Warnings from Jussi Halla-aho and Igor Girkin About Europe's Near Future

The Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho, stated at the Conference of EU Parliament Speakers in Budapest that Europe's biggest and most urgent challenge is to learn from the mistakes made after the Cold War, as Russia poses an immediate threat to European security.

He noted that it is not enough for us to rebuild our own defense and help the Ukrainians—nor is it even enough that Russia’s neighboring countries do their part. Instead, the major EU countries must do more.

At the same time, he reminded that those countries which benefited from European solidarity during the financial crisis, the migration crisis, and the COVID crisis must now show similar solidarity towards the EU's and NATO’s eastern border states. Only in this way can Europe survive future crises.

Speaker Halla-aho also recalled the serious mistakes made over recent decades, stating that "many European countries built their economies on cheap Russian gas and oil, ignoring the risks and warnings. Most European countries dismantled their defense capabilities, believing that traditional military threats were a thing of the past and that the United States would endlessly pay for our security. Moreover, the whole of Europe is dependent on China—from raw materials to industrial production."

Much needs to be corrected now, just as Russia and Ukraine are—perhaps—expected to sit at the negotiating table in Turkey to make peace. More precisely, a peace that would allow the Russians to prepare for their next imperialist strike against Europe—very much in line with the precedent set by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

* * *

Of course, peace in Ukraine is not yet certain, but that does not change the fact that European leaders would do well to listen carefully to Jussi Halla-aho, who has time and again been right in his assessments. This also applies to immigration from developing countries into the EU.

That is why he reminded politicians and the press—also in Budapest—that "instead of panicking over President Donald Trump or similar movements in Europe, we should understand that more and more ordinary citizens are voting for them for a reason. People have genuine and legitimate concerns about the changes happening around them. Mass immigration from third countries is probably the most significant of these concerns."

He also reminded that well-off people—such as politicians—are more or less shielded from the negative effects of immigration, such as violent crime and the segregation of schools and residential areas. Less affluent people, on the other hand, experience these effects, according to Halla-aho, "in their everyday lives."

As a result, societies in EU countries are becoming polarized and fragmented, so "we must ensure that citizens feel their voices are heard and that their hopes, fears, and concerns are taken seriously."

It remains to be seen how carefully and seriously the speakers of EU member states listened to Halla-aho’s remarks—and whether they will pass on what they heard to their national governments for action. They certainly should, because—as I said at the beginning—Halla-aho’s views have repeatedly proven correct, and I do not doubt that the same will be true for the points made above.

* * *

Finally, I want to inform you, dear readers, that Russian FSB Colonel Igor Girkin has predicted that Ukraine will gain the upper hand in the war this summer. According to him, "the Ukrainian Armed Forces have gathered reserves, while the Russian Armed Forces have exhausted their capabilities... The next Ukrainian assault could begin at any moment."

Girkin also does not rule out the possibility that the upcoming Ukrainian offensive could result in major territorial losses for Russia. That is yet another reason why major EU countries must now take Ukraine’s military assistance seriously—so that Girkin’s prediction may come true, and Europe's security situation could improve, at least for a time.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Diplomacy Without Rituals: What Awaits as Finland’s Speaker Halla-aho Visits China?
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
A Finnish MP Resigned After Straining Finland-Russia Relations

Diplomacy Without Rituals: What Awaits as Finland’s Speaker Halla-aho Visits China?

As a well-known friend of Ukraine and a person fluent in the country's language, the Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), is traveling to China. The visit partly commemorates the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Finland and China.

However, the visit will also serve as an opportunity to discuss the bilateral political and economic relations between the two countries, as well as relations between the EU and China. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the relationship between China and the United States will undoubtedly also be topics of discussion.

Given Halla-aho’s significant role in shaping relations between Finland/the EU and Ukraine, it is likely that the issue of Ukraine will emerge as the most internationally significant topic. In this context, it is crucial to understand Halla-aho’s principled stance on all matters—that is, his refusal to engage in political rhetoric or platitudes.

