Search

Tuukka Kuru wrote that European nations had formed from the merging of the same ancestral populations, which he believed explained their similar phenotypes and genetic relatedness. He added that 90 percent of the genes of Finns were the same as those of other Europeans, although Finns had genetic peculiarities. Kuru asked how it could be concluded, in his opinion, that nations and races that had never lived there should be deliberately settled in Europe and Finland. #Eurooppa #kansat #geneettika (translated)

Rami Kurimo wrote referring to an HS article that the author of the report, Sakari Kainulainen, had admitted that direct conclusions about the usefulness of immigrants could not be drawn from the report. Kurimo asked what this said about the quality of the report if its authors did not, in his opinion, believe in their own claims. #maahanmuutto #raportti #hyödyllisyys (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Donald Trump's Russia policy may not have been guided by a coherent strategy. According to him, Trump made decisions one by one, seeking quick political gains, and then had to fix the consequences. In his assessment, Vanhanen linked Trump's diminished commitment to arming Ukraine, the energy price increases resulting from the war in Iran, and the recent diesel trade with Russia. He believed that trade could bolster the Russian economy and give Vladimir Putin a means to pressure Ukraine into halting strikes on Russia's oil refineries. Vanhanen also criticized Trump for condemning strikes that he claimed weakened Russia's war economy. Vanhanen noted that Trump’s administration had not sought significant new funding from Congress for arming Ukraine. According to him, previously agreed deliveries had continued, and European countries had purchased American weapons for Ukraine. He stated that Trump was not fundamentally on the side of Ukraine or Europe but was primarily pursuing his own interests. According to Vanhanen, Finland's security should not be built on the assumption that there is a plan behind Trump's decisions that would turn in favor of Europe. He urged preparedness for the possibility that U.S. aid could be delayed or smaller than expected, to strengthen the availability of defense equipment and air defense, and to deepen cooperation with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Britain, Poland, and the Baltic countries. He also believed that Europe should be able to support Ukraine and maintain economic pressure on Russia by its own means. #Trump #Venäjä #Ukraina (translated)

Mikael Lith disputed the claim by Muhis Azizi, the leading figure of the Turku Coalition, that the racism scandals of the True Finns had led to a decline in the support for the Coalition. According to Lith, Azizi strongly supported immigration and wanted the Coalition to ally with the red-green parties to increase it. Lith reminded that Azizi had already described the immigration policies of the government program in 2023 as "unequal" and "discriminatory." https://t.co/s1Hs3RHY2I #politiikka #maahanmuutto #rasismi (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that the agreement announced by Donald Trump with Vladimir Putin to bring millions of tons of Russian diesel to the global market would be very bad news for Ukraine. According to Vanhanen, the arrangement would give Russia new opportunities to earn from energy exports, even though its war of aggression in Ukraine would continue. Vanhanen assessed that the agreement could help Russia mitigate the economic impacts of the strikes on Ukraine's oil refineries. He wrote that the strikes had caused problems and fuel shortages for Russia. In his view, facilitating Russia's energy exports would also reduce the pressure on Putin to negotiate an end to the war. Vanhanen considered it possible that the promised deliveries might not materialize, as he claimed Russia's refining capacity had suffered from the strikes. Vanhanen speculated that Trump was aiming for lower fuel prices in the United States before the midterm elections, but questioned the agreement's impact on prices. He also found the political message of the agreement concerning: in his view, the Kremlin could present it as evidence that Russia is not isolated and that the U.S. president is willing to do business with it. According to Vanhanen, the agreement could place Ukraine's strikes on Russia's oil industry in conflict with Washington's fuel price objectives. He urged Europe to prepare for greater responsibility in supporting Ukraine and pressuring Russia, and maintained that Russia's war economy should not be helped to recover. https://t.co/gpRe9acHoW #Ukraina #Venäjä #Trump (translated)

Petra Nyqvist wrote that there were no penalties in the law for Google's violation. She dismissed the idea that it was a matter of damage and estimated that Google had probably calculated in advance that it would not harm the company. According to Nyqvist, lawyers kept the matter updated. She also criticized the country's leadership as indifferent and lacking understanding of environmental issues, stating that this was already known worldwide. Nyqvist demanded a complete turnaround in environmental policy in the next government. #Google #laki #ympäristö (translated)

