1/17 The Finnish government is reluctant to stop issuing tourist visas to Russian citizens and continues to allow holders of Schengen visas, issued by other member states, into the country.
We have received criticism for this from our friends to the south.
2/17 I completely agree with the criticism. Russia is a criminal state, and Mr Putin's regime and actions enjoy huge popularity among "ordinary" Russians. If they wage a war against the free world, there should be no room for them in the free world.
3/17 Finland is about to become the only member state sharing a land border with Russia where and through which Russian tourists can travel.
Most Finns find this embarrassing, if this is any defense or consolation.
4/17 The main factor behind the Finnish reluctance, however, is not a wish to please Russia or a fear of losing Russian tourists. The reason is rather our peculiar and pathological relationship with legalism. This has historical roots.
5/17 Between 1809 and 1917 Finland was a Grand Duchy within the Russian Empire. We had a considerable autonomy and most importantly - a constitution. In Finland, the Emperor was not an absolute autocrat but a constitutional monarch who had to rule by law, not by whim.
6/17 There were periods of Russification and oppression, as in other parts of the Empire. Finns, unlike Poles and some others, did not resist by open rebellion but by weaponizing the law which the Emperor had vowed to respect.
By "f**king the comma", as we say in Finnish.
7/17 When the Russian General Gouvernor in Helsinki gave orders or expressed wishes that were deemed undesirable by the locals, an army of legal experts were mobilized to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the orders were impossible to implement because they were illegal.
8/17 "We would not dare to break the law of which His Excellent and Noblest Majesty is the High Guarantor and Defender!!"
This was not perfect but it worked better than could be expected.
9/17 After the second world war the same method was applied to fend off some of the most extreme demands of the Soviet Union whose ambassador had a role somewhat similar to that of the Imperial General Gouvernor.
10/17 These experiences have left a permanent mark in the Finnish thinking and behavior.
If a policy, in this case a tourist visa ban on Russians, is proposed, it is completely irrelevant whether the proposed policy is deemed necessary or desirable.
11/17 The only relevant thing is whether it is legal and constitutional. Its legality, in turn, depends on its compatibility not with the "spirit of the law" (i.e., the intentions of those who wrote the law) but with its letter.
12/17 Moreover, if (as is usually the case) the law leaves room for interpretation, the most restrictive interpretation wins. That is, if it is possible to read the law in such a way as to make a proposed policy illegal, then that reading is invariably chosen.
13/17 Finns themselves are very much aware of this national pathology. It is a constant and endless source of ridicule, frustration and outrage, but we seemingly just cannot help it.
14/17 I heard a joke this year that if armed, unidentified, green men appeared in Finland, the country would be occupied before we reached an agreement on whether the event meets the criteria, stipulated by the law, that justify an armed response.
15/17 In many countries, decisions can be made fast when circumstances call for them. Legal experts work to find ways to stretch and circumvent problematic legislation. The attitude is that possible legal problems can be discussed afterwards in court. First things first.
16/17 The Foreign Ministry and their legal experts are right in the sense that the existing legislation CAN be interpreted as prohibiting a total ban on Russian tourist visas. Of course it could be interpreted in other ways but - as said - it does not work like that in Finland.
17/17 I am sure Finland will have no trouble supporting an EU wide visa ban. If the letter of the law is sacred for us, an EU decision is even more so. This, thus, is what we all should work for.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/15 My address to the diplomatic corps at the Helsinki Cathedral on the 3rd anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine:
2/15 Few of us could have anticipated three years ago that we would still be here in February 2025. Mr Putin expected to take Kyiv in three days and install a puppet government, and – in all honesty – much of the West shared this expectation. It did not materialize.
3/15 The Russian tyrant had overestimated the capabilities of his corrupt military and underestimated the willingness of the Ukrainians to defend their country.
1/12 My congratulations to @realDonaldTrump and @JDVance on winning the presidency of the oldest continuous democracy in the world!
Some quick thoughts on the situation:
2/12 During the campaign, the media and the liberals have repeatedly called Mr Trump a clown, a conman, a fascist, a felon, incompetent, and whatnot.
Yet, he won the election. What does that say about the rival and their agenda? They lost the election to Mr Trump.
3/12 This reminds me of Ewan McGregor's rant about being Scottish in 'Trainspotting':
- Some people hate the English, I don't! They're just wankers! We, on the other hand, are colonised by wankers! Can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by!
1/5 Integrating Ukraine to the West is as important to the West as it is to Ukraine. The membership process in itself gives Ukraine a strong incentive to introduce and implement reforms that the country needs in order to be a stronger country.
2/5 Ukraine needs to be an internally strong country, because an internally weak Ukraine was and will be an attractive target for Russian hybrid and conventional aggressions. A weak Ukraine would be a constant problem for Europe.
3/5 The membership process must be based on mutual trust: if progress is made by Ukraine, the process WILL go forward; and the process goes forward ONLY if progress is made.
1/10 I arrived at Kyiv on Friday afternoon to participate at the ceremonies of the 90th anniversary of the Holodomor, the man-made famine that claimed the lives of millions of Ukrainians in 1932-33.
2/10 I started the day with a bilateral meeting with the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Mr Stefanchuk. The Finnish Ambassador was also present.
3/10 The topics discussed included the aid to Ukraine, the EU and Nato integration, the Global South, and the Russian hybrid operation on the Finnish border.
1/17 Pieni osa suomalaisista poliitikoista, suuri osa mediasta ja valtaosa "ihmisoikeusprofessoreista" on sitä mieltä, että turvapaikanhakijat eivät ole uhka ja että kaikki Venäjän rajalle kuskaamat afgaanit, jemeniläiset ja somalit tulee ottaa sisään, koska he ovat hädänalaisia.
2/17 Somaliasta, Afganistanista ja Jemenistä on hyvin pitkä matka Suomeen. Rajalle tulevat henkilöt eivät ole tuhansien kilometrien matkaa rämpineitä, sotaa pakenevia ihmisiä. He ovat oleskelleet Venäjällä syystä tai toisesta ja statuksella tai toisella.
3/17 He eivät ilmesty rajalle siksi, että heistä olisi juuri nyt tullut Venäjällä hädänalaisia, vaan siksi, että Venäjä syystä tai toisesta haluaa heidän tulevan Suomeen juuri nyt. Venäjä kuljettaa heitä busseilla rajalle, ja Venäjä on varustanut heidät matkaa varten.
1/7 90 years ago a man-made famine claimed the lives of millions of Ukrainians in then-Soviet Ukraine and adjacent regions of Russia, Moldova and Kazakhstan. The tragedy is widely known by its Ukrainian name, holodomor.
2/7 25 states and the European Parliament have recognized holodomor as a genocide against the Ukrainian nation and part of the Soviet effort to crush Ukraine as a cultural and ethnic entity.
3/7 The question of recognition by the Finnish parliament has been raised several times by our Ukrainian friends, most recently at my meetings with the Ukrainian ambassador @OlgaDibrova1 and the speaker of the Verkhovna Rada @r_stefanchuk.