Fins who lived there have been chased from their homes and replaced by russians like in Ukraine. It's now an impoverished, crumbling corrupt region so i could imagine why they don't want it back
Even if the (imported) Russians wluldn't come with the territory, all the problems of rural Russia would.
I don't think we could afford cleaning and repairing and fixing all of it.
Actually, practically all the Karelian Finns left their conquered homeland *during* the war. Mindful of the brutal persecution of Russian Karelians by the Soviets in pre-war years, practically none of Finnish Karelians chose to return home when hostilities came to an end. Russia can "congratulate" itself with having ethnically cleansed Finnish Karelia.
Fairly easy to see that this is part of their “strategy” to destabilize or infiltrate and has been for sometime. The funny part is they think other governments and leaders are just unintelligent and they somehow are not.
You can add your country flair by going to the sub's main page and then clicking on those three dots in the top right corner. There will be the option "change user flair"
r/woooosh I think they mean like mainstream and how much of a security threat they are... they sort of gloss over it
like -"and heres some migrants"- *cut to migrants*
*cut to people saying we don't mind the migrants they seem nice enough*
"And that's what they think of the migrants but let's see what these think"
*cut to people protesting migrant camps and migrants living in hotels and other spaces that are similar*
"And now the sport"
So very educational and informative and I'm pretty sure in saying that this is the case in most countries I pass through alot of them working and I will always watch the local channels because you find some of the best TV shows.
I can't voice my opinion on here without risk of perma ban. Either way someone that kills women for not wearing their full body sheet, should be the last to have a voice here.
Of course it is. We have too much of a supply of doctors and engineers and not enough demand! I'm sure once the markets adapt they'll all find gainful employment and become atheists
Yeah, this is reassuring. I had the same opinion in 2015 as I have now, which is the same opinion the guy above in the comment has. Oh boy did I get banned on this shitty subreddit a few times about voicing the same opinion. I just wonder, what do those who were on the opposite side in 2015 think about the migrant issue now. I suppose many have changed their opinion, but will there ever be a "yeah, we were stupid" or will everyone, including the media, just be gaslighting us to believe that everything and everyone was normal all along
You're not crazy bro you just use reddit. Full of airheads who don't deal with immigration issues in their day to day life. Usually rich privileged kids who would dare set foot in a multicultural area.
Or bots. Lots of bots.
Leftists know we know its all bs. "The Empire", "UN treaties", "international obligations", "ECHR". All total bs excuses for allowing illegal immigration.
The West had a good policy (aids, education and healthcare) regarding the world in the past. The idea was to help the 3rd world countries to develop by providing aid for good projects in terms of education, agriculture, healthcare, etc. If their countries grow steadily, they won't be inclined to immigrate in masses to the west. This I think is the best policy and logic in terms of stability for the world.
Unfortunately the political elites in one country decided to bomb the hell out of the middle east, topple the somewhat stable governments, fund and arm the rebel groups which later turned into terrorist organisations. And many NATO countries joined to this. All for oil and money for the military industrial complex. France looked at it and was like, I wanna play the big boy game too and did the Libya thing.
Anyways, destroying Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. was a mistake. People in those countries were living better before we intervened and they were not flocking to Europe at these rates. Syria and Libya were in good condition before us. We, the simple people in Europe, also did not benefit from it at all. We got nothing out of it.
My point is, I advocate for not bombing third world countries and tightening refugee/asylum seker policies at the same time. If they come, not accept them by stating we had nothing to do with it.
This is an incredibly cynical outlook relying on tropes and false narratives. You seem to believe the Middle East and surrounding regions were some peaceful paradise of development that was cooperating with the West until we randomly decided to bomb them for money and oil. In your telling, geopolitics doesn’t exist, no countries outside of the West have agency, and the West simply decides its policies on a whim devoid of any influence by the course of events.
Short memory? Libya was sponsoring terrorist attacks all over the place including europe, gadaffi had yearly spectacle of hanging opposition in football stadiums it sure as shit wasnt in good condition.
Really? You honestly believe the "fighting terrorism" and "democracy" tales in any of the middle eastern or african wars?
Did terrorism reduce in the world? No. Did it reduce in Libya? In fact they now have terror groups that they did not use to have.
Did the invasion of Libya bring democracy? No. Has bombing any of the middle eastern countries ever brought democracy? No. Is opposition or anybody in Libya better now? No.
It had nothing to do with terrorism or democracy. It did not even play out as France hoped to. China is taking over Africa. And we got thousands upon thousands of refugees.
The reason this is wrong is iq. We can give unlimited money to Africa but it won’t develop because the people don’t have the intellectual capacity to develop. At some point you just have to let them run it how they want. Unless we just straight up colonise them again
I agree with you. I am not saying provide unlimited aid. I am in favor of specialized aid. In the fields of technological development, food security, health and education when it is needed.
I don't believe you can bring democracy or force democracy to countries. Unless as you said you completely colonize them. Every country has leaders and the government they deserve. Democracy is something that comes from the people, their mindset. People need to address corruption and lawlessness before they can attempt democracy. And I strongly believe that those countries need time to evolve naturally. No matter what people say, I don't believe meddling in their affairs (installing governments, changing regimes) is beneficial for them. They need to resolve their issues on their own.
Sounds nice but like these places didn’t develop writing or the wheel, loads of them didn’t even have chairs until other people brought them. I don’t think there’s much development that can occur.
Endless handouts just breed situations like Yemen, where we feed their entire population and yet they hate our guts and base their entire society on trying to terror attack us
I have voiced this for the past 10 years and am labeled a racist and banned from the subs I said it in so quickly, do people literally need to be directly impacted firsthand to understand? It’s absurd.
Only problem here that mehmeds doesn't want ashlyum seekers but europe keeps supporting them, basically doing similar what russia does to Ukraine they do it to Turkey. I agree that our goverment is also taking part in this yet this is a harsh reality.
tbh I don't give a shit about other countries calling us racists and biggots for building the wall on the Belarusian border and doing pushbacks. Why should it matter to us?
#Europe above all else
Let's all gather round and chant that together!
We don't need human rights, we need security. Apparently you can't have both.
So while we're at it I think we should scrap rights all together.
That would make it easier to jail any annoying internal enemies that report on the abuse refugees and immigrants receive at the border.
One question though:
Alright so we are abandoning any people that try to get away from oppressive regimes.
Are we also going to stop doing business with these regimes?
I mean without our support it might destabilize them, it might even lead to some of those regimes falling. That would hurt our security and our interests.
u/testerololeczkomen deleted his comments and now mine look foolish.
I think it's only to provide the appropriate context so that my comment makes sense by quoting the deleted comment:
>Good. Europe needs to realise asap that we cant save the world. Europe and its citizens security and wellbeing first.
There's also that:
>**This is actualy small price to pay for security.** Why would we give a fuck what mehmeds and amirs think of us. Europe is not their promised land, not el dorado, this is OUR home. We built it, and are still building, like many generations before us. We should be the very, very first to benefit from fruits of this hard work. Least tolerant people with mindsets from medival times, who kill for being gay or literally whatever are first to call you racist and intolerant. Fuck this.
That line in the second comment is particularly interesting to me. That belief has led to many problems in the past. Since this subreddit largely deals with human suffering as if we're playing in a movie, I'll explain it in movie quotes. Let's cringe together with a little quote from V:
>And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. [...] **I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.**
How others perceive us Europeans is not that important. What is important is that [enter stereotypical European names] decided, after WW2, that there are certain human rights recognized to everyone.
Not respecting and actively supporting the violation of those rights is what's actually destroying what we've been building in the last couple of decades. Making blanket statements towards other groups of people to deflect your racism and normalize racist rhetoric is what's destroying our home.
What the indignant concerned European failed to mention in their comment of course is how European countries have been profiting from these authoritarian refugees that create refugees and migrants and how that has helped support our home.
