Russian Oil Giants Suffer, But the Real Reasons Remain Hidden

According to a recent report, the results of all Russia’s major oil companies collapsed in the first half of the year. A year ago, the country’s largest oil producer Rosneft reported half-year earnings of 773 billion rubles, equivalent to 85 billion euros. Now the result was only 245 billion rubles, or 27 billion euros.

Lukoil’s profit fell from last year’s 65 billion euros to 31.5 billion euros. Gazprom Neft’s earnings dropped by more than half to 16.5 billion euros. Tatneft’s and Russneft’s profits declined even more sharply, but the worst result came from Surgutneftegas, whose performance turned into a loss of 50 million euros.

The companies cite as their problems, among other things, oil overproduction resulting from OPEC countries’ policies, the overvaluation of the ruble, and Russia’s high interest rates. However, their financial statements make no mention at all of the drone strikes by Ukrainians against Russia’s oil industry or the sanctions imposed by Western countries.

It remains unclear whether this silence stems from fear of Vladimir Putin, from Russian dishonesty — or perhaps both.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Deep Roots of Violence and Disregard for Human Dignity in History
Russian Soldier in Finland – A Sign of Crumbling Morale?
Russia’s Economy Set to Slow, Says Bank of Finland

Vladimir Putin Places His Trust in the Bottom-Feeders of Humanity

Today, I read an absurd news story. According to it, fifteen Finns attended a meeting held in St. Petersburg, Russia, at the end of September, under the name "Peace, Nature, and Cooperation in the Baltic Sea and Arctic Regions."

There, they demanded that the escalation of the war in Ukraine "must be stopped immediately and that Western countries should cease arms deliveries to Ukraine." Additionally, they called for Russia to be allowed to participate in next year's "Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe" summit.

In a declaration crafted at the meeting, they stated that "peace will be achieved through diplomacy, cooperation, cross-border actions, active involvement of the diaspora, and a feminist agenda that emphasizes protection, meaningful participation, and prevention at all stages of conflict." In other words, they were spreading Russia’s dishonest propaganda.

It’s unfortunate that fifteen of the signatories are Finns, including, among others, the chair of the Finnish Communist Party (Liisa Taskinen) as well as two representatives of the Finnish Women for Peace movement (Ulla Klötzer and Lea Launokari).

Neither of these movements has any notable support, and I can’t recall ever hearing of any of the people mentioned above. I also don’t recognize the names of any of the other Finnish attendees, and the list does not include Finland’s most well-known Putin supporter, Johan Bäckman, who recently obtained Russian citizenship – and will hopefully be sent to the Ukrainian front as cannon fodder.

In other words, the gathering consisted of a group of traitors whose foolishness is being exploited by Russia’s dictator, Vladimir Putin. Perhaps the most telling aspect of this news is what it reveals about the situation of Russia and Putin, as it’s difficult to imagine that anything but desperation would drive the self-made tsar to rely on such bottom-feeders of humanity.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Highlights of the BRICS Meeting in Kazan, Russia
Vladimir Putin is Leading Russia into an Economic Ruin
The Social Democrats of Germany Supporting Putin

Highlights of the BRICS Meeting in Kazan, Russia

BRICS is an intergovernmental organization comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. It is a geopolitical bloc, with governments meeting annually at formal summits to coordinate multilateral policies.

This year's meeting in Kazan, Russia, has brought up some interesting developments, which I would like to present to you, my esteemed reader.

The Portuguese UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, attended a summit hosted by Vladimir Putin, a man who did not participate in the previous BRICS meeting to avoid being arrested under an international arrest warrant. I wonder whether the UN Secretary-General is unaware of the political implications of this or if he knowingly chooses to support the Russian dictator.

In any case, I do not believe his visit enhances the respect for the UN among people in Western countries. However, I am certain his popularity will rise in some other parts of the world.

President Vladimir Putin presented a symbolic BRICS currency proposal. However, the head of Russia's Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, was not in favor of the idea.

I can’t help but wonder how long it will take before Nabiullina's body is found under a window somewhere in Russia. That seems to be the fate of Russians who disagree with Mr. Putin.

Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro declared that “Venezuela is part of this BRICS family. We apply the principles of BRICS with historical conviction. The time has come for a balanced world, which is multipolar and multicentric. BRICS can count on Venezuela and on the full revolutionary strength of our historical project.”

Given the collapse of the Venezuelan currency - the Bolivar - it is clear that anything would be an improvement in terms of stability. On the other hand, Venezuela's inclusion could have a highly negative effect on any new currency. It will be interesting to see if, for example, China would be willing to join a currency shared with Venezuela.

