Haavisto's promise in the 2024 presidential election:
"For me, being Finnish means a strong sense of belonging, security and the ability to prepare for the future. We live in times where there are dark clouds above us, but it has been like that before. Together, each of us Finns can do things for a more hopeful future.
The president's most important task is to ensure peace and Finland's security. The president's responsibility is also that we Finns can keep our heads cool and our hearts warm both at home and around the world.
I am a candidate because I care about Finland's future and the position requires experience, calmness and a wide network. We each have our own values, but for all of us, Finland is worth defending, peace and caring for."
Haaivisto's career
Pekka Haavisto is a Member of Parliament, former Foreign Minister of Finland and presidential candidate in 2024. Pekka is a peace negotiator and defender of democracy and human rights.
Haavisto is particularly experienced in foreign policy and international tasks. He has led the investigation of the environmental effects of wars and represented the EU and the UN in crises around the world.
Haavisto has also written numerous books. His favorite hobbies are literature, bubble jackets and wooden boats.
Familiarize yourself with Haavisto's domestic and international tasks, duties of trust and publications from here.
62 comments on the post “Pekka Haavisto: The president's most important task is to ensure peace and Finland's security"
Reply
You must log in to comment.
Now I have to put the first critical feedback. I would hope that Naapuriseura was a political group out there, at least what is understood by politics at the moment in Finland. The best thing to do would be to abstain from voting. All the candidates are the drivers of the USA and NATO agenda and they are not, at least in relation to Russia, trying to mend the differences, but on the contrary they are destroying and have already destroyed. Let's vote and then be chosen in an election, when the dirty nest of the Finnish girl has been cleaned.
Come on! Unbelievable that Naapuriseuran Lehtinen condescends to advertise this betrayer of the Finnish people! I never thought I would be reading this. pamphlet here.
I remind you; the electoral law exists. We just keep quiet about it like a mouse on a pee. 100% media silence. The Electoral Act has not been repealed. That is, if the voter turnout falls below 40, then the election result will be annulled, invalidated, and then it will be necessary to organize new elections with new candidates. This time, only by abstaining from voting can we make an impact - our only chance to finally get SpongeBob to join us!
The nickname Che Guevara conveys false information about Finland's electoral law. In our country's election season, there is no regulation regarding any type of election that the result of the election is not valid if the voting activity falls below a certain level of activity. In some countries, referendum results are only valid if voting activity is higher than some minimum level. The only effect of not voting is that the person who does not vote leaves the outcome of the election up to those of us who do vote. From social media, one gets the impression that some of those who do not vote are of the opinion that the candidate they support should be elected as president, and not the candidate supported by the majority who exercise their right to vote in the elections.
Thank you, but never the supposed man who signed Finland's accession to NATO and who thinks a man can give birth. Practically no different from other candidates. I prefer not to vote and reevaluate the activities of the Neighborhood Association when it becomes like this. However, I already guessed this when the editor-in-chief was hinting at who to vote for. Besides, the decision about Finland's joining Biden's war is made somewhere else than in the Finnish Presidential Office, voting for any of those candidates supports NaTO's war policy, and the fact that Haavisto has often been caught lying outright when it comes to immigration matters, has brought in e.g. Isis terrorists (Al-Hol e.g.)
I'm not going to vote for Haavisto or anyone else in this election. It is better to be wise in advance. If I were to vote, I would most likely regret it and say: "I voted for such an idiot". Few people ever regret not voting.
That feeling when you realize you authorized the wrong person...!
I myself have sometimes made the mistake of voting for the wrong person, and I will definitely remember and regret it for a long time, at least for me. Now I won't make the mistake of not voting. I understand people who struggle with the choice of a person, then in their opinion, the worst is chosen. However, you could continue to think about the smallest evil and not vote sometimes, so you won't regret it later. Especially if you don't go to vote and deceive yourself.
I voted for Li Andersson, who is the least warmonger! The practice of warfare has been taken to new spheres with climate fighters, so that no one's lungs can withstand this. In addition, indebtedness increases when Putin's half-free kerosene is not good for the generals!!!
A good argument for choosing Li, but in practice your vote will be wasted because he has no chance of making it to the second round. Due to tactics, the result of the election does not tell the true support of the candidates, but the reason is not the voters, but the electoral system. Probably that article in favor of Haavisto has just been published, e.g. due to the fact that Haavisto seems to have opportunities even up to the presidency. And of course because he would be perhaps the least bad of those who have a chance of being elected.
