True and its all because of Danish push towards chat control.
True. But the (by far) biggest threat are not the russians that are failing to defeat the ukrainians for years now.
It’s the rise of authoritharianism (sometimes even facism) all over the world, which happens with the silent support of european governments, as they decide not to ban those parties in their own countries.The USA are transforming into Gilead before our eyes, and instead of protecting us from those that want this in europe too, our governments point their fingers to russia and scream SCARY!
WW3 will not be fought by russia alone. It will be fought by far-right governments all over the world joining in to show off their own superiority and conquer resources at the same time.
It’s not like their council presidency is actively contributing to it with Chat Control…
That would be a gift on a golden platter to Russia and China, just to mention two.
Isn’t Chat Control where they use AI to scan all your online/mobile communications for CSAM? How is that a gift to Russia and China?
And the AFD in Germany.
Nothing about chat control? They are so out of touch in this article
I don’t know if I trust the same government that proposed Chat Control in their opinions of things.
Which isn’t saying much as WWII was very fucking dangerous
Well it is saying that it’s more dangerous than the entire Cold War
Some people argue that USSR collapsed because USA forced them into an arms race. If they only reacted then the West was in control and the threat to the West was only theoretical.
The current war will lead to one side losing if they don’t escalate. If no side is willing to lose then this war must escalate at one point.
The US didn’t force them into the arms race, russia itself was more than willing to invest that resources to project a sense of strength. They just couldn’t compete economically and ruined themselves with it
The graph above “United States and Soviet Union/Russia nuclear weapon stockpiles”, doesn’t that look like a reaction of the USSR?
And the fact, that the US had a huge headstart doesn’t come to your mind? That, by the time the soviets had their first one the US had already understood the system and could develop it further faster? The soviets only gained the bomb through espionage, so even after they had it, they needed more time to reach a level of capability, comparable to the US before they could start ramping up their production.
That explains why the USSR couldn’t react faster. It doesn’t explain why the US built so many bombs.
The Soviets and their satellite states produced more tanks than cars. So, that shows where the actual priorities of the USSR were.
Hyperbole or fact?
Before its dissolution, the Soviet Union produced 2.1-2.3 million units per year of all types
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_the_Soviet_Union
I can’t find the source on Britannica, but it did mention that. I admit it could have been a misinformation or misunderstanding on my part about more tanks produced than cars.
In the Wikipedia link you provided, it does mention that you have to wait for years to buy and own a car. That implies not many cars are actually available for many citizens despite the demand. There is a discussion about it on Quora https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Russians-during-Soviet-times-had-to-wait-10-years-for-a-car
That implies not many cars are actually available for many citizens despite the demand.
Well, don’t quote me on that, but I am pretty sure that the average soviet citizen couldn’t get a tank neither. In fact, it still was propably easier for them to get their hands on a car than on a tank.
The USSR was not a consumer paradise. But as long as public transport works, not having a car is acceptable. The important part is that we shouldn’t remember the USSR as a military dystopia as the initial relations could have suggested.
deleted by creator
Dugin must be the happiest motherfucker in Russia right now.
Can we stop with the self-fulfilling prophecies already? Fear-mongering has always been a necessary requirement for escalations of any kind 🤦
Russia has started the largest war in Europe since WW2 and the Americans move very quickly from being allies to enemies. It is important to talk about that and act acordingly
Russia has started the largest war in Europe since WW2 and the Americans move very quickly from being allies to enemies. It is important to talk about that and act acordingly
I agree with that, is there a contradiction here?
It’s neither fear mongering nor a self fulfilling prophecy if you’re simply stating facts. It’s not the Danish PMs fault, that Russia mistakes itself for some kind of empire
It’s neither fear mongering nor a self fulfilling prophecy if you’re simply stating facts. It’s not the Danish PMs fault, that Russia mistakes itself for some kind of empire
“I think we are in the most difficult and dangerous situation since the second world war.” is, by her own wording, decidedly not a fact. It’s pointless hyperbole and headline-hunting that compromises (arguably deliberately so) the reader’s perception of the world. A world that does not make rational decisions but decisions solely based on its perception of itself.
