Some Finns want to quit NATO, Finland to make its own treaty with Russia.
21 May 2026, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)
The most articulate supporters of this view are at the Neighborhood Club of Finland, which was started in 2022 by Mauno Eljas Saari (born 16 June 1947 in Tornio), a Finnish journalist, author and screenwriter, who in 2014 had noticed that the ‘democratic revolution’ in February 2014 in Ukraine had, in fact, been instead a successful U.S. coup that replaced Ukraine’s democratically elected and committedly neutralist President Yanukovych by a U.S.-Government-selected team to run the country and get rid of Ukrainians in areas of Ukraine that had voted by more than 75% for the neutralist Yanukovych. It was part of American billionaires’ longstanding effort to conquer Russia in order to take over the world. The new Ukrainian government’s aim was to make the new, committedly Russia-hating, U.S.-picked team capable of being ‘democratically’ electable in Ukraine, by eliminating those voters. Saari recognized that Russia actually had a legitimate national-security interest in preventing Ukraine — which is the only Russia-bordering country that’s only 5 minutes of missile-flight time away from The Kremlin and thus intolerable to Russians to be allied with the U.S. against Russia — and Saari therefore strongly opposed Finland’s joining NATO, which in 2022 was being done by Finland’s Government, on the entirely false assumption that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had been ‘unprovoked’ and ‘aggression’ against Ukrainians, instead of essential self-defense by Russia against an aggressive and ever-expanding U.S. empire that was aiming to replace Russia’s independent Government.
On 26 November 2020, I headlined “How the Western Press Lied About the 2014 Coup in Ukraine: Pretending that It Was Instead a Real Democratic Revolution”, and opened “UPDATE: On November 27th, Swedish radio placed me onto their “spam” list. That was a day after I had submitted this article to them.” When, during 2022, I submitted articles and letters-to-the-editor (both in English and in their native language) to the major newspapers and TV networks in both Sweden and Finland documenting that America not Russia was to blame for having started the war in Ukraine, none published any of them. However, some Swedes and Finns have nonetheless managed to overcome the nearly universal censorship by their own nation’s billionaires and so to know the reality; and the following articles from the Neighborhood Cub (or “Association” of Finland are examples:
——
https://naapuriseura.fi/en/sakari-linden-miksi-suomi-on-eksyksissa/
Sakari Linden / 18.5.2026
Finland is a vassal state controlled by Western political, economic and financial powers, and is only superficially independent. Even during the Cold War, Finland’s independence and economic development were based on geopolitical balance between the various great powers.
The more options offered by the policy of neutrality naturally meant greater influence and independence in geopolitics and our own trade.
The West has made Finland its submissive raw material reserve by distorting the historical understanding of Finns and breaking their awareness of the importance of geopolitical balance for Finland’s rise as an independent and prosperous state.
“The West has made Finland its submissive raw material reserve by distorting the historical understanding of Finns and breaking Finns’ awareness of the importance of geopolitical balance.”
Politicians from Finland’s pro-Western parties and the mainstream media have done a great job in ensuring the success of the information warfare campaign.
As the US Secretary of State Colin Powell former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson has revealed that the United States generously funded political election campaigns in neutral countries in Eastern and Northern Europe in order to get them to join NATO. This probably also happened in Finland.
There have been two main trends in Finland’s foreign policy history: Westernization and neutrality. In today’s one-truth Finland, only the Westernization is allowed. The mainstream media actively participates in the slander of the second main trend in our foreign policy history, neutrality, and its supporters.
Official Finland, for which the United States and the EU are now the only option, has made our country completely dependent on the West. This, in turn, makes it easy to subjugate Finland to the West.
Finland did not humiliate the Soviet Union during the Cold War. As an independent state, Finland pursued a mutually beneficial bilateral policy and commercial cooperation.
Finland had its own legislation, its own border controls, its own currency, its own foreign and trade policies. After the transfer of the Porkkala lease area, Soviet armed forces never again entered Finnish soil, for example for military exercises.
During the Cold War, Finnish companies created wealth for Finns and Finland did not make large-scale income transfers abroad. The difference with the current situation is great.
“There have been two main trends in Finland’s foreign policy history; Western orientation and neutrality. In today’s one-truth Finland, only Western orientation is allowed.”
The USA-EU-NATO-Finland, which has surrendered to the West, currently imports a significant part of its legislation from outside, i.e. from the legislative machinery of the European Union. Finland no longer has an independent foreign, monetary and trade policy, Finland no longer controls all its borders and receives all customs duties. Finland has to pay income transfers to other EU member states. Finland has handed over 15 bases on its territory to the United States.
Finland is forced to privatize its state-owned companies after becoming indebted to the West. Foreign mining companies are repatriating financial profits from Finland and leaving mining waste behind.
Why can anyone support this miserable reality for Finland and Finns?
Is your Finland Urho Kekkonen Finland or by Alexander Stubb Finnish?
——
https://naapuriseura.fi/en/demokraattinen-hulluus-uusi-normaali/
“Democratic madness – the new normal”
Mauno Saari / 7.5.2026
Chancellor of Germany Adolf Hitler was declared insane too late. US President Donald Trump have been declared insane, early or too late. Both came to power democratically. As did the current worst genocidal Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu.
Democracy in its current form should be abolished to end wars caused by lunatics.
***
In the United States, the president is always the one with the most money behind him. When Trump leaves, his incarnation will take over, for the same reason. In Israel, Netanyahu’s most likely successor will be as fanatical as he is, or an even more deadly Zionist.