Therefore, it is to be hoped that this quality is recognized and respected by the other true global superpower—China, alongside the United States. Furthermore, that his visit contributes to strengthening Ukraine’s position—and correspondingly weakening Russia’s position—in the dynamics of global power politics.

Alternatively, it is of course possible that the Chinese may not appreciate Halla-aho’s outspoken style, which could even strain relations between the host nation and Western European countries. For my part, however, I believe—and hope—that the Chinese will not fall into that trap, but rather, drawing on their millennia of experience, will be able to distinguish between empty bluster and the kind of fact-based, serious argumentation that is characteristic of Halla-aho.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Will China ally with Russia against Ukraine?
Putin´s Russia got mad about the Finnish chairman of the Parliament

Are We on the Brink of World War III?

The Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), has given an interview in which he has, so to speak, painted devils on the wall. In other words, he has expressed fears that the Third World War may already be underway, but people are unwilling to recognize it.

According to him, the current situation is similar to the one leading up to the Second World War in the late 1930s. Therefore, I thought I would remind you, dear readers, of what happened back then.

* * *

One of the causes of the Second World War is considered to be the Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed after the First World War. Its terms were regarded as overly harsh in Germany. After all, German soldiers had still occupied enemy territories in both the east and the west at the end of the war, unlike at the conclusion of the Second World War.

In addition to territorial losses, Germany’s military was drastically reduced. However, Hitler disregarded this and began rebuilding his country's military strength in the mid-1930s. This went unchallenged; for example, Britain signed a naval agreement with Germany, allowing its navy to be 35% the size of Britain’s own – then the most powerful in the world.

The Second World War was preceded by the Spanish Civil War, which ended with General Francisco Franco coming to power by overthrowing the democratically elected left-wing government. In this conflict, Germany and Italy supported Franco, while the Soviet Union backed the Republicans. This war provided an opportunity for these powers to test their weaponry and assess their military needs.

In 1936, Hitler capitalized on Germany's increased military strength by remilitarizing the demilitarized Rhineland. France protested, but Britain accepted the action, and no military threat was posed to Germany. Instead, Hitler orchestrated a "referendum" in the Rhineland, where 98.8% of those who voted supported his actions.

Hitler also engineered Austria's annexation into Germany, despite this being prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles. He received support from Italy for this move.

Some Austrians opposed the loss of independence and organized protests. However, these ended when Austrian Interior Minister Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who facilitated the unification, invited Hitler's army to restore order.

The next step in Hitler’s march towards war was the annexation of the Sudetenland, the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia. The Czechs wanted to defend themselves, but their allies, France and the Soviet Union, refused to assist them. Thus, the issue was resolved through the Munich Agreement, led by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, which granted the Sudetenland to Germany.

After acquiring the Sudetenland, Hitler annexed the Czech region outright and reduced Slovakia to a puppet state. Shortly thereafter, Hungary annexed the Hungarian-speaking areas of Slovakia.

Following these events, Hitler demanded the transfer of Memel (now Klaipėda) to Germany. Once again, the victim, Lithuania, sought help from foreign powers, but assistance was denied.

It should also be remembered that before the Second World War, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Eastern Europe between them. Under this agreement, Hitler invaded Poland in early September 1939, and the Soviet Union occupied the eastern part of the country.

As a result, France and Britain eventually declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union. Thus, the Second World War had begun, even though little fighting occurred along the German-French border until May 1940. Before that, Hitler had already occupied Denmark and advanced into northern Norway, prompting a response from France and Britain – though, at this stage, they suffered defeats.

* * *

If we examine the events I described earlier in light of Halla-aho’s perspective, we can make the following observations.

Firstly, it seems that Putin views the collapse of the Soviet Union as a comparable event to the Treaty of Versailles for Germany. After all, Russia lost a vast portion of the territories it controlled, from the Baltic states to the newly independent nations of Central Asia.

Russia’s actions in Syria were successful and undoubtedly reinforced Putin’s perception of the effectiveness of his military, much like the Spanish Civil War shaped the views of Hitler and Mussolini. However, unlike Hitler’s army, Putin’s forces have not been able to use their experiences in Syria to improve their available weaponry. A particularly striking example of this is the widely advertised Armata tank, which has proven incapable of participating in the war in Ukraine despite being a flagship product of Russia’s defense industry.

