Search

Henri Vanhanen criticized Donald Trump's actions in the Ukraine war, noting that he declared agreements about which there was uncertainty, while pressuring Ukraine in a way that benefited Vladimir Putin. As a recent example, Vanhanen pointed to Trump’s announced energy ceasefire. According to him, Volodymyr Zelensky heard about it practically for the first time from the media, Russia had not confirmed the agreement, and continued, according to Zelensky, attacks on Ukraine's power plants. Vanhanen asked what kind of ceasefire it was if the other party did not know what had been agreed upon. He suggested that Zelensky had to be cautious of Trump’s criticism to avoid being blamed for obstructing peace. Vanhanen referred to the Financial Times reporting that the United States threatened to cut off arms and intelligence supplies to Ukraine unless the country stopped attacks on Russian energy infrastructure. He also wrote that Trump agreed to buy Russian diesel, demanded Ukraine to cease attacks on Russian oil refineries, and encouraged a change of leadership in Ukraine. Vanhanen estimated that the war in Iran and the resulting fuel prices, the upcoming midterm elections, and the need to show results might explain Trump’s urgency to secure an agreement. According to him, Trump aimed for cheaper diesel and a visible peace political achievement, while Putin would benefit from a decrease in attacks on Russia’s energy sector. Vanhanen noted that the alignment of these goals seemed to occur at Ukraine’s expense. Vanhanen stated that he did not oppose a ceasefire if it protected Ukrainians and also bound Russia. However, he observed that for Trump, merely declaring an agreement seemed to suffice, even without information about its terms or Russia's commitment. Vanhanen assessed that Russia would benefit from a situation in which the United States sought a quick agreement and Ukraine was cautious not to offend Trump. In such conditions, he believed Putin could gain concessions from Trump without Russia needing to win against Ukraine at the negotiating table. #Ukraina #Trump #Venäjä (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)

Saara Huhtasaari criticized Petteri Orpo's reaction to the agreement on diesel deliveries between Trump and Putin, describing it as a "terrible disappointment." She characterized Orpo as a European puppet and said he only reacts when the superpower agreement does not fit his narrative of virtue signaling. According to Huhtasaari, Orpo, Alexander Stubb, and the entire European line have been a disappointment for years. She criticized the support given to Ukraine funded by taxpayers, the sanctions against Russia, which she claimed harmed those who imposed them, and the criticism from the United States when, according to her, Washington did not follow Brussels' line. Huhtasaari wrote that the diesel delivery agreement had led to the condemnation of the erosion of sanctions and the accumulation of Putin's war chest. She claimed that the same parties had been supporting the diversion of billions to Ukraine for years and attacks on Russian oil refineries while also wondering about high fuel prices. #EU #Trump #Putin (translated)

Maria Rautanen questioned the transportation of foreign waste to Finland for energy production. She referred to information from Kaleva, which indicated that nearly 50,000 tons of waste had been brought to Oulu for incineration at Oulu Energy and Syklon facilities since 2021. According to her, waste had even been transported from the outskirts of a landfill in Rome and from the shores of the Arctic Ocean. Rautanen wrote that according to Kaleva, nearly a third of the imports had occurred with figures that had been mistakenly approved by the Finnish Environment Institute. She demanded a transparent investigation into the permit errors. Rautanen criticized the downsizing of Finland's domestic energy production, particularly the reduction of peat use due to taxation and emissions trading costs. According to her, Finnish contractors and energy entrepreneurs had ceased operations, machines had been sold, and expertise in the sector was disappearing as energy was produced by importing waste from thousands of kilometers away. Rautanen called for open life cycle assessments to justify the import of foreign waste, taking into account transport by road and sea, combustion emissions, ash, waste impurities, and domestic fuels replaced by imported waste. She also demanded information about the quality of the waste brought to Finland, its monitoring, and the effects of combustion on flue gases, heavy metals, and fine particles. Rautanen believed that Finland's energy supply should fundamentally rely on domestic raw materials, local labor, and supply security. She found it difficult to accept that waste transported from Rome was used for energy production while the use of domestic peat had been reduced, and she questioned whether this constituted sensible circular economy practices. https://t.co/2CjRydkxAO #ilmasto #energia #kiertotalous (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)

