Russians back in Finnish airspace

Just a few days after the Finnish Defence Minister gave his speech in USA, stating that Russia is the major security challenge for Finland, Russians proved him right: an Ilyushin IL-76 strategic airlifter of the Russian Armed Forces violated the Finnish airspace. - One just can not imagine any other state having their airplanes flying unauthorized in the Finnish airspace.

Ilyushin IL-76 on the Antarctic in 2003.
Photo by Mika Kalakoski.

The plane flew 4,5 km deep on Finnish territory, for a few minutes. A Boeing F-18 Hornet of the Finnish Air Force was sent out to guide it back to the international airspace. The incident was instantly reported an accident, and Russia has promised to investigate it.

Russian planes frequented Finnish airspace in 2005 until Finland sent a note to Russia, informing that from thereon all violations would be published internationally.

Russia is now living a phase of new bullying, and Russians have themselves admitted that Russian negotiation strategy is to intimidate. If the opposite party is easily scared, they will only be despised. But if they show some backbone, they might even earn some respect from the Russians. - This is something that the Finns have never really understood.

The Finnish Prime Minister has a bad habit of trying to keep unfinished business under cover, even though Finland officially is an open country, where discussion should supposedly be valued. He has now expressed his futile hope that no connection should be made between the Defence Minister's speech, and the airspace violation. He shows no understanding of the Russian character, or even of the Finnish character. And has he really forgotten that the former violations got stopped only after the note from the Finnish government?


But have you thought about this: If it is not the Russian government that allows airspace violations when 'needed', who is it then? Are the Russian Armed Forces perhaps not in the control of the Russian government after all?

What can you say about Russia

There is a rather vivid political discussion going on in Finland. The right wing politicians want finally to say aloud, what every Finn has always known, that Russia is Finland's major security issue. - Not 'threat', mind you, but 'issue'.

We have a long history of Russian invasions, from the dawn of our recorded history: Novgorodians, Muscovites, Russians, Soviets, you name it. They all have made attacks to Finland, and some of them have even managed to occupy Finland. - Just read your history book.

Finnish-Russian border during the history
(from 'History of Karelia')

The Finnish leftists want to maintain lower profile in the discussion. And they might actually be right: why irritate the slumbering Russian bear. Russia is far more powerful than Finland, and - as already said - they have a certain history of treating Finland. We do not want also Putin to adopt Bush's policy: 'You're either with us, or against us'.


For a while we thought we really might learn to be friends with Russia. But should we be cynically realistic: Isn't it far wiser to keep repeating the soviet era political liturgy of 'good and friendly relations', that everybody knew to be false, and just settle back to the safety of the good old Finlandisierung. Why stretch your muscles when you have a neighbor with so much more muscle; and tendency to use them?

Or could the right wing politicians be right, after all: Shouldn't we join forces to tell Russia, that bullying just no longer is accepted by the international community. We want co-operation, not oppressing, and certainly not again another war. - You might also want to remember that we Finns did rather well in the last few wars...

Money can buy you Justice

Lately even here in Finland we have had trials where the lawyers have charged astonishing fees.

It appears that you need to hire top lawyers to get effective service in the court. And top lawyers - as being top - are expensive. In the current market based economy one sells one's talent with the highest price available.

But let's see what is the outcome of employing market practices to justice: if it really does pay off to hire top lawyers, hiring cheaper lawyers must then mean getting worse results. So it is not the law then that solves the case? It's not justice that is sought after, but simply victory?

Just put your money on the scale, please.

If you are not rich, you cannot hire top lawyers. So your cheap lawyer will loose your case, because he is not so good. You will not be tried by the law and justice, but by money. It will be the richer party who shall always win the case. Even in the Finnish courts you can buy your victory with money?

BTW: Do you see any resemblance to the US presidential campaigns?

Economists are wrong

Economists are wrong, when they say that the invisible hand will guide resources in the most effective way, giving everyone the best possible outcome. - In the long run.