We have yet to see an event analogous to the unification of Austria and Germany, but the recent discussions surrounding Belarus being integrated into Russia would correspond quite closely. Additionally, it seems to me that Russia’s annexation of Crimea mirrors the events in Czechoslovakia in 1938: Ukraine wanted to fight, but Western nations at the time denied it military support and left it just as isolated as Czechoslovakia had been.

Furthermore, parts of occupied Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk) were, for a time, turned into puppet states of Russia, much like Hitler had done with Slovakia. The West sought to legitimize all this through the so-called Minsk Agreement, which closely parallels the Munich Agreement of 1938, which sealed Czechoslovakia’s fate.

Hitler’s invasion of Poland can, of course, be quite effectively compared to Ukraine’s situation from 2022 onward. Western nations have not declared war on Russia, but then again, the Western Front of 1939 didn’t see much actual fighting either.

However, Western countries are providing Ukrainians with some military aid, which—alongside the courage of the Ukrainians themselves—has enabled them to defend their country, though not to drive the aggressor out entirely. Poland, on the other hand, received no such support during the rapidly progressing war and wasn’t even provided with weapons in time.

* * *

And is there a modern-day Chamberlain and a 1930s-style Britain? Isn’t this self-evident?

What else are we to think of Germany’s Olaf Scholz, who has done his utmost to minimize military aid to Ukraine, thereby playing into Russia’s hands in much the same way as Britain’s prime minister did back then?

What I’ve written above shows that the Speaker’s view of the similarities between the current situation and the events leading up to the Second World War is astonishingly accurate. However, I also see some differences.

The most significant of these is that Putin’s Russia is not a great power comparable to Hitler’s Germany. Certainly, Russia possesses nuclear weapons, but wars fought with them have no winners. At least not in a large-scale war, where a U.S. counterstrike would be inevitable and therefore too great a risk for the Russians.

* * *

On the other hand, we also have China, which is rising as an increasingly powerful military force. It certainly has its own interests, particularly regarding Taiwan, but would it go to war as Russia’s ally against the entire world?

In my view, the answer is unequivocal. And it is a resounding "no"—especially regarding direct warfare. China will not engage in a large-scale war against the West, at least not as long as it can gain power and wealth through other means.

However, the question remains whether China might exploit Russia’s weakness and seize old Chinese territories in East Asia. Since the situation is quite similar to Taiwan, the answer is "possibly yes." But in that case, we are no longer talking about a Third World War but rather localized military actions.

Finally, I want to emphasize that although I do not believe, for the reasons outlined above, that a Third World War is about to break out, I do agree with Speaker Halla-aho (and many others) that it is better to prepare for war before it begins than to be naïve.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?
Strategic Experts Predicted Russia’s Collapse but Fell into Wishful Thinking
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization

A Finnish MP Resigned After Straining Finland-Russia Relations

Chairman of the Finnish Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Kimmo Kiljunen (Social Democrativ Party), met with representatives of a Finnish-Russian association in October in the Parliament's premises. During the meeting, he reportedly advocated for the opening of Finland’s eastern border despite the risk posed by Russia's hybrid operations.

This stance may be connected to the fact that Kiljunen’s wife has a Russian background. However, when meeting with the association representatives, he emphasized his position as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, highlighting the access it grants him to information typically unavailable to regular MPs.

Additionally, he expressed his intention to arrange a hearing within the Foreign Affairs Committee to discuss the situation of Finnish-Russians and border-related issues. He also claimed that the closure of the eastern border was no longer a temporary solution and that keeping it closed constituted a human rights violation against Finnish-Russians.

The Finnish-Russian organization told Kiljunen that Finnish media portrays Finnish-Russians and dual citizens negatively. Kiljunen agreed, accusing Finnish tabloid newspapers of promoting Russian hybrid influence.

Kiljunen also criticized plans to ban real estate transactions by Russian nationals in Finland, expressing concern over a growing atmosphere of suspicion towards Russians in the country. 

