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)

The writer pondered what Putin had gained from the diesel deal and assessed that he had very little to offer, even though the agreement was praised. He wrote that the connection of the deal to the U.S. midterm elections had been analyzed, but in the negotiations regarding Ukraine, peace had so far remained a secondary issue, with the focus on the U.S. share. https://t.co/lgQ3RcXPYa #Putin #Ukraina #diplomatia #FI #RU #UA #US (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)

Katariina Souri wrote that the price of food had risen by 25.1 percent since August 2021, while the rise in other consumer prices was around 18.1 percent according to her. She referred to a news article from Helsingin Sanomat and an estimate from researchers at the Natural Resources Institute Finland, which indicated that the necessity of food reduced the pressure on stores to lower prices. Souri noted that HS had not addressed the concentration of trade as a reason. According to Souri, the combined market share of the S-group and Kesko in the retail grocery sector was 82.5 percent, with the S-group controlling nearly half of the grocery market. She wrote that Finnish trade was the most concentrated in Europe and that the S and K groups were among the ten most profitable trading entities in the world. According to her, the combined operating profit of the S-group and SOK Corporation had grown from 280 million euros in 2021 to 495 million euros in 2025. In the first half of the current year, the profit had improved by 20 percent compared to the previous year. Souri claimed that the price received by primary producers and the profit development of the S-group had not progressed in the same proportion. According to her, a farmer or rancher was left with approximately 4–12 cents from a normal food euro, depending on the product, while most of the share went to the trade and the tax authorities. She considered the agricultural subsidies to effectively flow significantly into the profits and growth of the S-group and criticized the influence of the chains on zoning and legislation. Souri assessed that the duopoly in trade weakened the position of small businesses and free competition and restricted innovations and consumer choices. She wrote that politicians had failed to intervene in the situation. Additionally, she reported that Pellervo Economic Research had predicted at the end of September that food prices would rise in the following year as well. #ruoka #hintanousu #kauppa (translated)

Finnish News wrote that Finnish Refugee Aid had annually extracted millions from taxpayers and had initiated change negotiations concerning 21 individuals. The negotiations considered the dismissal of a maximum of 15 individuals. https://t.co/xj9f7bfgW4 #SuomenPakolaisapu #muutosneuvottelut #työntekijät (translated)

The author suggested that each Russian attack against Ukrainian civilians should automatically trigger a consequence, such as tightening sanctions or the transfer of frozen assets to Ukraine. According to him, there should be no negotiations on the matter for weeks, but a clear rule should be in place. At the end of the publication, he mentioned Russian visas. #Ukraina #Venäjä #Pakotteet #FI #RU #UA (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)

According to the author, Putin has not given up on his megalomaniacal visions. He considered negotiations with him pointless until Putin was on his knees begging for negotiations and claimed that Putin was ready to fight until the last Russian. #Putin #geopolitiikka #neuvottelut #FI #RU (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)

Yesterday, the impression left by @TyttiTuppurainen's speeches in A-studio was that negotiations should have been held with the Palestinians regarding the weapon system purchased from Israel, and the negotiator should have been the Minister of Culture. https://t.co/GKEPEIvOiQ #Israel #Palestiina #Neuvottelut (translated)

If the equality ombudsman, the equality unit of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, the equality advisory board, and the equality and non-discrimination board were to be abolished tomorrow, nobody would notice, and no one's rights would be diminished. Under Finnish law, we are all equal. #yhteiskunta #oikeudet (translated)