Green Politician: "I'm Glad We Never Gained Real Political Power"

The Finnish politician Satu Hassi has served as a minister, a Member of the European Parliament, and the chairperson of the Green League. In other words, she has been one of the most prominent politicians of her generation.

Satu Hassi is known for her work in the Green Party, but as a young student, she was a member of the governing body of the Socialist Student League, the student wing of an extreme leftist and pro-Soviet faction within the Finnish Communist Party. In effect, she was involved in what could be considered the most dangerous political movement in independent Finland—one that, if it had come to power, might have led to Finland becoming part of the Soviet Union.

This group, known as the taistolaiset (after a leading figure in the movement), at its peak held 13 seats in the Finnish Parliament, making it a serious political force that enjoyed strong support from Leonid Brezhnev’s Soviet Union. One of the first political statements made by the student movement run by this faction—which included Hassi as a member—was to endorse the 1968 occupation of Czechoslovakia. That stance arguably says more about the movement’s political character than a thousand words ever could.

* * *

Now retired from active politics, Satu Hassi has returned to the public eye and spoken about her thoughts from that time. According to her, “perhaps we had heard too many wartime hero stories from our fathers and wanted to fight our own heroic war—in this case, against imperialism.”

In her interview, she also admits to having drawn “foolish conclusions” after embracing Marxist-Leninist ideology, and she reflects: “I’m glad we never gained real political power. The taistolaiset were only strong in certain cultural organizations.”

She also acknowledged noticing injustices during visits to the Soviet Union, but chose not to speak about them even with fellow ideologues. Instead, she closed her eyes to the things she didn’t want to see.

Hassi’s confession as a former Member of the European Parliament is interesting in many ways. First, admitting one's own mistakes is relatively rare—but in her case, the value of that admission is diminished by the fact that it came only after she had left politics.

Second, Hassi did not distance herself from totalitarian circles after making her observations. Instead, she joined the Green Party as a standard-bearer of its left wing, which eventually displaced the economically liberal politicians who had initially led the party. In other words, she never truly grasped the societal harm caused by the concentration of political power and centrally planned economies, and remained a supporter of a totalitarian societal model until the end of her political career.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Finnish Youth Are Abandoning the Green Party
Why Does the Political Green-Left Lie, and Why Does It Resonate with the People?
The Green Movement is Withering – And That’s Not a Bad Thing

Trump's Indecision Benefits Putin – Deadly Consequences for Ukraine

U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to halt the sharing of intelligence with Ukraine has helped the Russians advance on the front lines. As a result, Putin's army has killed many Ukrainian soldiers in recent days and is close to encircling the Ukrainian army in Kursk.

For the same reason, Ukraine has also lost its ability to detect Russian bombers and other military aircraft when they take off from Russia. This has given Ukraine less time to warn civilians and military personnel about the danger of airstrikes or missile attacks, leading to an increase in civilian deaths.

Probably as a result of this, Donald Trump has become indecisive—at times threatening Russia with new sanctions, while at other times complaining that negotiations with Ukraine have become more difficult. In this situation, there is only one winner: Vladimir Putin, whose army has managed to turn its previously struggling war effort around.

One can only hope that Trump regains his balance and realizes that supporting Putin and undermining the Western alliance backing Ukraine is simply foolish. He should return to the previous U.S. policy of seeking ways to help Ukraine expel the illegal invaders from its land. Even the Ukrainians are not asking for more than that—let alone the Europeans.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Donald Trump’s Reliability as an Ally Has Proven to Be Questionable
Too Many Finns Share Trump’s Inability to Comprehend
Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions

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

The European Parliament elections were a celebration for the far-left in Finland

The result of yesterday's European Parliament elections in Finland certainly surprised everyone following politics. It also surprised me, so a few words about it.

The big winner of the elections was the far-left formed by the Left Alliance and the Greens, which seemed to get the largest share of votes in all elections during Finland's independence. As much as 28.6 percent of the voters gave their vote to them.

This means that the Finnish European Parliament group will henceforth provide even more support for centralization, the migration of people from developing countries, wokeness, and efforts like Euro-taxes. At the same time, the result also means that the Finnish far-left knew how to take advantage of the low voter turnout.

This, however, was not understood by the supporters of the Finns Party. They decided to stay at home, perhaps cursing the entire European Union in their minds or protesting minor issues in the Finnish government's policy, where the party participates.

And they fulfilled my warning from a few days ago that the green-left would get one more representative in the European Parliament if people supporting other political directions did not go to the polls. Thus, the voting behavior of Finnish national conservatives was, to put it nicely, foolish.

* * *

If this kind of thinking had prevailed in all EU countries, the people from Africa and the Middle East seeking to come to Europe for welfare reasons would have thanked and set off in even larger numbers. Similarly, the preservation of raw materials for the Finnish forest industry would have become a real threat, and only imagination would have been the limit to what could be achieved on the wokeness front.

The silver lining was that the national conservatives in other countries were not as foolish as the Finns, but instead achieved an electoral victory while the entire left lost support. Of course, this victory would have been greater if Finnish voters had decided to support the Finns Party candidates instead of the far-left.

With the EPP group, including the Finnish National Coalition Party, achieving an electoral victory at the Union level, we can breathe a sigh of relief and hope to see healthier politics in the EU over the next five years than in the past term. Additionally, we hope that the most idiotic plans of the previous European Parliament will not be implemented.

* * *

In addition to EU politics, the election results will also impact Finland's domestic politics. Within the government, the National Coalition Party's victory in the European elections and the Finns Party's crushing defeat will increase the influence of the Prime Minister's National Coalition Party and decrease the influence of the Finance Minister's Finns Party. Thus, the issues important to the National Coalition Party will progress better than the wishes of the Finns Party.

This will be particularly evident in Finnish immigration and asylum policies, where the lines of the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party differ. My guess is that it will be even more challenging to bring related government program policies to the Parliament and thus into law during the current parliamentary term.

The danger, therefore, is that Finnish politics will see a repeat of the phenomenon witnessed during Juha Sipilä's (Centre Party) government from 2015 to 2019. Its immigration policy program was sensible, but ultimately it was never implemented. And to top it all off, a tremendous number of people from developing countries rushed into the country without the government taking any measures to prevent it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth
During the Eurovision song spectacle, the incompetence of EU officials was revealed
The EU's 7.4 billion euro aid package is intellectual dishonesty