Diplomacy Without Rituals: What Awaits as Finland’s Speaker Halla-aho Visits China?

As a well-known friend of Ukraine and a person fluent in the country's language, the Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), is traveling to China. The visit partly commemorates the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Finland and China.

However, the visit will also serve as an opportunity to discuss the bilateral political and economic relations between the two countries, as well as relations between the EU and China. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the relationship between China and the United States will undoubtedly also be topics of discussion.

Given Halla-aho’s significant role in shaping relations between Finland/the EU and Ukraine, it is likely that the issue of Ukraine will emerge as the most internationally significant topic. In this context, it is crucial to understand Halla-aho’s principled stance on all matters—that is, his refusal to engage in political rhetoric or platitudes.

Therefore, it is to be hoped that this quality is recognized and respected by the other true global superpower—China, alongside the United States. Furthermore, that his visit contributes to strengthening Ukraine’s position—and correspondingly weakening Russia’s position—in the dynamics of global power politics.

Alternatively, it is of course possible that the Chinese may not appreciate Halla-aho’s outspoken style, which could even strain relations between the host nation and Western European countries. For my part, however, I believe—and hope—that the Chinese will not fall into that trap, but rather, drawing on their millennia of experience, will be able to distinguish between empty bluster and the kind of fact-based, serious argumentation that is characteristic of Halla-aho.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Will China ally with Russia against Ukraine?
Putin´s Russia got mad about the Finnish chairman of the Parliament

Why Does the Political Green-Left Lie, and Why Does It Resonate with the People?

Today we saw a textbook example of the rhetoric employed by the political green-left. This concerns the chair of the Green Party, Sofia Virta (Green), who commented on Prime Minister Petteri Orpo's (NCP) statement that the Finnish right wing government will not cut state spending beyond the previously decided nine billion euros.

Virta claimed that "this is purely an election speech" and suggested that the government would resume making spending cuts immediately after the county elections and municipal elections in April. She was supported in this by the chair of the Green Party's parliamentary group, Oras Tynkkynen, who speculated that "if the main government parties go into these elections without revealing everything about the policies they plan to pursue in the coming years, it is problematic for democracy."

Virta also made another odd comment. She claimed that Orpo's statements contradict earlier comments by Minister of Finance Riikka Purra (Finns Party) regarding budget cuts. This was based on a Green Party press release that alleged the Finance Minister had stated in December that further cuts would be needed in the spring budget negotiations.

In reality, however, Purra did not say this. She had earlier noted that additional savings could be made in the spring if necessary but recently added that "this political coalition does not appear to have the capability to identify significantly more savings."

The comments by the Greens and their leaders are an unfortunate example of a phenomenon that has become increasingly common in green-left rhetoric in recent years: outright lying to voters. 

The most striking example of this was seen a few years ago, when the then-chair of the Left Alliance's parliamentary group, Paavo Arhinmäki, told voters that the state never has to repay its debts and emphasized that Finland barely pays any interest on them. The truth, however, is that the Finnish government paid as much as 3 billion euros in interest alone in 2024, meaning that a third of the savings previously made by the state administration was spent solely on that.

However, there’s no need to wonder about the Greens' and the broader green-left's comments, as they have recently helped to boost their support. This is evident in the latest party approval poll, which indicates that the combined support for the governing coalition parties has dropped to 42.4%.

For this reason, rational people should focus less on the green-left’s rhetoric and more on their supporters. In other words, we must try to understand why they allow themselves to be swayed by deceptive rhetoric and, after enlightenment, address the problem one way or another.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Green Movement of Finland is Lost
The stabbing of the 12-year-old led to political revelry among the left in Finland
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics

Is Putin's Administration Rational?

According to news reports, outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden has given Ukrainians permission to strike Russian territory using American missiles. Member of the Finnish Parliament and Doctor of Military Science Jarmo Limnell (National Coalition Party) has supported the decision.

This is because, as Limnell explains, "Ukraine, defending its independence, has had to fight in the 'boxing ring of war' with one hand tied behind its back. Now, the other hand is freed."

In Russia, however, the reaction was far from enthusiastic, and threats resumed. For example, a Russian politician, Vladimir Dzhabarov, ominously claimed, “This is a very large step toward the start of World War III.”

Thus, we must ask: is a Third World War on the brink of breaking out, something that, at least in my youth, was feared capable of destroying humanity as a whole—and along with it, all advanced life forms? Or are we once again simply witnessing typical Russian rhetoric?

