The main advancement of capitalism was the rich handing their knights to the state

Seriously, why do people think capitalism = market economy?

How hard is it to understand that capitalism is only a single form of market economies, and literally the worst one?

Capitalism didn’t bring down the concept of divine right, ffs.

Only to be CEO of a massive capitalist company.

I’ve heard a few tales of some CEO’s (of very small companies) here in the Nordics actually being generous to their employees. Like it’s most definitely a rarity, but I believe it is possible.

Like a CEO who values profits but values employees and paying their fair share more and isn’t blinded by greed and addicted to money. A socialist, literally. A market socialist, but a socialist nonetheless.

Everyone could have their basic needs met, and we could still have rich people. Just not filthy rich, not “rich-to-the-point-no-one-else-has-anything” rich.

They don’t read the Bible. They quote parts of it to suit their needs, the hypocrite fucks.

Usury is banned in the Bible, but it’s essentially what the US runs on.

Hell, based on the Bible no Karen should ever quote the Bible in an attempt to teach someone.

1 Timothy 12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."

Mixing fabric? That’s a stoning. (And not the good kind.)

“Extensive knowledge of scripture” don’t make me laugh

Capitalists

When poor people put others in danger and/or exploit things for financial benefit, they go to prison.

Stop giving fines for big companies and actually start putting people in fucking prison.

Bring back the gestapo already.

You forgot the “/s”. Please, it’s important in these times.

Also someone like a proper Sherpa sherpa from the Himalayas can function with oxygen that’s comparable to 7% sea level oxygen.

And there are towns with elevation so high the oxygen is equivalent to 15% sea level oxygen.

So this chart has pretty narrow limits. Sure, the legend does specify “breathe forever unaided”, but someone like a well accustomed sherpa who regularly climbs Mt Everest would have a much wider range than 20-25%

Again, skipping 95% of the reply, but still you feel the need to answer.

That’s rather weird.

How would Russia attacking Finland “divide Europe”?

Ukraine had no defense cooperation with any country, yet people still think Finland is in a similar situation, and like you, always willfully ignore NORDEFCO and the EU.

Please show me where I make just a hint about that, I have not written ANYTHING about the Finish defense capabilities.

Ok:

Finland could be overrun before a decision was made in EU to even do anything.

“Our lacking ability to supply Ukraine without USA”. It’s not about the lack of ability. It’s about Ukraine not being in EU, so direct military aid, and especially troops is harder to send. Our militaries aren’t designed to be overflowing with equipment we can just donate away, so it takes a bit of time to see what can be taken and from where. EU is now, afaik, making seized Russian assets available to Ukraine, and getting money to buy armament with is quite as important as getting armament. Even more so, because with money you can also buy non-armament supplies, which are also needed.

Finland has never trusted Russia. Sweden tried to, a bit, by generously demilitarising Gotland, up until it had to rearm it a few years back because after there was no military there, suddenly Russian tourists of military serving age started “touring” it. Now there’s a permanent base again.

might have a chance to divide both Europe and NATO, and Finland could be such an area to poke.

What are you on about? Do you know how the Winter War and the Continuation War played out? How would Russia attacking Finland “divide” Europe, unless you’re implying that Russia is a part of Europe, because we were more discussing in the context of the European Union, not Europe in general. European Union is very strong and there’s articles that have been agreed to. International politics don’t really work with the “no I’m not gonna, because I don’t wonna” attitude.

You’re severely underestimating Finland’s defenses pre joining NATO. And that (usually American) cockiness is exactly why a lot of people still oppose NATO.

It’s not a binding agreement. It’s based on voluntary cooperation, as is with quite clear letters in the name. But is is most definitely purely for defence cooperation. To challenge that would be silly.

Why’d you skip over 95% of the comment?

Where did you sit your lessons on Finnish military capability, especially in regards to a war with Russia?

Mine were in the Pori Brigade, and Häme Regiment for my special training.