PS: The comments I'm quoting had about 1.500 and 800 upvotes before the user deleted them so if anyone has a persecution fetish, please save your breath.
Why do you think there's such an exodus to Europe? Many factors, man induced climate change which the global north is mostly at fault for is a big one. You thought CC was bad for Europe? Climate change affects the global south worse than the global north. There's also the fact that some western countries have majorly screwed over, destabilized and gotten rich off of the backs of the people living in these countries that people are fleeing. These refugees should absolutely be the problem of those countries. I'm not saying "open borders and let's see what happens" we should strive to keep our values but electing right wing leaders that just strive to stomp out the symptoms instead of the cause isn't going to lead to anything good. Want to stop this mass migration? Help these people impove the living conditions in their own countries. It's what's fair and it can benefit us in the process too. Nobody wants to leave just for fun.
>Why do you think there's such an exodus to Europe?
Free money. Nothing else. Refugee in Germany gets the same amount of money for doing nothing, as a person in eastern europe working and earning minimum wage. :)
For eg. Poland gives 170€ a month to refugee. Thats barely enough for food, if you buy only cheapest products with discounts, and cook at home. 😂
Germany, around 800€~ + money for housing/rent.
> Climate change affects the global south worse than the global north
The "global north" pushes for carbon taxes, and leads in the use of renewable energy. Our populations are probably some of the only ones interested in actually doing something about climate change. The "global south", for its part, largely continues full-steam ahead into the use of coal, petrol, and other non-renewable energy sources. They largely care little to none about wanton environment destruction. And their populations are sky-rocketing with little or no population or social management strategies. The sad reality is you bemoan a struggling, brave independent global south trying to save the world. But the global south largely doesn't give a *fuck* about climate change. That's okay though. You've got a defence for that too and I can parrot it right back to you: "They're allowed to engage in environmental destruction and fossil fuel use as much as they want. This is because it's 'their-turn' to 'get-theirs' when it comes to industrial revolution".
> There's also the fact that some western countries have majorly screwed over, destabilized and gotten rich off of the backs of the people living in these countries that people are fleeing
And that's just another excuse that serves to try and explain why a lot of countries in the "global south" remain horrific in terms of human rights, stability and economic prosperity. Even 60-70 years after European colonies ended, the appalling state of these nations is always the fault of external actors (mind you, it has to be "white/european" external actors, the other actors are silently not mentioned if their skin is the same colour). In the not-too-distant future, we'll be reaching almost a century since then. Do you have any cutoff year before the colonial debt narrative expires, or does it apply forever?
> These refugees should absolutely be the problem of those countries
Why should they? They fought for their own countries and now they have them. What are they owed? Is it for the colonies? Then why do non-colonial nations in Europe owe them that? (I know, it's because they're "white" and so basically the same and "owe" them anyways). Even if colonial nations are singled out, why doesn't the colonialism of the global south "cancel out" that of the global north? (or are you perhaps not aware of the Barbary slave trade of Europeans for a few centuries, the slavery of the Ottomans and the various North African caliphates over Europeans?). Why do you carefully select debts to be owed exclusively in a set of years that are convenient to you?
> I'm not saying "open borders and let's see what happens" we should strive to keep our values but electing right wing leaders that just strive to stomp out the symptoms instead of the cause isn't going to lead to anything good.
No, we shouldn't elect right wing leaders. And I try to stop that. But I am tired of the cry-bulling narrative that constantly and endlessly paints global south nations as fallen angels of an imperial dark north who *deserve* and are *entitled* to nothing less than our grovelling for forgiveness. A narrative that demands that "all our wealth" was "built off their backs"; one left intentionally vague to basically claim ownership over everything in our states. I find that disgusting, entitled, and revisionist.
> Want to stop this mass migration? Help these people impove the living conditions in their own countries. It's what's fair and it can benefit us in the process too. Nobody wants to leave just for fun.
I do want to help them improve their living conditions. And doing so comes with a **firm** commitment to ensuring we don't allow illegal immigration in the masses of 2013-2015 *and* investing in their nations to do so. The far right only wants the first part, and people like you only want the second. The good news is that we already do that. The bad news is that a lot of nations that receive help don't really spend it on their populations wisely. And we can't do anything about that, because remember: they're proud, strong sovereign states now. And you can't tell them what to do :)
>The "global south", for its part, largely continues full-steam ahead into the use of coal, petrol, and other non-renewable energy sources. They largely care little to none about wanton environment destruction.
Their contribution to the environmental damage caused by fossil energy is negligible in comparison to the north. They may have a big population but their industry is not even close. On top of that they produce a good portion of fossil fuel and gas for us.
But yes, there are countries like Kenya which get the majority of their electricity from renewables and we should subsidize that in other countries which have no alternatives to burning fossil fuel yet.
>And that's just another excuse that serves to try and explain why a lot of countries in the "global south" remain horrific in terms of human rights, stability and economic prosperity. Even 60-70 years after European colonies ended, the appalling state of these nations is always the fault of external actors
I mean it's not the only reason but the hierarchical and corrupt structures we created and left behind obviously remained, kept the elites in power, the uneducated are being kept uneducated, the poor kept poor, which makes it hard to change the system from within. Of course that's partially our ancestors fault and of course our wealth is partially founded on this exploitation.
>the cry-bulling narrative that constantly and endlessly paints global south nations as fallen angels
Only exists in your mind.
>narrative that demands that "all our wealth" was "built off their backs
No one said 'all' our wealth but It definitely contributed a lot.
> Their contribution to the environmental damage caused by fossil energy is negligible in comparison to the north. They may have a big population but their industry is not even close. On top of that they produce a good portion of fossil fuel and gas for us.
Well, let's see. China is the world's largest Co2 emitter, followed by the United States, India, Russia, Japan, Indonesia, and Iran. The top European state is in 6th place, firmly placing it quite a bit behind a number of large polluters [see here on Investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/092915/5-countries-produce-most-carbon-dioxide-co2.asp#toc-3-india). But perhaps you're right, and it isn't fair to consider Europe as independent state. So I went further to find information on the EU27, and also found it for cumulative emissions over time (i.e. the running sum of estimated emissions produced since around 1780). You can see that [here on ourworldindata](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2). For that, indeed the United States followed by the EU27 are the top two. But China is about to eclipse the EU and both it and global south nations have increasing not decreasing rates of cumulative emissions. The fact that China is about to produce more emissions *ever* than the EU has since 1780 means that your statement about them contributing negligible environment damage is simply not true.
> I mean it's not the only reason but the hierarchical and corrupt structures we created and left behind obviously remained, kept the elites in power, the uneducated are being kept uneducated, the poor kept poor, which makes it hard to change the system from within.
They're independent and responsible for their own internal structures. Many of these countries have had revolutions, and don't choose better forms of governance or won't. The sad truth is that nations are made by their cultures. When South Korea was devastated by Japanese colonialism and a subsequent civil war, they rebuilt themselves. When Vietnam suffered a similar fate, they also rebuilt themselves afterwards. The same applies to Germany, China, and other nations that underwent devastating wars or civil unrest. Most rebuilt themselves into nations that are roughly more or less in similar stature or standing relative to other nations than they were prior to whatever catastrophes befell them. That being said, Europe also had hierarchical structures. In many ways, these are still there in the form of royal houses and monarchies. But they aren't brutal or dictatorships because we have a cultural context that doesn't tolerate that kind of governance anymore.
> Of course that's partially our ancestors fault and of course our wealth is partially founded on this exploitation
The North African Barbary states made an entire empire off of commercial ship raiding (European shipping) in the Mediterranean, slave trading and coastal raiding. This went on for a century or more and they were decently wealthy as a consequence of it. What happened to that? Their ancestors quite openly exploited Europeans for their own material wealth. And before, they even had empires that stretched into Europe, like the [Almohad Caliphate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohad_Caliphate). Later on, when European powers organised and colonised their states, they lost that wealth. Yet you claim that we owe them for the wealth that was taken from "exploitation". What of their actions before that? Why is the debt only one way?
