A Timely Reminder of the Failures of Europe’s Political Leaders

Next Sunday, we will once again move the clocks forward by one hour. This was reported by Uutissuomalainen, according to which “the proposal to end clock changes is still awaiting consideration by the EU Council. Not all member states have formed their positions.”

The article also stated that “the European Commission wants to promote the abolition of the daylight saving time directive. Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism Apóstolos Tzitzikostas launched an evaluation in February to examine the EU-wide impacts of clock changes.”

The report is expected to be completed by the end of the year, the Ministry of Transport and Communications said in a press release. After that, the Commission will assess further actions.

* * *

In this respect, it is rather remarkable that this is by no means a new issue. As I myself wrote already six years ago, “perhaps an even more illustrative example of the EU’s inability to make decisions was once again highlighted last night. We still had to move the hands of the clock, even though a majority of EU citizens would like to end it and both the Commission and Parliament have already made decisions on the matter.”

And that is not all, because as much as eleven and a half years ago I could state that “studies have shown that changing the clocks is harmful overall, and therefore the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare has recommended abandoning the practice.” This has not changed over the years, as a scientific review article published last year found that “the transition to daylight saving time was associated with harmful effects ranging from reduced sleep duration and quality to increased sleepiness.”

* * *

Therefore, it is worth repeating once again the fact that this endless clock-changing farce is likely to weaken people’s faith and trust in the European Union—if it has not already made it a laughing stock. And what is worse, year after year it shows ever more clearly that this is not merely about people’s feelings but about harsh reality.

Indeed, the clock-changing farce undeniably demonstrates the shocking incompetence of our continent’s leaders, which is undoubtedly one reason why we have fallen behind the United States both economically and militarily, as the striking chart of GDP development below clearly shows.

Unfortunately, clock changes and economic problems are not the only areas in which European leaders have failed. At the same time, they have also managed to fill many member states with welfare migrants from developing countries—while the birth rate of the native population has dropped dramatically.

European politicians have also succeeded in weakening the continent’s military capability to such an extent that Russia has been able to wage its war in Ukraine for years without the EU being able to intervene. And even worse, they have encouraged the U.S. president to question the usefulness of NATO—developments that could ultimately lead to the loss of Europe’s future and the way of life of its people.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Carbon Sink Policy Lacks Cost-Effectiveness
Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?
Changing the Clocks Reduces Trust in the European Union

Is Hamas Running Out of Intelligent Leaders?

In my piece – written in Finnish – last year I was right in guessing that Israel has decided to eliminate Hamas leaders whenever possible. This time it was the turn of the head responsible for weapons production in the organization’s military wing.

It remains to be seen whether the Jewish state will succeed in withering the organization through this strategy. One would nevertheless assume that even if it fails to do so quantitatively, it would achieve results at least qualitatively. It is obvious that if and when assuming leadership positions in Hamas has turned into a death trap—rather than a path to ordinary enrichment—only the most thick-headed fanatics would seek them.

If I am right, this means a rapid decline in Hamas and its terrorist capabilities. And as a consequence, in the longer term—perhaps—also a decline in the organization’s popularity among ordinary Palestinians.

Thus the question is whether the logic I am applying from a Western frame of reference is correct. Or is the Muslim worldview so different that what I have written above does not apply?

In the latter case, Hamas will continue to succeed in attracting intelligent people to its leadership. If so, it leaves us Westerners to ponder what this says about Palestinians and their intellectual capacities.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland’s Foreign Minister Explained Why the States That Have Recognized Palestine Are Well-Meaning Fools
Optimism and Reality of the Gaza Peace Proposal
An Unexpected Endorsement of Professor’s Views

Donald Trump’s Meeting With Vladimir Putin: The Advice He Needs

The presidents of the USA and Russia, Donald Trump and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, will meet on Friday in Alaska. Initially, it was said that the meeting would seek a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, but later the U.S. president’s office announced that it was merely about Trump’s desire to listen to Putin.

In reality, no one can know what will happen in Alaska. In Europe, there are fears that Trump might agree to support Putin in annexing part of Ukraine to Russia. That is, of course, one possibility, but not necessarily what will happen in Alaska—unless Trump is, in one way or another, in Putin’s pocket.

