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)

The writer suspected that elections would be held in Finland during a state of war. He wrote that afterwards democracy would prevail and anyone could run for office. Additionally, he shared a link to an article from an Italian newspaper, which according to its title stated that Sanna Marin could run for office if Russia were to attack Finland. https://t.co/3UdYODDZqi #Suomi #demokratia #vaalit #FI #RU (translated)

The author claimed that Ukrainian children could still be bombed with Trump's blessing. He wondered what would have happened if Trump had demanded Putin stop the indiscriminate killing and torture of civilians, and referred to Trump ironically as a very stable genius. https://t.co/AxB32IRfHN #Ukraina #Trump #Sota #UA #RU #US (translated)

Henri Vanhanen wrote that Volodymyr Zelensky was ready to hold elections in Ukraine if Vladimir Putin agreed to a 60-day ceasefire. Vanhanen noted that this was not a new concession, as Zelensky had made the same proposal in February and required sufficient security guarantees to hold the elections. Vanhanen interpreted the proposal as a message to Donald Trump, who, in his view, had repeatedly questioned Zelensky’s position and called for elections in Ukraine. According to Vanhanen, holding elections would require the United States to get Russia to stop hostilities for a sufficient period. He found it contradictory that Ukraine was being asked to hold elections in the midst of an invasion, while Russia had not agreed to a ceasefire that would allow for it. Vanhanen also pondered how strong Trump’s pressure on Zelensky had become, referring to Trump’s recent statements regarding Ukrainian leadership. He believed that the replacement of the Ukrainian president should not become a substantive goal of peace negotiations, but rather that Ukrainians should choose their own leader. According to Vanhanen, Trump should have used his influence to promote a ceasefire rather than forcing Ukraine to defend the legitimacy of its democracy. #Ukraina #Zelenskyi #Trump (translated)

Yaron Nadbornik criticized Heikki Hiilamo's column published in Yleisradio, stating that it presented a one-sided image connecting the actions of Israel's leadership, Finnish Christian groups, and Minister Antti Häkkänen's visit to the structures of oppression. Nadbornik argued that the column's treatment of Israel and Zionism made Jews collectively responsible and expanded the criticism to also include Israel's supporters and Jews in general. According to Nadbornik, Hiilamo's text divided the parties into white and Christian oppressors and non-white and Muslim victims. He said this framing overlooked the Jewish roots, history, and vulnerability in the Middle East, as well as the fact that millions of people from various backgrounds lived in Israel. He also believed that the framework wrongly fit the conflict into a narrative of Western colonialism and racism and presented Israel as a refuge for a people without another homeland. Nadbornik wrote that the prejudices against Jews were based on their otherness. He noted that studies had shown that Jews living in the diaspora were unjustly held accountable for the actions of the state of Israel. He argued that Hiilamo's rhetoric, which connected Christian groups and ministerial visits with the suffering in Gaza, reinforced this framework. Nadbornik recalled the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, describing it as a massacre involving rapes, mutilations, and the abduction of civilians, including babies, festival-goers, and the elderly, into Israel. He called it the largest single act of violence against Jews since the Holocaust. According to Nadbornik, Hiilamo overlooked the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah openly sought the destruction of Israel in connection with Israel's military actions. He believed that framing the terror attack merely as a security threat or comparing it to Russia's invasion of Ukraine ignored the rights of Israeli citizens to exist and be protected. https://t.co/PFvBFdaoiQ #Israel #Juutalaiset #Rasismi (translated)

The author noted that Pedro Passos Coelho would give an interview to Maria João Avillez on SIC Notícias, between 9 PM and 10 PM, and argued that his governance should be reassessed in light of the financial conditions he encountered. According to the author, Portugal had already requested external assistance when Passos Coelho arrived at the Government in 2011, and the adjustment program of 78 billion euros had been negotiated before he took office. He maintained that during the legislature, exports rose from about one-third of GDP to nearly 40% in 2015, including tourism, and that the tourism sector gained strategic momentum. Regarding privatizations, he acknowledged that some operations were questionable and warranted scrutiny but argued that they allowed the collection of billions of euros, the amortization of public debt, and reduce financing needs and interest burdens. He also considered that cuts in the public sector were painful but questioned what the alternatives would have been when the State could no longer finance itself normally. The author further highlighted that Portugal completed the financial assistance program in 2014 and returned to market financing without a precautionary program, recovering, in his view, decision-making leeway. He stated that Passos Coelho was the most relevant politician of the century in Portugal for having made unpopular decisions and contributed to an economic change whose effects surpassed his Government. #Portugal #Política #Economia (translated)

Niko A. Kauko pondered what would happen to the EU-Finland's support for Ukraine and the cooperation agreements between the countries if Ukraine were to hold elections, choose a new president, and the war were to end. He estimated that with a change in presidency, relations between Ukraine and Russia could also improve. Kauko asked whether Finland's support for Ukraine had ultimately been directed more towards Zelensky and the war than towards Ukraine itself. He referred to Stubbs' statement that the war was "his war," and wondered if Finland's "unwavering Ukraine first" line would fade as the war receded. Kauko described the war fundamentally as a great power conflict and believed that neither side had clean hands. According to him, Finland should not have participated in the conflict other than through diplomacy and mediation. He considered such an approach wise, which, in his assessment, was no longer visible in Finland's stance. #Ukraina #EU #sota (translated)

Campechame stated that Veiga, who was loaned out a few months ago, received more criticism from Televisa than Sánchez, whose low level, as he wrote, the network justified. He added that Sánchez had cost 10 million and had been "stealing" at the club for two years. #Fútbol #Veiga #Sánchez (translated)

Jarno Limnell wrote that the United States' purchases of Russian diesel would bring revenue to Russia's war chest. According to him, Donald Trump simultaneously demanded that Ukraine stop attacks on Russian oil refineries and change its president. Limnell assessed that this meant a significant change in the strategic situation of the war. #Venäjä #Ukraina #diplomatia (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)

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)

According to the author, peace had become a side issue in the negotiations about Ukraine, and what was central was the United States' share of Russian energy. He estimated that the negotiations would not lead to a lasting peace. The author stated that the war had closed the Strait of Hormuz and raised the price of oil, and he assessed that Putin had not promised Trump anything without concessions. https://t.co/YEn2YcxxQr #Ukraina #rauha #energia #UA #US #RU #IR (translated)

Edvard Vapaamieli claimed that Finland was deliberately being driven towards electricity and food shortages, unrest, diseases, economic collapse, and war. He wrote that in his opinion, the situation could only be explained by a power grab and the fact that the state leadership was implementing a foreign agenda. https://t.co/JG2VKzE2je #Suomi #kriisi #valtapolitiikka (translated)