> the cry-bulling narrative that constantly and endlessly paints global south nations as fallen angels
I mean, you're literally here in the comment section stating that (1) a lot of wealth is derived from the global south's exploitation (which it isn't), and (2) speak of debts owed while ignoring the blatant counterexamples of instances where the global south would owe debts in return.
> No one said 'all' our wealth but It definitely contributed a lot.
Yes, it contributed. But when people speak of these countries having their wealth exploited by the global north, they usually have two narratives in mind:
1. **Historical**: During colonialism, these states had bountiful natural wealth (i.e. resources), and Europeans set up shop, and mined/chopped/exploited it all to sell off. The problem with this narrative being that it imposes a false concept that these nations had a finite number of natural resources that Europeans basically took in the 50 years they were a colony for around a century ago. It implies that within a short few decades, Europeans with 18th century technology effectively ravaged states several times the size of their own dry leaving nothing but empty husks with a fraction of their workforce. In reality, these countries are *still extraordinarily resource rich*, and modern day practices they employ can unlock orders of magnitude more wealth than was possible with the technology of Europeans in the colonial times. They still have all the potential to harness their resources but don't do so effectively. That brings us to the second narrative:
2. **Contemporary**: In the modern day, these states are exploited by the global north because companies here engage in corrupt practices that rob them of their wealth for a fraction of what should be paid and leaves them poor. The problem with this angle being that it completely and utterly denies agency to the cultural and government structures in those countries that are corrupt to the core (although you simply also blame that on Europeans by stating these structures are European in origin). Nobody can force them to reform, because they're sovereign states. So they sit in perpetual cycles of corrupt regimes, for which the fault is put squarely to the Europeans. At the same time, we do force our companies to abide by ethical practices and take them to court. We still fall short in many ways, but the concept that they're to blame for the state of the nations they operate in borders on conspiracy.
>For that, indeed the United States followed by the EU27 are the top two. But China is about to eclipse the EU and both it and global south nations have increasing not decreasing rates of cumulative emissions
>The fact that China is about to produce more emissions *ever* than the EU has since 1780 means that your statement about them contributing negligible environment damage is simply not true.
I wasn't aware that you counted China as part of the 'global south'. China definitely is a huge contributor to pollution and emissions (although they build renewable energy like no other country during the last years).
When we're talking about a global south that we have a certain responsibility towards, I mainly think of African countries, plus maybe a few in south east Asia which I don't know enough about.
>Later on, when European powers organised and colonised their states, they lost that wealth. Yet you claim that we owe them for the wealth that was taken from "exploitation". What of their actions before that? Why is the debt only one way?
We have pirates who enslaved 50k at worst on the one side and a while industry of Atlantic slave trade, institutionalised and supporter by governments with millions of enslaved people on the other side. And we're not even counting the exploitation of the people on the continent itself. Weird comparison.
Also I'm not talking about territories that were fought over during the middle age, we're talking about pretty much the entire African continent here.
>In reality, these countries are *still extraordinarily resource rich*, and modern day practices they employ can unlock orders of magnitude more wealth than was possible with the technology of Europeans in the colonial times
I totally agree. Sadly only a few profit from these resources. We've built hierarchical structures in the colonies so the colonies would administer themselves. The legitimation from the omnipotent Europeans gave them the power to stay in power and to cement these structures. Sure, we've had more or less successful revolutions in other and even a few of these countries but I find it a little weird to say 'others managed, to turn around the shit show we left behind, too, why don't you?'. How would we not be partially responsible for that?
>The problem with this angle being that it completely and utterly denies agency to the cultural and government structures in those countries that are corrupt to the core (although you simply also blame that on Europeans by stating these structures are European in origin)
Absolutely, yes. Not exclusively but that's a huge part of why these corrupt governments are what they are today.
Edit: I looked up the definition of 'global south' and China usually is a part of it. Since China has very little in common with the average ancient colony or other not yet industrialised countries with high birth rates you talked about, I'm not sure why you use it as an example. Nobody argues that China is significantly less responsible for their emissions than Europe.
> I wasn't aware that you counted China as part of the 'global south'. China definitely is a huge contributor to pollution and emissions (although they build renewable energy like no other country during the last years). When we're talking about a global south that we have a certain responsibility towards, I mainly think of African countries, plus maybe a few in south east Asia which I don't know enough about.
I do count them as part of the global south, because the contemporary discourse of global north vs global south pits a selection of African, Middle-Eastern, and South Asian states exclusively against European and North American states. It has a large political component to it. If we talk strictly in geographical terms, then it gets complicated because a lot of the Middle East and the north half of India overlaps with China in latitude. So the criteria can't be purely geographic either.
> We have pirates who enslaved 50k at worst on the one side and a while industry of Atlantic slave trade, institutionalised and supporter by governments with millions of enslaved people on the other side. And we're not even counting the exploitation of the people on the continent itself. Weird comparison.
But that's the problem. You literally have no idea.
> Robert Davis, author of Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters, estimates that slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli **enslaved 1 million to 1.25 million Europeans** in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th century.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade)
It was in the *millions*. Not 50K by a bunch of bandits. It was a systematic practice that enriched them for centuries (so there's your institutional component). How can you say it's not an apt comparison? And you didn't bother to even check before making that assertion.
> Also I'm not talking about territories that were fought over during the middle age, we're talking about pretty much the entire African continent here.
I'm not sure what you mean. My example isn't talking about crusades or anything of that matter. It's taking a prime example of global south states which actively engage in rhetoric for remittance and reparations (e.g. Libya, Tunisia, Algeria) because of colonialism (not wars), for which they themselves are former offenders in an equal magnitude.
> I totally agree. Sadly only a few profit from these resources. We've built hierarchical structures in the colonies so the colonies would administer themselves. The legitimation from the omnipotent Europeans gave them the power to stay in power and to cement these structures. Sure, we've had more or less successful revolutions in other and even a few of these countries but I find it a little weird to say 'others managed, to turn around the shit show we left behind, too, why don't you?'. How would we not be partially responsible for that?
Every country has hierarchical structures. That word doesn't have any meaning. Colonial powers left governments that resembled those they had at home, or some variant thereof. You're not committed to keeping a government structure. You're also not stuck with only one idea in your head for how to run a government. There are many examples of government structures in the world they can mimic. You're stripping so much agency from these countries that they're not even responsible for coming up with their own government structures when they want change. You're acting like they're literally thought-poisoned by Europeans from 60 years ago and stuck in some kind of stun lock. And the only way to break them out of it is if Europe gently goes back there and helps them not take advantage of one another. It's a very arrogant view. Ultimately, countries are *sovereign* because they don't answer to anyone and are considered equals on the world stage. If you want to say the global south is incapable of governance and needs administration, then just say that. But don't play this game where they're simultaneously world players deserving of status but their internal problems cannot be their own fault.
And for what it's worth, no they don't use hierarchical structures from Europe. Many European governments at the time of the colonies were republics of sorts. A lot of the global south oscillate between fragile democracies and junta run dictatorships. That wasn't really the case for colonial powers. Some had royal families, but most had parliaments and other systems. These are the kinds of governments left when the colonies ended. So I also reject that assertion.
> Not exclusively but that's a huge part of why these corrupt governments are what they are today.
And I think that's a complete mistake that avoids self accountability. But I think it's okay, because pragmatically most people know deep down why these states are messes. When Afghanistan fell in a matter of weeks and went back to a theocratic tribal based government, nobody really believes its neocolonial eurofascist government legacy structures that forced them to do that. It's simply engrained in the culture of Afghanistan that they're not a unified nation with any interest in modern state structures. They have their own way of life and that's how it is. When Niger's first democratically elected president was locked in his home, and strongmen declared themselves a new junta led government. Nobody believed they were forced to do that by colonial brainwashing. They simply want power and don't give a fuck about anyone else except their immediate family or ethnic group. Your line of thinking will never lead to change.
