It was quickly forgotten that just a few weeks ago, even on this forum, it was noted that Russian factories and other operations are suffering from a severe labor shortage, as many working-age men now have other priorities.
The labor shortage limits Russia’s ability to engage in large-scale preying upon and deportation of illegal immigrants. For show, a few thousand workers can, of course, be sacrificed purely for propaganda purposes.
The border episode is partly leading to the rise of the far-right in Finland as well. If decision-makers act against the opinion of the people or the individual (even if sometimes formed based on misinformation), the people or the individual will seek alternatives.
The Finnish national economy simply cannot afford to support Ukraine (priority 1) and simultaneously accept fortune seekers from all over the world, while also paying for the recklessness of the rest of Europe.
Investing in rapid processing is profitable because it saves more than it costs. An illegal entrant commits a border violation and must be detained as a suspect until the matter has been processed. The conditions of detention can even be harsh. After all, being safe, they still surpass the situation in the country of origin. We should not take a stand on the internal affairs of the country of origin, nor on the affairs of minorities within them. Minorities in all countries should be content with the decisions of the majority or strive to change them from within the country. A country has the leadership it deserves.
Running away is never the right solution because the most vulnerable cannot escape anyway but remain under arbitrary rule. A good example of adaptation is the Russian people; let them take a model from that, or then from France, where even a small matter is enough for industrial action. Taken to its extreme, one can think that in the fight against tyranny, at most, one loses their life—and it will be lost anyway—but if one has overthrown even a single tyrant or brought about even a minor change, that life was not lost in vain.
The oppression of ethnic or other minorities is not always a matter of the stronger party’s arbitrary rule. Sometimes the minority is also in the wrong.
The Ukrainian uprising is one of the most heroic acts in recent history. Without it, Ukraine would be subject to arbitrary rule. I feel sorry for Belarus and Hungary, as European examples.
Would it be a completely crazy idea to actually shut the borders and inform the migrants that they cannot enter Finland, but Finland will participate in helping the people lingering near the border by donating blankets, food, tents, etc., PROVIDED THAT Russia agrees to Finland benevolently participating in helping the people.
If even a single refugee freezes to death at the border barrier there, it will make the headlines all over Europe.
In my opinion, it’s not the kind of issue where it would be worth withdrawing from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but some measures to reduce the country’s attractiveness could be considered. For example, do we necessarily have to provide full room and board for arrivals in the country’s most expensive growth centers when even low-paid Finnish workers cannot afford to live there? At least no international commitments mandate this.
The Polish-Belarusian border indeed has tough policies in place. At least 49 deaths have been documented there. If we adopt the same line as Poland, this is what we’ll face too; that must be understood. Russia doesn’t mind, but they’ll get to point fingers at how evil the West is in their own propaganda.
Ibrahim is one of more than 200 people who are still missing since the crisis at the border started. At least 49 deaths have been documented. The real figures are almost certainly much higher, especially as there is so little information about what happens on the Belarusian side of the border.
If the border is closed completely, one option is, of course, to offer tents and pea soup from a field kitchen to those in the border area. It’s certainly not an ideal solution, and I don’t even know how effective it would ultimately be, but it’s hard to come up with alternatives if we want to ensure that the Russian border no longer leaks. I don’t have a solution for this either that is simultaneously humane and doesn’t benefit Russia in some way. 
A shitty situation for the government and an even shittier situation for the people caught between the borders. 
It is about time to act instead of just thinking. Of course, future steps must be considered at the same time, but a firm stance is needed right from the start to ensure things are put on a sensible footing for the future. I’m a bit surprised by the naivety of some people regarding Russia. Fortunately, since the war, many people’s eyes have finally been opened and some hope is visible.
What’s the problem here? Municipalities are running clothing drives and social security replaces work. A bit of an exaggeration, but people don’t genuinely come looking for work in such a haphazard way.
It’s certainly not an ideal solution, and I don’t even know how effective it would ultimately be, but it’s hard to come up with alternatives if we want to ensure that the Russian border no longer leaks.
One could argue whether there even is a solution to some things. Granted, such a verdict shouldn’t be reached too easily, as it can be used to justify excuses for not reacting to anything because nothing can be done anyway. However, I will explain my reasoning.