Russian media outlets have also reported on the case. For instance, the headlines of publications such as Lenta and Gazeta on Thursday evening stated that Kiljunen had been “forced to apologize.” Meanwhile, the Russian propaganda channel Russia Today reported that Kiljunen had faced criticism from his party colleagues. In other words, the Kiljunen case further strained relations between Russians and Finns.

As a result of these developments, MP Kiljunen has today stepped down as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Speaker of Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), commented that Kiljunen was echoing Kremlin narratives, suggesting that the closure of the eastern border and restrictions on Russian real estate purchases were driven by racist motives. Halla-aho likened this to serving a "perfect pass to the blade of the Kremlin's hockey stick."

If one seeks a positive takeaway from this situation—beyond the fact that it came to light—it is the clear condemnation of Kiljunen’s actions from within his own party, the Social Democrats. This demonstrates that, with few exceptions like Kiljunen, Finns remain united against the persistent threat posed by Putin's Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
It Is Time for Vladimir Putin to Acknowledge the Facts and Do Dmitry Medvedev a Favor
Russians are, Intellectually, Spiritually, and Morally, a Deficient People
Putin's useful idiots in Finland

Brianna Wu's advice and the reality of Finnish politics

In recent years, Finnish society has become more polarized towards the right and the left than ever before. This is evident in virtually everything, as representatives of these factions seem unable to reach consensus on virtually any domestic political issue, even though the threat posed by Russia has led to foreign policy agreement.

In this respect, Finland increasingly resembles the United States of the 2020s, where parties that were previously able to address essential matters through mutual dialogue have lost their ability to cooperate. This was shockingly evident when some Republican members of Congress delayed the aid Ukraine needed for so long that Russian forces gained the upper hand on the front lines.

Therefore, it was interesting to note Brianna Wu's (Dem) social media post, in which she wrote, "The left learned all the wrong lessons from Donald Trump. We should have learned that if you do nothing about the extremists in your movement, they will take control of your party and you will lose everything. Instead, we told ourselves a comforting lie that half of our fellow Americans were beneath even talking to anymore. We stopped imagining a future where we could even live together. And our political class, hungry for power, let the open wounds fester."

* * *

Finland has a long tradition of excluding democratic parties. In my youth, President Kekkonen, the Center Party, and the Left kept the National Coalition Party out of government, and later all major parties refused to cooperate with the Finns Party to keep it out of the chambers of power.

In Finland, it is also customary for politicians to give speeches on May 1st. This has very long traditions in the political left, but in recent times, actors from the right-wing of politics have also joined in.

Thus, Speaker Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party) gave a reasonable speech, summarizing the reasons why the government has had to make tough decisions. And reminded us that living beyond our means is irresponsible towards the children who will end up paying the final bill.

Additionally, Halla-aho emphasized the importance of supporting Ukraine. According to him, "Russia is counting on us running out of resolve," so "we cannot afford to tire."

From the other end of the spectrum, opposition leader Antti Lindtman's (Social Democrats) May Day speech hinted at the time of the Finnish Civil War in 1918, suggesting that there are "haters of humanity" among the ministers of one government party. To underscore his confrontational stance, he also used the inaccurate term "Purra's right-wing government" referring to the Minister of Finance, as if the she was the Prime Minister of Finland.

In other words, while the Speaker clarified the reasons behind the government's actions to the public, the opposition leader sought to dehumanize one government party. And thereby, to construct the kind of society that the American Democrat I quoted above warned about in her social media post.

Of course, it's customary in May Day speeches to appeal to one's own voter base, which hopefully explains Lindman's and several other speakers' divisive rhetoric. However, I hope that dialogue improves as we return to everyday life, and that all Finnish politicians from left to right understand that a better society is not built by dehumanizing political rivals but by presenting alternatives and through cooperation between political parties.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finns are backing the government making difficult decisions
Competence of the political left
Is the Finnish left-wing radicalizing?

Is the Finnish left-wing radicalizing?

Finland is accustomed to being regarded as a stable democracy where politics does not generate the kind of polarization seen in some other countries. While there has been political violence here, including a bloody civil war initiated and lost by the Reds over a hundred years ago, politics has been relatively calm and respectful of different parties since World War II.