The “Holy Land” is an example of the enormous power of propaganda and money, the lack of democratic alternatives, and national psychopathy. Even the Prime Minister Golda Meir said it: Israel is in control of the Masada complex.
Masada is a mountain where Jews once fled from the Roman siege.
***
The biggest problem with today’s democracy is the frequency of elections. Making elections less frequent would be a step towards the better. This is sarcasm, but still: now frequent elections mean that as soon as victory is achieved, preparations for the next election begin on both sides.
In Finland, the current democracy means that the opposition has no other option than to aim for the next election. The government, no matter how lousy, is allowed to sit and answer the opposition’s empty questions with empty talk.
In the old days, during a weaker democracy, the president could change the rules. For example, the prime minister was born. Martti Miettunen a state of emergency government, when there were a catastrophic 80,000 unemployed in the country. Now there are four times as many unemployed, but there is no knowledge of the state of emergency.
The country is sinking with the sinking Europe. Here too, we are at the forefront. Finland would need a government of experts to prevent the worst from happening, a total recession. But the current democracy prevents this possibility.
Majoritarian democracy is a travesty of parliamentarism. These two hundred elected officials sit on their jambs, disconnected from reality, knowing full well that their greatest achievement is a good salary with all the benefits. And a pension.
***
The best form of government would be an enlightened dictatorship. The idea is not mine. And it is not ironic that a dictator should be elected for a fixed term.
President Urho Kekkonen was a dictator. He was elected for fixed terms with poor democracy. After the extension terms ended, the country gradually drifted into chaos.
There is no new Kekkonen in sight, which is a bad thing. Or a good thing, if we look at the current candidates. Let’s think about the Prime Minister Petteri Orpoa as the ruler he strives to sound and look like.
Emigration would be the only option for citizens. The same applies to the president Alexander Stubbia, a world-traveling charmer, a talker of empty words. That story doesn’t end well, for the country. Otherwise, it does.
What about democracy in other parts of the world?
Trump starts new wars so he can end them. He leads the world in starting and ending wars, starting war after war and ending them when he feels like it.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, on the other hand, is doing everything he can to keep the wars going so that he doesn’t fall from the throne. He wants to implement the Old Testament Greater Israel, no matter what the cost, like World War III.
The best and worst thing democracy can bring is chaos.
Democratically elected dictators don’t have to worry about the fact that they have murdered hundreds of thousands or millions of people. If they were brought to justice, they would be declared insane or mentally ill, and therefore not guilty or not guilty.
——
“Ambassador Pavel Kuznetsov: Finland has erected an Iron Curtain on Russia”
Toimitus / 16.4.2026
“Finland has literally and figuratively erected an iron curtain on its relations with Russia,” said Pavel Kuznetsov, Russia’s ambassador to Finland, in an interview with the TASS news agency. “Relations are practically non-existent.” The interview was published early Thursday.
According to Ambassador Kuznetsov, relations between the countries are in an extremely deplorable state. “I would rather say that there are no relations at all.”
According to the ambassador, over the past four years, the Finnish authorities have destroyed practically everything that our country has built in the decades after the war in politics, economics, science, culture and other fields.
“All relations have been severed, the border is closed, there is no passenger traffic,” he says.
Kuznetsov refers to the erection of the Iron Curtain and states that this has never happened before in Russian-Finnish relations. “Not even in the 1920s and 1930s, on the eve of World War II.”
“Today, all that remains are diplomatic contacts between embassies and foreign ministries and some working contacts between some agencies on some practical matters, such as border issues and the handling of remaining railway transport.”
In Kuznetsov’s opinion, the abnormal situation is not in the interests of the Finnish people, above all. “It is enough to look at the key figures of the current state and prospects of socio-economic development, not to mention the national security of the Finnish state, which has deteriorated with Finland’s accession to NATO and the country’s leadership adopting a confrontational line towards Russia.”
“The alternative is to restart the dialogue”
According to the ambassador, there have recently been some signs in Finnish society that they have begun to understand that there is no alternative to restarting the dialogue. “But unfortunately, not at the country’s leadership,” says Kuznetsov.
According to Ambassador Kuznetsov, Finland must respect Russia’s interests if it wants to restart dialogue.
“We were not the ones who severed all ties between our countries. We are ready to consider constructive proposals from the Finnish authorities to restore ties, but of course Russia’s national interests must be absolutely respected,” says the Russian ambassador to Finland. “The ball is in Helsinki’s court.”
“For our part, we have always spoken in favor of pragmatic cooperation based on respect and mutually beneficial neighborly relations. And we will continue to do so,” says Ambassador Pavel Kuznetsov.
13 comments on “Ambassador Pavel Kuznetsov: Finland has erected an Iron Curtain on Russia”
Seiho1 says:
16.4.2026 23: 22
Yes indeed, the general public arena, the Russian won in the medal ceremony, the general public couldn’t watch and listen to the Russian national anthem, but they left right before the start! An incredibly sick group. Luckily, you don’t have to follow the general public!
Seiho1 says:
16.4.2026 23: 24
Finland is sick!
Origo says:
18.4.2026 05: 43
It’s just a shame to pay the YLE tax when I don’t use or need YLE for anything.
Sister Akanvirta says:
16.4.2026 20: 27
For example, Finnish-Russian scientific cooperation to improve the Baltic Sea has also been terminated, as far as I know. No sacrifice is too great for the altar of hatred against Russia.
Arctic fox says:
17.4.2026 08: 28
I remember noticing the primacy of hatred towards Russia in 2015.
Erkki Jalkanen says:
16.4.2026 17: 25
“We are ready to consider constructive proposals from the Finnish authorities to restore ties, but of course Russia’s national interests must be absolutely respected,” says the Russian ambassador to Finland. “The ball is in Helsinki’s court.”
