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

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

Nuclear Debate in Sweden and Lithuania’s Treaty Withdrawal

Donald Trump's foreign policy as the President of the United States is leading to an increase in Europe's defense capabilities. Two interesting news stories emerged on this topic yesterday.

The potentially more significant of the two was the report that Swedes are considering developing their own nuclear weapon—meaning a withdrawal from the international nuclear arms treaty. While the country's political leadership has denied such intentions, the discussion on the matter remains heated.

What adds credibility to this possibility is the fact that Sweden was developing its own nuclear weapon until the 1970s. This gives the country a significant scientific and technological advantage over many other nations. Therefore, it would not take long to produce the weapon necessary to secure peace in the Nordic region.

The other news concerned Lithuania, which today withdrew from the Convention on Cluster Munitions. As a result, Lithuania became the first country to exit the treaty, which has over a hundred signatories, and, more broadly, the first nation to withdraw from any so-called humanitarian disarmament agreement.

This, of course, is driven solely by the security threat posed by Russia, combined with uncertainty about U.S. support in the event of an attack. The same reasoning naturally applies to Sweden's nuclear debate as well.

All of this demonstrates that the grand political landscape in Europe, which had remained relatively stable since 1945, has been completely transformed by Russia’s war against Ukraine and Trump’s election. And the consequences are certainly not in line with the hopes of peace activists.

However, it remains to be seen whether, for example, France’s President Emmanuel Macron's promise of a nuclear umbrella will be enough for Sweden. A major issue with this, however, is the limited number of such weapons, meaning that the resulting destruction on enemy soil would still be relatively contained. And that could tempt a reckless dictator, in the vein of Joseph Stalin, into pursuing adventurist policies.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?
Will Russia Test NATO's Article Five?

No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors

Russia’s attack on Ukraine has raised concerns among European nations. As a result, they are striving to rapidly enhance their defensive capabilities.

The latest news concerns Sweden, which has ordered 44 new Leopard 2A8 tanks from Germany. In addition to purchasing new tanks, the Swedish Armed Forces have agreed to modernize approximately 70 tanks that have been in service since the 1990s.

These numbers can be compared to the Finnish Defence Forces’ equivalent arsenal. Finland’s inventory consists of 100 Leopard 2A6 and 139 Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks, as well as 102 CV9030 and 110 BMP2 infantry fighting vehicles. In other words, this new investment is a significant boost to the combat capability of the Nordic countries and NATO.

Another recent development involved Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda, who proposed that the country allocate at least 5.5% of its GDP to defense in the future. Even with this increase, Lithuania would still spend less than five billion euros on its military preparations, compared to Russia’s defense budget of a staggering 122 billion euros.

Purchasing weapons is not enough; they must also be used effectively. That’s why it was welcome news that the Finnish Air Force is sending four F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets and 50 soldiers to Iceland to monitor its airspace. This allows Finland to develop its cooperation with NATO and ensure its capability to deploy a fighter detachment to an allied nation’s base if needed.

These actions have undoubtedly been noticed in Putin’s Russia. However, it remains unclear how they will respond. Will they resort to reckless countermeasures? Or will they finally acknowledge that Russia poses no real threat to NATO?

Unfortunately, it seems that the military objective of Vladimir Putin’s regime, even in Ukraine, is not to win the war, but to divert the public’s attention from the activities and failures of his administration. This is why it is absolutely crucial that neither Putin nor his successors see any so-called low-hanging fruit in neighboring countries—targets that might appear easy to seize.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?
Message from Finland's President to Vladimir Putin
Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?

Nordic Police Announce: Spread of Gang Violence Cannot Be Stopped

The Nordic countries—Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland—have traditionally been seen as civilized, peaceful, and safe places to live. That’s why it was surprising to read that Nordic police organizations are struggling to keep up with the gang violence that started in Sweden.

According to a statement from these organizations, police forces are no longer able to respond to or prevent the spread of gang violence, which is becoming a problem across the entire Nordic region. This statement has been signed by police organizations from Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland.

It’s worth asking, then, who is responsible for letting the situation reach this point. This particularly concerns Sweden’s immigration policy, which has resulted in the formation of gangs and even dozens of areas where fire trucks and ambulances will not go without police protection.

In addition to identifying who is to blame, it’s essential to determine how these gangs can be brought under control despite police concerns. After all, it’s clear that criminals cannot be allowed to gain the upper hand in this matter, as this would mean that the Nordic countries, known for their equality, would become a mere memory of how politicians, who once aimed to improve the world, ended up destroying societies that provided the best quality of life in the world.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Managing Societal Change with a Growing Muslim Population
Sweden's Gang Crime Recruits Children – Is It Time for the EU to Reevaluate Asylum Policies?
Sweden's Rapid Demographic Shift Causes Challenges

Nordic Nations Unite Against the Growing Threat of Cross-Border Organized Crime

Organized crime, which primarily seeks financial gain through drug trafficking, has become an increasing problem in the Nordic countries. It no longer respects national borders but instead spreads from one country to another. For these reasons, during the Nordic Council meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland announced that they would strengthen their cooperation to combat organized crime.

