Unintended Consequences of Modern Value Shifts

The world has changed significantly in this millennium. What used to be considered normal, even self-evident, is today not always even acceptable.

A startling example of this change appeared in Finland when two schoolboys got into a fierce fight, throwing punches and kicks at each other. A teacher tried to break it up by ordering them to stop, but to no avail.

So the teacher finally grabbed one of the boys and lifted him out of the situation. The hitting and kicking stopped, and no one was seriously injured.

But then something completely unexpected happened. One of the parents filed charges against the teacher, claiming that milder methods could have been used. What those methods might have been—given that the teacher had already ordered the boys verbally to stop—has never been explained publicly.

In any case, at the parents’ initiative, a legal process began that lasted a full year and a half before the prosecutor decided that the teacher’s actions would not be taken to court. It is clear that this time was extremely difficult for the teacher.

We can only guess how such a case will affect teachers’ willingness to intervene in schoolyard fights—not in a positive direction, surely. And for that reason it must be said that, as a consequence of the case I have described, school life likely became a little less safe than it once was.

For my part, I see this case as yet another indication that the value shifts of the 21st century—BLM, DEI, Woke culture, intersectional feminism, and so forth—do not make the world a better place. Instead, they seem to be leading to a decline in care for one another, double standards, less openness, and increasing social polarization in all kinds of ways, despite the fact that the stated aim was the exact opposite.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Has Modern Education Strayed Too Far — and Is It Time to Change Course?
Library Scrubs Queer Creator’s Character from Moomin Exhibit
Why Finnish Youth Are Abandoning the Green Party

Europe Needs More Money—and More Will—to Defend Itself

The countries of Western Europe assumed that the collapse of the Soviet Union had made national defense unnecessary. However, the events in Ukraine have clearly shown that this assumption was, at best, naïve—if not outright foolish.

Recently, the issue has been brought back into focus, first by Donald Trump, who has demanded that NATO’s European members allocate as much as five percent of their GDP to defense. Yesterday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also weighed in, stating that European NATO countries must significantly increase their defense spending.

Trump and Rutte are, of course, right in their demands, but meeting them is difficult for most Western European nations. According to the annual report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), these targets are particularly challenging for countries whose economies are already struggling.

The least capable of meeting these demands are, naturally, those countries whose economies are not growing at all. Based on GDP figures, these include Moldova, Latvia, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Germany, and Austria. Additionally, economic growth has been extremely weak—below one percent—in Hungary, Italy, Finland, France, and the United Kingdom.

The fact remains that Europeans must recognize Russia as a lasting threat to Europe's security, even if it is currently tied up in Ukraine. Therefore, despite economic difficulties, they should find ways to strengthen their defense capabilities.

Many countries have, of course, already acknowledged this, as evidenced by the fact that the combined defense spending of EU nations increased by 30 percent between 2021 and 2024. Unfortunately, the starting level was so low that even a significant percentage increase has not yet led to a substantial improvement in military security. This is why, especially in the EU’s most strategically important large member states—Germany, France, and Italy—as well as in the United Kingdom, defense budgets must be increased rapidly, as both Trump and Rutte have demanded.

* * *

In addition to weapons, a strong will to defend one's country is also essential. In this regard, it was alarming to see that only one in ten Britons aged 18–27 would be willing to risk their life to defend their country in a war—while 41 percent would not be willing to defend it with arms under any circumstances.

This stands in stark contrast to Finland, where 79 percent of people believe that the country must be defended militarily in all situations—even if the outcome appears uncertain.

If the situation in other European countries is similar to that in Britain, politicians must recognize that perhaps their most important task is to change it. Otherwise, Europe will eventually become nothing more than an easy prey for imperialist Russia—and perhaps even China.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin, Trump, and the Prospect of Peace
Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?
Western Countries Must Stay United Against the Russian Threat

All Russians Should Be Informed of the Staggering Losses of Putin’s Army in Ukraine

Based on open data, the BBC, together with the publication Mediazona and a team of volunteers, has identified the names of 78,329 Russian soldiers who have died in Ukraine over the past two years. The growth rate of confirmed deaths is currently at its highest since the beginning of the war. The figures for September, October, and November exceed those of last year by one and a half times, and the 2022 figures by more than double.

The increase in losses may result from offensive operations by Russian forces in Ukraine’s Donetsk region, such as the assault on Vuhledar, which was captured by early October, and the assault on Pokrovsk, where fighting on the outskirts continues.

Other possible reasons include the gradual confirmation of Russian losses in Russia’s Kursk region or the aftermath of the summer offensive campaign. The rise in reports of fatalities could also be due to a combination of these factors.

The highest number of losses is among volunteers—those who signed contracts after the full-scale invasion began. Their share of total confirmed losses continues to grow, with confirmed deaths of 16,551 volunteers, accounting for 23% of the total confirmed Russian losses.

In addition to fatalities, many Russians have also been injured. Including these, the total losses for the aggressor rise to approximately 720,000 soldiers.

