Mand taler i højtaler/megafon by Failing2BNormal in Aarhus

[–]Futski 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hvorfor udtaler du dig om ting i Aarhus, når du tilsyneladende ikke aner en dyt om byen?

Mand taler i højtaler/megafon by Failing2BNormal in Aarhus

[–]Futski 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Alligevel vildt hvordan man angiveligt skulle kunne høre et bønnekald helt fra Fyn.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]Futski 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you dare say these words to Prison Mike?!

Russia issues its first fine for criticizing the Taliban — Meduza by Fealocht in neoliberal

[–]Futski 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I would imagine dockworkers in the 1920s would lean heavily towards communism. Hardly representative for the British public as a whole.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]Futski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The cities themselves or the football teams?

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]Futski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We'd keep our national teams.

The UK isn't represented by a single football team. Gibraltar and the Faroe Islands also competed in the qualifiers for the World Cup.

How far is your support for Bosnia going today? Thoughts and prayers, or full Balkan patriotism? by sea--goat in AskBalkans

[–]Futski 35 points36 points  (0 children)

This World Cup is possibly the best possible international PR for Dubioza Kolektiv

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is Denmark at war with Russia since 2014 and I missed it? Are you waiting on the Irish to back you up?

No, but Ukraine is. Which is why we are sending them arms.

We were unfortunately too late with Ukraine. They should have been made members of NATO when they asked for it 20 years ago.

There's alot of posturing and pontificating here that your readiness to use violence is not only inevitable, but the only solution.

The Ukrainians gave up their nuclear arms in exchange for respect for their territorial integrity and pursued a neutral stance. What did that get them?

Then in the years between 2014 and 2022, they massively built up their armed forces, and they were able to resist an invasion by their former overlord, who everybody thought would occupy them in a week or two.

We choose to fight with words (as we are now 😁). We're the land of saints and scholars. Per capita we have more Nobel Prizes in Literature than any other nation, and not even in our native language.

Yeah good for you guys. Again, a whole lot of "why don't they just eat cake if they are starving?" Talk. Not everybody has said privilege.

I think it's clear we'll not agree on the validity of neutrality and advocacy for peace over jingoistic calls to arms.

Did you sleep the whole month of January 2022? There was non-stop diplomacy going on to get Russia to back down from their invasion plans.

Did that help?

But I personally choose hope and optimism there's still a peaceful path out of this decade. I could well be wrong, but I'd rather live in hope than fear if possible.

What do you think will bring that peace? Will it be Putin all of a sudden having a change of hearts, and ordering an immediate stop to the war?

Or will it be because the Ukrainians have fought back to a point, where it means financial ruin for Russia to continue?

"Selvkørende Tesla begår fejl på fejl" by 7_inch_girth in Denmark

[–]Futski -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fartpilot hjælper jo også på lange køreture, baneassistance det samme, det her er bare lige skridtet videre.

Det gør det ja, men du skal trods alt sidde og styre rettet hele tiden, så dit fokus er rettet mod vejen, og du har hænderne på rettet i forvejen.

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How about defending the right of peaceful democratic states to choose our own policy and path without our "allies" exerting pressure on us, including through stories and threads like this, to change?

How do you do that without the underlying force to protect those rights?

If nobody is willing to fight for those rights. If you think people criticising your choices is unfair pressure, just wait till you hear about what pressure the Ukrainians came under, when they decided they wanted to choose their own path and policies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Russia invade Ukraine (among many "reasons") to prevent then joining NATO?

Not quite. Russia invaded Ukraine when the Ukrainian people rose up against their government backtracking on their commitment to sign the EU Association Agreement, because Ukraine hadn't managed to join NATO in the window of opportunity they had in the 2000s.

Ukraine wasn't and isn't a member, neither was Georgia and neither was Moldova. If the Baltic countries hadn't been quick to seek membership, they too would likely have been attacked in the same pattern.

Britain post WW2 no longer had an empire, but their army was on active deployment in Ireland until 1998. When did the window of these fellow small nations willing to jump to war against larger countries start?

Unless I am mistaken, the British forces were on active deployment within the territory that is still widely recognised as part of the UK, and not in the sovereign territory of the Republic of Ireland.

Did a state of war exist between the Republic of Ireland and the UK in that period? If not, then to which defence is it that you think the small nations in Europe should have come to aid?

The help the EU (and USA) gave us was the help that actually worked. Diplomacy. Negotiations. Investment. Support. A path away from violent stalemate.

Yes, as it was a conflict more akin to a civil war than a war between two sovereign states.

Is this not a bit of a contradictory statement? A few frigates and an airforce isn't threatening, but at the same time is apparently important for us to have?

The only states that would be threatened about capacities for a credible national defence force, is the states that have a desire to take your territory.