According to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, "In Norway, we can see parts of these networks coming from Sweden in all of our police districts. We must fight them together. When crime begins to cross borders, the police, government, and judicial systems must also engage in cross-border cooperation."

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen also highlighted the organized crime coming across the border from Sweden, stating, "We cannot accept this. We are working closely with Sweden to address this issue."

Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo likewise described gang crime and cross-border crime as a serious problem. He cited the cooperation between Finnish and Swedish police in the northern Baltic region as a good example of cross-border collaboration.

The roots of Nordic gang crime are in Sweden—likely because Sweden has practiced an even more generous immigration policy than the other Nordic countries. Only time will tell, however, whether the Nordic countries will succeed in reversing this trend or whether they will gradually transform into more closed societies in which people's basic security is slowly eroded.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland’s Minister of Finance Believes Not All Cultures Are Equally Good
Immigration-Specific Violent Crime Increases as Humanitarian Immigration Continues
Sweden's Gang Crime Recruits Children – Is It Time for the EU to Reevaluate Asylum Policies?

Finland’s Minister of Finance Believes Not All Cultures Are Equally Good

According to Finland’s Minister of Finance, Riikka Purra (Finns Party), “No single tradition, attitude, or practice alone constitutes the core of Finnish culture. Finnishness is a unique combination of language, customs, values, symbols, and other elements". 

She also added that "This Finnish way of life has guaranteed progress here in the North. Year after year, research has shown that we Finns are among the happiest people in the world—even though there are fewer than six million of us. Probably not despite Finnish and Nordic culture, but rather because of it.”

Of course, this was a celebration of Finnish culture based on facts, yet it’s likely that Finnish media will give more attention to her statement that “when we evaluate things from the perspective of equality and non-discrimination, not all cultures and ways of life are equally good.” This claim aligns poorly with the currently popular DEI and woke ideologies, that often suggest that while cultures may be different, they are equally good.

In this sense, it will be interesting to see how Finland’s generally left-leaning mainstream media reacts to the Finance Minister’s views. Will her comment spark what is colloquially called a “shitstorm,” or will it prompt a reasoned discussion on different cultures and how they should be considered in Finnish immigration policy?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Mistreatment of Women at the Olympics?
The stabbing of the 12-year-old led to political revelry among the left in Finland
A Finnish police officer is afraid to speak about the problems of immigration

Does China prove the superiority of market economy?

The economy and standard of living in China was ruined by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution ordered by the Chairman Mao in 1960´s. After the death of the Chairman, the economic direction was changed in China towards the current system, where communistic dictatorship is combined with a market economy. 

That has led to great progress in the most populous country of the world. And now the statistics tell the Gross National Income of China is soon going to reach a level of $12 000 per capita. 

That means Chinese people are reaching the level of citizens of Costa Rica or Venezuela and has already passed over e.g. Russians, Malaysians, Bulgarians or Turkish. And even the standard of living in countries like Chile, Uruguay or Hungary will be reached in the next ten years - provided that the growth rate of China corresponds to the development of the last twenty years.

At the same time, China has become the second biggest economy in the world - and the difference to USA is narrowing quickly. The difference in GDI per capita between the two is, however, about sixfold - and therefore it very clear that the difference in the welfare of the two biggest economies of the world will be huge for decades. 

Taken the facts above, it is very clear that even a communistic rule may produce economic welfare despite the horrific examples provided by the Soviet Union or - more recently - Venezuela. The key to that is, however, to give up on the economic principles of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - and definitely avoiding Leninism as a means to apply their ideas. 

Instead it might be worth noting that the example provided by Xi Jinpin´s China seems to prove the superiority of market economy over socialism. And it drives me to consider, if more strict market economy should be preferred over the milder versions of socialism - such as Nordic social democracy? 

After all, considering other aspects usually thought to advance economy are excellent in the Nordic countries. The freedom of speech is among the best in the world, democracy is challenged in no ways and people are highly educated. Despite those facts, their economies have become more or less stagnated (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway) during the last decade or so, according to GNI.

For me, these notions will be of extreme interest in the becoming years. And therefore I intend to follow future developments in the Chinese economy - and make conclusions about the contributions of market economy and social democracy by comparing future developments in China and the Nordic countries. 

Previous thought on the same topic:
The main consequence of Putin´s attack to Ukraine
Once upon a time in China and Taiwan
Could China take advantage on the weakness of Putin´s Russia?