Will Power Change Hands in Iran?

After Israel attacked Iran few days ago, it didn't take long before Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced his willingness to discuss the nuclear deal aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The reason for this is most likely the Jewish state's military superiority compared to Khamenei’s forces.

So far, Western countries have not, at least publicly, responded to the Iranians' announcement, instead choosing to watch from the sidelines as an uneven struggle unfolds, in which Israel demonstrates that it is militarily and technologically vastly more capable than Iran. This is the case even though Iran has managed to launch some missiles into Israel.

For the world at large—and especially for the Iranian people—it would likely be best if Iran’s Islamist regime were to collapse as a result of the war and be replaced by a religiously neutral government that would free its citizens from the religious terrorism imposed by the current regime. However, this would require a sufficiently strong force to emerge from within Iran, one capable of channeling public dissatisfaction into a revolution.

Another possibility for regime change could be the use of force by Israel or Western nations. However, I strongly doubt that anyone has the will to undertake such an operation, even though, for example, many Iranian refugees in Finland (an example and another) would undoubtedly wish for it.

It remains to be seen what consequences this ongoing and likely very short-lived war will have for the Iranian regime. Will it manage to maintain its position even in defeat, or will the Iranian people finally gain their freedom?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Quick Israeli Success in Iran Would Be Crucial for Ukraine
Iran Rejects Direct Nuclear Talks with U.S., Calls Them Pointless
Israel’s Strike on Iran: Ripple Effects for the Middle East, Russia, and Global Stability

Elections in Venezuela Do Not Offer Reason for Optimism

Although Western countries have long been more or less functioning democracies, this is not the case everywhere. The world’s first socialist state, the Soviet Union, did collapse under its own impossibility back in 1991, but that doesn’t mean socialism lacks support in today’s world.

An example of this unfortunate fact was seen over the weekend in Venezuela, where the socialist party received as much as 83 percent of the vote in Sunday’s parliamentary — or National Assembly — elections. In addition, a group close to the socialists gained another six percent.

The Venezuelan opposition gathered only 5.17 percent of the votes. This was influenced by the fact that many opposition leaders had urged their supporters to boycott the elections, claiming that President Nicolás Maduro had fraudulently won last year’s presidential election. This view is also shared by the international community.

It remains to be seen what Venezuela’s socialists will do with their electoral victory. However, their use of power so far does not offer much reason for optimism.

According to Wikipedia: "During the 21st century, under the leadership of socialist populist Hugo Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan economy has collapsed, prompting millions of citizens to flee Venezuela. GDP has fallen by 80 percent in less than a decade. The economy is characterized by corruption, food shortages, unemployment, mismanagement of the oil sector, and since 2014, hyperinflation. As of 2024, inflation has stabilized at 59.61%."

This can be compared to the time before the socialists came to power. Back then, Venezuela's economy was growing strongly, and for example, GDP per capita rose by as much as 400 percent between 2003 and 2010 — in just seven years. A similar development can hardly be expected based on the election results we’ve just seen.

Of course, Venezuela is just one of many countries that still believe in socialism, but in practice, it is a fairly representative example of its kind. And that is why it’s worth wondering why socialism still enjoys so much support around the world — not only in developing countries but also in prosperous Western nations like Finland.

Admittedly, here the socialists don’t want to call their economic thinking socialism. Instead, they "only" aim to raise taxes and transfer as many of society’s functions as possible under the responsibility of the public sector — in other words, to implement socialism without naming it for what it is.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Marx in the Classroom: How Ideological Education Shaped Careers and Values
Does China prove the superiority of market economy?
Lessons from Venezuela

The Price of Xi´s and Putin's Game Is Paid by Ordinary Russians

Chinese President Xi Jinping told the head of Russia’s Security Council, Sergei Shoigu, that China and Russia should continue to strengthen their cooperation on international and regional affairs.

This development is, in a way, a continuation of the recent trend of China and Russia growing closer in foreign policy. However, it can also be interpreted as China seeking to increase its own influence over Russia in order to eventually turn it into a mere raw material supplier for its own industry.

Nevertheless, due to the war in Ukraine and the resulting Western economic sanctions, President Vladimir Putin—who has driven Russia’s economy into distress—is likely willing to accept Xi’s offers. He is also aware that his own time in power is nearing its end. Therefore, he needs to keep the Russian people satisfied for as long as possible to prevent any revolutionary threats against him and his administration.

In other words, Putin is willing to sacrifice his country’s and his people’s future for the sake of his own security and benefit. And there is little doubt that he will succeed in doing so—or that the price for ordinary Russians will be heavy.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Greenland's Future: A Battleground of Global Powers?
Highlights of the BRICS Meeting in Kazan, Russia
Resisting Putin’s Foolish Dreams

The Difference Between Left-Wing and Right-Wing Envy

In Finland, a humorous anecdote is occasionally shared, in which the ethnicity of the characters change. One version goes as follows.