According to Gallup, do you think you should vote? Gallup joined NATO, isn't that enough? The least Russian hater is Li!
Very nice if Li doesn't hate Russia. The polls may even be manipulated, but they still tell something. But even otherwise, it is easy to conclude that Li has no chance of becoming president. Unfortunately, many become candidates and nominate candidates just to gain visibility for themselves and their party.
Li's chances would have been that he would have clearly stood out next to the candidates who hate Russia, as the only candidate clearly pushing for peace. I haven't been following the election programs, but at least the parliamentary policy of the left-wing coalition does not tell about Li's will for peace or his desire for friendship with our neighbor.
The situation in our country is so dark that it is almost impossible for anyone who speaks the truth about the crisis in Ukraine, Russia and the United States to be elected to anything. The reason, of course, is that the people have been brainwashed into believing lies about these subjects.
Otherwise, on what basis would Li be the least warmonger? If I were convinced, I might still vote for him 🙂 However, if I want Haavisto in the second round (instead of Stubb or Halla-aho), I might still vote for him.
I thought for a long time whether to vote for Li Andesson or Pekka Haavisto. I voted for Andersson for reasons of principle,
because I estimate Haavisto to be among the two. Now the situation is different. Two candidates, neither of them
does not represent my own worldview and values. We know the situation in the world in matters of war and peace.
In my opinion, the selection is carried out in the so-called between "two evils", one of which adopts the line "just go for it and good luck"
principle and the other a more moderate line in some matters. My choice is Haavisto. Abstention from voting
is a bad option, because then there is a greater chance for the US whistleblower to be elected president of Finland
dentist. A classic has said the following: "Cooperation should be done even with the devil if it is useful
for the working class".
You took my feet out of my mouth, the same echo is the steps. I don't think you can find a more repulsive politician in the Finnish chamber than Stubb, a school bully born with a golden spoon in his mouth. VMP.
In Finland, the whole green idea has been reduced to nothing more than a joke. The principle of these visions and what-ifs is "do not as I do, but as I say". Haavisto's "credits" are a little vague tinkering here and there (travels by plane, of course). Maybe a tolerable president could have been assembled out of those things, but the NATO vote broke the ball. A clear NO vote for the victim, as well as for all other candidates.
The question is not for me, but most obviously because it has been estimated that Haaviston is more likely to prevent the war than Stubb or Halla-aho.
Thanks for this article. I already thought that I would vote for Haavisto, because just with this character it is so difficult to give up the hope that Finland would get a president who would be able to creatively get us out of this impasse into which we have now been driven under the leadership of Niinistö, that I was already thinking of grabbing this Haavisto as the last straw.
There were a lot of critical comments about Haavisto here, and I thought that I don't have a lot of trust in him either, but I went to look at the link that was in this article: Has Haavisto written any of his thoughts on peace on his blog? - Well, we found e.g. his speech:
"Peace must be promoted based on Ukraine's own plan, the so-called Zelensky's Peace Formula. Positively, the discussion on the arrangements related to the future of Ukraine and to the security commitments has progressed in recent months, and the EU is ready to participate in them together with its partners.
More often, instead of discussing whether Ukraine should be involved in our economic and security institutions, we discuss the timeline. Ukraine in NATO and the EU, while a longer project, is an issue of when instead of whether. This is how we demonstrate readiness for long-term support of Ukraine's security and anchoring Ukraine as part of Euro-Atlantic security.”
"Europe must not – cannot – get tired of the war. It is important that the EU maintains its unity and the desire to help Ukraine. Ukraine's cause is our cause. Their fight is our fight. We must stand with Ukraine as long as it is needed.”…
- Oh crap! It seems that Haavistonka's desire for peace is not realistic.
I will miss SpongeBob. There are militant candidates available to Finns. The worst possible situation would be when Stubb and Halla-aho were nearing the end.
Apparently, the Dems will vote for Haavisto, but the passage with their votes doesn't look good either. I will vote for Pekka Haavisto with my teeth and I sincerely hope that even a small path of peace will open up through it. This sick, fear-mongering war mongering should end. I respect and understand those who don't want to vote. The situation is difficult, but together we hope for a day when reason will prevail.