These words from the ambassador are hopeful for the future.
When the “pubescent” Finnish administration first learns to understand and respect at least the national interests of its own nation and its citizens instead of the collective interests of its associations, an example of which is the country’s socio-economic situation, then it would be possible to think that there would also be understanding and respect for Russia. Unfortunately, in Helsinki there are only scoundrels and idiots who, for reasons of their own or those of their interest groups, are unable to take control of the situation. It is sad that this is the situation.
But, -“Nothing lasts forever, neither good nor bad.” Therein lies the seed of hope.
Heikki Poroila says:
16.4.2026 17: 13
It is worth constantly reminding ourselves that the destruction of relations between Finland and Russia has been a one-sided process, in which only Finland has been active. When relations are rebuilt sometime in the future, we can only hope that Russia will continue its patient course.
It is probably inevitable that Finland cannot be represented in these stages of rebuilding relations by representatives of the current foreign policy leadership, who, led by TP Stubb, have repeatedly violated all the foundations of diplomacy by mocking Russia and its official representatives.
It is also to be hoped that the Russian side will accept the idea that the majority of Finns have been misled and that active Russophobia is not the majority position. But perhaps it is realistic to assume that relations cannot return to a state of full trust quickly. I would not be surprised if the Russian side continues to show caution in relations with Finland for a long time to come.
Arctic fox says:
16.4.2026 17: 37
Exactly. Unfortunately, in addition to Russophobic attitudes and agitated misconceptions, the military threat to Russia from Finland will overshadow relations, especially possible nuclear weapons. I still hope that a pan-European security agreement could be negotiated in the coming years. For Finland’s current leaders, such a thing would be too reasonable, peaceful and even suggestive of friendship (oh, the horror!), but higher authorities than Finland could do it. It doesn’t look good, but at least there is a little hope.
Much probably depends on whether the US continues to strive for global hegemony or voluntarily agrees to the diversification of the world. If the US leaves Eurasia alone and develops friendship with Russia, then we could perhaps get rid of the US bases. The next threat to us and Russia would then be the militarization of the EU.
the other kaenae says:
16.4.2026 16: 48
My laptop has been in repair for over a week now, I got another one to borrow. Hopefully I’ll get mine back next week.
I take my hat off to Russia and the Russians. Once we get rid of Stubb and the entire black coalition, then we can start to put relations back in order with Russia.
It will take time, but it is better than the current act of treason against Finnish citizens.
FROM THE says:
16.4.2026 15: 08
Thank you Ambassador Kuznetsov for these truthful words! I wish this could be read in other media outlets too…
jarkko.turkia.tmi@gmail.com says:
16.4.2026 22: 40
HS published some kind of report about it with a commentary by the editor. We learned that the claim about Finland’s NATO membership and military armaments on the one hand and the deterioration of the security situation on the other are contradictory. Apparently the security situation has improved, even though everything from the daily news seems to indicate the opposite. The Finnish economy, on the other hand, is “stressed primarily by the weakness of private consumption.” Such a conclusion can really be reached when you confuse cause and effect.
One of the most brilliant gems in the article’s heavily moderated reader comments is the opinion that Finland should have joined NATO in 1991, but “for some reason, Finland decided to limit its sovereignty until 2022. I still don’t understand why.”
Arctic fox says:
16.4.2026 10: 53
It would be great if Russia agreed to normalize relations and engage in practical cooperation, even though it is understood that the anti-Russian attitudes of the Finns, or especially the Finnish so-called elite, will not change for years.
The anti-Russian drumbeat has been so effective that people’s perceptions of Russia and the conflict in Ukraine are one-sided and false. In particular, nothing is really known about the background and causes of the conflict in Ukraine, but lies produced by propaganda are believed. If relations are ever restored, those lies will unfortunately live on in documents and in people’s minds.
Russia was of course not a threat to Finland, which was not militarily aligned. Why then did Finland, with all these prospects, align itself with Russia as a permanent enemy (regardless of the intentions or behavior of either party)? Has the Finnish leadership, in all its Russophobia and its idealization of the Western community, simply invested in the fact that Russia would be overthrown sooner or later, one way or another? In any case, Finland’s interest was not to position itself as an enemy of Russia.
tallus says:
16.4.2026 10: 14
I will do my small part to show my respect for the peaceful coexistence between our countries by participating, as a member of the Neighborhood Association, in the Victory Day reception at the Russian Embassy in Finland, hosted by Ambassador Pavel.
——
https://naapuriseura.fi/en/naamiot-riisutaan-nato-yhdysvaltojen-hyokkaysliittona/
“The masks are being taken off: NATO as an American offensive alliance”
Sakari Linden / 11.4.2026
The United States, which has been the world’s leading superpower for decades, is now fighting to maintain its hegemonic position. That is why the United States is demanding that the military alliance NATO and its member states – including Finland – support its efforts, if necessary in violation of international law. The so-called defense alliance is taking off its mask and is openly transforming into an American offensive alliance. It is up to the member states to decide to what extent they are prepared to submit to American interests and thus pay for their alliance with the United States.
President Donald Trump stated in his discussion with the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutten with a few days ago that the United States may withdraw from the military alliance. Trump said he was disappointed with NATO’s ability to function and the commitment of its allies. This was because some European countries have been critical of the United States’ demand to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic with military force. Rutte appeased Trump by stating that the overwhelming majority of NATO countries support the US and Israel’s attack on Iran in various ways.
