Cuba’s Crisis and the Lessons of Socialism

In many European countries, relatively little has been reported about events in Cuba, the longest-lasting and strongest communist stronghold in the Western Hemisphere. Therefore, it was interesting that yesterday or today many Finnish media outlets published a news report stating that “a group of protesters vandalized the regional office of the ruling Communist Party during the night leading into Saturday.”

Video footage of the incident could also be found, confirming the statement that “a group broke into the party office, carried furniture out onto the street, and set it on fire.” The police had also fired shots at the scene.

Following the events described above, Cuba’s current dictator, Miguel Díaz-Canel, has announced his willingness to discuss the future of his country with the United States. His counterpart will likely be Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who, as a Cuban émigré, probably has very little sympathy for the difficulties of the country’s communist government.

It therefore remains to be seen whether the situation has finally been reached in which Cuba frees itself from the yoke of communism and its people regain their freedom and the opportunity to raise their miserable standard of living. This would of course be a fine thing, but as the collapse of the European socialist states in the 1990s showed, the outcome could be either success or failure, as illustrated by the figure below showing the economic development of Poland and Moldova.

It remains to be seen, then, what Cuba’s future will look like—and how it will affect the lives and prospects of ordinary Cubans.

Of course, at a time when support for the political green-left is still strong among many European citizens, it would be desirable if the difficulties of Cuban socialism and its possible collapse would also increase understanding of the harmfulness of socialism. Or will there still be a large share of European voters who believe that applying Marx’s ideas leads to something good?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Venezuela, Antonio Guterres and the Nature of Great Powers
Pedro Sánchez Sides with Europe's Fifth Column on Russia
Marx in the Classroom: How Ideological Education Shaped Careers and Values

The original blogpost in Finnish: 
Onko Kuuban kommunistihallinto kaatumassa?

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

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

Elections in Venezuela Do Not Offer Reason for Optimism

Although Western countries have long been more or less functioning democracies, this is not the case everywhere. The world’s first socialist state, the Soviet Union, did collapse under its own impossibility back in 1991, but that doesn’t mean socialism lacks support in today’s world.

An example of this unfortunate fact was seen over the weekend in Venezuela, where the socialist party received as much as 83 percent of the vote in Sunday’s parliamentary — or National Assembly — elections. In addition, a group close to the socialists gained another six percent.

The Venezuelan opposition gathered only 5.17 percent of the votes. This was influenced by the fact that many opposition leaders had urged their supporters to boycott the elections, claiming that President Nicolás Maduro had fraudulently won last year’s presidential election. This view is also shared by the international community.

It remains to be seen what Venezuela’s socialists will do with their electoral victory. However, their use of power so far does not offer much reason for optimism.

According to Wikipedia: "During the 21st century, under the leadership of socialist populist Hugo Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan economy has collapsed, prompting millions of citizens to flee Venezuela. GDP has fallen by 80 percent in less than a decade. The economy is characterized by corruption, food shortages, unemployment, mismanagement of the oil sector, and since 2014, hyperinflation. As of 2024, inflation has stabilized at 59.61%."

This can be compared to the time before the socialists came to power. Back then, Venezuela's economy was growing strongly, and for example, GDP per capita rose by as much as 400 percent between 2003 and 2010 — in just seven years. A similar development can hardly be expected based on the election results we’ve just seen.

Of course, Venezuela is just one of many countries that still believe in socialism, but in practice, it is a fairly representative example of its kind. And that is why it’s worth wondering why socialism still enjoys so much support around the world — not only in developing countries but also in prosperous Western nations like Finland.

Admittedly, here the socialists don’t want to call their economic thinking socialism. Instead, they "only" aim to raise taxes and transfer as many of society’s functions as possible under the responsibility of the public sector — in other words, to implement socialism without naming it for what it is.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Marx in the Classroom: How Ideological Education Shaped Careers and Values
Does China prove the superiority of market economy?
Lessons from Venezuela

Europe Needs More Money—and More Will—to Defend Itself

The countries of Western Europe assumed that the collapse of the Soviet Union had made national defense unnecessary. However, the events in Ukraine have clearly shown that this assumption was, at best, naïve—if not outright foolish.

