Yes. Because I have first-hand experience on what it feels like when it’s clear that neither Republicans’ or Democrats’ program would be something I’d wish for.
If you want to get the likes of me to vote against fascism, then you need to sell it as a vote against fascism.
And if you mean that you saw the phrase “harm reduction” in newspapers you read – did also the anti-democratic people see it?
Then probably you live in the USA. Why would I see a term that is only relevant for elections of another country? What do you know of porvarihallitus? It’s a relevant political phrase that I saw a lot during the previous parliamentary elections, but probably you have still never encountered it.
I don’t think I’ve fallen for their trick, because this is the first time I’m even observing a conversation on this topic. It hasn’t traditionally been a very relevant subject on this side of the pond.
If a person is anti-dem, there’s no way you’ll convert them with logical arguments. Or with any arguments at all. But you can get them to vote anti-Trump.
Different strategies for different situations. And, from a European viewpoint, it sounds ridiculous that Dems somehow “deliver”. From my perspective they are a massively lesser evil. But, in USA I would definitely vote for them just to vote against fascism. They might be stupid, but they are not malevolent. Trump is. (And stupid as well.)
You wouldn’t be able to convince me to like a party as far right to as the Democratic party. I wouldn’t like even the European right-wing parties, and they are – even in places such as Poland – to the left of anything USA has to offer. And if you tried spending your effort into making me actually think I might want more of what Democrats can offer, you’d be wasting your effort. I could vote such a party for what they offer less, but definitely not for what they offer more!
I think the main target audience here are people who already think that both sides do harm. I think what is being told here is that “even if we were to accept that both sides do harm, then the other side does it magnitudes more than the other one.”
Using mines is not necessary for repelling a Russian attack, but it makes it possible to repel it with less land area lost in the initial phase. The Russia is very weakened by its crazy war, but that is not a situation that will stay that way forever. In something a bit more than 5 years after this war ends, the Russia can very well have enough material to attack Finland. (It will probably attack Estonia or Latvia first. Most likely Estonia, because Narva is located in a very precarious location and taking Narva without NATO reacting would decrease NATO’s political ability to react to bigger things in the future.)
NATO is good to have, and it probably will help if needed, but for example Germany and France have shown that if the Russia says the word “nuke”, they reduce their help dramatically, and the country under attack is largely left to its own devices. It would be idiotic of western countries not to support Ukraine as much as possible, yet they do indeed only support it at a minimum level. Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania must be able to defend themselves adequately even without external support, because there’s not much reason to assume central European countries’ thinking about supporting a country in a war against the Russia would be very different in the future than it is now.
It’s theoretically possible that a country uses mines and still gets conquered, yes. But the likelihood is smaller. Also, what is much more important is that it’s not a black-and-white “you get conquered or you don’t”. There’s also the middle ground of “part of your country gets conquered for a while, then you regain that territory”. As is the case in Ukraine at the moment. The smaller that conquered part is, the less demining you need to do to remove the mines sown by the orcs. And if you are a small country like Finland fighting the Russia alone, fighting with other systems plus mines slows down the Russia more than fighting with those other systems only.
Also, mines are indeed generally not as useful as they were 100 years ago. But against the Russia they have been proven very useful in this war now. Not as useful as 100 years ago, true, but extremely useful all the same. Because the Russia is a country that works about the same way civilized countries worked some 100 years ago.
And, to your last point: You’re saying it’s unlikely that Finland would use mines in a responsible way. Why wouldn’t it? Remember, it’s Finland’s own people that will suffer from the mines. If we are irresponsible with them, it’s us that will suffer. This is a country where people take responsibility much more seriously than in any other country that I know. I do trust that the Finnish army does make maps of the minefields. What is the extreme thing that you’re claiming Finland would do, actually? Lay a minefield but somehow decide not to make a map about the mines’ locations? Why?
It’s not a very strong position, true. But Ukraine is nowhere near losing the war. And unless the Russia somehow manages to get big time external help, its economy will eventually crash. It will get very difficult for it to continue its war efforts after that.