Secretary General Rutte assured after the meeting that NATO does not have one foot in the grave. However, according to Rutte, NATO needs a major change in the relationship between the United States and its European partners to become a “balanced” alliance. In an interview with the news channel CNN, Rutte said that some of NATO’s European member states had failed the US test because they were reluctant to respond to the US’s request for help after the US attacked Iran without informing the allies.
Rutte stated in an interview with the Newsmax channel on March 5 that “NATO is a platform for the United States to project its power on the world political stage.” None of the previous secretaries general of the military alliance had stated this open secret so directly.
According to media reports, instead of withdrawing from the military alliance, the United States would consider punishing some NATO countries – most notably Spain. The United States could withdraw its military forces from countries that did not support the United States unconditionally in the Iran war and transfer them to NATO member states that did support the United States.
NATO Trump’s bargaining chip
The United States intends to use its leadership position in NATO as a bargaining chip with European countries.
First, the United States wants to benefit economically from leading and maintaining NATO. This is evidenced, for example, by the strict energy and investment requirements of the customs agreement signed between the European Union and the United States in July 2025.
Second, the United States wants its European allies to commit to supporting the country’s military operations outside NATO’s traditional area of operations. Foreign Minister Marco Rubio proposed the restoration of the Western empire at the Munich Security Conference as early as February 2024. In his speech, Rubio said that the United States was ready to restore Western dominance alone, but hoped that it would happen together with European countries.
The United States uses threats of withdrawal from NATO as a bargaining chip to extract all possible benefits from the military alliance. Later, the United States will assess whether NATO is more beneficial or detrimental to its national interests.
If the United States sees itself benefiting from European countries economically through purchases and militarily through European countries committing to supporting its military operations outside Europe, the United States can remain the leader of NATO and the keeper of the entire Euro-Atlantic system. However, if the United States sees NATO as more of a burden, it will not hesitate to withdraw from the military alliance.
Even if the United States decides to remain a member of NATO, it intends to continue its military withdrawal from Europe, in accordance with its new national security strategy. The United States’ role in European conflicts would primarily be to sell weapons to its European allies.
Growing discrepancy between theory and practice
The new US policy is creating pressure to change NATO and increase the commitment of its members. NATO, based on the North Atlantic Treaty and old practices, may soon be just a memory.
According to Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO’s mission is to “defend itself against armed attack.” However, the United States has demanded that other NATO members support it and Israel in a war of aggression against Iran. This would change NATO’s official nature from a defensive alliance to an offensive one.
According to Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty, an armed attack means “an armed attack directed against […] the territory of a Party in Europe or North America.” The US requirement for Allied support in wars outside the European area would significantly expand the geographical scope of the North Atlantic Treaty from its current scope.
According to Article 7 of the Agreement, “the Agreement shall not affect, nor shall it be construed as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties as Members of the United Nations under the Charter of the United Nations, nor the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.”
NATO member states therefore have the normal obligation to comply with their obligations under international law.
However, the United States has demanded support from its European allies for its war against Iran, which is clearly in conflict with international law, the provisions of the UN Charter and the role of the UN Security Council. NATO Secretary General Rutte also supports the US demand. NATO is increasingly transforming into a military alliance that openly supports US hegemony, which considers itself above international law and can act without regard to its obligations.
Finland has to choose its side
Finland joined NATO in April 2023. However, in a short time, Finland, as a NATO member, has found itself in a situation where it is forced to realize that the military alliance is a completely different organization from the one it joined. In the new situation, Finland and other NATO member states have the right and also the obligation to assess whether a NATO that complies with the requirements of the United States meets the national interests of the states.
In Finland, NATO is described as a defense alliance by, for example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, and the Defense Forces. Prime Minister Sanna Marin said joining NATO was an act of peace. However, US demands are turning NATO into an offensive alliance that does not hesitate to violate international law anywhere in the world. How does this fit in with the rules-based world order that Finland has declared itself to be a defender of?
The Finnish leadership must answer the question of how the new NATO will advance Finland’s national interests. Is it in Finland’s interests to commit to supporting the United States in its overseas wars that violate international law, even though the United States itself has fewer and fewer resources and desire to participate in wars in Europe? Or will NATO create security problems that would not exist without it?
Euro-Atlantic institutions provide the basis for the dominance of Europe’s current political elites. It is therefore likely that they will also cling to NATO’s existence until the end and support the overt transformation of the military alliance into an offensive alliance.
——
https://naapuriseura.fi/en/nato-kaskee-stubb-ja-orpo-tottelevat/
“NATO commands – Stubb and Orpo obey”
Jaakko Laakso / 16.3.2026
There is no doubt that the order to remove nuclear weapons restrictions from Finnish legislation came from the military alliance NATO. This is also admitted by Janne Kuusela, Director General of the Ministry of Defence (STT 6.3.2026).
According to Kuusela, the decision to remove the nuclear weapons ban included in the Nuclear Energy Act was made for two reasons.
“With NATO membership, Finland received information about nuclear deterrence that was not previously available. Another reason is that NATO is changing and modernizing deterrence,” says the Director General of the Ministry of Defence.
The government’s proposal regarding the NATO Act stated at the time that Finland’s accession to NATO does not require changes to the laws regarding nuclear explosives.
Kuusela now says that many changes were identified in the legislation already during the NATO membership application phase. According to Kuusela, many things in Finnish legislation were made “in a very different era and under the conditions of non-alignment.”
According to Kuusela, “the legislative change will move Finland into the mainstream of NATO countries, which has no legislative obstacles to maintaining the nuclear deterrent and its credibility.” According to the Director General, the reason behind the proposed change is “the desire to strengthen Finland’s security in an international situation that is difficult to predict.”