Don't vote for anyone, but if you still can't resist going to the ballot box, vote for Li Andersson instead of Haavisto. Or if you have an election ticket in your hand and are wondering who to vote for, draw a damn picture, etc.
Note! The electoral law exists. There is 100% media silence about it. That is, if the voting percentage falls below 40, the election result will be annulled and invalidated. It is necessary to hold new elections with new candidates. By abstaining, we can make a difference - our only chance.
Good nickname Che Guevara, there is no lower limit of voting activity in Finland's election law that should be exceeded in order to achieve a legally binding election result. Stop spreading that fake news.
Many of us voters have been faced with an agonizing choice. No party or support group has nominated a viable candidate. We have to decide whether we will not vote or whether we will try to find the candidate who best meets our own expectations in terms of carrying out the duties of the president. Those who do not vote justify their decision either that the turnout falls below the set limit (40%) and the elections have to be repeated, or that the candidates are simply all equally ineligible. Passivity is protest.
The hope of renewing the elections is pointless. There really isn't one of the candidates who, through their speeches or actions, has shown that they are pursuing such things as NATO and the USA's goals and fighting the war in Ukraine. If a candidate announces during the election that he does not accept the defense cooperation agreement between Finland and the USA, then I can support him. When such an impossible thing cannot be achieved now, the question can still be raised whether the candidates have any difference specifically in terms of the management of the office of the president. Realistically, the question is focused on the three top candidates in the polls, Stubb, Haavisto and Halla-aho, two of whom will make it to the second round. At this age, I no longer have a moral need for any ideological reason to support a candidate who cannot continue.
Here are brief summaries of these three candidates in terms of Finland's international position.
Jussi Halla-aho himself has built a nationalist model of thought in which Finland should be isolated from the rest of the world, the borders closed and we are protected from all evil. Of course, like the rest of the political elite, he thinks that Russia is the biggest threat, but he has not learned this from American propaganda, but it is one key part of his xenophobia. Russians are almost not even human. It's not worth talking to them. Halla-aho uses NATO and the United States as interludes in his campaign against Russia. Russia or many people in the Middle East or Africa hardly want to talk to him.
Alexander Stubb is an ambitious globalist who has fully embraced the American narrative in which the United States unilaterally rules the world with a rules-based system of its own making. He has declared himself the NATO president who takes instructions directly from the United States, no matter who is in charge there. Stubb has sold Finland to the USA and would give our country as an intermediary for the USA in its pursuit of the breakup of Russia. Stubb will discuss with Russia if he receives permission from the United States. Another question is whether Russia wants to talk with a president who does not have his own view of Finnish politics.
Pekka Haavisto is also a globalist, who has been naively misled into believing the stories of the collective West about defending democracy and freedom. In accordance with that misconception, he now supports NATO because, according to public opinion, he believes that NATO membership improves the security of our country. However, I don't see him thinking of Finland as NATO's intermediary against Russia (like Stubb) or, on the contrary, NATO as Finland's way to crush Russia (like Halla-aho). Haavisto's worldview is apparently the most flexible and correctable in the light of realistic information and real events. In the office of the president, he is forced to ask about the consequences of the choices and also take into account the views of a large neighboring country. He says that his goal is specifically the interest of Finland, and in the light of his experience, he sees that it is best realized through international cooperation. His views can best be influenced even after he has been elected to the position, and I believe that Russia is also ready to talk with him.
Russia cannot say anything about this now, because it would immediately be accused of hybrid influence. Based on the above-mentioned very simplified reasoning, which contains many assumptions, I will vote for Haavisto in the first round, above all, to knock out Halla-aho. I have to make my voting decision based on uncertain information, but there are grounds for the above conclusions. Voting is a rational option. I would certainly regret that by not voting, Halla-aho would become the president, who won't listen to my complaints.
Whether a candidate approves of nuclear weapons or not is practically irrelevant if Parliament ratifies the DCA.
When the Yankees ship their munitions here, citizens of no other country have the right to inspect the cargo or stores. So they can bring here whatever they want. The Finnish law does not extend to the areas handed over to the Yankees. The Russians know this, which is not a good thing for Finland.
If Andesson, Haavisto and whoever the third one was won't accept nukes here under any circumstances, then they shouldn't accept DCA.
How they will vote remains to be seen until after the elections.
My guess is that they want to be part of the same herd of sheep that the wolves are leading.
If Haavisto becomes president, he won't be voting, but he would probably seal the deal with a cute EU poodle signature look, which would still lose to Häkkäspärstä's recent American whine.