Assuming the fine isn’t progressive, of course.
Over here in Finland fines for any but the minor offences are defined in percents of income, not in fixed sums of money. There have been cases of traffic fines of several hundreds of thousands for going 30 km/h over the speed limit. That makes them a punishment for very richest people as well, not only for the lower class.
I cannot recognize it as such, because I’ve just described what is currently taking place in Ukraine. So, I suppose you have probably misinterpreted something I’ve written, but in case the problem is at my end:
Please tell what makes it a false dichotomy.
Well, what can one do, if one has the Russia as one’s neighbour.
Anything the Russia conquers, it mines extremely thoroughly, with zero maps. Several mines on every single square metre along the front.
If you have mines, the Russia will advance much slower, and that means you will have less mines to worry about.
The question is: do you want an area to have 5000 mines of your own with a map showing each one’s location or 30 000 Russian mines with no maps of their location whatsoever?
I prefer having less mines. Therefore, I am happy that Finland left the Ottawa agreement. And any other country neighbouring the Russia should definitely do the same, because mines are horrible things and the less of them are in the ground, the better.
Germans, you have been where we are. You know, all too well, where this road leads.
Nope. Germans will not help. They have seen where this road leads, and they’ve decided that they must never do anything military again. They prefer allowing all of the rest of the world to turn 100 % fascist over doing one single small thing that somehow hints towards militarism. Germans allow the road to lead where it leads, as long as that does not happen in Germany.
Also, for the same reason, in Germany it is extremely impolite calling someone a nazi. As long as they aren’t openly showing a swastika or publicly calling for a genocide with that specific word, or lifting their arm in the specific way done by Germans in 1930’s and 1940’s, they are allowed to do what they do. If you call someone a nazi, you are comparing their acts to what Germany did in 1940’s, and it’s considered a grave insult towards the victims of those times. It is not acceptable in Germany to say to someone is behaving just like a nazi, and therefore, it is de facto not acceptable calling out a nazi.
Germany is the last country you can expect to stand up against nazis, precisely because they’re so traumatized by their own past. It’s also why I expect Germany to eventually fall under a nazi rule again some day. When you cannot talk about a danger, you cannot stop it.
Not really. European NATO countries are currently strong enough to repel a Russian attack if we so wish. Taking into account how strong the Russia is at the moment. It will be stronger in the future, but we are easily able to increase our strength more than the Russia can.
And if USA withdraws from NATO, then the rest of EU, not only Finland, Baltics, Sweden, and Poland will be forced to take defence seriously. This will make NATO more like it was supposed to be, and it will no longer be used for offensive wars.
But… USA withdrawing from NATO would of course have negative sides:
But still: The EU is the biggest economy on this planet. We are absolutely able to win a war against a country with an economy only as big as one of our 27 member states. We just need to bother to do so. Which means we’ll need to change our mindset. Heh.
Denmark and Finland and Netherlands definitely are not doing this in order to gain political control or economic concessions. They are doing this to keep war away from EU. Your claim that they do it just to exploit Ukraine is absolutely ludicrous. As is the claim that instead of stopping a war that threatens us, we’d somehow “choose Israel in a heartbeat”. Where did you get this idea?
(Also, how are Finns “imperial stooges”?)
At least the Siku cars I checked just a few weeks ago in a shop were all made in China 😢
The Majorette cars I’ve bought to my children are all made in Thailand.
So, the war in Ukraine is a proxy war between North Korea and USA?
A lot looks like we and champignons share a common ancestor that had already separated from plants. But, it’s not sure.
No unclarity regarding that, don’t worry :)
What is this the decisive factor you’re talking about? You can have several.
During the last 12 months the Russia has “advnced” so much that it controls about 0.3 % more of Ukraine’s territory than it did those 12 monrhs ago. That’s less than one third of a percent.
During the whole calendar year 2024 the Russia managed to conquer 0.7 % of Ukraine’s total area.
0.7 % is not “advancing”. The Russia is not advancing and hasn’t advanced since spring 2022.
Why do reporters keep writing that the Russia is advancing when it factually doesn’t?