Kuusela believes that the change will also improve preventive deterrence. The purpose is “to also ensure that NATO’s deterrence, including all its components, is credible” and “to create the highest possible threshold for military action against Finland and the entire alliance.”
Nuclear weapons could be imported to Finland in the future
The government led by Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (Congress)The government proposes that nuclear weapons could be imported into Finland in the future under certain conditions. President Alexander Stubb claims that a legislative change to allow the import and transit of nuclear weapons would be in Finland’s interest.
According to the current Nuclear Energy Act, the import, manufacture, possession and detonation of nuclear explosives in Finland is prohibited. Transport through Finnish territory is also prohibited. The ban is enshrined in both the Nuclear Energy Act and the Criminal Code. Now the government is proposing to remove all restrictions.
Stubb refers to “conventional forces, missiles and nuclear weapons” and says that “it is in Finland’s interest that we have no legislative obstacles to any of these.” According to the president, this means that “we can be fully involved in NATO’s nuclear weapons planning.”
The government intends toAt the same time, nuclear explosives could be allowed in Finland “if they were related to the defense of Finland, NATO’s common defense or defense cooperation.” In the future, NATO-Finland could also transport and perhaps also store nuclear explosives.
With the change, the government says it wants to “ensure the comprehensiveness of Finland’s and NATO’s military deterrence and smooth cooperation” with NATO allies.
According to Kuusela of the Ministry of Defence, NATO’s nuclear deterrent is being prepared for all different situational options, various exceptional situations, crises and wars. “The stronger and more credible the nuclear deterrent is, the higher the threshold is for anyone to challenge NATO’s common collective defence,” says Kuusela.
Finland has been negotiating the lifting of all nuclear weapons restrictions with the military alliance NATO and also with NATO’s two nuclear-armed states, the United States and the United Kingdom, for a long time. There have also been some discussions with the third nuclear-armed state, France, in NATO.
The foreign policy leadership accepted NATO’s policies without hesitation.
Finland’s foreign policy leadership has approved an assessment made by the Ministry of Defence based on NATO guidelines. The Government’s Ministerial Committee on Foreign and Security Policy recently discussed the matter and approved a decision in principle to remove all legislative obstacles to nuclear weapons from Finnish law.
The preparation has been done in secret and not even all ministers or members of parliament have been informed in detail.
Both Finnish and international negotiation sources previously stated that Finland would not have been accepted as a NATO member if Finland had remained outside the work of the NATO nuclear defense planning group when it joined NATO, as France has done as a NATO country.
Participation in the nuclear deterrent was agreed upon during Finland’s accession talks at NATO headquarters, Iltalehti claimed on March 6, 2026. NATO sources have told Iltalehti that Finland’s then-leadership promised to make Finnish legislation compatible with Finland’s NATO commitments.
By the government leadership, the newspaper probably means President Sauli Niinistö, Prime Minister Sanna Marin (Social Democratic Party) and Defense Minister Antti Kaikkonen (Centre Party). They were also mentioned in journalist Lauri Nurmi’s article, and so far none of them have seen fit to correct the claim.
There was only a short period left in the electoral term, so amending the Nuclear Energy Act was left to the next government.
“The bill has been prepared for a long time, and it has been discussed in the government’s Foreign and Security Policy Committee in TP-Utva,” President Alexander Stubb said in early March.
Negotiations to lift the nuclear ban began immediately after the presidential election.
Discussions about removing the nuclear weapons ban from Finnish legislation have actually been going on for roughly as long as Alexander Stubb became president in early 2024. Stubb called for a change to the Nuclear Energy Act and the removal of nuclear weapons restrictions from Finnish legislation as a presidential candidate for the National Coalition Party during the election campaign.
In the final weeks of the election campaign, the removal of nuclear weapons restrictions from Finnish legislation became the central controversial issue of the presidential election. Former Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto (Greens), who lost the presidential election to Stubb, disagreed with the removal and did not accept Stubb’s nuclear weapons policies.
President Sauli Niinistö was also critical of Stubb’s nuclear weapons talk. In Kainuun Sanomat on September 19, 2023, Stubb stated that he would not act on the matter “without a mandate from the Western allies.” The policies presented by NATO and the military alliance during the negotiations with the nuclear-armed states were what Stubb described as the mandate, or green light, for the law change.
Both President Stubb and former President Niinistö have remained completely silent in public about the transit or deployment of nuclear weapons in Finland since the 2024 presidential election. And strangely enough, Haavisto has also been silent on the matter.
The negotiations and discussions with “allies” on nuclear deterrence have not been reported to Parliament in any detail. The opposition has been kept completely out of the most important discussions.
The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Johannes Koskinen (sd.), received a summary of the government’s plans a little earlier than the other members of the committee. The chairman of the Defense Committee, Heikki Autto (kok.), reportedly received information about the progress of the amendment projects earlier than Koskinen. The chairman of the Social Democratic Party, Antti Lindtman, was among those who had been informed about the government’s legislative amendment project a little earlier.
The media pool silenced the mainstream media
What has been characteristic of Finland during the Mediapool era is that the mainstream media has not asked President Stubb a single question during his entire term in office – at least not publicly. whether he still supports the lifting of Finland’s nuclear weapons restrictions, which he proposed during the election campaign. However, some editors-in-chief have been better informed about Stubb’s projects behind the scenes than others.
The fact that key government ministers have not once responded to the numerous questions posed in Parliament by MP Johannes Yrttiaho (left) about the lifting of the nuclear ban and discussions with NATO allies is illustrative of the information suppression. The ministers have remained silent, even though MPs should have unlimited access to information.