Sture Fjäder wrote that the red-green coalition in Helsinki had passed a decision stating that the city would no longer accept advertising related to fossil fuels, such as advertising for flying. He questioned whether those who supported the decision would themselves give up flying on their travels, and assessed that they would not do so. Fjäder described the action as green posturing. #viherposeeraus https://t.co/qbovaaryzX #Helsinki #ilmastonmuutos #kestäväkehitys (translated)

According to the author, the biggest concern for the National Coalition Party amid the fuel crisis and the threat from Russia was that the Finns Party had surpassed them in the polls. He mentioned that discussions within the National Coalition Party had been heated and described the atmosphere as strongly frustrated. The author hoped that the readings on the gas pump would provoke just as much anger within the party. #polttoainekriisi #venäjäuhka #gallup #FI #RU (translated)

Sture Fjäder wrote that Helsinki, according to him, bans all advertisements that use fossil fuels. He criticized the city council's bans and stated that he was glad to have moved away from Helsinki. #lentomainontakiellot https://t.co/LKwKKDcned #Helsinki #mainonta #ympäristö (translated)

Tanja Aidanjuuri wrote that the plan in Helsinki to ban advertising of fossil fuels could, according to her, cost the city nearly 100 million euros in advertising revenue. She criticized the proposal as unnecessary and absurd and listed as examples of potentially restricted advertising gasoline and diesel cars, flights, cruises, synthetic clothing, plastic products, and fossil fuels. Aidanjuuri described that the Greens in Vantaa could, in her opinion, follow the same line and that advertising would then practically be limited to, for example, veggie sausages, rainbow flags, and new mosques. She also pointed out that taxpayer money would be used for the handling of the matter. Aidanjuuri cited a proposal stating that the advertising ban would be investigated in the preparation of the next outdoor advertising agreement for Helsinki's public areas and that the advertising agreements of Urban Traffic Ltd would also be taken into account. The assessment would examine, among other things, the legal boundaries of the ban, its climate and environmental impacts, effects on the city's economy, the city's own communication and marketing, as well as the media landscape. The proposal also mentioned the possibility of examining advertising's ethical principles more broadly and limiting outdoor advertising from entities considered to violate human rights and particularly polluting industries. #Helsinki #ilmastonmuutos #mainonta (translated)

Vesa Kallionpää wrote that Hesari was interested in the price of diesel in the United States but not in Ivalo. According to him, the price difference was more than 1.5 euros to Finland's detriment. Kallionpää also criticized the idea that expensive fuel would be a good thing because of the prevalence of electric cars, stating that agriculture and the national economy would suffer from it. https://t.co/DFXm3eQSdA #diesel #polttoaine #sähköautot (translated)

According to The Guardian, more than 176,000 tons of fuel have been transported from South Korean ports to Russia, although some of the shipments have occurred on tankers subject to sanctions, raising concerns about the effectiveness of international sanctions and South Korea's support for Ukraine. #Polttoaine (translated)

Maria Rautanen wrote that a law was being prepared in Finland that would require the installation of solar panels on existing public buildings larger than 250 m² starting in 2031. She linked the preparation to the EU's Energy Efficiency Directive for Buildings and asked whether the effects of the directive were adequately assessed in Finnish conditions. Rautanen argued that Finland could not be compared to sunny Mediterranean countries that used a lot of fossil fuels. She noted that Finland's electricity consumption emission factor was only 26 g CO₂/kWh in 2025 and pointed out that solar panels produced energy mostly in the summer when the electricity system was already low-emission and energy consumption was lower. She wrote that the solar panel production chain was heavily concentrated in China and that a lot of coal-generated electricity was still used in their manufacturing. According to Rautanen, 78,000 MW of new coal power was commissioned in China in 2025. Rautanen asked who would pay for the new investments while municipalities were balancing their budgets and welfare areas were looking for savings. She demanded a calculation of the costs and financing of the investments, as well as how much the solar panels made in China would reduce Finland's CO₂ emissions over their entire lifespan. She also questioned whether the panels would offset their carbon footprint during production and assessed that the rationality of the directive in Finland could not be determined without a calculation based on Finnish conditions. https://t.co/ba6sqYwZ2l #Aurinkoenergia #Energiatehokkuus #Suomi (translated)

According to the author, the Middle Eastern war had entered a new phase and was no longer just fought in Gaza, Lebanon, and the sky over Iran, but also in the cockpit of a passenger plane. He wrote that the impact of the conflict in Europe should also be considered in fuel prices. #sota #polttoaine #IL #LB #IR (translated)