Many people have to wonder if they are only voting for tactical reasons, even though the thoughts of each top candidate are deep, some even deeper, for example Hullu-uho. And Stubido is just a stupido, even a CIA stupido.
One positive case comes to mind from Haavisto, where he tried to get children and women to Finland from the miserable camp conditions.
It must have been the opposition groups of the two first-mentioned when they robbed Haavisto right on the job. In that case, Haavisto was the only upright man.
But all the rest of Haavisto's nonsense .. not good, no.
1 point for Haavisto. A total of 0 points for a fascist and an American poodle.
Does that make 10? Let everyone go nuts.
Anyone who opposes Yankee bases can visit the address adressit.com and read the articles on the site eitukikohtia.fi
Juutube also has a recent and highly recommended video of the meeting where the DCA agreement was discussed. It's worth watching, at least listening to.
https://youtu.be/BIOIVu1acA8?feature=shared
Wasn't watchable anymore!
The link copied from YouTube seemed to have some extra character. Below are the links, all of which should open a video.
https://rumble.com/v47yo0h-dca-keskustelu-turussa-13.1.2024.html
https://archive.org/details/dca-keskustelutilaisuus-turku
https://youtu.be/BlOlVu1acA8
Thanks for the link, at least it was still available in Rumble. A high-quality discussion about the content of the DCA agreement and the risks hidden in it, information that I wish every Finn could reach!
Apparently, the management of Naapuriseura thinks that it is necessary to choose the lesser evil. It is quite unlikely that the turnout would be so low that new elections would have to be held.
Perhaps of these three, Halla-aho, Stubb and Haavisto, Haavisto is the least NATO-minded, even though he says in the above interview quote that Ukraine joining NATO is a matter of time. In my opinion, it shows a poor understanding of geopolitics and Russia. But could it be increased in office?
But still, even if Haavisto is the least bad for me, I'm still not going to vote. Of course, you could drop the blank one, but I think I already threw the ballots in the trash...
Stop this nonsense now that the elections should be renewed if voter turnout remains very low. There is no lower limit of activity in Finland's election law, at which the election should be renewed at a lower level of activity. The president can be legally elected, even if only one person goes to vote.
Wasn't Pekka, for his part, diverting currency traffic to Russia? When Russia announced that gas and oil bills will be paid in rubles in the future, Pekka torpedoed and the money flow stopped completely. And the extra point was that if a bank transfer goes to Russia, the bank's commission is €5000/invoice.
Yes, we are far from a man of peace here.
I totally agree with your post! These Pekka glows were under the threshold!
Now the delivery of Naapuriseuran Sanomat would really clean the nest. This least evil article could have been left unpublished. If only Mauno would tell the reason for the writing.
Actions do not speak for themselves, nor do H. Haavisto's speeches before the election campaign. Haavisto is simply a WEF globalist. Total destruction president.
Based on the news reports and columns/articles so far, I consider Naapuriseuran Sanom to be a very good, welcome publication and a counterweight to the propagandistic bullshit of the mainstream media.
If you necessarily want to ride pedophilia, the rainbow flag and transsexuality, NSS is the wrong address.
In this field, Uusi MV-lehti is working hard to improve itself, so if these things are close to your heart, it's worth staying on its sites to seek satisfaction.
From there you can get a good dose of rape by migrants and plenty of conspiracy news about covid. However, let me mention that I didn't wear a mask and I didn't get spiked. I still don't consider myself anti-vaccine.
With the exception of the click title, I will not read all of the above-mentioned productions from the aforementioned publication, because in my opinion they do not represent common sense.
NSS and MV magazine both have good articles. The difference between the two is that the former does not have the dross that takes credibility away from the entire publication.
You should stay away from media that irritates you. I myself notice that I'm mentally cleansed when I haven't been to, say, Hesar's click headline jungle and been force-fed the day's Markkanes or helmeted rink rinks, whose pictures flash among all the war propaganda and idle sleaze like nothing else.
So empty, so unnecessary.
Well, haven't most of the scumbags already been let out,,,As far as I understand, the editorial cheats the ending, where "evil" and "lesser evil" are against each other, and "lesser evil" wins...
The arrangement has been achieved, the final result is still "covered in darkness"..