First, it must be noted that Vladimir Putin’s earlier threats concerning Western support for Ukraine have not materialized. Second, it’s essential to recognize that Russia would inevitably face defeat if the situation escalated into a full-scale war against the United States. This is because there is a vast disparity in military technology between the two countries, as shown by Israel’s successful strikes using Western technology against Iranian forces equipped with Russian arms.

On the other hand, it’s also crucial to remember that this gap in technology would hardly matter if Russia decided to use nuclear weapons. Even if it’s clear that most, if not all, of these missiles would be intercepted, those that made it through would cause such extensive devastation that there would be no true victors in the war.

Additionally, it’s evident that Russia lacks the capacity to defend against a possible Western retaliatory strike with nuclear weapons, meaning the resulting destruction in Russia would be catastrophically vast. This is why responsible leadership in Russia cannot consider using nuclear weapons unless it faces an existential threat.

The use of U.S.-provided conventional missiles with standard warheads within Russia poses no such existential threat, though it would increase the cost of the war for Putin’s administration. Thus, a rational Russian leadership would not resort to nuclear weapons on this account.

This leads us to the question: Is Vladimir Putin, along with the rest of Russia’s leadership, rational? And we must hope that, despite everything we have seen so far, the answer is still "yes."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine Plans to Recruit 160,000 Soldiers, but Will It Turn the Tide of the War?
Turning Points in the War in Ukraine and the West's Responsibility
Finnish weapons are being tested against the Russians in Ukraine

Changing the Clocks Reduces Trust in the European Union

The European Union will once again switch to standard time tonight. This happens despite the fact that 84 percent of Europeans would prefer to completely abandon the foolish and costly practice of changing the clocks twice a year.

I call it costly because it has been proven to cause fatigue, impair memory, concentration, and attention. In addition, people’s reaction times slow down, increasing their likelihood of making mistakes. This raises the risk of accidents and mishaps—and these errors don't improve work quality either.

On the other hand, there is no demonstrated benefit to the clock changes themselves. To understand this, one must be able to distinguish between the act of shifting the clocks back and forth and the impact of time zones on people. Even though daylight saving time might suit people well, its benefits could be achieved simply by a permanent shift to a later time zone—meaning the abandonment of the shift back to standard time.

Despite all these well-known facts, the clocks are still being adjusted. And the reason is none other than the inability of the European Union and its member states to implement a decision that has already been made in 2019.

Therefore, I would like to ask Ursula van der Leyen and the other members of the Commission, as well as the Members of the European Parliament, how they think this inability fosters people’s trust in the Union or its effectiveness in promoting the well-being of its citizens.

And yes. I am well aware that my question is rhetorical, and that every single European knows the answer. And the real answer to my rhetoric certainly doesn’t help promote the good things for which the EU was created.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The EU Is Suffocating Under Double Bureaucracy
EU Decision-Makers Did the Bear a Disservice
During the Eurovision song spectacle, the incompetence of EU officials was revealed

Marxist far-right and bullies

Belgium is known for various things, such as its bilingual population and good beers. One more recent source of notoriety for the small country situated between Denmark and the Netherlands is the violent (example and another) neo-Belgian population.

Therefore, it was interesting to read a newspaper article with the headline, "Belgium votes in parliamentary elections – far-right separatists expected to succeed, making government formation painful."

According to the article, two parties are expected to succeed in the elections. One of them is the national-conservative Vlaams Belang party, which advocates for the independence of the Flanders region and opposes Belgium's immigration policies. This party is expected to achieve a significant electoral victory and become the largest Flemish party.

The second expected success is the nationwide Marxist PTB-PVDA party. So, extreme communists.

According to the article, these two parties would get almost a third of the parliamentary seats, but other parties would refuse to include them in the government. Thus, making its formation more difficult.

* * *

After reading the article, I was left wondering about two things. The first of these was, by what logic is a Marxist, i.e., a communist or far-left party, considered part of the far-right? I had thought that this term used by political journalists referred to national-conservative parties whose agendas include aspects that strengthen the market economy. To my understanding, Marxist-communist parties do not have such aspects.

The second thing that left me wondering – even more so – was that if some parties refuse to cooperate with others, the blame lies with the latter. Analogously: if a group of bullying kids excludes one child from their games, the fault lies with the latter, not with those who made the decision to exclude.