Jari Mäkäräinen criticized Yle for often choosing female journalists to incite moral panic, according to him. He interpreted Yle's analysis as showing that support for the National Coalition Party among women had dropped to 12 percent and that the Finns Party had surpassed this party. However, according to Mäkäräinen, women were not punishing the National Coalition Party for its policies but for its austerity measures, and men were supporting the state. Mäkäräinen believed that the decline in women's support was due to the impact of budget cuts on sectors predominantly employing women, such as social services, organizations, and public services. In his view, this did not make the cuts unjust, but rather highlighted their effects. He mentioned the Social Democratic Party, the Left Alliance, and the Centre Party as the most popular parties among women and claimed that the left proposed tax increases amounting to nine billion euros. According to Mäkäräinen, the costs of these increases would fall on men who work overtime, start businesses, and pay progressive taxes. Mäkäräinen assessed that the issue for the National Coalition Party was its attempt to soften difficult decisions, while the Finns Party spoke about the same issues more directly. He argued that men were underrepresented in the care sector and overrepresented in dangerous jobs, entrepreneurship, and at the high end of the tax revenue spectrum. In his opinion, the National Coalition Party should maintain its stance even if it lost some female support, as this could help it win over voters who support the sustainability of the state. https://t.co/DfwLyPN03s #Politiikka #NaistenOikeudet #Taloustieto (translated)

Dennis Mitzner criticized Timo Stewart for suggesting that he believed Israel was an obstacle to the two-state solution. Mitzner argued that the Palestinians had not accepted Israel's state proposals in direct negotiations, the latest of which were the Camp David and Taba offers in 2000–2001, as well as Ehud Olmert's offers in 2008. He added that Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. According to Mitzner, the PLO's decades-old support for the two-state solution did not indicate that the Palestinians accepted Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Mitzner wrote that Stewart viewed the destruction of Hamas's ideology as unrealistic without killing all people. Mitzner interpreted this to mean that Stewart considered all Gazans as supporters of Hamas's ideology, but he himself said he would not go that far. He referred to Hamas's election in Gaza and claimed that no Gazan had attempted to help Israeli hostages in the past couple of years. Mitzner compared the situation to the Allies' victory over Nazism and the defeat of Japan, as well as the actions of the United Arab Emirates against the Muslim Brotherhood. He stated that the Western left should stop rewarding Palestinian violence and anti-Semitism. According to Mitzner, Stewart claimed that there was no Palestinian state because Israel occupied the territory and did not allow it to become independent. Mitzner denied this and described the area's history: according to him, it belonged to the British mandate from 1917 and prior to that to the Ottoman Empire. He wrote that the Arab leadership rejected the UN's 1947 partition plan, after which Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled Gaza without establishing a Palestinian state. According to Mitzner, the territories came under Israeli control in the 1967 war, which Jordan, Egypt, and Syria initiated with the intent to destroy, and the Arab world's negative attitude towards Israel continued with the Khartoum resolution of the three no's. Mitzner claimed that Stewart ignored Palestinian actions and concluded by asking whether the dispute ultimately related to the fact that the opposing side was the Jewish state of Israel. #IsraelinVastaisetAsenteet #Palestiinalaiskysymys #KansainvälinenPolitiikka (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that he wanted to correct the interpretations of an article by Helsingin Sanomat that dealt with nuclear weapons and said he remained uncertain about what the article ultimately claimed regarding Finland's security. According to him, Finland did not join the NATO nuclear deterrent with little discussion or unnoticed, but rather joined an alliance whose deterrence and defense had been based on nuclear weapons for decades. He described the strategic nuclear forces of the United States as a key basis for NATO's nuclear deterrent. Vanhanen considered that the bombing of Nagasaki was not an example of the current type of nuclear deterrent because Japan did not have a nuclear weapon nor the ability to respond to a U.S. strike. In his view, Nagasaki demonstrated the destructiveness of nuclear weapons and the human risks of their use, whereas the current deterrent was based on the assumption that an attacker had to consider the possibility of retaliation and uncontrolled escalation. Vanhanen assessed that Trump had increased uncertainty regarding the United States' commitment to the conventional defense of Europe and believed Europe would have to bear more responsibility for it. However, he distinguished this from the claim that the U.S. nuclear deterrent had weakened. According to him, the U.S. ability to use nuclear weapons had not diminished, NATO was not dismantling its nuclear plans or arrangements, systems were being modernized, and F-35 aircraft were being introduced into NATO's nuclear missions. Vanhanen stated that the NATO Nuclear Planning Group had confirmed in June that strategic nuclear forces, particularly U.S. forces, remained the ultimate guarantee of the allies' security and had decided to continue strengthening and modernizing the nuclear deterrent. Vanhanen considered it a central uncertainty whether Moscow would believe that the U.S. president would be willing to use nuclear weapons to defend an ally in an extreme situation. He reminded that the question of the U.S. willingness to endanger its own cities for the sake of Europe had been a concern throughout the history of the extended nuclear deterrent and there had been no complete certainty during the Cold War or at the present time. According to him, Finland's option was not a nuclear deterrent or a nuclear-free security environment, as Russia would have its nuclear weapons in any case. Vanhanen wrote that the crucial issue for the deterrent was that the Russian leadership could not be certain that the United States would defend Finland. https://t.co/3C8aAkuMwj #ydinaseet #Nato #Suomi (translated)