I feel that the story in favor of Haavisto is in line with the Seura's line (good neighborhood, i.e. in this case, as good a neighborhood as possible), although the assessment of Haavisto's "betterness" is really only an assessment. On the other hand, the Society's editors are certainly better on the map of candidates than, for example, me. A short justification for voting for Haavisto (although I myself don't know how correct the reasoning is):
1) Only Haavisto, Halla-aho and Stubb practically have a chance to be elected. So one of these will be the next president of Finland, regardless of who we vote for or whether we vote at all.
2) The most important thing in these times and in this election is whether there will be a war in Finland or not (Russia does not want it, but it depends entirely on what Finland does and what happens in Finland). As Mauno Saari well wrote: "The most important thing is peace. Nothing else is even second most important."
3) Halla-aho's hatred of Russia is well known. We also know Stubb's hatred of Russia and his idealization of the "West". In my opinion, these can be defined as hopeless cases. Otherwise, Haavisto is probably an equally hopeless case in his Russophobia, but he might be a little (decisively?) less warmongering and idealizing the "West" in everything. A layman doesn't know the difference between the plague and cholera, but I'd choose cholera if I were a mutt.
The question is precisely that by voting for Haavisto, the aim is to prevent the two most dangerous presidential candidates for Finland - Stubb and Halla-aho - from becoming president. The idea is not to present Haavisto's excellence, but to prevent the worst possible scenario. None of the other candidates probably have a chance to make it to the second round, but Haavisto does. We don't have a single good candidate. Now, however, good advice is expensive, because the election of an American agent or a person who thirsts to kill Russians must be prevented. In this situation, Haavisto is the only one who can win these, and therefore his becoming president is the least evil, as bad an option as it is. This conclusion is realism. In my opinion, the dissidents should not dig into their potties and try to work together to make sure that the worst possible option for Finland does not come true. Of course, everyone makes their own decisions, but I think NSS is now trying to save Finland from complete destruction and that is right.
It is true that we have to live in a Finland led by one of these. Whoah.
I am very afraid that the younger voters will lean towards Stubb's position just because of his energetic presentation style and youthful habitus. The other candidates are somehow "dumb" compared to him. Stubb seems the most energetic of these candidates just because of his outgoing and quick personality. That's what attracts young people.
For many of the older crowd, Haavisto's homosexuality is an insurmountable obstacle, they prefer to choose Stubb. Which is worse: a couple of men opening Linna's party, or a Nato-kohjo as president? It completely depends on the evaluator's worldview.
I remember that when same-sex marriage was decided ten years ago, the numbers in the parliament were surprisingly tight 105-92. That is, there is a large group of people who did not accept this law at the time, i.e. the voters of those 92 representatives, who probably have the same style of values as the MPs they elected. Would they have changed their world view on this matter in the past ten years?
That was well said.
I have been following the Naapurusto page created by Mauno Saari for about a year and a half. I have been satisfied with critical comments on the interpretations of contemporary media - without excessive enthusiasm. Now, however, the reaction to the Haavisto case exceeds all my understanding: In my opinion, Mauno presented the only sensible proposal; why: the basic issue is for us to block Alex. To get there, Haavisto needs to get to the second round. So votes for Haavisto.
Secondly, as a follower of NSS : aa, I am surprised that completely inappropriate comments have crept in among the reasonable comments: pedophilia, child whore, etc... Isn't the place for these comments somewhere else. E.g. Overboard. Invoking non-voting and the election law is mostly ridiculous. Number 10 in the first election - they even try to block America's Finnish representative.
I agree about the wrongdoings, and about Haavisto as well. We try to protect the site's object-oriented atmosphere, without falling into emotional excesses.
Haavisto and Stubb go to the second round.
Unfortunately, Stubb is chosen. Women's votes are not enough for Haavisto's victory.
Stubb remains president for one term, when his unfitness is generally noticed.
As a result of reflection, I will not vote in either round.
I would have voted for Väyryse if it had been possible, and even watched the exams.
NATO-Finland and likely DCA-Finland will get the president it deserves.
"Pekka Haavisto is a Member of Parliament, former Foreign Minister of Finland and presidential candidate in 2024. Pekka is a peace negotiator and a defender of democracy and human rights."
- How is the defense of human rights suddenly interesting when the human rights violations committed by Russia are completely denied?
Elections are the reason. H. Pekka does Zelensky, that's what Zeleki promised before the election that he would mend relations with Moscow and there would be no wars. yup yup.