They may actually be right, as far as only money is concerned - in the long run, but if current all over well being is concerned, they could not be more wrong. Yet the world is run by their rules. For the worse of us all. (Well; except for he filthy rich, of course).

In the long run wealth may perhaps be distributed in the most effective way; but in the short run people are suffering, starving, and dying. When waiting for the invisible hand to finally show some effect.


Finland has never before been this rich, and yet Finland 'cannot afford' taking care of the old, the poor, and the sick. - As care taking just does not bring in cash.

After the war, when Finland was poor, Finland was a friendly country. Well, it no longer is.
Our values are badly off balance.

Let's put higher tax on diesel fuel!

The Finnish Government has just decided to increase taxation of diesel fuel.

The Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen admitted that the decision was made to maximize tax intake, now that diesel cars are more popular than ever before.

Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen

It is commonly believed that diesel cars are less polluting than petrol cars. And less pollution is exactly what Finland officially is aiming for. - Yet Finland has a long history of punishing diesel usage.

For decades there has been a punishment tax for diesel cars: If you own a diesel car, you have to pay an annual 'diesel tax', even if you never drive your car. You are quite simply punished for owning a diesel car, and not using petrol. - Petrol cars use up more fuel, you see.

So now they decided to increase the fuel tax on diesel. "To maximize fuel tax intake". Without thinking for a moment, what the decision means for the prise of goods, food, and anything that needs to transported by diesel trucks in this country of long transport distances.


"To maximize fuel tax intake". - I wonder how long Finland can continue on this extremely weird policy of taxing motor vehicles and traffic in ways that are not in unison with the EU regulations.

Policeman as witness

In one of my previous posts I wrote about my colleague's view on why van drivers are bad drivers (see 'Professionals can not drive?).

In the same discussion he told me about his own experience when driving a van:

He had stopped at a red light, and he felt a thump, as if something had hit his van. He left the van to see what it was about. And quite right: a car had hit his rear. It had split its radiator, with cooling water running on the road. A young boy was sitting at the cars steering wheel. The only damage to the van was luckily just minor scratching of the back bumper chroming.

Another car stopped behind them, and a man rushed out shouting "I saw it all. I am a policeman". My colleague was gladly surprised: how often do you get a policeman to witness your accident for you.

But the man continued "I am the boy's father!", and my colleague lost his confidence in his star witness. The policeman kept on stressing that he was a policeman, in quite an aggressive style. And my colleague felt that he was being bullied: The boy's father aggressively repeating that he was a policeman, and that he had seen it all. - You know the style. Surely you do.

Yet my colleague politely expressed his content of having such a trustworthy witness, and did not yield to be intimidated. As the policeman finally realized that he was not going to succeed in pushing my colleague, he admitted his son's guilt and offered to have the van's back bumper re-chromed.

But my colleague no longer did agree; he demanded on having the bumper replaced: re-chroming can never be totally trusted, can it? So in the end the boy's insurance company paid my colleague the money for a factory new rear bumper.

I think we can forgive my colleague. After all policemen are obliged to behave in exemplary way even in their private lives.

Yet; wouldn't it have been delighting to hear the policeman's testimony in court: "Now, everybody knows that at least 2 or 3 cars can quite safely pass a red light. That is the common practice."

That by the way is the common practice in Finland. The leading national newspaper Helsingin Sanomat just recently wrote on article on the matter. You do remember that the Finnish police does not seem to be interested in controlling traffic. And it shows.

Police admits not doing their job

Just a few blogs back I wondered if the Finnish police are up to their tasks (see 'Professionals can not drive?'). The supposition was not without factual base: the police themselves have admitted not doing their job.


Some time ago during this summer or spring a police officer was interviewed on the radio. The reporter asked him if something could be done to clean up the traffic, that has grown to be rather reckless. He asked why do the policemen not stop the speedsters and other offensive rule breakers.

- But then we'd have to stop virtually everybody, the police officer replied.

So the police are well aware that the traffic culture has already grown out of control, but yet they seem to have no intention to do anything about it in their everyday work.


