Warnings from Jussi Halla-aho and Igor Girkin About Europe's Near Future

The Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho, stated at the Conference of EU Parliament Speakers in Budapest that Europe's biggest and most urgent challenge is to learn from the mistakes made after the Cold War, as Russia poses an immediate threat to European security.

He noted that it is not enough for us to rebuild our own defense and help the Ukrainians—nor is it even enough that Russia’s neighboring countries do their part. Instead, the major EU countries must do more.

At the same time, he reminded that those countries which benefited from European solidarity during the financial crisis, the migration crisis, and the COVID crisis must now show similar solidarity towards the EU's and NATO’s eastern border states. Only in this way can Europe survive future crises.

Speaker Halla-aho also recalled the serious mistakes made over recent decades, stating that "many European countries built their economies on cheap Russian gas and oil, ignoring the risks and warnings. Most European countries dismantled their defense capabilities, believing that traditional military threats were a thing of the past and that the United States would endlessly pay for our security. Moreover, the whole of Europe is dependent on China—from raw materials to industrial production."

Much needs to be corrected now, just as Russia and Ukraine are—perhaps—expected to sit at the negotiating table in Turkey to make peace. More precisely, a peace that would allow the Russians to prepare for their next imperialist strike against Europe—very much in line with the precedent set by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

* * *

Of course, peace in Ukraine is not yet certain, but that does not change the fact that European leaders would do well to listen carefully to Jussi Halla-aho, who has time and again been right in his assessments. This also applies to immigration from developing countries into the EU.

That is why he reminded politicians and the press—also in Budapest—that "instead of panicking over President Donald Trump or similar movements in Europe, we should understand that more and more ordinary citizens are voting for them for a reason. People have genuine and legitimate concerns about the changes happening around them. Mass immigration from third countries is probably the most significant of these concerns."

He also reminded that well-off people—such as politicians—are more or less shielded from the negative effects of immigration, such as violent crime and the segregation of schools and residential areas. Less affluent people, on the other hand, experience these effects, according to Halla-aho, "in their everyday lives."

As a result, societies in EU countries are becoming polarized and fragmented, so "we must ensure that citizens feel their voices are heard and that their hopes, fears, and concerns are taken seriously."

It remains to be seen how carefully and seriously the speakers of EU member states listened to Halla-aho’s remarks—and whether they will pass on what they heard to their national governments for action. They certainly should, because—as I said at the beginning—Halla-aho’s views have repeatedly proven correct, and I do not doubt that the same will be true for the points made above.

* * *

Finally, I want to inform you, dear readers, that Russian FSB Colonel Igor Girkin has predicted that Ukraine will gain the upper hand in the war this summer. According to him, "the Ukrainian Armed Forces have gathered reserves, while the Russian Armed Forces have exhausted their capabilities... The next Ukrainian assault could begin at any moment."

Girkin also does not rule out the possibility that the upcoming Ukrainian offensive could result in major territorial losses for Russia. That is yet another reason why major EU countries must now take Ukraine’s military assistance seriously—so that Girkin’s prediction may come true, and Europe's security situation could improve, at least for a time.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Diplomacy Without Rituals: What Awaits as Finland’s Speaker Halla-aho Visits China?
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
A Finnish MP Resigned After Straining Finland-Russia Relations

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