These figures can be compared to Soviet troop losses in Finland’s Winter War (November 30, 1939 – March 13, 1940), often likened to the war in Ukraine. In that conflict, as many as 126,875 Soviet soldiers were killed, with total losses—including the wounded—reaching around 350,000 soldiers in just 4.5 months. This means that current Russian losses have surpassed the staggering toll seen at that time. 

It would be valuable for all Russians to receive and understand this message, as it might reduce the appeal of the large rewards promised by Putin's administration to people living in Russia. This could weaken the country’s military capability in Ukraine.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?
From Finland to Olaf Scholz: The Imperative of Supporting Ukraine's Independence instead of its Finlandization
Ukraine’s Situation Mirrors Finland in 1944

Ukrainian Offensive Encircles Russian Forces, Echoes of Past Defeats

The Ukrainian offensive in the Kursk region and its western surroundings is encircling a large Russian army behind the Seim River. According to recent reports, this force is rather inexperienced and poorly motivated, with no intention of fighting against the Ukrainians.

This would, of course, be a bitter blow to Vladimir Putin and the Russian military leadership, who have repeatedly boasted about their army's great capabilities. If it turns out that Putin and the war leadership are unable to save the unwilling Russian soldiers and they refuse to fight, both will become laughingstocks in the eyes of the world.

What makes this situation particularly interesting is that both the Russians and the Ukrainians likely remember the Battle of Raate Road during Finland’s Winter War. There, Finnish soldiers managed to encircle and destroy units that were twice as strong, primarily consisting of Russians and Ukrainians.

According to Soviet sources, the final outcome was 1,001 enemy soldiers killed, 1,430 wounded, 2,243 missing, and 82 frostbitten, in addition to 1,100 prisoners of war captured by the Finns and a huge amount of weapons and other military equipment. On the Finnish side, around 402 soldiers were killed or went missing, and 618 were wounded.

One can hope that the Ukrainians have learned from the Battle of Raate Road and that the Russians are aware of the enormous losses their compatriots suffered back then. Ultimately, perhaps this battle will also turn out to be one where Russia must admit it is incapable of completing Putin's special operation and will refuse to carry out the orders of a leader who has become a laughingstock.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
What’s the Issue With Russians?
Ukraine Gives Kursk Residents a Clear Choice: Russia or Refuge
Finns Feel Sympathy for Ukrainians Because They Share a Similar Experience

Why Can't Finland Find Workforce?

In Finland, there is a battery factory where people from over 60 different countries work. This is not due to a labor shortage or low wages.

Instead, the reason lies in the Finnish unemployment and social security systems, whose high level provides the unemployed with a relatively comfortable life, so they do not need to leave their hometown even when they become unemployed. As a result, Finnish companies have to seek staff from around the world.

This is a problem whose root cause is the oversized socialist thinking that has entrenched itself in Finnish society, where the society aims to absorb all setbacks related to individuals' lives. The result is simultaneous unemployment and labor shortages.

Indirectly, this also means that Finns are not very eager to start businesses. It would require taking risks, and in addition, the unemployment compensation following a potential failure would be almost nonexistent compared to a salaried worker. Therefore, only a few are willing to start new companies.

The current right-wing government led by Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party) has promised in its program to "implement a wide range of reforms to improve incentives to work, simplify the social security system, facilitate employment and provision of work, develop international recruitment, increase local bargaining in the labour market, improve wellbeing at work and the integration of work and family, and continue the reform of employment services."

It remains to be seen whether they will succeed in their goal. However, it is already clear at this stage that the reforms are opposed by both the left-wing opposition and the trade union movement. This was already seen in the winter when unions tried to prevent the government from taking the first measures aimed at improving the efficiency of Finnish working life with a wide wave of strikes.

It is to be hoped, therefore, that the government will succeed in implementing the rest of its plans, and that Finnish companies will be able to get domestic labor if they wish. This does not mean that employees cannot be hired from abroad, but rather that society would not have to simultaneously support able-bodied but unwilling people elsewhere.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The change in the demographic structure of Helsinki
History of Finland VIII: Joining of Finland to Russia led to an increase in crime
A nurse´s question: who deserves health care, and who does not

Strong statement or intellectual dishonesty in COP27?

A historical decision was made in COP27 meeting in Egypt. According to that, wealthy countries will pay for developing ones from damages attributable to the climatic change, which is considered to happen due to the wealthy nations.

The decision was made, and I can only accept it. I would, however, like to hear if developing countries are willing to give up those modern things, which were created along the development that led to the compensations decided. That is: vehicles, flights, internet, phones, electricity etc... 

I think that would be a great sign of their willingness to refuse from such a negative developments, that their innovators are expected to pay for their existence. In others words, staying in each nation´s own innovations would make a strong statement on their willingness to stick in a sustainable way of life. 

If no one shows any willingness to give up those harmful innovations, I am afraid that the decision of compensation made in the COP27 meeting looks like intellectual dishonesty and only a new way to transfer money from north to south. Which may or may not be well justified due to some other reasons. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
China is betting on scientific excellence
They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa
World Resources Institute had an arrogant demand