When a person from Kainuu sees that his neighbor is becoming wealthy, he becomes envious and immediately starts to think about how to bring the neighbor back to being as poor as he is. However, if someone becomes rich in South Ostrobothnia, the neighbor also becomes envious but instead starts feverishly thinking about how he could achieve the same success.

The anecdote is said to illustrate well the cultural differences between the populations of these two Finnish regions. The same story is also often told with the Kainuu resident replaced by a Finn and the Southern Ostrobothnian by an American. In this version, the story is said to depict the cultural differences between the inhabitants of the two countries.

In reality, the story best illustrates the difference between the political right and left. A socialist always aims to equalize income differences, so they naturally start thinking about how to tax the income and wealth of the rich as effectively as possible. In contrast, an economic liberal sees successful people as role models, whose achievements he should aspire to emulate.

This applies both to economically poor Kainuu and to the stronghold of Finland's political right in Southern Ostrobothnia. And it applies just as well to largely social-democratic Finland as to the United States, which thrives on market economy principles.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Freudian slip, 9-year-old girl and cultural appropriation
Traditional beliefs turned out to be wisdom
Current status of mankind and its culture

Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto aligned Indonesia on the wrong side of world history

Indonesian Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto has put forth a substantive proposition for a ceasefire at the current positions. He emphasized the importance of reaching a decision regarding the establishment of a demilitarized zone in the areas affected by the ongoing armed conflict. Additionally, Subianto proposed the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers in these regions.

The proposal practically means supporting Putin's Russia, which attacked Ukraine. This indicates that Indonesian leaders fail to grasp the fact that they are aligning themselves on the wrong side of world history. Supporting an aggressive aggressor essentially undermines the foundation of a world where international agreements hold value and those who violate them are held accountable for their actions.

In doing so, Indonesia also marginalizes itself from the intellectual and economic progress of the world, which results in a lower quality of life for its citizens than what would otherwise be possible. However, it is true that the choice is ultimately for the Indonesian people to make, and external parties who adhere to international rules cannot interfere with it. But they also do not have to favor the disruptor.

Therefore, it is important that as many countries as possible express their clear opposition to Subianto's proposal, highlighting that it does not generate sympathy among their own populations towards Indonesia.

The timing of the proposal is likely not a coincidence. It was presented at a time when Putin's army has weakened and is destined to lose the war. The timing may also have been influenced by President Zelensky's statement that Ukraine is ready for a counterattack, which could be launched at any moment.

In this situation, it is desirable that the offensive is launched successfully, causing panic among the Russian occupiers. If that happens, the liberation of the country may not come at an exorbitant cost to the Ukrainians, even though they are prepared to pay any price for it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Does the attack by Russian rebels pose a problem for Ukraine?
Will China ally with Russia against Ukraine?
Incapable of learning but capable of genocide

History of Finland IV: The bleakest time in Finnish history

This is the fourth part of a blog series where I delve into the significant phases of Finnish history. In the previous post, I discussed the rebellion of the peasants who feared becoming serfs but ultimately lost their battle, resulting in the permanent weakening of their previously strong position in relation to the nobility.

Following the Cudgel War, Charles, Duke of Södermanland, ascended to power in Sweden after defeating King Sigismund in the Battle of Stångebro. As King Charles IX, he successfully curbed the nobility's thirst for power during his reign. However, after his sudden demise in 1611, the situation underwent a transformation.

This presented an opportunity for the high nobility to place the underage Gustaf Adolph on the throne, whose decisions were heavily influenced by the dominance of the nobility itself, the ruling Council of State, and the Estates General, all of which were effectively controlled by the high nobility. Consequently, the king found himself compelled to advocate for the privileges of the nobility, resulting in his position being somewhat like the first of his peers. As a result, the king also had an interest in promoting the interests of the high nobility.

As a result of this development, approximately 63 percent of the kingdom's land came under the ownership of the nobility. Consequently, the position of ordinary peasants and even lower nobility further deteriorated. However, they still served a purpose as representatives in the Estates General, which was established to endorse the privileges of the high nobility.

Soon, the nobility acquired exclusive rights to the highest positions, which were rapidly created. Consequently, power, legal authority, and wealth in the country shifted into the hands of the upper echelons of nobility, while the significance of local parish meetings, which were closer to the people, diminished.

Nevertheless, the peasants in the northern regions were spared from serfdom due to the sparse population. Unlike the southern European cities that attracted the surrounding rural population, the small settlements in the north lacked the same appeal, eliminating the need to bind peasants to the land.

Consequently, the Finnish and Swedish peasants were formally allowed to maintain their free status. However, the decrease in the number of farms and cultivated areas between 1570 and 1660, instead of growth, clearly indicates their actual distress. Moreover, the common people bore the burden of conscription by the great power, directed by the nobles towards difficult people in their own fiefdoms and neighboring estates, seeking to redeem them for their own control when their own men became depleted.

