Free School Education for Foreigners Ends in Finland

The Parliament of Finland approved the government’s proposal according to which students from outside the EU and EEA will in the future pay an annual fee in upper-secondary schools (lukio) and vocational institutions corresponding to the actual cost of their education. We are not talking about small sums: for example, the cost of one year of upper-secondary school can exceed 10,000 euros.

According to Statistics Finland, in 2022 there were about 35,000 foreign nationals studying in vocational education and about 3,400 in upper-secondary schools. These figures also include people from EU and EEA countries, to whom the legislative change does not apply. The largest groups in vocational schools were Estonians (around 4,500), Russians (around 4,500), Iraqis (around 3,500), Afghans (around 2,200) and Filipinos (around 2,000).

In Parliament, the proposal was opposed not only by the left-wing parties—the Greens and the Left Alliance—but also by the Centre Party. It would be interesting to know what the party’s voters think about the matter at a time when public services have been cut and will continue to be cut drastically—if not from foreigners’ services, then from Finns’.

This was also noted by MP Joakim Vigelius, who additionally stated—quite correctly—that "Finland cannot be the world’s educational hub, nor a global social service office, health centre, care home or prison. The money will not be sufficient if the number of those to be served expands to everyone crossing the border without conditions, fees or responsibilities."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Attitudes Toward Immigrants Are a Problem in Schools
Has Modern Education Strayed Too Far — and Is It Time to Change Course?
Marx in the Classroom: How Ideological Education Shaped Careers and Values

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Laitavasemmisto ja Keskusta haluaisivat Suomesta koko maailman ilmaisen koulutuskeskuksen

AI Drones: Ukraine’s New Edge in the War?

The Financial Times reported that Ukraine is now using a new type of American-German drone, which can operate independently using its own artificial intelligence. If this information is accurate, it marks another significant step forward in the evolution of warfare.

As a consequence, Ukraine’s technological superiority over Russian forces is increasing, shifting the balance—at least to some degree—in favor of the defenders, who have so far been the underdogs. Whether this will be enough to reverse the course of events on the front lines remains to be seen.

Naturally, this news is extremely bad for Russia, and especially for its dictator Vladimir "Little Man" Putin, whose political future is closely tied to success on the battlefield. It certainly doesn't help that Putin’s war chest—namely the National Wealth Fund used to cover the budget deficit—is inevitably running dry, having shrunk from €110 billion at the start of the war to around €30 billion.

For us bystanders, the situation is undeniably fascinating, as the long-standing trench warfare reminiscent of World War I might shift into a more dynamic and mobile conflict as early as next summer. This could ultimately lead to the collapse of the Russian army—and with it, the fall of Putin from his throne.

Previous thought on the same topic:
Military Support Is Needed to Reinforce EU Sanctions
Russian Soldier in Finland – A Sign of Crumbling Morale?
Renaissance of the Finnish Defense Industry

Some University of Helsinki Employees Demand End to Collaboration With Israeli Universities

Some University of Helsinki employees have, quite evidently, lost their minds. I arrived at this conclusion because over 700 of its employees are demanding that Finland’s largest university end its cooperation with Israeli universities.

Behind the petition is an organization called Researchers for Palestine, which I had never heard of before. They describe themselves as "a group of staff and researchers based at the University of Helsinki who are committed to pushing for an academic boycott of Israeli educational institutions, in line with BDS and PACBI guidelines."

Among the signatories, there appear to be mainly ethnically Finnish representatives of the social sciences, but with a quick glance I also found, for example, two people named Muhammad, a few named Ahmed or Ahmad, and several variations of Hassan, as well as some non-Finnish European names.

In fact, 700 is not a particularly large number, considering that the University of Helsinki employs approximately 7,800 people. So, less than 10 percent of the staff have signed the petition—unfortunately, I personally know a few of them.

Naturally, such a petition has no actual impact on inter-university relations, nor should it. If for no other reason, then because research is inherently something that connects people rather than separates them—and it is such a long-term endeavor that temporary political disagreements should not be allowed to influence it.

Nevertheless, I offer a suggestion to all the petition’s signatories: “No force in the world can stop you from ending your own cooperation with Israeli universities and researchers. Therefore, you are entirely free to set an example for others and return any funding you may have received for such cooperation.”

However, if you don’t personally have any such cooperation, then I view your demand as rather ridiculous. It seems to be a clear case of virtue signaling on matters that require no personal sacrifice from you, but would demand that others break their commitments. That is simply spineless.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
University of Helsinki gained an anti-Semitic reputation
Demonstrations cause trouble in Helsinki and Sweden
International Master´s degree is an opportunity to be used

Zelensky Condemns Fico’s "Immoral" Support for Putin

In the Western world—particularly in Finland—people understand quite well what a Russian victory in Ukraine would entail. Unfortunately, Slovakia's Prime Minister Robert Fico seems to struggle with this understanding.

This can be inferred from his statement on social media, where he reported exchanging views in Moscow with Russia's dictator Vladimir Putin on "the military situation in Ukraine, possibilities for an early peaceful resolution of the war, and relations between Slovakia and Russia, which I intend to normalize."

According to Fico, his comments were a reaction to Ukraine's announcement that the country would not renew its agreement on the transit of Russian gas through its territory to the European Union. Angered by this, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyi issued a blunt accusation against Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico on another social media platform.

Zelensky claimed that Fico wants to help Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. Zelenskyi added, "Mr. Fico even rejected compensation that would have facilitated the transition and eliminated dependence on Russian gas." He continued, stating that "Fico is funding, in this way, the suffering of Russians, and therefore Ukrainians "are losing people as a result of the war Putin started. For us, such assistance to Putin is immoral."