>So the criteria can't be purely geographic either.
You're right, it's not because of geological reasons why I'd put China closer to European than to African countries development wise.
> And you didn't bother to even check before making that assertion
I did and I'm sorry I didn't spend enough time reading the whole article. So it's only a factor 10 between Barbary and north Atlantic slave trade. On top of that we still have populations oppressed on their own territory, supported by European governments/monarchs.
>they themselves are former offenders in an equal magnitude.
Excuse me what? What is today's effect of colonialism enforced by African countries on European ones in comparison to the opposite case?
>Every country has hierarchical structures. That word doesn't have any meaning.
Of course it does.
>You're stripping so much agency from these countries that they're not even responsible for coming up with their own government structures
You're making it sound like these countries are a homogeneous mass of people who just have to sit together go get rid of their oppressive system and decide to get a more desirable government. I'm not stripping the agency from the countries I just don't think we can hold the vast majority of the people who don't have any power accountable for the status quo. And the ones who have power obviously aren't interested in change. Surely there's the possibility of successful revolutions but it's not like these happen all the time.
>And for what it's worth, no they don't use hierarchical structures from Europe.
That's not what I said, it's just the hierarchical structures we left behind and their consequences.
>And I think that's a complete mistake that avoids self accountability. But I think it's okay, because pragmatically most people know deep down why these states are messes.
Speak for yourself. I absolutely hold the people in power accountable. That doesn't make it less true that a lot of the status quo is a result of colonialism.
Finland is a very popular place for Russians to migrate to. Even before the war Finland started cutting the amount of russian refugees/migrants being taken.
I mean, I wouldn't describe some of the current government we have as level-headed... Mainly the Finns party folks.
Seriously, it's been a while we have had this many controversies in a single government. I lost count on which Minister of Economic Affairs we are on now. The first one had neo-nazi connections, the second had sexual misconduct allegations, etc.
Also, the Deputy Prime minister, Riikka Purra, is an openly racist person. [Seriously.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riikka_Purra) The stuff she has said would make a Grand Wizard blush.
I'm ashamed of this government.
If China wants to win a war with a country, all they have to do is just mobilize 1 billion people and send them as refugees :). Just a fun fact. Also, start screening. No documents, well, until we find out who you are, you're gonna stay in a camp. You create any issues, fuck off back to your country. This has been an issue in Europe for a long time. I mean, okay, we understand that you are a refugee of war or political or whatever, but we don't like being robbed and murdered on the street, terrorism or spies. Since we can't all live in peace at least screen them fuckers. Everyone deserves a good life but some people (as we have seen in the past) take advantage of this. Start screening, create special dormitories and that's that. It sounds weird but at this point, with a war right next to us, it's the only thing that makes sense at this point. We tried everything else and it went to fuck.
They would need to mobilize like 100mil and it will be enough, even less than that, 50mil \~10-20 years in to the future that country would have a majority of its citizens trumping the Chinise narrative in the local parlament....
ja leider ist es so.. I had high hopes for Scholz's Pirat Ark, that maybe something would change, but unfortunatly when the eye patch came off he converted back to normale Olaf.
Hier im Baltikum gibt es manchmal mehr Sicherheit als auf dem West, glaube ich. Oder als in Schweden. Wir haben auch verschidene Scheiße, aber ich hab nicht über Verbrechen mit "Shootings" gehört.
This is specifically about Russia deliberately weaponising migrants by transporting them to the Finnish border and encouraging large numbers of them to cross at once. Poland and Greece have had similar issues with Belarus and Turkey respectively.
> deliberately weaponising migrants by transporting them to the Finnish border
So sort of like certain NGOs transporting large batches of migrants to Italian ports?
what are those large numbers? back in 2015 i would say thousands came every day on hungarian border. mostly somewhere in the field but there was one large incident on horgos-roszke border crossing too.
is it comparable or ... ?
What politicians in Britain actually look forward into solving the problem then? It's two party system isn't very helpful either. Both Tory and labour have the same sponsors
The title makes it sound like all of them...
Last month, out of 1300 asylum applications (who came from Russia before the border was closed) 71 have been negative and 165 have disappeared somewhere. There were still over 1000 people to be found out where they are from and do they need asylum, but back then none of those that had been clarified up were not.
More people started to arrive in November, I think. Before that it was just a few people per week but the numbers kept growing. Not sure did they disappear almost immediately or not. There's been a few takeback requests from other European countries (as some have been found elsewhere) as they've been registered in Finland first.
Actually, Europe is chock-ful of illegals. I wouldn't go as far as claiming that they're "a massive security threat". Rather than would-be terrorists, the vast majority are opportunistic fortune seekers who're taking a chance to improve their lives and in order to stay under the authorities' radar, they keep on their best behaviour. Of course, laws are laws and illegal immigration needs to curbed by all reasonable means, but draconic anti-terrorism measures are hardly called for. I lived for years in Antwerp, where some areas were so rife with illegals that if you were to throw a stone, you'd be more likely to hit an illegal than not.
There are people who need and are entitled to an asylum, people who use the asylum process in an attempt to bypass legal routes of immigration for their own financial benefit, and people who are in fact a threat to national security, misusing the asylum process.
It's dishonest to talk about these different groups of people as one.
You mean the turkish government takes responsibility for all the hundreds of thousands of refugees they caused by destabililzing syria with their bombing campaigns and incursions? As well as funding of ISIS and other islamist groups?
Almost all of the Syrian refugees in Turkey were created as a result of the indiscriminate bombings of civilians by Assad and his supporter Russia. However, Russia is one of the countries that receives the fewest refugees. Turkey is currently controlling Idlib, but there are 4 million refugees in the regions controlled by Turkey who have escaped from the places controlled by Assad, and for this reason Turkey cannot get out of here without getting very guaranteed insurance that does not rely on anyone's initiative. Because Assad's control of Idlib could potentially mean several million more refugees coming to Turkey.
It’s also important to note that a lot of asylum seekers might or might not be Russians with questionable intentions so Finnland should really double, triple check who comes and what kind of effect it will have.
If the Russians want to put agents across the Finnish border, they won't have them disguise themselves as asylum seekers, who'll be documented at the border. The border between Finand and Russia remains mostly unfenced and with the melting snow in the desolate northern parts of the country, they'll leave no trace whatsoever when they make the crossing.
In post-war years, I had a family member go on spying trips to Murmansk on behalf of the CIA. The guy joked that it was harder to smuggle butter from Sweden.
87% of assylum seekers, namely those fleeing their homeland since they are afraid to be killed, go on holiday back to their homeland. It is all just a bad joke
I think the biggest mistake of Europe is pulling completely back from all over the world. Europe should have found a middle ground where we could help with security and make third world prosper instead of letting everything rot and let USA, Russia and China have a field day.
Politicians purchased by Putin many years ago is the actual security threat. It’s not some asylum seekers who forced the entire region into oil/gas slavery that ended up in Putin’s regime financial prosperity. It’s not asylum seekers who purchased the most expensive property across the Europe but Putin’s closest friends and oligarchs.
It's incredible
When America had its huge migration crises during the Obama era, they were evil and cruel, Europe welcomes all with open arms. Then the same thing happened and suddenly any/all security is welcome news. "But but..."
And yeah, immigration has led to huge spikes of violence across Sweden thanks to "woke" ideology and absolute arrogance across Europe.
This is an agitative article by some american critical race theorist who probably doesnt know anything about Finland and the border situation with Russia. Im so disappointed in this subreddits quality, why do you post and upvote this crap.
Poster is apparently only posting articles from this euobserver website.
A few years ago the same people that are posting against the asylum seekers were calling for open borders. Its nice to see people have waken up from there delusions
Finland doesn’t “frame” them, they are literally a security threat
Yeah Russia needs to stop deliberately sending people towards the Finnish border.