This is no longer just a political blunder, but probably the most humiliating national failure in the history of Finland's industry. This analysis reveals black on white how totally and blindly the Finnish state leadership has sold the interests of its own citizens in front of the marketing department of Silicon Valley. Let's break down this "sleight of hand" into three devastating facts that make the government's actions completely inexcusable. First of all, despite all the prime minister-level hype, promises, and the liturgy of the green transition, the outcome is harsh. As a result of Google's massive investments, no new electricity production is being built in Finland—zero megawatts. The company's marketing department worded it so cleverly that the government, desperately thirsty for economic growth, swallowed the bait completely baffled. The leadership was smilingly taken in front of cameras as a guarantor for a project that will not bring a single new watt to the Finnish grid. The second issue is the hijacking of national base power. This is the real, chilling bomb of the news. Since no new electricity will come, where will these massive data centers draw their power? The answer: from our nuclear power. The analysis reveals that as much as 500 megawatts of Finland's nuclear power capacity is dedicated exclusively to Google until 2050. This nuclear power is not just any electricity. It is precisely that stable, weather-independent base power that is vital for Finland's price stability and security of supply. The government is thus surrendering half a gigawatt of infrastructure intended to safeguard Finnish citizens during cold days to a multinational monopoly for the next quarter century. Thirdly, the master has definitively become a servant. When 500 megawatts of stable nuclear power is tied to Google's inflexible use, and no new capacity is brought in, the mathematical equation is devastating for the Finnish consumer. When a calm cold spell strikes in January, our electricity grid will lack that 500-megawatt lifesaver. It is dedicated to AI computation, and the ordinary Finnish citizen will pay for it with horrendous spikes in market electricity prices and increased transmission fees from Fingrid. The Finnish government allowed a multinational company to blind itself with platitudes and let a foreign entity walk straight into the national switchboard. This is not an investment in Finland. This is a hostile resource grab, which the country's own leadership blessed with a smile, sacrificing the energy security and purchasing power of Finns at the altar of the company's marketing trick. In democracy, there is one simple and ruthless rule: if the highest leadership of the state cannot defend the interests of its own people, it must step aside. Looking at this chain of events and the facts revealed by Talouselämä, the demand for Prime Minister Orpo's resignation is no longer just political shouting. It is the only logical conclusion in a situation where the head of government has shown a total lack of judgment in securing national infrastructure and the economy. The prime minister's job is to be the master in his own country. His task is to sit at the negotiating table, look the world's richest companies in the eye, and say: "This is our grid, our nuclear power, and our nature. You will pay for the infrastructure, you will build the new electricity, and you will pay the royalties here. Otherwise, you can take your servers elsewhere." If the prime minister is not capable of this—if he is so desperate that he can be led by a marketing department's word games like a measuring cup—he does not have the backbone that leading Finland requires in this global squeeze. Then there is only one right action: hand the keys back to the people and resign. #Suomi #politiikka #energiapolitiikka (translated)