Zelensky’s perspective is one worth agreeing with. At the same time, one cannot help but wonder why on earth the people of Slovakia—a nation subjugated by the Soviet Union for half a century—have chosen Fico as their leader.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Message from Finland's President to Vladimir Putin
Western Nations Should Act Decisively On Two Fronts Against Russia
Anecdotes and Jokes About Vladimir Putin

The Fairness of Climate Funding: Just Another 60 Million Euros?

According to Finland's public broadcaster Yle, the financing of climate action is increasingly shifting onto the shoulders of EU countries. This is because the Trump administration is unlikely to be enthusiastic about participating in the whole effort, while China and former developing countries enriched by oil want to continue as recipients of funds rather than contributors.

China and the G77 group of developing countries have also proposed a new target for climate financing. According to their proposal made in Baku, Azerbaijan, a staggering $1.3 billion should be allocated.

It remains to be seen how the EU will respond to this emerging situation. Will it continue humbly to keep its purse open, or will it declare the situation unfair and therefore unfeasible?

In any case, Finland’s government has already decided to reduce its contribution to the green climate fund from 100 million euros to 60 million euros. As a Finnish taxpayer, I believe that if China and the G77 continue along the line they've currently set, that amount should be further reduced by another 60 million euros and the saved funds used to curb the national debt, even though that, too, may be but a drop in the ocean.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Russia Pays the Price for Its Foolishness
Correct minister, ridiculous facts
Advice to participants of the COP27 climate implementation summit

Criminal Attack Against Finnish Democracy

This morning, the Finnish Extinction Rebellion, in collaboration with the Swedish group Återställ Våtmarker, defaced the Finnish Parliament House to gain visibility for their political views. That is why I won’t discuss their goals in this writing but will briefly present my own opinion on their actions.

Defacing the Parliament House was a direct attack on Finnish democracy, which is based on decisions made by representatives elected by the people. In making these decisions, all political perspectives are represented according to the weight they hold among the Finnish population.

However, this is not acceptable to the Extinction Rebellion activists and the Swedes involved in the defacement, as they demand for themselves a dictatorial right to decide on the nation’s common affairs. In other words, through their actions, they appear to be criminal usurpers of power who should receive the maximum legal punishment for their deeds and be held financially responsible for the costs - estimated to exceed 10 000 euros - incurred.

In this context, the Kone Foundation, established by the Finnish elevator manufacturer Kone Corporation, finds itself in a peculiar situation. It has publicly funded the activities of Extinction Rebellion, which, at least in the public's mind, makes it partially responsible for what happened. And it doesn't help that you say the funding you approved hasn't been earmarked for defacing the Parliament House.

In this situation, I expect the foundation to take responsibility. That is, to publicly announce the immediate cessation of its funding for the Finnish Extinction Rebellion, to refuse any involvement in paying for the damages caused by the activists, and to unequivocally condemn their actions.

Although the Kone Corporation is not directly responsible for the actions of its foundation, it would be good if the company also condemned the incident and, in one way or another, reprimanded its foundation for its reckless use of funds. This, of course, only if the company supports representative democracy and does not feel sympathy toward criminals—and even then, only if they care about their international reputation.

Finally, I do not believe that the action taken today will increase the acceptability of the activists' goals among ordinary people. On the contrary, it will probably - and hopefully - turn against them.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Relationship Between the Professor and Teemu Selänne
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics
Is the Finnish left-wing radicalizing?

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 community discriminates its youngsters

Recent research showed that scientific reports are more easily published if their authors are well known and respected scientists - e.g. Nobel laureates. The results reported by an Austrian group showed that only 23 percent of reviewer´s recommended rejection on manuscripts, when a prominent researcher was the only author shown, whereas 48 percent did so when authors were not known and 65 percent if the only author given was a little-known person. The evaluated manuscripts were the same for all three groups.

For me, as a well known and old scientist in my field, but also a supervisor of young talented students, the figures given above are just disgusting. That is because it shows the hurdles for success to be higher for young people. And even worse: the Austrian study seems to imply that old veterans might easily publish less important findings or even rubbish.

The scientific evaluation of manuscripts is basically simple. The peer reviewer of a scientific publication is another scientist in the same field, who is expected to check that the methodology is adequate to the problem and the evidence obtained is correctly interpreted. And that the findings add sufficiently to the scientific understanding of the topic addressed. 

The bias observed by Austrians obviously affect also funding organizations. If the applicant is well known and has a long record of scientific success, he probably gets funding much more likely to his applications than a young researcher with minor achievements. 

Therefore it was interesting to learn, that some funding organizations - such as the British Academy or the Swiss National Science Foundation - have taken advantage of a lottery in their funding decisions. That is, if several project proposals are very close to each others - but there is not enough money to fund all - a lottery will be used to select the ones getting funded.

That should be beneficial to the regeneration of scientific community, and provide young innovative researchers better chances to get funded. After saying that, even this kind of a lottery will not provide equal chances to youngsters, but at least it would reduce the gap to us - the veterans already going towards the sunset of our brilliance. 

All in all, I suggest that at least part of the European Union research funding would implement lottery in its research funding process. For example, in the Framework Programs for applied research - where application process often has two rounds of evaluation - the second round including only top applications rated by evaluators, could be replaced by a lottery. 

And nationally, I would be happy to see Academy of Finland funding to be partly replaced by a lottery. The principle could be simple: in the first step, all applications rated as "outstanding" by expert panels would be provided funding, and thereafter the lottery would be used - instead of the Research Councils - to pick up proposals to be funded from applications rated by the expert panels up to a level of "excellent". 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Scientific misconduct on prevailing theories is too attractive 
Should forbidden questions be answered or not?
Facts, US Supreme Court and the case of Roe v. Wade