Recently, the issue has been brought back into focus, first by Donald Trump, who has demanded that NATO’s European members allocate as much as five percent of their GDP to defense. Yesterday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also weighed in, stating that European NATO countries must significantly increase their defense spending.

Trump and Rutte are, of course, right in their demands, but meeting them is difficult for most Western European nations. According to the annual report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), these targets are particularly challenging for countries whose economies are already struggling.

The least capable of meeting these demands are, naturally, those countries whose economies are not growing at all. Based on GDP figures, these include Moldova, Latvia, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Germany, and Austria. Additionally, economic growth has been extremely weak—below one percent—in Hungary, Italy, Finland, France, and the United Kingdom.

The fact remains that Europeans must recognize Russia as a lasting threat to Europe's security, even if it is currently tied up in Ukraine. Therefore, despite economic difficulties, they should find ways to strengthen their defense capabilities.

Many countries have, of course, already acknowledged this, as evidenced by the fact that the combined defense spending of EU nations increased by 30 percent between 2021 and 2024. Unfortunately, the starting level was so low that even a significant percentage increase has not yet led to a substantial improvement in military security. This is why, especially in the EU’s most strategically important large member states—Germany, France, and Italy—as well as in the United Kingdom, defense budgets must be increased rapidly, as both Trump and Rutte have demanded.

* * *

In addition to weapons, a strong will to defend one's country is also essential. In this regard, it was alarming to see that only one in ten Britons aged 18–27 would be willing to risk their life to defend their country in a war—while 41 percent would not be willing to defend it with arms under any circumstances.

This stands in stark contrast to Finland, where 79 percent of people believe that the country must be defended militarily in all situations—even if the outcome appears uncertain.

If the situation in other European countries is similar to that in Britain, politicians must recognize that perhaps their most important task is to change it. Otherwise, Europe will eventually become nothing more than an easy prey for imperialist Russia—and perhaps even China.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin, Trump, and the Prospect of Peace
Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?
Western Countries Must Stay United Against the Russian Threat

Do Finns have the patience?

The Finnish economy has been in a mild recession for fifteen years. Now, there seems to be - perhaps - some light at the end of the tunnel once again. This is because, according to preliminary data from Statistics Finland, the seasonally adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) of Finland grew by 0.4 percent from January-March to April-June.

It remains to be seen whether Finland will finally succeed in returning to a growth trajectory that would also allow for balancing the state budget and, eventually, reducing the country's debt. And in time, also increasing the funds available for public services.

In my view, all this is possible, but it requires what former President Urho Kekkonen emphasized in 1952: patience. However, the situation now is different from back then, as the President at that time was urging taxpayers to finance the industrialization of Northern Finland to exploit the region's rich natural resources.

Now, it is more about having the patience to refrain from new public services - and even reduce existing ones - so that the private sector would dare to invest in the country. This applies to both domestic and foreign investors. And workers, who should be willing to follow job opportunities to where they are available.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Balancing the Books
The difficult times for Finland's economy are coming to an end
Why Can't Finland Find Workforce?

The difficult times for Finland's economy are coming to an end

Finland's economy has struggled since 2008. This is partly due to the fact that the global crisis at that time was preceded by Nokia's success as a mobile phone manufacturer, which led to an expansion of the public sector in hopes of scoring political points.

Then Nokia's glory days came to an end, and Finland was left with an oversized and expensive public sector relative to its income. However, dismantling it proved nearly impossible for the ruling politicians, as almost the entire population benefited from it.