And it was her active decision to make that statement.Sorry, did I miss the war the UdSSR forced on us in between 1944 and its end? Or Russia until 2014? When was the last time a European country was invaded by a foreign nuclear power? Or the last time a NATO member had their air space repeatedly violated by armed planes and drones?
Sorry, did I miss the war the UdSSR forced on us in between 1944 and its end? Or Russia until 2014? When was the last time a European country was invaded by a foreign nuclear power? Or the last time a NATO member had their air space repeatedly violated by armed planes and drones?
I’m either misunderstanding you or the Danish PM. So I suppose, even though that would be her job, convince me: Why would the ongoing impotent flailing and blustering of an economically severely strained aggressor and their continued reasonable hybrid effort against your/my/one’s nation be “more dangerous” 2025 than in 2022, 2023 or 2024 and thus warrant a policy change compared to those years? Policy changes that, mind you, wouldn’t even more than tangentially affect nations that are currently facing actual attacks.
Because this ‘flailing and blustering of an economically severely strained aggressor’ is now turned against us and reaching a level where NATO member have been forced into opening fire already.
Given the situation a statement like the “most dangerous situation since WW2” stops being fear-mongering, but starts being at least somewhat reasonable.
As for acting accordingly deterrence is a key part of that. Russia is going to see a lot of those actions as escalation. They certainly cried about every bit of aid send to Ukraine as being escalation. Putin and Trump certainly think somewhat alike. So being prepared against Putin is also going to help against Trump. The problem with that is that a war not waged due to heavy military spending, makes the military spending look stupid. The issue here is that we do not know how much was actually needed.
As for acting accordingly deterrence is a key part of that. Russia is going to see a lot of those actions as escalation. They certainly cried about every bit of aid send to Ukraine as being escalation. Putin and Trump certainly think somewhat alike. So being prepared against Putin is also going to help against Trump. The problem with that is that a war not waged due to heavy military spending, makes the military spending look stupid. The issue here is that we do not know how much was actually needed.
That is the nature of a security dilemma. Riling up the general population to facilitate arms races is not a way out of it, is it?
It is not. Russia is at war and has a war economy already. It can not have an arms race as well. The potential problem is that Russia might win the war against Ukraine and then use its military to fight the EU or that they believe they would lose due to EU support of Ukraine and therefore come to the conclusion that stopping that support could be achieved by attacking the EU.
The way out of it is to send a lot of arms to Ukraine, while having a strong enough force in the EU to make sure that Russia does not do anything stupid.
As for Trump that might happen, but the EU only needs enough to defend itself. So no carriers or large navy needed.
So we should talk about the situation but we cannot state the severeness of the situation?
So we should talk about the situation but we cannot state the severeness of the situation?
Is there any point in “stating” severeness of the situation, if you cannot measure it?
There’s no scale here, Frederiksen didn’t sit down to develop some metric for situation severeness and then came to the conclusion “Oh, this rates at 1.2 Cuban Missile crises, better give the alarm”, she just blurted out a soundbite.I’m sorry, but what?
Not everything worth discussing is easily measurable.
If I were to say that U.S. democracy is deteriorating rapidly and hasn’t been in this sort of danger in decades, would you say I’m recklessly fear-mongering since it cannot be measured in a floating-point value with a rigorous, well-defined unit of measure?
You’re being needlessly contrarian and reductionist.
Yes. And she is contributing to it with her war-preperation rhetoric. She seriously used the “upcoming war” as an excuse to make us danes work more and retire later (and also to remove a holiday) in a time where the thing we need the most is to fight for shorter work weeks.
Her heart is in the right place, just a shame she is dumb as a brick.
Her reactions are a different matter, but what do you expect her to say about the current state of affairs with russia? There’s clearly a history of escalations by russia towards european countries, especially in the last few weeks
Yes. And she is contributing to it with her war-preperation rhetoric. She seriously used the “upcoming war” as an excuse to make us danes work more and retire later (and also to remove a holiday) in a time where the thing we need the most is to fight for shorter work weeks.
It always amuse me how people think that with life expencanty increasing they could retire earlier and work less (and don’t want, rightly, pay more taxes).
