Comments by "zjeee" (@zjeee) on "TLDR News EU" channel.

  1. 310
  2. 73
  3. 67
  4. 47
  5. 42
  6. 40
  7. 38
  8. 29
  9. 27
  10. 25
  11. 24
  12. 23
  13. 23
  14. 19
  15. 19
  16. 18
  17. 17
  18. 13
  19. 13
  20. 12
  21. 12
  22. 12
  23. 12
  24. 11
  25. 10
  26. 10
  27. 9
  28. 9
  29. 9
  30. 9
  31. 8
  32. 8
  33. 8
  34. 8
  35. 7
  36. 7
  37. 7
  38. 7
  39. 6
  40. 6
  41. 6
  42. 6
  43. 6
  44. 6
  45. 6
  46. 6
  47. 5
  48. 5
  49. 5
  50. 5
  51. 5
  52. 5
  53. 5
  54. 5
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. ​ @v-vinz6869  Socialism and Fascism are definitely similar in some regards and it's not a coincidence that the man that coined the term Fascism (Benito Mussolini) was a Socialist politician before resigning and creating his own ideology. His family were die hard socialists If you don't believe me check his name: He was named after leftist Mexican President Benito Juárez. His two middle names, Amilcare and Andrea, came from Italian socialists Amilcare Cipriani and Andrea Costa. Of course there are maaaany differences between the two and I am not going to pretend they are the same even though they share many similarities but - in my opinion - in practice it's very hard to label ideologies on a right or left spectrum. For example nationalism is usually placed on the right while communism is placed on the left spectrum, China is extremely nationalistic which should make them right wing but if you ask them they would proclaim they are die hard communists which would put them on the left. In my country (Sweden) our right wing party received 17.5% of the votes yet there are more similarities to fascism between the Communist regime in China which we can all agree should be on the far left spectrum and a self proclaimed right wing party in my country which we (at least in my country) put on the extreme right. So yes, in theory Fascism should traditionally be on the right side of the political spectrum but in reality it's not as easy as that and in many cases you can find more fascist tendencies on the "left" and in communist countries than you can in governments that are considered far right.
    2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. Depends how you see it, the EU and US stand for more than 33% of the world's GDP. Maybe in terms of population they're pretty minor, in terms of economic muscles only China can compete with them though. If you think the sanctions will hurt the Citizens of Europe wait until you see what happens to Africa and Middle East. Europeans will complain about higher prices of food and fuel, sure but they will afford it. Africans and Middle Easterners however they will die of starvation, it's already started to happen and look at Sri Lanka. When it comes down to food and fuel goes up and nations start competing for food who do you think food producers will sell to, the US and EU that can give them a high prize or the third world that can barely afford the regular price? On your list I reckon China will be alright, India.... kind of yeah not as good as China but they can manage. Africa and South America though? Good luck with that. Why would Russia sell to them for half price when they can sell to others for bigger profits? Even India has said they get a 35% discount from Russia. If we go by that then even if Russia can replace the EU market they will have a 35% loss of revenue and Africa and South America probably wants a bigger discount. TLDR there's a reason Russia did so much business with the EU and US and not the third world because Africa, India, South America, Middle east are pretty poor compared to Europe and they cannot afford to pay western prices. China is the only one that can keep up with the western market in terms of economic muscles.
    2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. I agree somewhat with the second part of your assessment even though I find it a little bit overexaggerated. About Sweden's military I don't agree. Sweden's military has 24.000 active personnel Finland has 21,500. Finland does have 900.000 reserves but that is because you have a system of conscription which means that every able man from 18-49 will be called in and Sweden don't at this point. That doesn't mean you have an active pool of 200k ground forces. Only 21,500 men are active in the Finish military and if attacked every man between 18-49 will be conscripted into the military no matter if they want to or not. If you compare the Defence spending Sweden spends $7.18 billion dollars 2022, Finland's regular defence spending for 2022 is around $3 Billion dollars with a one time increase for around 2 billion which totals to 5 billion dollars in 2022. Even with a very downscaled military Sweden regularly spends almost twice as much as Finland on the military, 2022 is an exception since Finland decided to increase the budget by 70% for this year only. I do believe the Finns are more motivated to fight than us Swedes though, you have prepared for another Russian invasion for 70 years and the population is more mentally prepared for an armed conflict. This part I agree with although I think this has more to do with geography and history. As a Swede that is highly critical of the way our government handles crisis I agree with your next part but the 10x mortality rate is just plain wrong if you look deaths per million inhabitants Sweden's numbers are 3 times higher, which is bad but not really 10x bad. The lack of medical supplies is true and our total ICU beds are incredibly low which is alarming but is irrelevant for this pandemic as we were never on full capacity and Sweden have never had a mask mandate, even to this day few people use face masks. So yes our Crisis management is very bad but the lack of medical equipment had little influence of the outcome of this pandemic, we got very lucky this time. Medical equipment and ICU beds + face masks did very little to stop the pandemic, we have countries like America and the UK with a lot more deaths/1 million inhabitants and they have tons of Medical equipment, ICU beds and face masks. But those are just my opinions on the matter, I am not for lockdowns at all I am actually living in China right now and considering to return home to Sweden for the first time in 7 years just because of the strict quarantine measures here. When you are stuck in your own apartment for more than a month several times of the year because your city has less than 10 cases you get tired of strict quarantine measures quick. Maybe that's just me being selfish but being able to go to a society that has more of a "live with the virus" approach is a big plus to me. Our government is shit handling a crisis I agree but having no COVID lockdowns is something I applaud them for.
    1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. ​ @Xsomono Just look at it this way through the lens of political theory realism, "Decision-makers are rational actors in the sense that rational decision-making leads to the pursuit of the national interest. taking actions that would make your state weak or vulnerable would not be rational". Disbanding and prosecuting Azov would weaken the state as they need every man they can get fighting the Russians and lower western support for the Ukrainian army if they would admit their soldiers have committed human rights violations. It's in the Ukrainian state's best interest to support Azov as they are doing a good job holding off the Russians. Why is the US allied to the Saudis even though they are probably one of the worst when it comes to human rights? Because they share a common enemy, Iran. They have a shit ton of oil that the US needs and can get at a discount. Is it correct to ally with the Saudis from a moral perspective? No. Then why? Because the alliance makes the US stronger and gives them a presence in the middle east to counter their enemy, Iran. Getting cheaper oil is not a bad thing either. Of course there will always be a balancing act about pros and cons but right now Azov has more pros than cons for the Ukrainian state so they will continue to support them. Perhaps after the war there will be more cons than pros and they might change their stance. But for now not supporting them would make the Ukrainian state weaker and would not serve Ukraine's national interest and would therefor not be a rational decision. Obviously this is one of many political theories but sometimes acting morally is not in the best interest of a state and it's better to come at it from a rational approach. Not always but in this case it can make a good example to explain a state's behaviour, In my opinion anyway.
    1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1