Finally, it is worth noting a prime example of a kind of transparent dishonesty heard at the meeting. It was said by Putin, who, without batting an eye and without acknowledging his own guilt, rambled on that "unfortunately, there are many armed conflicts on our planet, including at Russia's borders. It is truly unfortunate that there is this armed conflict in Ukraine."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Resisting Putin’s Foolish Dreams
Does China prove the superiority of market economy?
Lessons from Venezuela

What’s the Issue With Russians?

Almost all Finns nowadays know that recognizing facts is the beginning of wisdom. In Russia, however, there seems to be some confusion about this.

A Finnish afternoon newspaper Iltalehti reported on this in an article where a film director warned that Russia could lose the war it started in Ukraine. According to the director, "we should always start from the premise that we can lose... we can lose if such blunders continue."

This was not about inciting defeatism, which he made clear by stating, "this is not about discouragement. It is not about spreading fear... It is simply a clear understanding of the price that we and our country will have to pay."

The director also wondered, "on TV, we always show Ukrainians who do not want to fight... But now we see that they are fighting well. And they are very motivated. Why are we deceiving ourselves?"

It is well known that in Russia, the "truth" is always what the country’s dictator—whether it be a tsar, the chairman of the politburo, or Putin—sees fit. And this time, the price has been paid by the soldiers sent to the war in Ukraine, especially the approximately half a million people who have lost their lives or health as a result of their country's leader's madness.

From what I have written above, the inevitable question arises as to why this is the case. That is, what flaw in the Russian people or their culture prevents our eastern neighbors from building a society where people could live well. After all, we are talking about the world's richest country in terms of natural resources, with a population that is also reasonably well-educated.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine Gives Kursk Residents a Clear Choice: Russia or Refuge
Russian games
Russian Tax Overhaul: Citizens to Bear the Burden of War Losses

Meretricious Democracy

Yesterday's news revealed the world's most popular president by far. He is Paul Kagame, who rose to power after the Rwandan genocide and received 99.18 percent of the votes in the recent elections. In other words, his two competitors together received just under a percent of the votes.

The achieved election result was also Kagame's personal record, as the same news report indicated that he previously only reached a 98.8 percent performance. Or were the competing candidates more popular in the past elections than in the recent ones?

It was also interesting to note that a few days ago, when the US President Joe Biden stepped aside, Vice President Kamala Harris raised $230 million for her campaign in two days. This means nearly $115 million per day.

With this money, she will certainly get a good start, especially as Biden's already collected $96 million will likely end up at her disposal. And perhaps those who have already offered Biden a $700 million support package will transfer their promises to the Vice President.

From all this, we can see that democracy in the great West is not cheap, as the other candidate - Donald Trump - will undoubtedly raise a substantial amount for his use as well. For comparison, it should be remembered that presidential candidate Alexander Stubb collected a modest €2.7 million for his use in the last elections.

Unfortunately, the media has not reported the size of Kagame's campaign fund. But if I may guess, it probably does not contain a very large stack of bills, as he likely had more effective means at his disposal. So much so that Rwandan democracy could be considered meretricious.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The British human rights decision led to unwarranted calls
Biden's Withdrawal Opens a New Possibility for Democrats!
Finland Will Thrive with Any US President, Trump Survived the Assassination Attempt

Scientific misconduct on prevailing theories is too attractive

University of Delaware (UD) found one of its scientists guilty of research misconduct. She has committed fabrication and falsification in work on fish behavior and coral reefs. The university is going to retract three of her research papers, including one in the Science magazine, one of the leading scientific journals of the world.

The retracted papers reported worrisome results how Earth’s rising carbon dioxide levels would have dramatic effects on fish behavior and ecology. In other words, the results strongly supported the current fears of extremely harmful outcome of the climatic warming. 

It should be understood that - after this case - the scientific community should conduct a serious introspection about its practices. In this process a special attention should be put on the critical assessment on the results supporting the prevailing theories of each time. 

The scientific picture on each topic consists of theories from which testable hypotheses are derived. In this structure the most important feature is that even a single falsifying result may prove the hypothesis wrong - and as a consequence, also the theory behind that. 

However, when talking about prevailing and politically important theories - such as the global change - it is easy to note leading journals to eagerly publish reports that support such theories. Thus, for a dishonest researcher the most attractive way to advance her career is to report fictitious but worrisome reports on observations on the effects of the climatic change. Exactly that seems to have happened with the current case mentioned above.

Therefore I propose that manuscripts reporting highly expected - but dramatic - results on the most popular scientific theory of each time are considered with a special suspicion in both the review process as well as in editorial decisions. After all, as I noted above, they are not important for the scientific process compared to falsifying reports. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Heat wave in Europe contrasts with the coldness of the Arctic sea
Should forbidden questions be answered or not?
A new justification is needed for environmental activists

A new justification is needed for environmental activists

Biodiversity crisis is one of the big environmental issues today. Although the problem is worst in the low latitudes, the topic is intensively discussed also in the European Union, which is in a process of preparing a stringent legislation to save the environment. 