Yrttiaho has also not received support for his questions from any other MP, including from the Left Alliance.
Only now, for example, has Iltalehti begun to notice that Yrttiaho has been better informed about the course of events than other MPs and also many ministers, even though he has not received answers to his questions.
Finland joined NATO without any conditions
Under the leadership of President Niinistö, all parliamentary parties approved the decision that Finland would join the military alliance NATO without any conditions. The Social Democrats, the Left Alliance and the Greens in particular still owe their supporters an explanation as to why they did this.
When Finland joined NATO, it was publicly announced that there were no plans to change the nuclear weapons restrictions in the Nuclear Energy Act, let alone remove them. It was not known at the time that President Niinistö, Prime Minister Marin and Minister of Defense Kaikkonen had allegedly already promised NATO that the law restricting nuclear weapons would be changed later.
However, Antti Häkkänen, the deputy chairman of the opposition National Coalition Party, had already hinted several times at the time that the Nuclear Energy Act could be amended in the future. This is precisely why Markus Mustajärvi (left), the MP who proposed rejecting NATO membership in Parliament, proposed that Finland should not accept nuclear weapons, foreign bases or permanent foreign troops on its territory as an accompaniment to the NATO decision.
What attracted attention during the vote was that the MPs from the Left Alliance, led by Li Andersson, who supported NATO membership, did not support Mustajärvi’s proposal. They sat in their seats in the parliament chamber, but did not press the voting button at all. Mustajärvi’s proposal fell in the vote.
Prime Minister Orpo’s contradictory speeches
Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (Congress) said in an interview in Parliament on February 7, 2024, that it is clear that nuclear deterrence is an essential part of the deterrence that Finland needs, above all in relation to Russia. “We have a common starting point in building NATO-Finland, that we are very open. We look at the elements with which we integrate into NATO piece by piece.”
Transparency has actually been quite a long way from anything the Orpo government has done in removing restrictions on nuclear weapons.
During the Prime Minister’s interview session on February 18, 2024, Orpo stated, that, like President Stubb, he too believes there are strong grounds for allowing the transit of nuclear weapons. It would involve transporting nuclear weapons in Finnish airspace, waters and on land. According to Orpo, the president’s views are of importance when the issue is being considered in cooperation between the president and the government.
In a statement to STT on 6 March 2024, Orpo reminded that Finland had already decided when applying for NATO membership that there would be no restrictions on the content of membership. “However, details still remained to be resolved, such as how the possible transport of nuclear weapons through Finland will be approached in the future.”
The Prime Minister also stated that “it is important to also get an assessment from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence of what is necessary for Finland’s credible defence.” According to Orpo, the matter should be carefully assessed and investigated, and then discussed openly and parliamentaryly.
Orpo thinks it would be a good idea to make a policy, whatever it is.
Prime Minister Kristersson would allow nuclear weapons during war – Orpo does not
Prime Minister Orpo appeared on the radio together with Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson on 13 May 2024 in connection with the Nordic Prime Ministers’ Meeting. Yle’s Pirjo Auvinen said that Sweden and Finland have completely different positions on wartime nuclear weapons. “Sweden’s Kristersson would allow them on Swedish soil, Orpo would not change Finland’s current position.”
Kristersson saw no obstacles to NATO nuclear weapons being stationed in Sweden during wartime. According to Auvinen, there is a law in Sweden that prohibits nuclear weapons from being stationed on Swedish soil during peacetime. “It is completely different during wartime,” the Swedish Prime Minister repeated several times.
Orpo stated after the meeting of the Nordic prime ministers that Finland does not intend to follow the example of Sweden’s Kristersson. “We have now had a clear policy that there is no need to open the Nuclear Energy Act now and we can continue within the framework of the current legislation,” said Orpo.
So I saw Prime Minister Orpo in the spring of 2024.
Now, however, the sound on the clock is completely different.
——
https://naapuriseura.fi/en/demokraattinen-hulluus-uusi-normaali/
Jan Nybondas / 12.5.2024
American historian Eric Zuesse has said that modern imperialism began on July 25, 1945. This is, of course, an overstated claim because the United States had made imperialist moves much earlier. The Monroe Doctrine on the domination of South America was then already two hundred years old. And President FD Roosevelt complained that he could not trust his own State Department to sabotage his policies.
But Zuesse wanted to underline with his statement that the new President Harry Truman had been in contact with Josef Stalin on that day and had made demands on him about the control of Eastern Europe, which he knew were provocative.
Truman, who was inexperienced in foreign policy, had made a choice supported by his Advisers and started on his own initiative to seek that confrontation which in a short time was the leading so-called to the cold war. According to Zuesse, Roosevelt had envisioned friendly relations with the Soviet Union.
Stalin would have liked good relations with the United States
On August 9, 1945, the United States dropped its second Atomic Bomb on Japan. Historians have generally confirmed that although the victims of the bombing were the Japanese and their foreign forced labor, the Bomb was also directed towards the Soviet Union because it was wanted to make it understood that there was one power above all others in the world.
And so it was. The next day, Korea was divided in two by three people without asking anyone else, not the president, not the allies and especially not the Koreans themselves.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk and two experts, one from the War Department, as it was called at the time, gathered in a side room of the Department to examine a map of Korea. The expert drew a line at the 38th latitude, because that way the already significant capital Seoul at that time was included in its own zone.
The need to draw a line across Korea had been created by the rapid advance of the Red Army against the Japanese occupiers. The Soviet Union and the United States were allies, and the latter, through Roosevelt, had asked Stalin for help against Japan.
