Nordic Ledger

By Mika Horelli, BRUSSELS Sensing the urgency, European leaders gathered in London over the weekend to discuss joint security policy. The resounding message was clear: Europe must take immediate and greater responsibility for its security. However, there is a growing realisation behind the scenes that the United States, under Donald Trump , may not come to Europe's aid in times of crisis. This sobering truth cannot be ignored, even if it's not said aloud for diplomatic reasons. To put it even more  bluntly, if  Russia were to launch a direct attack on a NATO member today, the Trump administration would likely refuse to honour NATO's Article 5 defence commitment, refuse to assist, and instead blame the victim for the attack. While Trump has no authority as president to withdraw the U.S. from NATO unilaterally, he has enough power to paralyse the country's role within the military alliance. It is unpleasant to write this, but Europe must finally recognise that the K...

By Mika Horelli, Brussels As a child, I spent many summers in the Vaasa archipelago on Finland’s west coast, at my grandmother’s summer house, where our family would gather to enjoy the season together. Playing cards was one of our favourite pastimes with my siblings, cousins  and me. There were many games, but one stood out: fusku , in English,  "cheat". The game idea was simple yet fascinating – the rules were constantly broken. However, the game’s defining feature was that everyone knew the rules were being broken and accepted it as part of the fun. The essence of fusku was competing to see who could cheat the most skillfully without getting caught. Now, decades later, as I follow world politics, we are in the midst of a global game of fusku. The only difference is that not everyone has yet realised that the rules are being broken—or is unwilling to admit it. Russia has turned rewriting history into a political weapon, using it to justify its president’s whims and ob...

By Mika Horelli, BRUSSELS  I grew up during the Cold War, a world where the balance of terror maintained peace in Europe. I do not claim that the situation was ideal—half the continent lived under brutal occupation—but both the United States and the Soviet Union knew where the geographical and symbolic boundaries lay.   I could never have imagined that one day I would witness Europe once again standing on the brink of catastrophe, partly for the same reasons that once led it into the Second World War.   In August 1939, two of history’s most notorious dictators, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler , signed a non-aggression pact that shocked the world. Officially, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a simple agreement ensuring that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would not attack each other. However, its true significance lay in a secret protocol attached to the treaty, in which the two autocrats divided Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. The consequences of this ag...

 By Mika Horelli, BRUSSELS Today, as NATO ministers gather here in Brussels, Europe watches in horror as the United States, under the guise of "peace," is prepared to concede to nearly all of Russia's demands—demands that have remained unchanged since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine almost three years ago. Millions of people have been driven from their homes, invaluable cultural heritage has been destroyed, and hundreds of thousands have lost their lives or health. And now, instead of holding Russia accountable for its actions, Donald Trump is rewarding its aggression. By giving Moscow what it failed to achieve through force, Trump is doing precisely what Vladimir Putin hoped for when he launched his attack. This is not peace—this is surrender. The greatest tragedy of this capitulation is that it will not end the suffering. Even if a truncated Ukraine were formally allowed to continue existing, its days would be numbered. Putin and his regime have...

By Mika Horelli, BRUSSELS Donald Trump’s second term as president has barely begun, and he has already made it clear that a rules-based world order is not in his interests. Instead, Trump appears willing to use any necessary means—no matter how aggressive—to shape the world according to his vision. Within the first two weeks, he called for Canada to be annexed into the United States, attempted to pressure Denmark into handing over Greenland—even by military force—and demanded that control of the Panama Canal be returned to the U.S. These ideas may sound absurd. Still, they cannot simply be dismissed as offhand remarks with Trump. History has shown that his impulsive statements often have real consequences. His administration constantly tests the limits—pushing as far as possible without facing significant resistance, making his plans increasingly likely to become a reality. It is well-documented that Trump lacks the attention span to read briefing papers prepared for him. As a r...

By Mika Horelli, LEUVEN Democracies are founded on the ideals of free discussion, criticism, and the ability to question without fear of repercussions. However, this ideal is not always realized. While authoritarian regimes may suppress dissent overtly, Western democracies can also experience limitations on free speech—not through legislation, but via social pressure and the branding of dissenting voices as unpatriotic. I have witnessed this firsthand. The atmosphere in the United States following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks serves as a textbook example of how opinions diverging from government policy can be perceived as near-treasonous. At that time, I was in New York City, an eyewitness to the devastation amidst chaos and shock. I observed how the administration of President George W. Bush swiftly formulated its response—and how even minimal criticism of this response became politically perilous. When the United States initiated the War on Terror, it breached int...