In its current form EU biodiversity strategy would have serious effects on the Nordic forestry, which in Finland gives work to almost 100 000 people, and forms the basis of almost 20 percent of the export value. Despite these economic facts, a considerably higher amount of wood is growing in the Finnish forests now than was hundred years ago.   

One of the keystone species for biodiversity in North-European forests is bilberry. It is a valuable berry that many people are picking in forests, but it also is an extremely important source of food for many wild animals, especially birds - but also the king of the forests, bear. 

The environmentalists have for decades claimed that current forestry practices are reducing the amount of bilberries, and through food chain many other animals (example). The scientific basis supporting their claim are old investigations that showed bilberry area to have reduced between years 1950 and 1995. 

Now a new investigation is ongoing and its first results show that the forest area covered by bilberries has not reduced since 1995, but in contrast it has increased. Therefore the bilberry does not suffer from Nordic forestry, which has intensified between all those years, but may even have benefited on its current practices. 

Neither will many birds suffer from the lack of bilberries, but their reducing numbers result from some other causes. And those may or may not be related to forestry.  

In my opinion this little example demonstrates extremely well the problem typical to fanatic single topic movements. They have decided beforehand - based on their ideology - what is the problem they are opposing, and thereafter they search for evidence supporting their view from wherever that can be found. 

Therefore I do not expect truth about bilberries in Finland to change the opinions of environmental organisations towards commercial forestry. Instead, they will find other issues that seem to support their ideology. And use them against economic activities, that they have decided to oppose. That is, the Nordic forestry.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A popular hobby risks ecological balance, private property and human health in Finland
They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa
Climate change raises dishonesty in the Finnish media

They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa

The chairman of the Finnish Social Democratic Party Antti Rinne would like to reduce forest cuttings in Finland, because he thinks that "we are cutting too much in relation to the carbon sink". Also the Green party would like to reduce cuttings in our forests during the next four years electoral term and even the Left Alliance is along the same lines.

At the same time, the Finnish Broadcasting company Yle made a very positive story on the thoughts of Andrew Collins who is the CEO of Miro Foresty, which is producing lumber and charcoal in West African countries Ghana and Sierra Leone. According to Yle he has said that professional forestry is the only solution in this situation in a similar way as agriculture is the only solution for food production. And also that we cannot cut natural forests forever, but we need to grow trees for the increasing demand.

Collins mentioned also that e.g. access to forest plantations is less demanding and therefore it is easier to organize their cuttings. Furthermore, the logs are of the same tree species and therefore their economic use is easier.

The views of Collins are based on the loss of African forests due to the uncontrollable population growth of people. That is, the increasing cuttings of natural forests for the economic and domestic use of growing human population.

After reading the story I was left in thinking about the intellectual honesty of the green-leftist´s ideology. If forests in Finland should be removed from the economic use, then why in the world it would be desirable to increase economic forests in Africa? Is it enough that in Africa there is plenty of former forest land that has been taken to agricultural and other use, and that reforesting would make them a carbon sink for a couple of decades. Or actually less than a decade if fast growing eucalyptus would be planted.

Furthermore, I was left in waiting some of our politicians to notice that in Finland we have forests only because they have produced income to their owners. That is the very reason why forest owners have invested in their forests, which is why the forest growth in Finland (and thus their carbon sink) has increased continuously since 1960´s.

Could it be so that green-reddish people assume those investments to continue if owners will not get any income from their properties? Or do they think that there would really be enough of taxpayers money to pay for all Finnish forest owners for their forest protection at the same time when the reducing amount of wood usage in industry reduces the total yield of taxes?

For those who are not aware, I may tell that it is annually a question of billions of euros when we consider forest owners profits for their lumber and profits of wood processing companies. And even more, if we consider the disappearing jobs from forestry sector, that would increase unemployment and thus further reduce the amount of public capital.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Suomen metsäpolitiikka on kohdallaan
Suomalaispuolueet päättivät ilmastonmuutoksen torjuntakeinoista
Maapallon metsäpinta-ala kasvaa vauhdikkaasti

Reapplications for asylum are made to prolong seeker´s stay

Two women who make their living from refugee-related business - Marjaana Laine and Pia Lindfors - claimed that the renewals of asylum applications in Finland are due to problems in the process. In order to fix the problem, they demanded more juridical help for the applicants - and thus more money for themselves.