According to a recent newspaper writing one police officer has told the writer, that he is aware that some patrol units accept tasks only by the police radio. They do not react on incidents that they see in the traffic.

If the police are patrolling, but doing nothing, they are patrolling for nothing, and we are paying their salaries for nothing. When people have seen that the police do not care of anything, they have learned that they can drive as recklessly as they like. Traffic legislation no longer is valid in Finland; the Finnish police have in practice authorized the reckless driving.


If the police did do their job, they certainly would have to start it by stopping virtually everybody. Similarly if I did leave my job undone for a lengthy period, I'd simply have to do a hell lot of work to clear the piled up work to get back to normal work level. Sitting still like the police do, would only make the pile grow even higher.

So 'stopping virtually everybody' is exactly what the police should now do. We are paying them for doing their job, not for idling in their patrol cars or giving excuses for not doing their job.

Professionals can not drive?

I started this blog with a posting on traffic behavior. See 'Cars are flock animals'.

Actually it is not necessarily cars whose behavior goes beyond all comprehension. It is mostly vans, trucks and other 'professional' vehicles. Like in the picture below, taken at the speed of 100 km/h on one of the main roads leading out from Helsinki.


I discussed the matter with a colleague of mine, and he saw nothing unexpected in it:
Vans are driven by young men, boys almost; They have no understanding yet of laws of physics, or traffic psychology. The vans are not their own; It doesn't matter to them if the van gets damaged. And they must show that they are macho men.

Maybe so. Yet these boys have agreed to common game rules when getting their driving licenses. When continuously breaking the game rules, they show that they are not up to their profession, and they should lose their licenses.

But the police, whose job it is to control that rules are respected, do not care. Are they too young boys, with not enough wits for their job?

Getting rid of Helsinki-Malmi airport by force

Helsinki - capital of Finland - has tried for years to have the old historic Malmi airport torn down. They want to build new small houses on the area. As if the airport were the only empty space around Helsinki area. There are large woods even within Helsinki. Not to speak around it.

Malmi is a rare pearl among small plane airports in the whole world. It is situated within the Helsinki boundaries, and it is marvelously near for all small plane enthusiast. It also provides a very exceptional experience for children: where else can they come so close to real airplanes. And for totally free!

But Helsinki stubbornly wants to build there small houses. Even though most Helsinki citizens would much rather have the old cozy little airport.

As could be expected, Helsinki has now come up with a cunning plan: they now claim that the Malmi airport must be renovated: a totally new longer runway must be built. Everybody understands that such a runway cannot be built, and should not be built (see satellite photo). And because the new runway can not be built, Malmi airport must then be taken down, so reason the Helsinki officials.

Who are they fooling! Malmi airport is fantastic just as it is now. It is excellent for small planes, flight schools, flight clubs, flight trips and rescue helicopters. And don't forget the nowadays so rare free excitement.

If Helsinki really should need another airport for commercial and regular line flights in addition to the current Helsinki-Vantaa airport, they should build a totally new airport. Not instead of Malmi, but in addition to Malmi. Malmi is needed for small planes, historical values and free entertainment.

Malmi airport is historically valuable, and extremely pleasant and cute, that nobody hates. Nobody except for the Helsinki officials.

Do you want to help keep the old little airfield alive? Read more, and sign the petition!

Cars are flock animals

Cars are like birds. Or fish. They move in tight flocks, maneuvering in harmonic unison. Each car following tightly the movements of the whole flock: When the flock turns, each car turns; when the flock stops, each car stops. - Right? How else could cars run just a couple of meters apart at over 100 km/h?


What the birds and fish can easily do, the cars can not do. So they collide when something unexpected happens. Causing death, injury and damage. Yet each driver has agreed to play by common rules when receiving their driver's license. But on the road the promises are forgotten, and this strange flock behavior is assumed.

And even though the drivers are clearly breaking their license conditions, the police does nothing: in Finland it is quite acceptable to threaten, kill, injure and damage, if you do it with your vehicle.