And the EU article is a very clear defence pact.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html

Please, do respond to the other points. I’m interested.

Did you also skip the part where I was completely right about the support numbers? Probably because I actually live here, and you had to quickly just Google something?

I do not think you understand the strategic danger Finland would be in without NATO

Well I’ve sat actual lessons on it in the army, from people who’s literal job is defending this country.

Where are you getting your info from?

The point is that a majority of Finns saw no need of NATO even when we had shittier equipment for our military and no military alliances. Now we’re in NORDEFCO and the EU. We’ve the advantage when defending, especially with our utilisation of our geography and the biggest and most accurate artillery in Europe.

With an arsenal of 700 howitzers, 700 heavy mortars and 100 multiple rocket launchers, Finland has the largest artillery capability in western Europe. Homeland defence willingness against a superior enemy is at 83%, one of the highest rates in Europe.

Nordefco is definitely not a defense pact

What on Earth are you smoking, my man? That’s literally all it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Defence_Cooperation

Just the combined power of the Nordic countries would be pretty significant against Russia. Swedes rule the Baltic Sea, we hold the border with Russia, and Norway holds the North, with tons of cooperation that’s been practiced for decades (Official Finnish Defence Forces channel) .

And if Russia attacked an EU country, every member nation is required to assist?

The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between European Union (EU) Member States in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

"… by all means in their power. "

That means military aid, troops, for those who can. France, Germany, UK, Poland, everyone.

This is why we can’t send troops to Ukraine, because that could be seen as an aggressive move by the EU against Russia. But if Russia attacked Finland, or any other member of the EU, Russia would be practically declaring war with them all.

Ukraine is a big country, yes, but compared to the entire EU, it’s something Russia dares to challenge.

It wouldn’t dare to challenge the European fucking Union.

It’s amazing you feel you need to mention you are not anti NATO, being anti NATO as an NCO in the Finnish reserves, would be insane now IMO.

How so? A majority of Finnish males are in the reserves, and I remind you that as we saw from the Yle article you linked, before 2022, most Finns were opposed to NATO.

We’re not so authoritarian that we demand people can’t have their own opinions.

~75% of Finnish males go through the service and thus are in the reserves up until they’re 55-65 (NCO’s and officers remain in the reserves 10 years longer.)

It’s alway fun talking to some American who thinks their military equals NATO (one of the reasons NATO wasn’t so popular here) and think they’re some knight in shining armor saving a damsel in distress.

Sorry bruv, but American troops wouldn’t manage shit in Finland.

A group of conscripts from a supply group (ie a group of cooks, basically, who get six months of training) defeated a USMC group in an exercise here in Finland.

https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/65e5530a-2149-41bd-b509-54760c892dfb

Oh fuck that’s paywalled.

https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Finnish-military-just-beat-the-US-Marines-in-Cold-Response

That’s better.

You should be more open to what you don’t know instead of assuming you do.

In the last few months, yeah, it was more popular than 50/50, that’s why it went through. But even during the first several months of the current Russo–Ukrainian wars, most polls showed it to be pretty even. Until it wasn’t.

Joining NATO was a good thing. I just do have certain reservations about it, and we definitely didn’t need it against Russia.

You’ll notice that September 2022 is several months later than the start of the current Russo-Ukrainian war.

The people who were pro-NATO used a lot of fear mongering or maybe you are naive

Or maybe I’m an NCO in the Finnish reserves and have a better understanding of Finnish military capabilities than you? I’ve sat lessons in which most scenarios of Russia attacking were discussed.

And even without NATO, we weren’t alone. We’re part of NORDEFCO and EU.

So yeah, I’m not naive, but you’re definitely I’ll-informed. Like a lot of people were, which is why the fear mongering worked so well.

Finland used to be under Russia too, so Finland is very likely on the list.

If you’re talking pre Finnish independence, technically, yes, but also, no. We were an autonomous region, the Grand Duchy of Finland.