This comment was responded by the immigration office leader Esko Repo, who said in a politically correct way, that the most common reason for renewals is not problems in the process. Instead, most of the reapplications are made because the applicant has a new  justification for his application. Half of these new arguments relate to leaving islam or turning to christianity.

In the same response, Repo told that "approximately half of the asylum claims in 2018 were reapplications. 16 % of decisions made were positive and 32% negative." In other words, two applications of three were unfounded as based on the decisions.

My interpretation on this is that most of the applications are made simply to prolong the time of staying in Finland on taxpayers money. This option is made extremely attractive by the fact that the number of reapplications has not been restricted.

In other words, the Finnish taxpayers have been put under an obligation to cover the costs of asylum seekers without any limit; and that attracts them to make more and more applications. The same taxpayer´s money is also shared by people in the refugee-related business such a Laine and Lindfors. No wonder that they try to keep that option open with all possible excuses. Even with invented ones, as demonstrated by their claim cited in the beginning of this text.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A set of immigration-derived sexual crimes in a Finnish town
The Danish government proposed reforms for immigration policy
Rape statistics in Finland and Sweden are breaking prejudices

The original thought in Finnish:
Turvapaikanhakijoiden uusintahakemukset tehdään maassaolon pitkittämiseksi

Climate change raises dishonesty in the Finnish media

I am amazed because of the dishonesty linked to the climatic change. And this time I do not think here the changes in temperature databases but discussion related to the prevention of climatic warming.

Last week we received a model example on this dishonesty from a professional journalist Minttu Mikkonen in the biggest newspaper of this country, Helsingin Sanomat, who had interviewed Finnish researchers in the field.

In the middle of her story Mikkonen cited a previous story published in the same newspaper and wrote that "all researchers unanimously agree that forest cuttings and increasing harvesting reduces carbon sink and carbon stock of the Finnish forests. Despite that, many Finnish politicians still say that cuttings could be increased".

Thereafter the journalist cited Mari Pantsar, the Director of the Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra, by allowing the reader to understand that she had commented the claim above by saying "if you need to confront scientific and political world on carbon sinks I - as a docent - do believe in science".

The problem is that the earlier story the journalist had cited did not say that all researchers agree on the claim that increasing cuttings and harvesting would reduce the carbon stock of the Finnish forests. Or it said, but continued as follows: "...for decades forward, if we compare to a situation when they are not increased".

In other words, all Finnish scientists agreed on the fact, that the carbon stock in Finnish forests is not reduced by cuttings and harvesting, but only its growth is reduced for the next few decades. One might imagine that understanding this would not be too difficult even to a journalist, so it is obvious that we have here a case of conscious dishonesty, although I do not understand why. Actually, it is even worse, because the story of the journalist points out Docent Mari Pantsar as the source of the incorrectness.

In this context I would like to inform my respected reader that Nature published recently an article, which shows that forest management in Europe cannot be used efficiently to solve the problem of climatic change, and therefore they should rather be managed for resilience in future climate. This was not mentioned by Mikkonen, although it had been pointed out by Professor Atte Korhola recently in the same newspaper, and therefore it must have been known also by its journalists writing on the same topic.

The story reminded also that "an average Finn produces annually more than ten tons of emissions. In year 2030 each resident of the globe could not produce more than three tons on average".

This is also intellectually dishonest, although the facts would be correct (which I believe, and did not check). This can be understood by putting this to an areal perspective. Based on the figures given by Mikkonen we can calculate - based on our population size and land area - that in Finland we are producing 163 tons of emissions/km², whereas in the whole world the corresponding sustainable figure would be 155 tons/km².

So Finland is not far from sustainability despite the fact that much of our emissions are due to our cold winters, which make warming of houses obligatory, and therefore forces Finns to use more energy than people in south.

The calculation above shows also how important issue, in regard to avoiding climatic change,  is the rapid population growth. That was not, however, mentioned by journalist Mikkonen, but she wrote only about circulation, vegetarism, carbon pricing, German solar energy, Danish wind power, energetic efficacy of Mexican buildings and stopping the loss of Brasilian forests (the last one of which - unlike the European forest management - does have an effect on global warming as pointed out by the Nature paper cited above).

The dishonest of journalist Mikkonen is not unique in the Finnish press. In contrast, it is extremely common on almost all discussions related to the climatic change. Unfortunately I do not understand why.

That is because I have understood that the threat due to climatic warming is so severe, that we should be honest and find functionally working ways to stop it. Misleading the political discussion - as sen in the story of journalist Mikkonen - only hampers attempts to find working solutions. I cannot believe that would be the aim of media, politician or any of the researchers.

The original story in Finnish:
HS:n Minttu Mikkonen tajosi malliesimerkin epärehellisyydestä