The current Finnish government has started to address this problem, but the recent rise in interest rates has made the situation more difficult by increasing state expenditures just as public sector spending has been reduced. At the same time, the country's labor unions have opposed all changes, and the private sector hasn't recovered as hoped after the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, according to Finland's Ministry of Finance, there now seems to be light at the end of the tunnel. According to its top official, "price increases have clearly slowed down. Interest rates are on the decline, and the ECB is likely to lower rates two more times this year, which the markets have already priced in. The decline in GDP appears to have genuinely stopped, and there are signs of a revival in the housing market."

The official also praises Finland's "excellent" cost competitiveness, meaning the ability to produce goods and services at competitive prices compared to other countries. Additionally, alongside Nokia and the forest products industry, "new beginnings" have emerged in sectors like clean energy, artificial intelligence, and chip technology.

When you add to all this that the country has a right-wing government, which can be expected to refrain from redistribution policies, it seems that Finland is also emerging from its decade-and-a-half-long economic downturn.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finns are backing the government making difficult decisions
Correct minister, ridiculous facts
The program of the new Finland´s Government is ready, and ministers are being selected

Share of EU recovery funds will turn attitudes more negative

Finland´s share from the EU recovery (from COVID-19) funds is reduced by 300 million euros. Therefore, our share of funding is 4,2 billion euros less than our payment on the package. 

The reason for our reduced share is the economic recovery of Finland that being more positive than predicted. The basis for this conclusion is the development of the national GDP, which in 2021 increased by 3.5 percent from year 2020. 

Therefore one - e.g. the Prime Minister of our country - might think that the reduction in Finnish share is a fair decision. Unfortunately I must point out three facts. 

First, the economic growth of Finland was made by increasing its indebtedness considerably - by decisions made by a government led by the above mentioned prime minister. Second, the economic growth of Finland is predicted to slow down during the ongoing year. Third, the future of the Finnish forest industry - responsible of ca. 20 percent of the export value - has been challenged by the commission despite its high sustainability compared to other EU countries.

It should also be noted that the taxation burden on Finnish taxpayers is among the highest in EU, and increasing quickly. Therefore I would not be amazed if the attitudes among ordinary people in Finland would turn more negative towards EU in the becoming years. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Finnish Professor would raise inheritance tax up to 65 percent
A new justification is needed for environmental activists
Will an attitude lead Ukraine into EU?

Corruption in Nigeria may affect Europe

An explosion happened in an illegal oil refining business in Nigeria. As a result, more than 100 people lost their lives. 

Oil to such illegal refineries is obtained by stealing from legitimate oil pipelines, which is a popular business among unemployed and poor Nigerians. However, it was only last February when Nigerian authorities pronounced that they would put a stop to this practice, but obviously without great success.

The explosion reminds us that incapable politicians combined with inefficient - and obviously corrupted - authorities are a serious risk for poor people. But it is not only that, but also a barrier to development of national economy.

Actually, Nigeria had a notable economic success between years 2000 and 2015, which resulted in e.g. almost tenfold increase of Gross Domestic Production. But since 2015 the GDP has reduced by about one fifth, mostly due to low oil prices and COVID-19 pandemic. 

At the same time (i.e. 2000-2020) the population size of the country has increased by 70 percent. Consequently, the rapid economic development per capita seen during the first three quarters of the time has turned to considerable recession. 

The future of Nigeria does not look very good. As oil is the basis of its economy, the green economy transition in western countries will hit the rapidly growing Nigerian population hard. In a very short time, however, the ban of Russian oil in Europe might give Nigerian leaders a window of opportunity. 

Thus, it remains to be seen, if that opportunity will be used to diversify the economic basis of the country, or will the money flow in the pockets of country´s politicians and their cronies in the form of corruption. If so, the price will be high to ordinary Nigerians.

But not only for them, but recession together with quickly growing population in Nigeria could push people to search for better life in Europe as soon as the borders closed due to COVID-19 will be opened. Therefore, corruption in Nigeria may have a major effect also for people living in the European Union in a form of increased immigration.  

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa

Trump is leaving Africa