The problem here, after all, is a totalitarian dictatorship, a mafia state, or whatever one wants to call Russia. You cannot negotiate with that country because it operates on completely different principles and does not respect any agreements. So how do we solve the situation? One could just as easily ask how to solve the situation in Ukraine. Since it’s impossible to negotiate with Russia, even if we assumed in a thought experiment that the war would under no circumstances spread anywhere else, there still is no good solution for it. If we imagine, for example, putting so much force into play that every Russian soldier who strayed onto the Ukrainian side is killed, inevitably many Ukrainians would die as well, so that can’t be considered a very good solution either.
Returning to Finland and Russia’s actions at the eastern border. We know that Russia transports people to the border and that we cannot negotiate with Russia, so the options are either to accept the arrivals and let the situation continue as long as there are people in countries significantly poorer than Finland who want to leave, or until something happens in Russia. Or we can prevent people from entering Finland, which will eventually lead to people no longer coming because they have no incentive to do so. Or we could create some kind of buffer zone where arrivals are received into a sort of intermediate limbo—for example, transporting them to a restricted location from which they are later sent back. None of the solutions are good, but one solution is the best.
An EU decision to close the entire border with Russia across Europe would solve this problem. EU law always supersedes Finnish law, as agreed when Finland joined the EU.
There is no need for each country to individually consider the decision’s relationship to international commitments when it is made at the EU level.
These migrants are the same group as they’ve always been. Movement is directed wherever they can get through (or are let through) and at whatever price. Southern Europe is blocked and the border with Belarus was closed, so movement shifted further north once again. The destination countries are still the same as always: Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK, etc. Hardly anyone has ever wanted to come to Finland, let alone stay, except for a tiny fraction. I suspect we are once again just a transit country to Central Europe.
Finland is facing a double-edged sword, where both options lead to a mix of positive and negative outcomes.
Scenario 1: We continue to allow asylum seekers into Finland through selected border crossing points. In doing so, we operate in accordance with international laws and regulations without dismantling mutually agreed-upon practices. A significant number of asylum seekers may arrive from Russia, which, in the current climate of public opinion, causes internal unrest among citizens. There could also be a risk that among those arriving are pro-Russian individuals whose motives are unrelated to a need for protection. Russia, in turn, does not get to lower the Iron Curtain, and their internal propaganda narrative fails to achieve the symmetry they desire.
Scenario 2: Border crossing points are closed, and some asylum seekers freeze to death at the border. In this scenario as well, internal unrest grows and the public climate hardens, while Russia succeeds in lowering its Iron Curtain for potential mobilization. The propaganda machine can frame the Finns as hostile and accuse them of trampling the rights of citizens remaining there. However, the situation halts illegal asylum tourism, as Finland is no longer a destination country, at least regarding traffic across the Russian border.
The problem for a democratic country neighboring a dictatorship is its weak proactive ability to act—especially when the leadership across the eastern border is unpredictable and playing its own sadistic game. We are forced to react, allowing an unfriendly neighbor to construct its narrative in advance.
It would be nice to hear more about these. Thank you.
If fingerprints haven’t been sanded off, they will still be returned to Finland under the Dublin Regulation, since they have been registered here in EU systems as asylum seekers.
Partly familiar things and some new ones too.
A bit of a humorous note, I’d say. The article is not behind a paywall.
FINLAND has received a diplomatic note from the Russian embassy. In the note, Russia expresses disapproval of a destroyed Russian tank being put on display in Helsinki.
https://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000010008196.html
Ukraine shot down all Russian drones last night, according to the Ukrainian Air Force. No paywall.
The Air Force statement says that the Kh-22 cruise missile did not hit its target and fell in an open area in Zaporizhzhia. According to the statement, the resulting explosion damaged some private homes, but no one was killed or wounded.
https://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000009987062.html?post=281906
The Ukrainian president is ready to discuss a peace plan even with Trump.
The Ukrainian president was also asked if Zelenskyy would be ready to meet Trump for negotiations.
– Yes. I could meet him if he has a clear peace plan to present, Zelenskyy replied.