Therefore, it must be asked whether the author of the article in question, and perhaps all other journalists, should reassess their perception of reality. The article left the impression that those responsible and those not responsible for the difficulties in forming a government were declared based on the author's own – obviously delusional – worldview.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Orwellian Big Brother monitors journalists of Finland's Public Broadcasting Company Yle
Will the multinational force led by Kenyans help?
Finnish journalist called for British Prime Minister´s head to be placed on London bridge to dry

Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics

In Finland, a bloody civil war took place in 1918, in which the political left attempted to seize power. They were unsuccessful, but as a result, the country experienced a period of violent far-right movement for a while, which subsided due to determined action by the political leadership. 

Democracy doesn't seem to be very popular within the Finnish political left of today. This was evidenced earlier this year when the trade unions, closely associated with the Social Democratic Party (SDP), organized political strikes with a high cost to the economy.

Yesterday, we saw even more serious evidence of this when two men waving red flags approached Member of Parliament Sebastian Tynkkynen (Finn´s party) aggressively at a campaign event in Oulu, prompting police intervention.

Tynkkynen shared on his social media that this wasn't his first experience with violence. He mentioned, "Once, a leftist girl in Lahti targeted me with political violence, hitting me in the head with her fist and receiving a conviction for assault. Within the context of Extinction Rebellion, I've been attacked three times."

One would hope that leftist politicians condemn political violence in general and the events in Oulu in particular before the actions of their supporters escalate into irreversible harm.

Furthermore, it would be desirable for the left-wing of politics to refrain from using aggressive rhetoric, as was seen at the SDP's May Day event a week and a half ago. This is because many, with lesser understanding - of which there are plenty among left-wing supporters - may be incited to action after hearing such rhetoric.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: History of Finland XIII: The far-right's rebellion History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war Increase of violence by youngsters in Finnish towns

Brianna Wu's advice and the reality of Finnish politics

In recent years, Finnish society has become more polarized towards the right and the left than ever before. This is evident in virtually everything, as representatives of these factions seem unable to reach consensus on virtually any domestic political issue, even though the threat posed by Russia has led to foreign policy agreement.

In this respect, Finland increasingly resembles the United States of the 2020s, where parties that were previously able to address essential matters through mutual dialogue have lost their ability to cooperate. This was shockingly evident when some Republican members of Congress delayed the aid Ukraine needed for so long that Russian forces gained the upper hand on the front lines.

Therefore, it was interesting to note Brianna Wu's (Dem) social media post, in which she wrote, "The left learned all the wrong lessons from Donald Trump. We should have learned that if you do nothing about the extremists in your movement, they will take control of your party and you will lose everything. Instead, we told ourselves a comforting lie that half of our fellow Americans were beneath even talking to anymore. We stopped imagining a future where we could even live together. And our political class, hungry for power, let the open wounds fester."

* * *

Finland has a long tradition of excluding democratic parties. In my youth, President Kekkonen, the Center Party, and the Left kept the National Coalition Party out of government, and later all major parties refused to cooperate with the Finns Party to keep it out of the chambers of power.

In Finland, it is also customary for politicians to give speeches on May 1st. This has very long traditions in the political left, but in recent times, actors from the right-wing of politics have also joined in.

Thus, Speaker Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party) gave a reasonable speech, summarizing the reasons why the government has had to make tough decisions. And reminded us that living beyond our means is irresponsible towards the children who will end up paying the final bill.

Additionally, Halla-aho emphasized the importance of supporting Ukraine. According to him, "Russia is counting on us running out of resolve," so "we cannot afford to tire."

From the other end of the spectrum, opposition leader Antti Lindtman's (Social Democrats) May Day speech hinted at the time of the Finnish Civil War in 1918, suggesting that there are "haters of humanity" among the ministers of one government party. To underscore his confrontational stance, he also used the inaccurate term "Purra's right-wing government" referring to the Minister of Finance, as if the she was the Prime Minister of Finland.

In other words, while the Speaker clarified the reasons behind the government's actions to the public, the opposition leader sought to dehumanize one government party. And thereby, to construct the kind of society that the American Democrat I quoted above warned about in her social media post.

Of course, it's customary in May Day speeches to appeal to one's own voter base, which hopefully explains Lindman's and several other speakers' divisive rhetoric. However, I hope that dialogue improves as we return to everyday life, and that all Finnish politicians from left to right understand that a better society is not built by dehumanizing political rivals but by presenting alternatives and through cooperation between political parties.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finns are backing the government making difficult decisions
Competence of the political left
Is the Finnish left-wing radicalizing?