So do you mean that the Neighboring Society would ban the human rights violations committed by Russia? I haven't noticed that.
But is Finland a judge or a doctor in international relations? Kekkonen said that the doctor.
But if we are going to judge, we have to read the same law book for all states. For example, to Saudi Arabia, where half of the people, i.e. women, do not have human rights.
Finland's exports to the Saudis were 227 million euros in 2023. Relations broken! Or should we put Foreign Minister Valtonen there to demand change from the Saudi government in women's human rights issues? Or else…! What about Israel? China?
Secondly, haven't we seen from the destructive actions of the USA in the Middle East that democracy is not an export product. It must be cultivated and created by each nation.
Thanks for correcting the mistake, which you apparently tried several times in this thread!
Che Quevara could be more precise with his facts, just like all of us who write here, because we are already accused of being liars.
I appreciate that Heikki you take the trouble to comment here, after all, dialogue is sought here, not just the hum of like-minded people. That dialogue would also be needed in the mainstream media. Patomäki tried, with not very good results.
So this comment was for Heikki Paloheimo, it went to the wrong place.
"mommo papa seura" egg now maybe in itself. 😁
So the Naapuriseurako egged on by supporting Haavisto, who finished second in the first round, or is he a globalist? Or your dick because some random writer here made a typo, intentional or unintentional? – Could you express yourself a little more clearly?
I remind you that Naapuriseura is not a single-minded monolith, as the Finnish mainstream media is at the moment. There are presumably writers here from many different backgrounds and age groups, and I don't think that, for example, I myself agree with the members of the Neighboring Society on all issues in the world, not even on all issues concerning Russia. This is a forum for a variety of critical thinkers.
Do you have a bad relationship with your own grandparents, as you consider the experience and perspective brought by age somehow embarrassing or harmful? I read it between the lines. Are they dust? Still, don't generalize your own negative experience to all "grandmas" and "dads"!
At least the elderly don't constantly wonder if they've embarrassed themselves or if their hair is fine.
Sister, it's great that you care(?)🙏 . I don't, anymore.
Well, actually I think we will inevitably drift into war with Russia on the side of NATO. But yes, I still care about the truth.
A bit wanted to intervene in the same matter. In the photo, Haavisto has a funny expression. I guess they tried to find an "American" look for the face in the photo studio. Another thing is those teeth. The entire line-up seems to have been renewed. Implants, probably. One way or another... image politics rushes into Finland and the truth & facts can be forgotten.
Self-censorship wouldn't be a bad thing..
So back to the point. I just heard the blood-curdling idea of researcher Jyri Lavikainen on the radio:
"NATO must show Russia that it is capable of taking tough decisions if necessary in order to preserve peace in Europe. — We are talking about an aggressive, expansionist state (Russia, that is) that looks at everything in terms of strength and weakness. If we can convince it that here we are really ready to do things in an extreme situation, then we will be able to maintain peace in Europe."
Lavikainen seems to know exactly what the Russian leadership thinks about the West's nuclear weapons in Finland (or Ukraine) and that they would specifically have an effect of restraining belligerence. I think this is just an assumption. Increasing fear in Russia does not really increase security.
"If we can convince Russia that we are ready to do things.." Apparently, Lavikainen is reluctant to use the word "nuclear attack", but prefers to talk about "doing things". Propagandist. Bringing the idea to the consciousness of Finns.
He is a researcher at the Foreign Policy Institute, of course. In my opinion, it is the most unreliable scientific research institute in Finland at the moment. It seems that all researchers there have been hit by some kind of thought virus that harmonizes the chains of reasoning. When has someone there talked about the importance of diplomacy and the necessity of negotiations?
It may be that nuclear weapons will become the difference between Stubb and Haavisto. I hope so at least. It could make it possible for Haavisto to win, if the Finns still have any ability to think for themselves. And a healthy sense of fear.
I would also add that he is indeed talking about nuclear weapons, it didn't show in my quotes:
Yle: "Lavikainen, on the other hand, thinks it's good that nuclear deterrence is being developed in NATO. According to him, preparations should be made in Europe before the situation turns into a crisis, so that the use of force does not seem reasonable to Russia."
I also happened to hear Lavikainen's declarations...I got the impression that UPI's "researchers" are competing with each other for the most outrageous statements about Russia. Sometimes I wonder about UPI's "singleness" in YLE's news work. For the sake of fairness and variety, they could also ask the researchers of the Aksanteri Institute for an opinion.