But when Japan was collapsing, plans changed. The Red Army could easily have taken over the entire peninsula. This had to be prevented. US troops were still on the islands of Okinawa and did not come to Korea until a month later.
Stalin accepted the division of the country because, firstly, it was supposed to be only temporary, and secondly, which few people know, Stalin would have wanted good relations with the United States in the future, because he faced the huge challenge of Rebuilding his own country.
The irony of history is that the same demarcation line remained in force after the Korean War, which began only five years later.
The CIA became a state within a state
At the end of the World War, the economic superiority of the United States was overwhelming. Its own area was untouched and the industry built on it was the most modern in the world. The other great powers had suffered great material damage, and the Soviet Union in particular had lost a huge number of its young generation of labor as victims of the war.
The United States was not shy about using its superiority to its advantage, it was recognized not only by those defined as enemies, but also by the former mother country England, which was forced to become a “junior partner” in the new world order.
So the new currency system planned by the Economist John Maynard Keynes was rejected, and the United States established a system based on the dollar, which in its corrected form is still valid, offering its founder an “exorbitant advantage”, exorbitant privilege, as Economist Barry Eichengreen or French President Valery Giscard-d’Estaing have defined it.
Thanks to its economic supremacy, the United States could build a series of Pillars for its new imperialism, each of which strengthened its power in its own way. The most obvious of these was the MIC, a military industrial conglomerate that quickly became a political Powerhouse to such an extent that it prompted President Eisenhower in his Farewell speech to warn of its power, even though he himself had been building it.
A new Intelligence service, the CIA, joined the side of the military industrial alliance, which quickly began to develop into a state within a state. President Truman later said he regretted that the organization was created in the way and with the authority he did. And President Kennedy said the CIA should be torn into a thousand pieces and given to the wind.
But the CIA was even more powerful than the president. The president was assassinated and there is a fairly large Consensus among researchers that the CIA was the background force behind the murder, (see eg James W. Douglass: “JFK and the Unspeakable”) even though its operating methods included delegating the dirty work to subcontractors.
“Plausible deniability” is the name of the method, sufficient distance from the actual perpetrators. When the well-known judge Andrew Napolitano asked outgoing President Trump in 2020 why he broke his promise to release the Murder investigation documents, according to Napolitano, Trump replied: “Judge, if you had seen what I saw, you wouldn’t have released them either.”
Junk entertainment has an effective effect
In addition to hard power, imperialism can also benefit from soft power. Here, the United States has succeeded more than anything in realizing what earlier Empires could only dream of.
Since the 1950s, the Hollywood film and entertainment industry has produced, for the world’s pleasure or pain, movies and television entertainment products that have saturated the world market up to “enemy countries”. Artistic quality has been steadily declining.
Charlie Chaplin was smoked out, and after him the actual Creators of Cinematography have hardly been seen in Hollywood, with the exception of Hitchcock, Kubrick and a few others.
It is paradoxical that one of the Greatest film directors in the second half of the 1900th century, at least if Ingmar Bergman is to be believed, was Andrei Tarkovsky, who worked in the Soviet Union, where, according to the story, there should not have been any artistic freedom. Artists’ own mutual respect is uncompromising, and for Bergman, Tarkovski was unsurpassed.
Italy and France were good at first, but only for a couple of decades. It is also paradoxical that junk entertainment has an even more effective effect in those countries that do not know how to place entertainment in its proper framework. In the country of origin, the gap between entertainment and reality is understood, in a foreign country, the gap cannot be detected.
The worst affected by junk entertainment are the developing countries that have lacked their own production, which would have even to some extent protected their own culture. Czech-American Writer Andre Vltchek mentioned Indonesia ten years ago as such a sad example.
Contracts for the scrap yard
Eric Zuesse has also astutely observed that the Cold War continued in practice and regardless of rhetoric directly after the Soviet Union was dissolved and its economic system dismantled.
The world declared the end of the Cold War and expected the “dividends” brought by peace, which never came. But this was just a blur. According to Zuesse, the first steps were taken by George Bush Sr., and his actions were continued by Bill Clinton.
The treaties with Russia and its predecessor, the Soviet Union, were as temporary as the treaties of the expanding settler state, the United States, with Native American tribes. They were thrown into the scrap bin as soon as one’s position was confirmed. The power of the Soviet Union had been respected to the extent that significant treaties limiting the arms race had been agreed upon with it. Now these contracts were canceled just as a matter of notification.
Even the Closest Allies are not spared
The new cold war took on new forms compared to the old one, which even weakened the world’s security situation. This was because the United States believed it had won the Cold War and then came to the conclusion that its relative power position was unattainable by others. At the very least, the lead had to be maintained and preferably increased. Guidelines can be found in many papers. One such is Zbigniew Brzezinski’s chessboard work, where eg The position of Ukraine will be brought to the center.
Few people know that Ukraine had been on the CIA’s agenda since the late 1940s. Russia had to be destabilized by taking advantage of Ukraine. This article could not even list all the wars, coups or their attempts that the United States has carried out in both the first and second phases of the Cold War. Those who want such a thing can get eg William Blum’s works on the subject.
Some Wars were Bloody and destructive, and in others, the coups were carried out almost with pocket money, such as the coup in favor of the Shah in Iran in 1953. Recently, Pakistan’s popular Prime Minister Imran Khan was ousted from power at the insistence and support of the United States, without the western press even mentioning it as a coup. In Brazil, Presidents Dilma Roussef and Lula da Silva were pushed aside alternately by domestic forces but with external guidance.