As for the war-preparation rhetoric, I would rather be prepared and then nothing happen than not being prepared and the something happen (if only Italy could do the same…)
how people think that with life expencanty increasing they could retire earlier and work less
Shame, that people think they could have the same as all western generations since the beginning of industrialization 😅
Yeah, of course. Productivity still rises across the board. To merely sustain our wealth, we all could work less and retire earlier, but alas, that does not work if the productivity gains get gobbled up solely by the owners ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Shame, that people think they could have the same as all western generations since the beginning of industrialization 😅
It is not a shame, it is expected but not always possible.
Yeah, of course. Productivity still rises across the board. To merely sustain our wealth, we all could work less and retire earlier, but alas, that does not work if the productivity gains get gobbled up solely by the owners ¯_(ツ)_/¯
It is not a problem of productivity but a problem of how many years you work before retiring and how many year you live after you retire (with the obvious exceptions).
I agree that the increase in productivity should generate an higher pay for the worker but that is sustainable up until a certain point, you cannot expect to work for 20 years then to live 40 or more years in retirement with the same standard of living since what you get while retired is what you accumulate while working, even with a higher productivity.
you cannot expect to work for 20 years then to live 40 or more years in retirement
Erm, we’re far away from those numbers, so let’s discuss THAT when the time comes.
But apart from that, yes, productivity gains which are shared fairly enable exactly that: work less, be it less hours or earlier retirement or a mix of both. The productivity gains do exactly what is needed for it: more output with less input, it is directly connected.
Erm, we’re far away from those numbers, so let’s discuss THAT when the time comes.
My nunbers where only an extreme example, but the point stand. You can still not work less years then the ones you can live in retirement. While working you do not put aside more than 100% of your salary (ok, let’s say even only the 50% )
But apart from that, yes, productivity gains which are shared fairly enable exactly that: work less, be it less hours or earlier retirement or a mix of both.
I could agree with working less hours daily, it could make sense in certain case.
The productivity gains do exactly what is needed for it: more output with less input, it is directly connected.
Only if the gains in productivity also produce a rise in the salaries, which is a condition to be able to retire sooner (you put aside more money with an higher pay).
You can still not work less years then the ones you can live in retirement
OK, I get from your comments, that you do not talk about pay-as-you-go pension funds. Still, for funded pensions you would need to account for capital gains. Which, as previously discussed when fairly distributed, could lead to working less and retire longer.
And on the other hand, in a pay-as-you-go system, as in a lot of European countries, we soon start that expeeiment involuntarily, when all the Boomers finally are retired. It would easily work, when the owners are taxed accordingly. On the whole society level we than have more retirement years than working years.
Only if the gains in productivity also produce a rise in the salaries
Yep, that is the condition. It was met between 1900-1975. Since then the productivity gains were larger than the salary gains. That is, why it feels wrong to want to work less these days. But it is a political decisison which was driven by greedy owners. They wanted more of the cake and now tell their workers “you cannot work less, even when your output has risen like never before”.
And on the other hand, in a pay-as-you-go system, as in a lot of European countries, we soon start that expeeiment involuntarily, when all the Boomers finally are retired. It would easily work, when the owners are taxed accordingly. On the whole society level we than have more retirement years than working years.
Not sure. You can tax the owners accordingly but they cannot sustain the cost for everyone else.
Only if the gains in productivity also produce a rise in the salaries
Yep, that is the condition. It was met between 1900-1975. Since then the productivity gains were larger than the salary gains. That is, why it feels wrong to want to work less these days. But it is a political decisison which was driven by greedy owners. They wanted more of the cake and now tell their workers “you cannot work less, even when your output has risen like never before”.
I agree that owners are now more greedy (not last because for the market now the only thing that matter is the next quarter) but as I can see the real problem is that every time we are talking about working less/retiring earlier we ignore the reality: we live longer and longer and with all the gain in productivity we cannot expect to offset the fact that we want to work less years.
I would agree to work 4 days a week with the same pay if the productivity is the same, but if we want to retire earlier and live longer I see no other way that work some more years because what you will get once retired is proportional to what you put aside now (accounting capital gains and everything else), there should be an balancing between the two period duration, especially if we don’t want to have an heavy impact on the social welfare.