Simultaneously, the common people endured an unprecedentedly stringent discipline, resulting in various side effects such as witch hunts in the wealthiest peasant regions, religious revivalist movements, and devastating famines that claimed the lives of at least a quarter, if not a third, of Finland's population. The destructiveness of these famines was not only caused by the well-known Little Ice Age but also by rural poverty, which eroded people's ability to withstand years of poor harvests.

Furthermore, even during the worst famine years, Finland, under the rule of the nobility, saw the exportation of grain instead of utilizing it to feed the starving population. Meanwhile, cities on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea decayed due to the mercantilist ideology centered around a Stockholm-dominated trade system.

The position of the peasants was further weakened not only by the Swedish conscription that transformed Finland into a massive military camp but also by the constant need for funds to sustain a military perpetually engaged in warfare. This necessity stemmed from the fact that approximately half of the state's income was allocated to military endeavors. The nobility benefited from these wars, as they provided various advantages to the military class, from advancing their own careers to amassing land.

Overall, the era of the aristocracy represented the darkest period in Finnish history for the common people. However, it also sowed the seeds of its own destruction, as the nobility's insatiable thirst for power and wealth, coupled with their incessant warfare, gradually weakened the entire kingdom and ultimately left it vulnerable and defenseless in the face of external threats.

The original blog post in Finnish: Suomen historian kurjin aika

All the blog posts in this series:
History of Finland I: How did Finland become culturally part of the West?
History of Finland II: From a hinterland of the Union into a modern state
History of Finland III: The legal and economic weakening of the position of the people
History of Finland IV: The bleakest time in Finnish history
History of Finland V: The pursuit of economic profit saved the country
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility
History of Finland VII: The dictator of the era of Enlightenment promoted capitalist economy
History of Finland VIII: Joining of Finland to Russia led to an increase in crime
History of Finland IX: Enlightended dictator initiated economic growth
History of Finland X: The birth of Finnish identity
History of Finland XI: Finnish democracy and gender equality for women
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
History of Finland XIII: The far-right's rebellion
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine
History of Finland XVI: Through rise and fall to a new kind of future

Global warming - searching for the guiltiness

The predicted climatic warming by greenhouse gases is one of the big questions of our time, which determines even economic options of the future. Therefore it was interesting to read about an analysis, which gives estimates about the contribution of different countries in this threat.

The first calculation presented a simple calculation of the total amount of carbon dioxide including emissions from fossil fuels as well as from land use and forestry since 1850 up to 2021. There USA is clearly in the first place by its 20 per cent share, and followed from distance by China, Russia, Brasil, Indonesia, Germany, India, United Kingdom, Japan and Canada. 

The second calculation is based on the cumulative consumption of each nation. It only covers years from 1990 to 2021. In this calculation top ten includes the same countries as above, and in the same order. Therefore, often highlighted guiltiness of outsourced carbon emissions is not a major issue, although it adds to the share of responsibility accorded to wealthy nations.

The two other calculations are based on emissions per capita, but using different approaches. The first one takes a country’s cumulative emissions in each year and divides it by the number of people living in the country at the time. 

According to this calculation Canadians have the highest emissions. Thereafter come people of the USA, Estonia, Australia, Trinidad & Tobago, Russia, Kazakhstan, United Kingdom, Germany and Belgium. My home country, Finland, is in the eleventh place raising it high on the list. 

  

The second approach takes a country’s per capita emissions in each year and adds them up over time, and on top of the list are inhabitants of New Zealand followed by people of Canada, Australia, United States, Argentina, Qatar, Gabon, Malaysia, Republic of Congo and Nicaragua. Finland is not among the top 20. 

Taken together, the four classifications above shows that carbon emissions are not a simple case. And therefore politically active actors may select the list that best serves their purposes. 

Therefore all of us, who are targeted, should be cautious, and put the claims in a frame. For example, as a Finn, I should agree that consumption of me and my national fellows are causing considerable amounts of carbon compared to most other people, but also remember that our total share of the global emissions is like a drop in an Ocean. And to understand, that our high per capita emissions is largely caused by our geographic location in a cold climate as well as the large area of the country resulting in a higher need of domestic travel than in most other countries. 

Actually, I would have liked to see a calculation, where the cumulative consumption of each nation would have been divided by the area of the countries. As a Finn, I would happily prefer to use that as the most important criterion in evaluating the position of each nation in causing the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  

My argument is based on the fact, that such a statistics would not reward nations from their increasing population - as the two per capita calculations above do - but rather encourage the nations with exploding population sized to act on this main cause of the global environmental crisis including climate, biodiversity and land use aspects.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Arctic sea ice contradicts with the climatic model predictions, but is that changing now?
Availability of coffee in a warming world
Advice to participants of the COP27 climate implementation summit