However, the Ukrainian president emphasized that Ukraine would not agree to peace terms that would result in the Donbas and Crimea regions being transferred to Russian control.
https://yle.fi/a/74-20010573/64-3-193152?utm_medium=social&utm_source=copy-link-share
ISW’s map of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This map is updated daily based on various reports.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375
Here are some time-lapse maps of the Russian attacks etc.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/733fe90805894bfc8562d90b106aa895
Let’s add these as well:
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1727271686343692641
And here’s more on important visits:
Ukrainian president:
This might belong in the politics thread, but since Finland is a rule-of-law state, not everything is possible. However, there are currently problems dealing with a neighbor that is openly hostile and is not a rule-of-law state. One would imagine it might be possible to reach a compromise where decision-making concerning Finland and Finns would go through the Constitutional Law Committee and such just as strictly as now—even more so.
But then decision-making concerning foreign countries or entities outside of Finland, especially non-rule-of-law states, would be handled a bit more leniently. The problem, after all, is that if the principle of the rule of law is abandoned, there is a risk of ending up in totalitarianism, like Russia. But it is hard to see how totalitarianism could be brought about through actions concerning foreign countries, so this would be safe in that regard.
Estonia handles things decisively and is no longer a destination for asylum seekers. How could we get that same firmness in our own decision-makers? Estonia is a full EU member, just like Poland; why don’t we adopt proven practices from there? The story below is quite eye-opening. The term “migrant attack” mentioned in the article is spot on.
Just to clarify, Poland’s borders are leaking. About a hundred unauthorized border crossers enter Poland every day. In contrast, since September, a total of fewer than 300 have entered Finland from Russia.
For Russia, the relatively unified front of Western countries and the NATO accessions are a problem. The countries have joined NATO, and there is nothing Russia can do about that anymore. Russia aims to influence both international and internal unity, and watching the impact and the buzz caused by their latest stunts, they are surely rubbing their hands over there.
A few hundred border crossers have thrown Finland into a complete frenzy. Newspaper front pages write about nothing else, and if you search Google for anything related to bicycles, the first links are related to asylum seekers. Hyperventilating on online forums can be cathartic, but even here, the wildest stories speak of millions of asylum seekers coming to Finland, and these claims are already detached from reality. Surely the authorities have plans in case things really get out of hand. At this stage, however, only a few busloads of people have actually crossed the Russian border.
Under what circumstances could border crossing points be closed down and new ones established, e.g., on an island near the Russian border? 
When talking about tens or at most hundreds of asylum seekers in a national economy of 5 million people, this has practically no visible macroeconomic significance. Things must be put into perspective and discussed in percentages, not absolute numbers. No one in the stock market makes decisions based on absolute numbers either, or if they do, they are unlikely to stay in business for long. Asylum seekers do not destabilize Finland’s institutions one way or the other, but Russia’s goal is to incite internal political instability, which this (fortunately not very polarized) discussion reflects. No, I still do not believe that people coming from the Middle East at the Finnish border are Russian special forces going to hatch a special operation in reception centers.
In my opinion, international rules concerning the right to seek asylum should, in principle, be respected, and it is good that they exist. The previous government made amendments to the Border Guard Act (rajavartiolaki) that allow for the closure of border stations and the concentration of asylum applications in situations where asylum seekers are tools of hybrid influence, and we are in exactly such a situation now. Thus, the government can practically limit asylum seeking at border stations by so-called concentrating applications and has, of course, done so.
The government’s goal was apparently to close the entire eastern border and concentrate all applications at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport, but as I understand it, according to the law, there must be at least one open route from Russia where an asylum application can be submitted. Flights from Russia to Helsinki-Vantaa are not permitted, so this route is not sufficient. The Deputy Chancellor of Justice has commented that the government’s proposal is not possible within the framework of current law and has consequently received criticism and accusations of serving a foreign power. This is unreasonable because he is simply doing his job. I personally do not know about the interpretation of the law, but I assume that an official knows their business better than a layman. The content of laws can be discussed and new laws can be enacted, but the process is far too slow.
I would, however, return to the point that if asylum seeking is concentrated at a single border station, the number of asylum seekers entering Finland from Russia will remain practically nonexistent, and closing the entire border is not necessary. In such situations, it is often customary to use all possible loopholes (perhaps processing only a few applications a day?). The queues forming at the border will certainly be featured in the media, but it is possible to organize crisis aid and basic necessities for those stuck in line, as has been suggested here. In summary, I would say that this border crisis is in reality a crisis only for those people whom Russia is exploiting at the border. This is indeed harsh, but keeping border stations open for asylum seekers in a “business-as-usual” style is simply not possible, as it would dismantle the general public acceptance of the entire right to asylum.