And yes, of course we’re “on the list”, but unless Russia attacks straight up with nukes, it’s really not a potential threat currently. And hasn’t been since Russia’s “special military operation”.

We had good plans, resources and alliances to deal with a Russian who hadn’t put all their resources towards Ukraine, and we could’ve easily done it without NATO, but after Russia is even weaker and has no resources to send against us, we somehow suddenly require NATO?

Ridiculous. Do you know that the EU also has a mutual defence clause?

That’s why we need to quickly push through the Accession of Ukraine into the European Union.

Again, I’m not anti-NATO, and don’t mind that we joined NATO, at all. It was probably due at some point, and what better point than when Russia is weak and can’t even manage their usual threats. My problem is that the rhetoric that was used to gather support for the notion was entirely fearmongering.

Edit adding this direct quote from the article you linked

"Backing for membership in Yle polls has grown from 53 percent in February to 62 percent in March and 76 percent in May. Before the Russian attack on Ukraine, a majority of Finns had long opposed membership."

Well Finland, really, in this case.

Joining NATO really didn’t change the situation in practice at all.

We’ve had a pretty stable if salty relationship with Russia, since, well… quite a few hundred years since.

The NATO thing has been on the table for 70+ years. I don’t mind it went through, the idea of NATO is great (US just has somewhat too much influence over it for it to be truly a politically neutral defence alliance), but even when it went through, it was about 50/50.

The people who were pro-NATO used a lot of fear mongering about Russia. Even when it was rather clear Russia would not have had the resources and troops to open up a second front.

Just saw that yesterday and so I did too. (think of it that is)

Same.

It seems as childish as toddlers having broken something by throwing it forcefully on the floor and then pretending that they don’t understand why the thing broke.

Afaik, high internet speed requires higher frequencies and high frequencies reach less far + have less penetration through/around obstacles. That’s what makes providing “4g” virtually everywhere easy (good enough for phone calls at least), but if they want to provide actual high speeds everywhere, then it suddenly becomes not so easy (nor cheap).

Why are you putting “4g” in quotes? It is 4g. Basic cellular networks cover the entire country, and using 4g speeds has been common for a long time. Hell, back when I was in the army, I had a laptop with a mobile connection. It was 3g back then, but it worked, even from the deepest of woods we were in.

The terrain of Finland probably makes this easier for us, as this is a rather flat country. We have literally no mountains. A few fells (=large hill, essentially) , but no mountains.

“still hasn’t broken out yet”

I don’t know if I perceive a pessimistic or sn optimistic tone here.

I wish I had a good answer, but I don’t, really.

Probably a combination of just providing a service and having good technology to do so and companies which want to sell said technology, I guess?

Everyone enjoys the internet. I might be assuming, but the sort of “if you want services, move to a city” sort of rhetoric that might exist somewhere in the US doesn’t really exist for us Finns. We understand wanting to live in the middle of the woods while still having access to basic services.

The Northern part is very sparsely populated, yeah (well not compared to some other places in the middle of huge states in the US but) something like two people per square kilometer, but rural living is pretty common throughout the country, so the whole country understands the need for them, perhaps?

Also, I think a lot of the towers are older towers for just 2g, going back from GSM to NMT, those towers always just being updated with newer technology, again perhaps? (I’m too lazy to research this now.) And the need to have just cellular networks to be able to call emergency services if you’re lost deep in the woods has always been a pretty high priority, I think?

The only places you maybe can’t get cell reception in Finland are some places in the middle of a few national parks in Lapland.

Laws don’t dictate the use of language, people do.

It just so happens that when you don’t have buds, it’s hard to find instances in which to use “bud”, and because even when I started, you needed to make sure it’s actually bud, not just some trim, grass, weed.

Marijuana is the loaded term. Cannabis is a scientific one.

We Finns don’t have any of those pesky mountains.