This trend is expected to continue this winter as a new president is elected in Finland. As a sign of this, various candidates' campaign advertisements have recently appeared along the streets, usually left undisturbed.

Among Finland's major cities, Tampere is an industrial city, and accordingly, its population tends to lean towards the left politically. Despite this, I was surprised this morning to read about how people in Tampere had immediately vandalized campaign posters of the third most popular candidate, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), according to polls.

Does this mean that the deep respect Finns have held for democracy throughout my lifetime is changing, and the left is once again radicalizing and resorting to extra-parliamentary means? Hopefully not, as one of the key factors in Finland's rise from a developing country a hundred years ago to one of the world's wealthiest nations has been based on precisely respecting democracy and the ability to reconcile conflicts between different population and interest groups.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Finland have the first openly homosexual president?
Finnish horror gallery and reality
Putin´s Russia got mad about the Finnish chairman of the Parliament

The Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs apologized to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs for the words of the woman who criticized the man who exposed his penis

In Finland, the left-wing opposition has recently been trying to bring down the government in collaboration with major media houses by seeking evidence of racism in the old writings of the Finns Party ministers.

One of the cases involved Minister of Finance Riikka Purra, who was claimed to have written about Turkish monkeys 15 years ago. The case was reported incorrectly because Purra had not referred to Turks in general as monkeys but rather to a specific Turkish man who had disturbed her dinner in a restaurant by staring and simultaneously digging his penis.

Surprisingly, Minister of Foreign Affairs Elina Valtonen (National Coalition Party) apologized to the Turks without verifying the original text. The situation is almost comical, with the foreign minister apologizing to Turks for the reaction of a woman who was harassed by a disgustingly behaving man. Hopefully, the truth will one day come out for both the Turks and Finland's foreign minister.

Another recent incident concerned Purra's blog post from 2019, which was claimed to be racist in the Finnish press. However, this article was also reported incorrectly to the Finnish people because it explicitly advocated for Muslim women to have the same rights in Finland as Western women and was neither racist nor sexist.

As a result of these inaccurately reported writings, the left-wing opposition has demanded that the Parliament be called into session during the holiday period to discuss these matters. Parliament Chair Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party) has promised to issue the invitation if any government party supports the demand, but the National Coalition Party, at least, is reluctant.

However, if the Parliament is called together, it is possible - or rather probable - that the Finnish government will collapse.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish horror gallery and reality
The program of the new Finland´s Government is ready, and ministers are being selected
The Guardian misleads its readers

Putin´s Russia got mad about the Finnish chairman of the Parliament

Jussi Halla-aho of the Finns party was elected as the Chairman of the Finnish Parliament, after which he delivered a speech emphasizing the importance of respecting others.

Halla-aho reminded the Members of Parliament of their right and duty to bring to the parliamentary debate the values, opinions, and perspectives that the people have elected them to represent and promote. He also advised his colleagues that "adhering to the truth can be understood, for example, as not intentionally misinterpreting the statements of those who hold different opinions or constructing caricatures out of them. Besides justice, truth, and the constitution, representatives are not bound by any other directives."

Furthermore, he emphasized civilized manners by stating that "a discussion that respects differing opinions and values, including one's own, can bring us closer to common understandings. But if such understandings cannot be reached, ultimately the majority decides. This is how democracy works, and this is good."

Naturally, the Chairman's views may be considered self-evident, but it is excellent that they are articulated aloud. This is how a civilized state operates.

Unfortunately, Putin's Russia cannot be considered as such. And to make it clear to everyone, the state-owned news agency Ria Novosti reported that "Deputy Jussi Halla-aho, who called for the murder of Russian soldiers, was elected the new speaker of the Finnish Parliament. He is known for his anti-Russian statements and actions". 

The reason was that after the cowardly Russian attack to Ukraine Halla-aho donated to the Armed Forces of Ukraine an artillery shell with an inscription "For the freedom of Finland". He justified this by stating, "the war is initiated and perpetuated by Russia. The war will end only when enough Russian soldiers have been killed, making it politically or militarily impossible for the rulers of Russia to continue the war. Therefore, killing Russian soldiers is a good thing, and Ukrainians should be assisted in killing them."

