hanekam @ hanekam @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

91

Joined

2 yr. ago

I would go the Social Services office and explain my situation. Provided I could prove my identity I would walk out with a couple hundred dollars cash, an address for decent temporary accommodations, and an appointment with a case worker to find a more permanent solution for me.

That's the security of the Nordic welfare state.

They altered the terms of the deal. I think they expected to being able to keep their main fleet headquarters and have friendly relations with Ukraine

This is incredibly revisionist. Ukraine very much wanted and tried to remain friendly with Russia, and Russia losing the lease on the ports was never in question before Russia invaded.

It was Putin who demanded Ukraine choose between Russia and Europe, and then invaded Crimea and the East when he didn't like their choice.

If you are unwilling to negotiate and compromise with your enemy and rather go to war

Who went to war in Ukraine?

the US and Nato, when they do the exact same things, somehow have good reasons.

But they don't do the exact same things. The USA and NATO don't annex parts of other countries.

they do have some legitimate claim to it.

They recognized it as part of Ukraine on independence and then reaffirmed it with the Budapest memorandum. They have no claim, it was naked aggression

December 2021 is two months before the invasion, not "years", like you wrote previously. I agree that once the Russians stationed their army at the Ukrainian border and threatened to invade, that the invasion became fairly predictable.

Personally I thought these demands weren’t too outrageous.

Russia wanted to dictate the military movements and foreign policy of nine countries, otherwise they would attack a different country from those nine. I don't believe anyone has ever tried to pull a more outrageous stunt. Those demands were meant to provide cover for aggression, not to start a negotiation. It worked on you.

the US is doing things like that all the time

The last time the USA waged a war to take territory from a neighbour was in 1848, nearly two hundred years ago, and I don't think they've ever made demands of one country and then waged war on a completely different country when they weren't met. They do not, in fact, do things like that all the time. You can object to a lot of what the USA does, but even at their worst, they don't act like this.

For someone who criticizes others for accepting justifications for war, you sure are very accepting of justifications for war, provided the Russians are the ones doing the justifying.

when Russia invades after they said they would for years.

They absolutely didn't. In fact, Putin ruled out war against Ukraine on many occasions, both before and after the invasions of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

It was so predictable that I can’t help but assume that it was a deliberate trap set for Russia.

Up until the tanks crossed the border people didn't believe Russia would invade because they couldn't believe the Russians could be that stupid. To concoct a plot on such a massive scale with a payoff that relied on the rank idiocy of Russian command doesn't seem very smart

It's the same impulse that made medieval people believe they could defend themselves from fairies and demons by saying the right things the right way. Some part of the insanity demands that a person who sees through the illusion can somehow win against the evil conspirators

Berlin can be good value once you're settled. The problem is usually finding a decent apartment, not paying for it.

people aren’t their government

But they are their actions. If you go to Ukraine as a part of the killing, raping, looting Russian army, that's what you are.

EU carbon permits shot up from €20 and have been hovering under €100 a tonne post-COVID. ~€200 is when existing direct air capture starts to become competitive. If it can be scaled at that price, we might be closer than we think.

We've always liked the Swedish Labor movement. They stood with us against the King when we wanted independence.

Also bureaucracy and public ownership

and hyper-socialist policies

The Nordic Model isn't really all that Socialist. It's based on strong welfare and labor rights, but also very much on the free market. The most Socialist country in Europe is probably France

The effect of the 2 party system on how people understand politics and society is incredibly interesting

It's been seventy years now. How long do you think dead Britons will have more responsibility for and power over India and Pakistan than the people in those countries?

Maybe? We're currently trying to implement a different economic transition, from pollution to green. I don't think popular resistance to those changes imply that we should try for a happy medium instead. Similarly, the difficulty in achieving Socialism democratically doesn't necessarily imply anything about how desirable the end state would be.

The big issue with “trying” communism is that it historically has only really occurred through violent revolution. The political instability in these situations gives a perfect opportunity for the seizing of power by exactly those kinds of people.

Gradualist Socialism was the political project for Social Democrats in post-war Europe. They had 30-odd years to achieve it in several countries. The issue becomes that once they started notching up victories, radicalism decreased, and that when they're not starving and oppressed people categorically will not vote to let someone collectivize their farms and expropriate their homes. It seems clear to me that in real-world conditions, a Socialist state can only come about through revolution, because the path in a democracy is far too long and leaves far too many angles of attack from a liberal opposition.

Precisely. Some people are hostile, rude and inconsiderate and no amount of money will make them nice

I take it you've never met a rich asshole, then?

There are problems no amount of money can solve