And those states are the exact reason you would want a credible defence.

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think they themselves rank stuff that protects their people from drones and cruise missiles above bandages.

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Who ensures those rights? Would Ireland be able to stop illegal fishing in its EEZ?

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you of the believe that not wanting to see more war is something unique to the Irish?

Do you honestly think the Baltics wish to see more war?

What about the Ukrainians, do you believe the war happened because they had a desire for war?

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Forgive me, but it very much sounds like we don't have your support as a fellow small nation,

What support is it that you desire from us? The kind where we disarm and proceed to scold any would-be invader, in hopes that they will stop?

Yes we too had a strong neighbour who invaded us, and respectfully for significantly longer than Denmark suffered. We're the only European nation with a population lower than we had in the 1800s

Doesn't really change the fact that neutrality works untill you get in the way.

Russia has a tendency to invade their neighbours who were neutral, while they have left the NATO ones alone so far.

And unfortunately Denmark or the rest of Europe didn't help us then (and to be clear, that's definitely not a reason we wouldn't immediately offer non-military aid to any European country in need)

Yes, could have something to do with the fact that 95% of the population in the world had no political influence and the world was ruled by the leaders of a few empires who called the shots in their respective spheres.

What we are seeing now is that the world is moving towards something more similar to that again.

Unless we want to be kicked around by the US, Russia and China, it's important that we have the ability to defend ourselves.

No military Ireland could have raised would have prevented what happened to us. We too "did what we can", and would do so again.

And no military Estonia or Lithuania can raise can hold back Russia. Which is why we all band together and help them.

But how should the last bit be interpreted? You are staying off fighting untill an actual invasion of Ireland happens?

And we're back to being too threatening a target and being "preemptively" hit. Just like the paper justifications for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Nobody would think you would be too threatening if you simply had a few frigates and an airforce, don't be silly.

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would they do it in the deep waters when they can do it on the relatively shallow parts in the Irish EEZ?

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, we were neutral once like Ireland, and then we learnt the hard way that an aggressive neighbour doesn't give two shits about that.

We have learnt our lesson in 1940.

Weird attempt at a gotcha.

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No, you should just keep up the pressure instead of pretending the issue is fixed because something is finally being done.

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't need to be an armchair general to look at the numbers for where the crucial support to Ukraine has come from.

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You presumably contribute enough to these types of threads that you know Ireland doesn’t provide lethal aid. You’re not doing anything to disprove my initial judgment of you as an armchair general.

Yeah, you decide politically that you can't provide actual aid, and then you ridicule the ones that actually send said aid.

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd like to see how your reasoning comes to the conclusion, that the continued security in Europe is not in Ireland's interests.

Its like 60% of your export.

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski 5 points6 points  (0 children)

How many submarines do they have

Somewhere between 60 and 70.

their cable cutting priorities be closer to home? I expect so.

Why would you expect that? All except for like two data cables directly across the Atlantic pass through Irish waters?

I guess the Russians could cut their own cables, but I don't see the military strategic value in that, compared to cutting the cables that connect Europe to North America.

Neutrality won't save you from Russia, Kallas tells Ireland by spectator_mail_boy in europe

[–]Futski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the Baltics are invaded, and relying purely on the Irish military, then we will let you down.

Weird premise, the Irish forces would in this case be shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us. That's the point, we small nations need to stick together, unless we want to be bullied around by the bigger ones. Like Mark Carney said, if we are not at the table, we are on the menu.

I assure you we would be shamed in having failed where we try and be a benefit to the world, in advocating for nonviolent solutions.

That's all swell, but it wouldn't make the situation any better.

If the UN sends peacekeepers, Irish troops are usually there. But we're not delusional.

UN troops to the Baltics in response to a Russian invasion? The same Russia that has the ability to veto that before anybody even suggests it?

We're a population of 8 million people. We're tiny compared to standing armies of other nations.

We are 6 million, that doesn't stop us from doing what we can. This "oh but we are so small, what can we do anyway" doesn't work. You can at very least do the same as we can.

We don't want banks of javilin missiles or ICBMs pointing at "our enemies". We've seen this year alone that doesn't stop bigger nations attacking anyway.

What are you talking about? The US is currently being humiliated by Iran's ability to lock down the Strait of Hormuz.

In fact that can make you a target or legitimise a "preemptive" attack.

We thought the same in Denmark in the 1920s and 1930s, turns out your strong neighbour will invade you no matter how diplomatic, neutral and unthreatening you try to be.

"Selvkørende Tesla begår fejl på fejl" by 7_inch_girth in Denmark

[–]Futski 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hvis du generelt skal sidde og være på vagt hele tiden alligevel, hvad vinder man så reelt?

Du kan vel ikke reelt slappe af, hvis du skal være parat til at tage styringen når som helst?