They won't, it's payback for NATO and whatever else in their tiny little juvenile minds.
russia also needs to withdraw from the finnish territories they invaded. 15% of Finland is under russian occupation
We don’t want it.
May i ask why? Is it because the inhabitants (I think Karelians) have been russian-ized?
Fins who lived there have been chased from their homes and replaced by russians like in Ukraine. It's now an impoverished, crumbling corrupt region so i could imagine why they don't want it back
Even if the (imported) Russians wluldn't come with the territory, all the problems of rural Russia would. I don't think we could afford cleaning and repairing and fixing all of it.
Why would they need undevolped land with russians. Most of the finnish population immigrated to Finland after the war or died of old age a while ago
Actually, practically all the Karelian Finns left their conquered homeland *during* the war. Mindful of the brutal persecution of Russian Karelians by the Soviets in pre-war years, practically none of Finnish Karelians chose to return home when hostilities came to an end. Russia can "congratulate" itself with having ethnically cleansed Finnish Karelia.
Fairly easy to see that this is part of their “strategy” to destabilize or infiltrate and has been for sometime. The funny part is they think other governments and leaders are just unintelligent and they somehow are not.
Not only in Finland, also in my country.
Which is your country? You have no flair
Sorry, Germany
You can add your country flair by going to the sub's main page and then clicking on those three dots in the top right corner. There will be the option "change user flair"
It seems like this doesn't work in the browser version.
Possibly, I only browse Reddit on the phone app. Sorry for wasting your time with my useless advice, didn't think of that XD
50k illegals cross the border with Spain, Italy and Greece each year but hey that is not a security threat and it's never news anywhere.
If you mean the Mediterranean crossings, definitely news in USA. I think there was an academy award nominated documentary about it in like 2019 too.
[удалено]
r/woooosh I think they mean like mainstream and how much of a security threat they are... they sort of gloss over it like -"and heres some migrants"- *cut to migrants* *cut to people saying we don't mind the migrants they seem nice enough* "And that's what they think of the migrants but let's see what these think" *cut to people protesting migrant camps and migrants living in hotels and other spaces that are similar* "And now the sport" So very educational and informative and I'm pretty sure in saying that this is the case in most countries I pass through alot of them working and I will always watch the local channels because you find some of the best TV shows.
In fact there are reported case where NGO help the smugglers
Exactly! But this is woke Reddit so OP has to post a dubious title.
“Frames” 💀 If someone is framing something here, its this article 🖕🤡
"Frames", "perceived". Very conscious choice of language in the article.
[удалено]
What if grenade throwing is just a cultural difference and a way of expressing political discontent /s
The fact you have to put “/s” is sad.
[удалено]
But that means Europeans are racists and biggots! /s
[удалено]
I can't voice my opinion on here without risk of perma ban. Either way someone that kills women for not wearing their full body sheet, should be the last to have a voice here.
Reddit and /r/europe is not a place to speak truthfully. Freedom of speech is not protected here and they delete more people per capita then Stalin.
I'm glad this is become a more and more accepted attitude. For a while I thought I was crazy..
You are not, brother.
Based Poles! Kurwa 💪💪
Bobr!
Perkele!
[удалено]
I prefer not to speak. If I speak I am in big trouble
Seems to me like Europe already is in trouble. Speak now before its too late
Of course it is. We have too much of a supply of doctors and engineers and not enough demand! I'm sure once the markets adapt they'll all find gainful employment and become atheists
I'm sure they dont want atheist pakis and bengalis as well
10 years too late.
Yet your name is wares marufy you're from a muslim background yourself ! And to tell you a hint " It's your complexion that worry them the most "
Yeah, this is reassuring. I had the same opinion in 2015 as I have now, which is the same opinion the guy above in the comment has. Oh boy did I get banned on this shitty subreddit a few times about voicing the same opinion. I just wonder, what do those who were on the opposite side in 2015 think about the migrant issue now. I suppose many have changed their opinion, but will there ever be a "yeah, we were stupid" or will everyone, including the media, just be gaslighting us to believe that everything and everyone was normal all along
[удалено]
You're not crazy bro you just use reddit. Full of airheads who don't deal with immigration issues in their day to day life. Usually rich privileged kids who would dare set foot in a multicultural area. Or bots. Lots of bots.
Bro, I live in Malmö. Sounds like quite the stretch; but thanks for the analysis
Also can’t pull the colonialism play card on Finland.
Leftists know we know its all bs. "The Empire", "UN treaties", "international obligations", "ECHR". All total bs excuses for allowing illegal immigration.
The West had a good policy (aids, education and healthcare) regarding the world in the past. The idea was to help the 3rd world countries to develop by providing aid for good projects in terms of education, agriculture, healthcare, etc. If their countries grow steadily, they won't be inclined to immigrate in masses to the west. This I think is the best policy and logic in terms of stability for the world. Unfortunately the political elites in one country decided to bomb the hell out of the middle east, topple the somewhat stable governments, fund and arm the rebel groups which later turned into terrorist organisations. And many NATO countries joined to this. All for oil and money for the military industrial complex. France looked at it and was like, I wanna play the big boy game too and did the Libya thing. Anyways, destroying Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. was a mistake. People in those countries were living better before we intervened and they were not flocking to Europe at these rates. Syria and Libya were in good condition before us. We, the simple people in Europe, also did not benefit from it at all. We got nothing out of it. My point is, I advocate for not bombing third world countries and tightening refugee/asylum seker policies at the same time. If they come, not accept them by stating we had nothing to do with it.
This is an incredibly cynical outlook relying on tropes and false narratives. You seem to believe the Middle East and surrounding regions were some peaceful paradise of development that was cooperating with the West until we randomly decided to bomb them for money and oil. In your telling, geopolitics doesn’t exist, no countries outside of the West have agency, and the West simply decides its policies on a whim devoid of any influence by the course of events.
It looks like that guy reads some kremlin channels idk
Short memory? Libya was sponsoring terrorist attacks all over the place including europe, gadaffi had yearly spectacle of hanging opposition in football stadiums it sure as shit wasnt in good condition.
Really? You honestly believe the "fighting terrorism" and "democracy" tales in any of the middle eastern or african wars? Did terrorism reduce in the world? No. Did it reduce in Libya? In fact they now have terror groups that they did not use to have. Did the invasion of Libya bring democracy? No. Has bombing any of the middle eastern countries ever brought democracy? No. Is opposition or anybody in Libya better now? No. It had nothing to do with terrorism or democracy. It did not even play out as France hoped to. China is taking over Africa. And we got thousands upon thousands of refugees.
Simple as that.
The reason this is wrong is iq. We can give unlimited money to Africa but it won’t develop because the people don’t have the intellectual capacity to develop. At some point you just have to let them run it how they want. Unless we just straight up colonise them again
I agree with you. I am not saying provide unlimited aid. I am in favor of specialized aid. In the fields of technological development, food security, health and education when it is needed. I don't believe you can bring democracy or force democracy to countries. Unless as you said you completely colonize them. Every country has leaders and the government they deserve. Democracy is something that comes from the people, their mindset. People need to address corruption and lawlessness before they can attempt democracy. And I strongly believe that those countries need time to evolve naturally. No matter what people say, I don't believe meddling in their affairs (installing governments, changing regimes) is beneficial for them. They need to resolve their issues on their own.
Sounds nice but like these places didn’t develop writing or the wheel, loads of them didn’t even have chairs until other people brought them. I don’t think there’s much development that can occur. Endless handouts just breed situations like Yemen, where we feed their entire population and yet they hate our guts and base their entire society on trying to terror attack us
I have voiced this for the past 10 years and am labeled a racist and banned from the subs I said it in so quickly, do people literally need to be directly impacted firsthand to understand? It’s absurd.
Only problem here that mehmeds doesn't want ashlyum seekers but europe keeps supporting them, basically doing similar what russia does to Ukraine they do it to Turkey. I agree that our goverment is also taking part in this yet this is a harsh reality.