So. When I watched the election results night, where Mika Aaltola was interviewed, it occurred to me that perhaps the purpose of his presidential campaign was just to dominate the public debate even in the presidential game with these views supporting the NATO and USA line of UPI. When there were, as it were, more candidates in the selection, who repeat these similar extreme views emphasizing armaments and war preparations, then they would start to seem normal?
The director of the Aleksanteri Institute, Markku Kangaspuro, has at least been critical of NATO and acted, e.g. In the Peace Defenders, so his positions are probably too moderate for YLE's programs.
However, when I went to listen to Kangaspuro's presentation after the start of the Russian military intervention, he also started his speech somehow in the same style "Russia's brutal and completely unprovoked war of aggression..." or at least something like that - a bit naively I have wondered if they all agreed somewhere, that use the same phrases and expressions, or are they just subconsciously copying each other's speech? At the time, Finland had just made the decision to export weapons to Ukraine, and I was surprised at the time that Finland had abandoned its long-standing and good principle of not exporting weapons to countries in the middle of a military conflict. I then asked Kangaspuro if the Peace Defenders should make a petition to the parliament related to this arms export decision. Kangapuro said that it "probably should", but as far as I know, the Peace Defenders led by him did not prepare such a plan.
I think your idea that Aaltola was involved in a propagandistic sense seems possible. At least he had a pretty big election budget of 100 e, coming from outside the parties. Was the popular popularity really that big, when that popularity evaporated pretty soon anyway?
And yes, Aaltola normalized the presentation of Russia as a threat with his scientific prestige. Some columnist wrote that he became a candidate because he spoke calmly on TV…
It is true that UPI has been on TV the entire time since the war broke out.
The boss of the Alexander Institute, Kangasharju, from what I've seen, seems to understand Russia's perspectives on things a little better than the people of Upi.
Johanna Vuorelma at the Center for European Studies at the University of Helsinki seems to have said even at Yle that the expansion of NATO has a part in this war. That is quite radical talk these days. In a recent column, Yelella presented four different scenarios about the war in Ukraine, which is an attempt to bring out different perspectives, not just one interpretation of reality.
I'm sorry if I'm already taking the thread away from the original topic.
It would be great if there was a discussion area on the Naapuriseura website where members could start discussion topics. There would probably be no shortage of them. I mean, for example, current observations about the current flow of information and disinformation and discussion about them. There are also people here who follow French or Russian sources, their observations would be interesting.
Fabric creek.
Kangasharju is a financial puppet who has been seen and heard in the media much more often than the first mentioned.
UPI has a good article "Foreign Policy Institute - a Trojan horse filled with superpower interests?" Another worth reading is "US foreign policy is a scam built on corruption"
They can be found on the website eitukikohtia.fi.
Thanks for the correction, of course, -puro!
I went to read the article you linked, and there is no need to wonder about Upi's positions anymore when you read about the educational and work backgrounds of the personnel, with references:
"Leading researcher Niklas Helwig previously worked at the RAND Corporation, a central think tank of the US military system. Affiliated researcher Leo Michel has worked both in the US Secretary of Defense's office in the Pentagon and in the CIA. Arkady Moshes has been a visiting researcher at, among other things, one of the leading think tanks in the USA called "Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars" and a regular guest lecturer at the NATO Defense Academy.
Senior researcher Edward Hunter Christie has been a NATO official for years. He is also listed as a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute, funded by arms and other large companies, which is Britain's oldest military think tank."
So now it was confirmed. Finland's political leadership got nervous when they didn't know where the "Russian hybrid influence center" was. Now we know. It is not Russia's but WEST's hybrid influence center and its code name is UPI.
I'm not voting for either. It is my own stand against the system. In my opinion, neither of them are suitable to represent Finland. No talk of peace has been heard. When it should be the primary alternative.
Pekka is always ready to send weapons so that there will be more bodies.
The Greens may have shot themselves in the foot when they spoke so disrespectfully of basic Finns and chased their ministers. Now Halla-aho's votes go to Stubb. - Although, they probably would have gone anyway.
But green feminists in particular seem to create an image of basic Finnish men as stupid and ignorant. Hive's respect for different worldviews would not hinder the Greens, who, according to their words, specifically try to promote the acceptance of differences and promote diversity in Finland.