Since I opened my verbal archive, it seems appropriate to address the comments that this matter has gathered and Taija's response, which has also been linked to my original post. Firstly, the headline of the local news story is accurate. A proposed increase of that sum has been presented (note that the salary sum is not the same as salary). The proposal is Taija's own, as she states in her response. However, Taija's response notes that it also includes retroactively paid salaries. This is true as well, since the matter is ongoing and there may be retroactive salary payments. However, this detail does not make the headline incorrect in any way, but the reader might conclude from this that she is seeking a 68% increase in her salary, which is not true. The fact remains: that fair €54k is, in Taija's opinion, her money, meaning the headline is entirely correct in using the term "proposed for herself." In my post, I made a comparison: Keusote's financial difficulties and Taija's salary increase demands. The comparison is relevant. Keusote's financial difficulties have been known for a long time, even before Taija started her position in October 2024. For some reason, this matter has stirred strong feelings on both sides. Many have jumped to (wrong) conclusions too quickly, and many have passionately defended Taija. I rarely receive private messages about any post, but I received several regarding this post. They have shed light on the background of the issue, and I will not address them here in any way because they are private messages. However, I would like to collectively ask several of you, that when you have passionately been cutting public administration and state-owned companies' costs and criticized the significantly higher salaries of the public sector compared to the private sector, why does the issue become completely different when it involves a person familiar to us all? Were the salaries of the leaders and heads of the welfare areas not excessive now that it comes to Taija? #palkka #julkishallinto #hyvinvointi (translated)

Venäjällä kohdelista tuhansista eurooppalaisista päättäjistä. Se on yhä operatiivisempi. Tarkoituksena vaikuttaa ja vaihtaa Euroopan johtoa, heikentää päätöksentekokyky. https://t.co/uhykccbBPv #Venäjä #Eurooppa #Päätöksenteko #FI #RU #EU

Yksityisellä sektorilla: johto onnistuu säästämään tekoälyn avulla -> bonuksia Julkisella sektorilla: johto onnistuu säästämään tekoälyn avulla -> rikostutkinta 🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/O8WvBujl2s #tekoäly #johtaminen #säästöt

Venäjän kasvavassa sotilaallisessa paineessa Eurooppa ottaa vääriä/epäröiviä askeleita. Venäjä vetää johtopäätöksen, että sillä on pelilaudalla aloite. Poliittinen johtajuus on hukassa monissa keskeisissä jäsenmaissa ja USAn suora ja epäsuora paine tukee Venäjän asemia. #Venäjä #Eurooppa #PoliittinenJohtajuus #FI #RU #EU #US

SDP osoittaa, että sitä kiinnostaa Lähi-itä enemmän kuin Suomi. Sanoihan demareiden ensimmäinen varapuheenjohtajakin Nasima Razmyar taannoin, että mahdollisen tulevan SDP-johtoisen hallituksen ensimmäinen suuri ulkopoliittinen teko olisi Palestiinan valtion tunnustaminen. Käsittämätöntä, että puoluetta kiinnostaa enemmän Lähi-itä ja Palestiina kuin Suomen ja suomalaisten asiat. Ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikalla ei pidä tehdä likaista sisäpolitiikkaa. Puolustusministerin tärkein tehtävä on vahvistaa Suomen turvallisuutta uhkia vastaan. #Suomi #ulkoasiat #turvallisuuspolitiikka

Yhdenkään puolueen ei kannata tehdä eduskuntavaaliohjelmaa. Kun ei ole ohjelmaa, ei ole lupauksia. Puolueen johtohahmot saavat lupailla eduskunnassa ja somessa sekä turuilla ja toreilla vaikka kuun taivaalta, mutta jälkeenpäin voidaan inttää, että puolue ei ole luvannut mitään. #eduskuntavaalit #puolueet #politiikka