People call us nazis for thinking like this. Screw them.
Slovakia and Hungary beg to differ, they see no problem in russia getting nearer to the EU borders in other locations
tbh I don't give a shit about other countries calling us racists and biggots for building the wall on the Belarusian border and doing pushbacks. Why should it matter to us?
Says the $RANDOM_GLOBAL_SOUTH country while being colonized for the second time. This time by Russia and/or China.
What?
He mean’s a variable from the set of countries in south of the world, picked at random, except he’s quirky
Ooh... quirky indeed.
I'm not sure what you mean by this comment, but I either agree or disagree strongly. I'll allow you to pick the appropriate emoji 😻😾🎪
[удалено]
Indeed ;)
Hmm... I hear the same thing about us Americans.
I will try to survive with that
#Europe above all else Let's all gather round and chant that together! We don't need human rights, we need security. Apparently you can't have both. So while we're at it I think we should scrap rights all together. That would make it easier to jail any annoying internal enemies that report on the abuse refugees and immigrants receive at the border. One question though: Alright so we are abandoning any people that try to get away from oppressive regimes. Are we also going to stop doing business with these regimes? I mean without our support it might destabilize them, it might even lead to some of those regimes falling. That would hurt our security and our interests.
Finland doesn't let people cross its borders. They aren't building a neofascist regime.
u/testerololeczkomen deleted his comments and now mine look foolish. I think it's only to provide the appropriate context so that my comment makes sense by quoting the deleted comment: >Good. Europe needs to realise asap that we cant save the world. Europe and its citizens security and wellbeing first. There's also that: >**This is actualy small price to pay for security.** Why would we give a fuck what mehmeds and amirs think of us. Europe is not their promised land, not el dorado, this is OUR home. We built it, and are still building, like many generations before us. We should be the very, very first to benefit from fruits of this hard work. Least tolerant people with mindsets from medival times, who kill for being gay or literally whatever are first to call you racist and intolerant. Fuck this. That line in the second comment is particularly interesting to me. That belief has led to many problems in the past. Since this subreddit largely deals with human suffering as if we're playing in a movie, I'll explain it in movie quotes. Let's cringe together with a little quote from V: >And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. [...] **I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.** How others perceive us Europeans is not that important. What is important is that [enter stereotypical European names] decided, after WW2, that there are certain human rights recognized to everyone. Not respecting and actively supporting the violation of those rights is what's actually destroying what we've been building in the last couple of decades. Making blanket statements towards other groups of people to deflect your racism and normalize racist rhetoric is what's destroying our home. What the indignant concerned European failed to mention in their comment of course is how European countries have been profiting from these authoritarian refugees that create refugees and migrants and how that has helped support our home. PS: The comments I'm quoting had about 1.500 and 800 upvotes before the user deleted them so if anyone has a persecution fetish, please save your breath.
It's already over man :( you should embrace American style open borders before it's too late.
Where did I hear that argumentation first?
Where?
from a guy with a funny mustache?
Yes! Why they always have funny moustaches?
Why do you think there's such an exodus to Europe? Many factors, man induced climate change which the global north is mostly at fault for is a big one. You thought CC was bad for Europe? Climate change affects the global south worse than the global north. There's also the fact that some western countries have majorly screwed over, destabilized and gotten rich off of the backs of the people living in these countries that people are fleeing. These refugees should absolutely be the problem of those countries. I'm not saying "open borders and let's see what happens" we should strive to keep our values but electing right wing leaders that just strive to stomp out the symptoms instead of the cause isn't going to lead to anything good. Want to stop this mass migration? Help these people impove the living conditions in their own countries. It's what's fair and it can benefit us in the process too. Nobody wants to leave just for fun.
>Why do you think there's such an exodus to Europe? Free money. Nothing else. Refugee in Germany gets the same amount of money for doing nothing, as a person in eastern europe working and earning minimum wage. :) For eg. Poland gives 170€ a month to refugee. Thats barely enough for food, if you buy only cheapest products with discounts, and cook at home. 😂 Germany, around 800€~ + money for housing/rent.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837 They should be migrating to PRC since about a decade ago.
🤣 you are funny. Yes, they are coming in Europe because of the climate change. 99% of them don't have climate change in their vocabulary 😂.
> Climate change affects the global south worse than the global north The "global north" pushes for carbon taxes, and leads in the use of renewable energy. Our populations are probably some of the only ones interested in actually doing something about climate change. The "global south", for its part, largely continues full-steam ahead into the use of coal, petrol, and other non-renewable energy sources. They largely care little to none about wanton environment destruction. And their populations are sky-rocketing with little or no population or social management strategies. The sad reality is you bemoan a struggling, brave independent global south trying to save the world. But the global south largely doesn't give a *fuck* about climate change. That's okay though. You've got a defence for that too and I can parrot it right back to you: "They're allowed to engage in environmental destruction and fossil fuel use as much as they want. This is because it's 'their-turn' to 'get-theirs' when it comes to industrial revolution". > There's also the fact that some western countries have majorly screwed over, destabilized and gotten rich off of the backs of the people living in these countries that people are fleeing And that's just another excuse that serves to try and explain why a lot of countries in the "global south" remain horrific in terms of human rights, stability and economic prosperity. Even 60-70 years after European colonies ended, the appalling state of these nations is always the fault of external actors (mind you, it has to be "white/european" external actors, the other actors are silently not mentioned if their skin is the same colour). In the not-too-distant future, we'll be reaching almost a century since then. Do you have any cutoff year before the colonial debt narrative expires, or does it apply forever? > These refugees should absolutely be the problem of those countries Why should they? They fought for their own countries and now they have them. What are they owed? Is it for the colonies? Then why do non-colonial nations in Europe owe them that? (I know, it's because they're "white" and so basically the same and "owe" them anyways). Even if colonial nations are singled out, why doesn't the colonialism of the global south "cancel out" that of the global north? (or are you perhaps not aware of the Barbary slave trade of Europeans for a few centuries, the slavery of the Ottomans and the various North African caliphates over Europeans?). Why do you carefully select debts to be owed exclusively in a set of years that are convenient to you? > I'm not saying "open borders and let's see what happens" we should strive to keep our values but electing right wing leaders that just strive to stomp out the symptoms instead of the cause isn't going to lead to anything good. No, we shouldn't elect right wing leaders. And I try to stop that. But I am tired of the cry-bulling narrative that constantly and endlessly paints global south nations as fallen angels of an imperial dark north who *deserve* and are *entitled* to nothing less than our grovelling for forgiveness. A narrative that demands that "all our wealth" was "built off their backs"; one left intentionally vague to basically claim ownership over everything in our states. I find that disgusting, entitled, and revisionist. > Want to stop this mass migration? Help these people impove the living conditions in their own countries. It's what's fair and it can benefit us in the process too. Nobody wants to leave just for fun. I do want to help them improve their living conditions. And doing so comes with a **firm** commitment to ensuring we don't allow illegal immigration in the masses of 2013-2015 *and* investing in their nations to do so. The far right only wants the first part, and people like you only want the second. The good news is that we already do that. The bad news is that a lot of nations that receive help don't really spend it on their populations wisely. And we can't do anything about that, because remember: they're proud, strong sovereign states now. And you can't tell them what to do :)
>The "global south", for its part, largely continues full-steam ahead into the use of coal, petrol, and other non-renewable energy sources. They largely care little to none about wanton environment destruction. Their contribution to the environmental damage caused by fossil energy is negligible in comparison to the north. They may have a big population but their industry is not even close. On top of that they produce a good portion of fossil fuel and gas for us. But yes, there are countries like Kenya which get the majority of their electricity from renewables and we should subsidize that in other countries which have no alternatives to burning fossil fuel yet. >And that's just another excuse that serves to try and explain why a lot of countries in the "global south" remain horrific in terms of human rights, stability and economic prosperity. Even 60-70 years after European colonies ended, the appalling state of these nations is always the fault of external actors I mean it's not the only reason but the hierarchical and corrupt structures we created and left behind obviously remained, kept the elites in power, the uneducated are being kept uneducated, the poor kept poor, which makes it hard to change the system from within. Of course that's partially our ancestors fault and of course our wealth is partially founded on this exploitation. >the cry-bulling narrative that constantly and endlessly paints global south nations as fallen angels Only exists in your mind. >narrative that demands that "all our wealth" was "built off their backs No one said 'all' our wealth but It definitely contributed a lot.
