri informed Finns that "the planning of the delegation's work program has already begun, and I am optimistic that we will achieve important things. The agenda will include, for example, discussions on sanctions and the EU's role in peace negotiations. At some point, the delegation will also begin assessing what needs to be done for Ukraine’s EU membership, but our most important task at the moment is to focus on how the EU can help Ukraine win the war."

This is a good starting point. The Finnish general undoubtedly has much to offer to the Ukrainians as they fight their war, as well as to European decision-makers who are willing to help a pro-European state that has become a target of Russia's aggression.

However, it remains to be seen how interested EU leaders ultimately are in helping Ukraine achieve victory. And whether they can cooperate effectively to ensure the failure of Vladimir Putin's imperialist plans.

One can only hope this will happen because Putin won’t stop at Ukraine if he can interpret the war as a victory. If that were to happen, the next to suffer would likely be another one of Russia’s neighboring states, and the game wouldn’t end until the Western countries finally decided to put a stop to it by presenting a strong enough counterforce to Putin’s army. That’s why it’s better to do this now in Ukraine rather than later.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Russia Test NATO's Article Five?
Finland and Western Europe: Effectively at War
The most effective Russian agent in the UK

A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women

A Muslim woman said on social media that, "Western women are harassed for dressing like shameless women. With the hijab and niqab, they would have more dignity and respect!"

The comment is problematic in (at least) two ways. Firstly, it reduces all men to mindless animals who are incapable of controlling themselves when they see a woman’s skin. This may hold true in some cultures, though in European culture, it is a marginal—if not outright sick—phenomenon.

Secondly, it shows that this woman has so deeply submitted to the violent threat of Muslim men that she doesn’t even have the solidarity to keep quiet out of respect for her own gender. I’m referring, of course, to those women who, for example in Iran, are risking their lives just to dress as they choose. And who, as a result, are subjected to the violence of the ape-like men of their own culture.

What I find particularly incomprehensible is that in Western countries, it is precisely women who support such immigration, which brings among us such ape-like men. This is especially evident now in the United Kingdom, but the phenomenon is clear elsewhere in Europe as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Mistreatment of Women at the Olympics?
Prediction: Sharia law in force in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France by the year 2044
A young woman skiing in a swimsuit caused a controversy among women

The British human rights decision led to unwarranted calls

In the UK, a bill has passed which would allow asylum seekers to be sent to Rwanda while awaiting a decision on their asylum application. However, this hasn't been put into practice just yet, as it requires approval from King Charles first, followed by what are known as human rights activists organizing a trial farce, and then there must be a court decision on the matter.

In the future, we will likely see mass deportations of asylum seekers from Europe to Africa. Additionally, according to the new British law, a potential asylum would only entitle the applicant to stay in Rwanda—not to unsettle British society.

What's particularly interesting about the case is that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has directly stated that the purpose of enacting the law was to create a deterrent effect on asylum seekers heading to Britain. On the other hand, there has been skepticism in the opposition about its impact on the numbers of people attempting to cross the Channel.

It remains to be seen how the law will impact the numbers of asylum seekers attempting to cross the English Channel. Will it achieve its goal of redirecting the flow of people, or will the previous trend continue, with the difference being that British taxpayer money is used for the nearly 6,500-kilometer flights of arrivals?

The question is pertinent, as according to Britain's own parliamentary institution, the Rwanda program costs nearly two million pounds per asylum seeker sent to Africa. If this estimate holds true, the bill for combating modern-day migration will be considerable.

On the other hand, if the flows of migrants seeking to exploit European social welfare were indeed effectively redirected elsewhere as a result of the decision, London's administration would save significantly more money. Moreover, the process of demographic change in Britain, sometimes referred to as population replacement, would slow down significantly from its current pace. Consequently, Britain's population would remain predominantly European well into the future.

* * *

Today I got to read an article where it was reported that the United Nations and the EU are urging the island nation to reject the bill.

According to the story, Michael O'Flaherty, the director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), expressed that he is "concerned that the Rwanda bill enables the implementation of a policy of removing people to Rwanda without any prior assessment of their asylum claims by the UK authorities in the majority of cases.

The statement raises the question of whether there is a misunderstanding among influential figures in the UN and EU. The explicit intention of the British bill is that the assessment of the spontaneous asylum seekers' protection will be conducted in Rwanda, and thus there is no rational basis for conducting it first in the UK.

According to the same article, Rwanda has expressed satisfaction with Britain's decision and welcomes any potential entrants. This way, they can find a safe place to build their lives, which is ultimately what the international asylum system is about. It's not about the subjective right of all people in the world to settle in Europe and burden its inhabitants' economy or change its culture.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A white family does not represent real Londoners
Finnish journalist called for British Prime Minister´s head to be placed on London bridge to dry
The arrival of caliphate citizens must be prevented