huppakee

Downright dangerous it is

Israel comits war crimes.

Hope they’re just empty words and not an actual desire to bend the knee to the transatlantic overlord.

The US president and his ally in the Kremlin want to use 100bn euros* of Russia’s frozen assets to be invested in a venture to rebuild Ukraine, while 50% of the venture’s profit would go to the US (according to point 14 of Trump’s initial ‘peace plan’ for Ukraine).

This makes so little sense, why would the US deserve a percentage of profit made from money they ‘stole’ from Russia? The businessman in chief might understand how to get money, but definitely does not understand how to do that in a way that’s morally right.

Maybe not, the Olympics survived a genocide so maybe Eurovision will get through this somehow

the more expensive it will be to participate for the remaining countries as well.

I don’t think the boycotting countries will leave the EBU or stop paying for their membership.

Duh, makes total sense, everything bad that happened is because of them. Need to get rid of 'em any means necessary and we have to do it quick, before they cause another national crises we could solve by just paying the bill. /s

If China was treating the west back then like it does now, it would definitely not have been as desirable to move production there. Afaik there hasn’t been a single event that changed everything, so the number 15 is a bit random; but the attitude of the west towards China and vice versa definitely shifted. Also Russia was for a short moment not seen as an enemy state (although Russia might have considered the west as their enemy all along)

Japan is a good example of how this doesn’t have to be a two way street. Could also be that US and Europe (where I’m from) don’t always have the same perception, so could be i wrote the west where Europe would’ve been more accurate.

Haven’t been to either but authoritarian doesn’t have to mean suppressive. And in both cases it might matter a lot where you go and who you are (as in your wealth, skin colour, connections etc).

If the Chinese economy was run out of a board room at JP Morgan or through a series is military based commanded by NATO Generals or via a client state like Israel or Japan, we wouldn’t hear any complaints

Western markets would still be overrun by cheap products (partly because of subsidies and partly because forced labour), Chinese residents would still be supressed by heavy surveillance, Taiwan would still be threatened, Russia would still be supplied with technology to invade Ukraine.

Until 15 years ago China wasn’t considered a hostile state, just an increasingly powerful competitor. All nations benefit their fomestic residents, or at least their domestic corporations.

The real situation in which there wouldn’t be complaints would be when the Chinese benefitted their residents while at the same time didn’t do anything the west didn’t like. But since they’ve become pwerful, they can now do whatever they want (just like other powerful countries) - and some of the stuff they want, is bad for the west.

I want to agree, but at the same time i feel the concentrated power at the top is very similar in both countries. The one party system in China is very different to the two party system in the US, but I don’t think that is what makes the difference. I think China genuinely wants the poor to be less poor and the US genuinely want the rich more rich. Different goals obviously lead to different results.

But I do agree the system shouldn’t allow room for power to be abused. The checks and balances system is definitely broken.

Last paragraph basically says it all:

This is not to congratulate China for its authoritarian government, for its repression of minorities or for the iron fist it deploys against any form of dissent. But it merits pondering how this undemocratic government could successfully slash its poverty rate when the richest and oldest democracy in the world wouldn’t.

It’s not a lost cause though, resistance is at least slowing down it’s implementation and possibly weakening it’s legal base. But i get you’re sentiment, it does not look like they will stop comming for copies of our digital conversations.

It’s greed that fuels it. Capitalism first becomes ‘capitalism’ which in turn becomes some sort of oligarchy until there is only a central wealthy and powerful entity and ultimately it’s just a single wealthy autocrat ruling everybody.

I’d argue if you bomb your enemy who has mini-nukes and regular nukes, their next step of escalation would be to use the mini-nukes. On the other had, if they only have regular nukes they would have to skip this middle step and use those instead. Ergo, only having regular nukes is a bigger deterrence than having both. That, and you have some unwasted money left for education and healthcare.

What’s the point of neutral lower courts if the ultimate say is for a bunch of people that aren’t neutral. You can win the first two and still get fucked over by the third round. The game is rigged.

Their excuse is that the Russians also need to eat and to withhold food to them is immoral. I say we allow them to continue to do business with Russia, but don’t allow them to keep their profits. It will soon become clear how much they care about the hunger of Russians.

That there is such high potential for corruption? Does it mean they don’t get paid enough? Or does it mean that they are essentially interested in the wrong things, namely money and pretty ladies they aren’t married to?

It would mean something if many of them would choose to do businss with chinese spies. It would mean something if secret service would keep this a secret. But what happened so far doesn’t say much about the state of politics of “western” (?) countries. The only thing this news really says something about, is about what China is willing to so get information that is not publicly available to them.

If Europe isn’t China’s enemy, why does it treat it as an enemy?

Good luck on getting the court on your side though