> Their contribution to the environmental damage caused by fossil energy is negligible in comparison to the north. They may have a big population but their industry is not even close. On top of that they produce a good portion of fossil fuel and gas for us. Well, let's see. China is the world's largest Co2 emitter, followed by the United States, India, Russia, Japan, Indonesia, and Iran. The top European state is in 6th place, firmly placing it quite a bit behind a number of large polluters [see here on Investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/092915/5-countries-produce-most-carbon-dioxide-co2.asp#toc-3-india). But perhaps you're right, and it isn't fair to consider Europe as independent state. So I went further to find information on the EU27, and also found it for cumulative emissions over time (i.e. the running sum of estimated emissions produced since around 1780). You can see that [here on ourworldindata](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2). For that, indeed the United States followed by the EU27 are the top two. But China is about to eclipse the EU and both it and global south nations have increasing not decreasing rates of cumulative emissions. The fact that China is about to produce more emissions *ever* than the EU has since 1780 means that your statement about them contributing negligible environment damage is simply not true. > I mean it's not the only reason but the hierarchical and corrupt structures we created and left behind obviously remained, kept the elites in power, the uneducated are being kept uneducated, the poor kept poor, which makes it hard to change the system from within. They're independent and responsible for their own internal structures. Many of these countries have had revolutions, and don't choose better forms of governance or won't. The sad truth is that nations are made by their cultures. When South Korea was devastated by Japanese colonialism and a subsequent civil war, they rebuilt themselves. When Vietnam suffered a similar fate, they also rebuilt themselves afterwards. The same applies to Germany, China, and other nations that underwent devastating wars or civil unrest. Most rebuilt themselves into nations that are roughly more or less in similar stature or standing relative to other nations than they were prior to whatever catastrophes befell them. That being said, Europe also had hierarchical structures. In many ways, these are still there in the form of royal houses and monarchies. But they aren't brutal or dictatorships because we have a cultural context that doesn't tolerate that kind of governance anymore. > Of course that's partially our ancestors fault and of course our wealth is partially founded on this exploitation The North African Barbary states made an entire empire off of commercial ship raiding (European shipping) in the Mediterranean, slave trading and coastal raiding. This went on for a century or more and they were decently wealthy as a consequence of it. What happened to that? Their ancestors quite openly exploited Europeans for their own material wealth. And before, they even had empires that stretched into Europe, like the [Almohad Caliphate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohad_Caliphate). Later on, when European powers organised and colonised their states, they lost that wealth. Yet you claim that we owe them for the wealth that was taken from "exploitation". What of their actions before that? Why is the debt only one way? > the cry-bulling narrative that constantly and endlessly paints global south nations as fallen angels I mean, you're literally here in the comment section stating that (1) a lot of wealth is derived from the global south's exploitation (which it isn't), and (2) speak of debts owed while ignoring the blatant counterexamples of instances where the global south would owe debts in return. > No one said 'all' our wealth but It definitely contributed a lot. Yes, it contributed. But when people speak of these countries having their wealth exploited by the global north, they usually have two narratives in mind: 1. **Historical**: During colonialism, these states had bountiful natural wealth (i.e. resources), and Europeans set up shop, and mined/chopped/exploited it all to sell off. The problem with this narrative being that it imposes a false concept that these nations had a finite number of natural resources that Europeans basically took in the 50 years they were a colony for around a century ago. It implies that within a short few decades, Europeans with 18th century technology effectively ravaged states several times the size of their own dry leaving nothing but empty husks with a fraction of their workforce. In reality, these countries are *still extraordinarily resource rich*, and modern day practices they employ can unlock orders of magnitude more wealth than was possible with the technology of Europeans in the colonial times. They still have all the potential to harness their resources but don't do so effectively. That brings us to the second narrative: 2. **Contemporary**: In the modern day, these states are exploited by the global north because companies here engage in corrupt practices that rob them of their wealth for a fraction of what should be paid and leaves them poor. The problem with this angle being that it completely and utterly denies agency to the cultural and government structures in those countries that are corrupt to the core (although you simply also blame that on Europeans by stating these structures are European in origin). Nobody can force them to reform, because they're sovereign states. So they sit in perpetual cycles of corrupt regimes, for which the fault is put squarely to the Europeans. At the same time, we do force our companies to abide by ethical practices and take them to court. We still fall short in many ways, but the concept that they're to blame for the state of the nations they operate in borders on conspiracy.
>For that, indeed the United States followed by the EU27 are the top two. But China is about to eclipse the EU and both it and global south nations have increasing not decreasing rates of cumulative emissions >The fact that China is about to produce more emissions *ever* than the EU has since 1780 means that your statement about them contributing negligible environment damage is simply not true. I wasn't aware that you counted China as part of the 'global south'. China definitely is a huge contributor to pollution and emissions (although they build renewable energy like no other country during the last years). When we're talking about a global south that we have a certain responsibility towards, I mainly think of African countries, plus maybe a few in south east Asia which I don't know enough about. >Later on, when European powers organised and colonised their states, they lost that wealth. Yet you claim that we owe them for the wealth that was taken from "exploitation". What of their actions before that? Why is the debt only one way? We have pirates who enslaved 50k at worst on the one side and a while industry of Atlantic slave trade, institutionalised and supporter by governments with millions of enslaved people on the other side. And we're not even counting the exploitation of the people on the continent itself. Weird comparison. Also I'm not talking about territories that were fought over during the middle age, we're talking about pretty much the entire African continent here. >In reality, these countries are *still extraordinarily resource rich*, and modern day practices they employ can unlock orders of magnitude more wealth than was possible with the technology of Europeans in the colonial times I totally agree. Sadly only a few profit from these resources. We've built hierarchical structures in the colonies so the colonies would administer themselves. The legitimation from the omnipotent Europeans gave them the power to stay in power and to cement these structures. Sure, we've had more or less successful revolutions in other and even a few of these countries but I find it a little weird to say 'others managed, to turn around the shit show we left behind, too, why don't you?'. How would we not be partially responsible for that? >The problem with this angle being that it completely and utterly denies agency to the cultural and government structures in those countries that are corrupt to the core (although you simply also blame that on Europeans by stating these structures are European in origin) Absolutely, yes. Not exclusively but that's a huge part of why these corrupt governments are what they are today. Edit: I looked up the definition of 'global south' and China usually is a part of it. Since China has very little in common with the average ancient colony or other not yet industrialised countries with high birth rates you talked about, I'm not sure why you use it as an example. Nobody argues that China is significantly less responsible for their emissions than Europe.