By the way, Halla-aho speaks fluent Russian and Ukrainian. That's why he has no problem in understanding the deepest nature of both nations.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 
Finnish Winter war showed the way to help Ukraine
Political rats and useful idiots
Twitter account of an remarkable politician was locked

Political rats and useful idiots

The leading Finnish newspaper - Helsingin Sanomat - wrote in its editorial about members of right-wing popular parties in Europe by calling them "rats" escaping from their close relationship with president Vladimir Putin. That was noted by Jussi Halla-aho, the former chair of the True Finns, which is considered as the right-wing populist party of Finland, but which has never followed the Russian leaders. 

Halla-aho was wondering in his Twitter message chain, whether the newspaper - known as politically slightly liberal left - would also call many former leading politicians in Finland as "rats" due to their extreme closeness with Russians. He mentioned among others the former President Tarja Halonen and former Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen as well as the former Speaker of the Parliament of Finland and current Member of the Europarliament Eero Heinäluoma. 

Tarja Halonen has for decades had close and warm relationships with Vladimir Putin, and she insisted Finland to sign the Ottawa treaty, which eliminated anti-personnel landmines from the defense forces of Finland despite the ca. 1300 km common border with Russia. She also worked actively in 1990´s to leave Finland out of NATO when the Baltic countries joined it, and considered for very long that Russia would be on its way to a decent democracy.  

Paavo Lipponen has - since his retirement - made a lot of money as a consultant for a company that builds up the Nord Stream gas pipelines from Russia to Central Europe. Eero Heinäluoma - still in February 10th this year - acted as an advocate of Putin by explaining that deployment of defensive weapons in Russia's neighboring countries is a threat to Russia, and therefore western attitudes are a solid justification for its aggressive behavior against Ukraine. 

Halla-aho also noted that he or his party has no problem in calling European right-wing politicians (with close relationships to Putins administration) as "useful idots". He asked - obviously rhetorically - whether also the social democratic Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, would call Gerhard Schröder, Tarja Halonen, Paavo Lipponen or  Eero Heinäluoma - all social democrats - as "useful idiots".

Overall, Halla-aho pointed out that the difference between right-wing populists and social democrats is in their effect on European policy. The populists are in political marginal with no influence on the European decisions whereas social democrats are in the center of decision making - and therefore much more able to promote Russian interests in EU. Therefore their relationships, instead of powerless populists, to Russian administration should be in the focus of the press.

I think Halla-aho has a clear point here. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland and NATO - problems to be solved
An ignorant mediahouse failed again in historical facts

Twitter account of an remarkable politician was locked

The Twitter account of the leader of the True Finns - a political party with ca. 10% support among Finnish voters - was locked. The leader, Dr. Jussi Halla-aho, noted that "when discussing about affecting the elections, it may not be necessary to search the threats from as far as Russia".

The reason for the locking is unknown, but there is no doubt that its purpose was to reduce the importance of social media in election campaigns. Thus, it was a trial to narrow freedom of political speech. And this happened in a situation, where the rape cases in Oulu and Helsinki had inevitably shown that Halla-aho and his supporters have been right on the harmfulness of the Finnish immigration policy - and the leaders of all other notable parties been naive and completely wrong.

I hope that the aim of the persons behind the locking of Halla-aho´s twitter accounts was not to block democracy. And I also hope, that the people entitled to vote understand, that narrowing Halla-aho´s freedom of speech confirms that the tragicomic outcomes of other politicians and authorities regarding the immigration policy are only propaganda motivated by the becoming parliamentary elections next April. And whose purpose is - for the reasons I do not understand - to continue our lack of readiness to prevent the next migration wave from developing countries. 

I mean, a migration wave which will come with certainty. That is because of the population explosion and its consequences in those societies. As well as the generous services provided by Finland even to those, who do not have a right to stay in our country.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A set of immigration-derived sexual crimes in a Finnish town
Wishes to hell by novelist Itkonen
When will they ever learn?

The original though in Finnish:
Halla-ahon Twitter-tilin sulkemisesta