Assuming what I just wrote isn’t the case, it could well be that Trump realizes Putin is merely toying with him and is in fact only trying to weaken U.S. and other Western support for the Ukrainians—thus turning the battlefield situation to Russia’s advantage.

That is why it was unpleasant to learn that, right during the Alaska talks, Russia has achieved success east of the city of Dobropillia, where its forces have managed to advance along a strip over ten kilometers long but quite narrow. The risk is that Putin will succeed in convincing Trump that this breakthrough shows Ukrainian resistance is collapsing.

On the other hand, I think Russia’s narrow attack wedge will remind all Finns familiar with World War II of our own country’s successful motti battles, in which much larger Soviet units were destroyed by encircling them and cutting off their supply and relief. Unfortunately, it may be that Ukraine’s terrain is not as favorable for such a solution as Finland’s was.

After Trump and Putin agreed to meet, European leaders decided to influence the situation. This will take place later today in a telephone conference attended not only by representatives of Germany, France, Britain, Italy, and Poland, but also by the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and Finnish President Alexander Stubb.

It remains to be seen whether this distinguished group will be able to influence Donald Trump, or whether he will simply listen politely and then, in discussions with Putin, do whatever he wants—in the worst case trying to sell Ukraine’s independence cheaply, and then leading the USA out of the community supporting Ukraine.

Even though I am quite certain that Trump will not read this blog, I cannot resist offering him one piece of advice. It goes like this: Vladimir Vladimirovich is a tough and ruthless dictator who, like others of his kind, listens only to someone similar. That is why Trump should not try to appease him, but instead show — without hesitation — his place as the leader of a state far weaker than the United States, and tell him to end the war here and now by promptly moving the “special operation’s” soldiers back behind Ukraine’s eastern border as it stood before 2014.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Border Residents Concerned Over NATO’s Article 5 Interpretation
It’s Time to Teach Putin: The Age of Empire Is Over
When the War Comes Home to Moscow

Why Hamas Is Unwilling to Give Up Its Weapons

Representatives of the terrorist organization Hamas are scheduled to meet with mediators of the ceasefire negotiations in Cairo, Egypt. Perhaps for that reason, Hamas has announced that it is ready to release all remaining hostages and agree to a five-year ceasefire.

However, it refuses to give up its weapons, which has been Israel’s condition for peace. In other words, Hamas’s proposal is unlikely to have been made in earnest — although of course, I would very much hope that it were.

This led me to reflect on why Hamas insists on keeping its weapons. During the Gaza war, it has become extremely clear that their weapons are of no real use against the Israeli army, and thus the organization is completely incapable of protecting Palestinian civilians with them.

This leaves two obvious possibilities. In my view, the more likely one is that Hamas uses its weapons to maintain control over the Gaza Strip by suppressing dissent among Palestinians. The motive for holding on to power is the opportunity it provides for personal enrichment and a comfortable life.

This fact is illustrated by the enormous wealth amassed by Palestinian leaders — for example, the billions of dollars in assets owned by the family of the late Ismael Haniyeh, or Khalid Mashal’s fortune, reportedly reaching up to many billion euros. Similarly, Yahya Sinwar, who led Gaza until his death, and Mussa Abu Marzouk also had fortunes amounting to billions.

The second — though in my opinion less likely — possibility is that Hamas intends to continue using its weapons for terrorist attacks against Jews. Without significant military capability, such attacks would be reduced to sporadic stabbings and similar — repugnant yet relatively minor — actions, making it impossible for terrorists to even dream of carrying out assaults similar to that of October 7 in the future.

As a result, Hamas and its leadership might find it difficult to maintain their popularity among Palestinians. The effectiveness of terrorism is illustrated by the fact that every terror attack committed in Western countries has been wildly celebrated by many Palestinians (example).

Of course, the two possibilities I have described are not mutually exclusive. Rather, their combination provides a strong motive for refusing to surrender weapons. And naturally, there may be a variety of other reasons for retaining them as well. However, it is clear — as I have stated — that Hamas’s weapons have absolutely nothing to do with defending Palestinians from any potential threat posed by Israel. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
In Finland, the Enemy Is Clear – and Now the Truth Is Emerging for the Palestinians Too
The Complete Demilitarization of Gaza: What Would It Mean for the Palestinians?
Questions to the Winners of the Gaza War