Even the Closest Allies are not spared if they have strayed from the path of obedience. Gough Whitlam experienced this in Australia in the 1970s. He is probably the last independent leader of his country until he was overthrown by his own country’s Intelligence service.
Arms industry tentacles
CIA Intelligence Veteran Ray MacGovern has said that the military-industrial complex has grown new branches and that it should now be called MINIMAC and not just MIC.
The current branches are not only the arms industry, intelligence, media and the academic world. Right now Suomen YLE has shown a documentary about Ronald Reagan’s so-called About the Contra scandal. It can be used to visually compare how at that time both the media and the political opposition still performed their respective tasks.
Today, the media has become a branch of the administration that produces propaganda, and the opposition is no longer visible in foreign policy. All are of the same complex, to which can be added the economic changes that have brought the new oligarch class into the same group.
The tentacles of the oligarch class, in turn, extend to international cooperation, which has gradually eroded as it has gotten private financiers to drive their interests. A good or bad example of this is the WHO, which has been controlled by its financier Bill Gates and his background group.
“The United States is a plutocracy,” even former President Jimmy Carter stated. In the 1990s, the United States began to demand more and more say in the UN, on the grounds that it assisted the organization the most. It is said that UN Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali was the last independent leader of the organization. Since then, the leaders have been front figures chosen by the United States, and the people who actually lead the organization have been placed in the background.
The same trend has been in the sub-organizations. Most recently, the activities of the OPCW, or the chemical weapons monitoring department, have been exposed, firstly because its former head was fired for “lack of obedience”, and secondly, because its new leadership was caught manipulating a research report concerning the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.
The rulers of the Empire live in the past
The second phase of the Cold War is prone to explosion, because the world-dominating empire, the United States, does not agree to equal diplomatic activity with other great powers, not to mention smaller states.
After all, it has happened that the conditions for Brzezinski and others like him to devise strategies have deteriorated faster than anyone could have predicted. Supremacy is disappearing at an accelerating rate. At the same time, the rulers of the Empire live in the past and do not want to acknowledge that the world has changed.
The Western powers grouped around the United States have always represented a minority of the world’s nations, but now they are faced with a new situation when the rest of the world has a larger and ever-growing economy as a counterforce.
China and India are reclaiming their place as the world’s largest economies, the place they held five hundred years ago. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen recently defined the situation as “China has overproduction”. The financial sector of the West, which has been playing casino games since the 90s, cannot find an answer to the challenge of China and the global south.
The West cannot subjugate Russia
Former Empires resorted to wars when they saw their position threatened. Today, the big states have at their disposal such great destructive forces that the traditional way of measuring mutual strength is not realistically available.
But can the United States think realistically when it is clear that its political judgment has weakened across party lines compared to the situation of the same country under such an eccentric leader as Ronald Reagan?
The United States has tried to resort to proxy war in Ukraine, where it began to seek a new political order through color revolutions, the first of which took place already twenty years ago, following the Teachings of Brzezinski.
The coup on the Maidan in 2014 led by President Barack Obama led to a civil war in the already strongly divided Ukraine, in which Russia intervened in 2022.
Russia had already warned the United States since 2008 that it would not allow a foreign military alliance to enter its borders, and the Ambassadors had conveyed the messages with clear emphasis. But the United States did not want to negotiate because it was specifically looking for an armed conflict, believing that it would collapse Russia both economically and politically, and also weaken its defense. This can be read in the RAND think tank paper from 2019.
When things seem to develop exactly the opposite of what was planned, we find ourselves in a dead end from which we cannot find a way out. America’s own military experts, those independent of the central government, have concluded that neither the United States nor the united West can subdue Russia with conventional weapons.
So what does the West do to save face? France’s recent Threat led to such a strong reaction from Moscow that the former hastened to announce that it is not seeking a change of government in Russia, and as a surer guarantee sent its Ambassador to Honor the inauguration of the Russian president in Moscow.
A first short step in the right direction, but will other countries in the Western camp follow?
——
MY COMMENT:
Regarding Nybondas’s disagreement with my statements “that modern imperialism began on July 25, 1945.: This is, of course, an overstated claim because the United States had made imperialist moves much earlier. The Monroe Doctrine on the domination of South America was then already two hundred years old. And President FD Roosevelt complained that he could not trust his own State Department to sabotage his policies.”:
The Monroe Doctrine was not an effort at winning control over the entire world, but U.S. President Harry Truman’s telling Stalin on 25 July 1945 that the nations the Soviet Union had freed from Hitler must be ruled in ways that the U.S. Government approves, though the Soviet Union must have no say-so about the ways that the nations the U.S. and UK had freed from Hitler will be ruled, was of an entirely different order — a demand that all nations must accept America’s supremacy over the entire world — or else will be at war (cold then but much hotter now) against the U.S. I documented HERE, and HERE, and HERE, that this decision by Truman has been taken up by all U.S. Presidents after him (except JFK, who was assassinated with the cooperation of, if not by, the Truman-created CIA), and so Truman’s decision made then shapes the world today. Furthermore, as I documented, that decision by Truman reversed what had been FDR’s foreign policies and international goals.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
"It was part of American billionaires’ longstanding effort to conquer Russia in order to take over the world." - who are they?
Answer - DaSynagogue of Satan! Who dey?
https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Synagogue+if+Satan+&m=1
No - they are not all jews - there are tens of millions of evangelical zionists who are the main political support of Old Scratch! In fact - without their vital support - DSOS would be a minor irritant.
Great writing! If 5 percent of Americans would read and understand the impact of this . America could be saved from the fascist, Oligarchical Empire it has been since 1860.