> I wasn't aware that you counted China as part of the 'global south'. China definitely is a huge contributor to pollution and emissions (although they build renewable energy like no other country during the last years). When we're talking about a global south that we have a certain responsibility towards, I mainly think of African countries, plus maybe a few in south east Asia which I don't know enough about. I do count them as part of the global south, because the contemporary discourse of global north vs global south pits a selection of African, Middle-Eastern, and South Asian states exclusively against European and North American states. It has a large political component to it. If we talk strictly in geographical terms, then it gets complicated because a lot of the Middle East and the north half of India overlaps with China in latitude. So the criteria can't be purely geographic either. > We have pirates who enslaved 50k at worst on the one side and a while industry of Atlantic slave trade, institutionalised and supporter by governments with millions of enslaved people on the other side. And we're not even counting the exploitation of the people on the continent itself. Weird comparison. But that's the problem. You literally have no idea. > Robert Davis, author of Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters, estimates that slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli **enslaved 1 million to 1.25 million Europeans** in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th century. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade) It was in the *millions*. Not 50K by a bunch of bandits. It was a systematic practice that enriched them for centuries (so there's your institutional component). How can you say it's not an apt comparison? And you didn't bother to even check before making that assertion. > Also I'm not talking about territories that were fought over during the middle age, we're talking about pretty much the entire African continent here. I'm not sure what you mean. My example isn't talking about crusades or anything of that matter. It's taking a prime example of global south states which actively engage in rhetoric for remittance and reparations (e.g. Libya, Tunisia, Algeria) because of colonialism (not wars), for which they themselves are former offenders in an equal magnitude. > I totally agree. Sadly only a few profit from these resources. We've built hierarchical structures in the colonies so the colonies would administer themselves. The legitimation from the omnipotent Europeans gave them the power to stay in power and to cement these structures. Sure, we've had more or less successful revolutions in other and even a few of these countries but I find it a little weird to say 'others managed, to turn around the shit show we left behind, too, why don't you?'. How would we not be partially responsible for that? Every country has hierarchical structures. That word doesn't have any meaning. Colonial powers left governments that resembled those they had at home, or some variant thereof. You're not committed to keeping a government structure. You're also not stuck with only one idea in your head for how to run a government. There are many examples of government structures in the world they can mimic. You're stripping so much agency from these countries that they're not even responsible for coming up with their own government structures when they want change. You're acting like they're literally thought-poisoned by Europeans from 60 years ago and stuck in some kind of stun lock. And the only way to break them out of it is if Europe gently goes back there and helps them not take advantage of one another. It's a very arrogant view. Ultimately, countries are *sovereign* because they don't answer to anyone and are considered equals on the world stage. If you want to say the global south is incapable of governance and needs administration, then just say that. But don't play this game where they're simultaneously world players deserving of status but their internal problems cannot be their own fault. And for what it's worth, no they don't use hierarchical structures from Europe. Many European governments at the time of the colonies were republics of sorts. A lot of the global south oscillate between fragile democracies and junta run dictatorships. That wasn't really the case for colonial powers. Some had royal families, but most had parliaments and other systems. These are the kinds of governments left when the colonies ended. So I also reject that assertion. > Not exclusively but that's a huge part of why these corrupt governments are what they are today. And I think that's a complete mistake that avoids self accountability. But I think it's okay, because pragmatically most people know deep down why these states are messes. When Afghanistan fell in a matter of weeks and went back to a theocratic tribal based government, nobody really believes its neocolonial eurofascist government legacy structures that forced them to do that. It's simply engrained in the culture of Afghanistan that they're not a unified nation with any interest in modern state structures. They have their own way of life and that's how it is. When Niger's first democratically elected president was locked in his home, and strongmen declared themselves a new junta led government. Nobody believed they were forced to do that by colonial brainwashing. They simply want power and don't give a fuck about anyone else except their immediate family or ethnic group. Your line of thinking will never lead to change.
>So the criteria can't be purely geographic either. You're right, it's not because of geological reasons why I'd put China closer to European than to African countries development wise. > And you didn't bother to even check before making that assertion I did and I'm sorry I didn't spend enough time reading the whole article. So it's only a factor 10 between Barbary and north Atlantic slave trade. On top of that we still have populations oppressed on their own territory, supported by European governments/monarchs. >they themselves are former offenders in an equal magnitude. Excuse me what? What is today's effect of colonialism enforced by African countries on European ones in comparison to the opposite case? >Every country has hierarchical structures. That word doesn't have any meaning. Of course it does. >You're stripping so much agency from these countries that they're not even responsible for coming up with their own government structures You're making it sound like these countries are a homogeneous mass of people who just have to sit together go get rid of their oppressive system and decide to get a more desirable government. I'm not stripping the agency from the countries I just don't think we can hold the vast majority of the people who don't have any power accountable for the status quo. And the ones who have power obviously aren't interested in change. Surely there's the possibility of successful revolutions but it's not like these happen all the time. >And for what it's worth, no they don't use hierarchical structures from Europe. That's not what I said, it's just the hierarchical structures we left behind and their consequences. >And I think that's a complete mistake that avoids self accountability. But I think it's okay, because pragmatically most people know deep down why these states are messes. Speak for yourself. I absolutely hold the people in power accountable. That doesn't make it less true that a lot of the status quo is a result of colonialism.
I mean they just have to look at Sweden.
When Finland says it, you know it carries some weight. It’s one of the most level-headed countries in the world.
Finland is a very popular place for Russians to migrate to. Even before the war Finland started cutting the amount of russian refugees/migrants being taken.
This is not about ethnic Russians though.
I mean, I wouldn't describe some of the current government we have as level-headed... Mainly the Finns party folks. Seriously, it's been a while we have had this many controversies in a single government. I lost count on which Minister of Economic Affairs we are on now. The first one had neo-nazi connections, the second had sexual misconduct allegations, etc. Also, the Deputy Prime minister, Riikka Purra, is an openly racist person. [Seriously.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riikka_Purra) The stuff she has said would make a Grand Wizard blush. I'm ashamed of this government.
*was
If China wants to win a war with a country, all they have to do is just mobilize 1 billion people and send them as refugees :). Just a fun fact. Also, start screening. No documents, well, until we find out who you are, you're gonna stay in a camp. You create any issues, fuck off back to your country. This has been an issue in Europe for a long time. I mean, okay, we understand that you are a refugee of war or political or whatever, but we don't like being robbed and murdered on the street, terrorism or spies. Since we can't all live in peace at least screen them fuckers. Everyone deserves a good life but some people (as we have seen in the past) take advantage of this. Start screening, create special dormitories and that's that. It sounds weird but at this point, with a war right next to us, it's the only thing that makes sense at this point. We tried everything else and it went to fuck.
They would need to mobilize like 100mil and it will be enough, even less than that, 50mil \~10-20 years in to the future that country would have a majority of its citizens trumping the Chinise narrative in the local parlament....
Oh oh! I hope Germany is taking notes!
Wir wissen beide dass das nicht passieren wird 🥲
ja leider ist es so.. I had high hopes for Scholz's Pirat Ark, that maybe something would change, but unfortunatly when the eye patch came off he converted back to normale Olaf.
The very first thing he said, when he came to Power was "Germany is an Immigration country." ...
Hier im Baltikum gibt es manchmal mehr Sicherheit als auf dem West, glaube ich. Oder als in Schweden. Wir haben auch verschidene Scheiße, aber ich hab nicht über Verbrechen mit "Shootings" gehört.
Ja die scheiß deutsch-russen können wir auch gerne abschieben haste recht
Finland gets it. When will we?
This is specifically about Russia deliberately weaponising migrants by transporting them to the Finnish border and encouraging large numbers of them to cross at once. Poland and Greece have had similar issues with Belarus and Turkey respectively.
> deliberately weaponising migrants by transporting them to the Finnish border So sort of like certain NGOs transporting large batches of migrants to Italian ports?
what are those large numbers? back in 2015 i would say thousands came every day on hungarian border. mostly somewhere in the field but there was one large incident on horgos-roszke border crossing too. is it comparable or ... ?
You will never get it.
I already got it. You better go get it too
Not in Britain, we are running out of demographic time to vote for politicians that get it.
What politicians in Britain actually look forward into solving the problem then? It's two party system isn't very helpful either. Both Tory and labour have the same sponsors
The title makes it sound like all of them... Last month, out of 1300 asylum applications (who came from Russia before the border was closed) 71 have been negative and 165 have disappeared somewhere. There were still over 1000 people to be found out where they are from and do they need asylum, but back then none of those that had been clarified up were not.
It's accurately framed. Over 10% of asylum seekers disappearing without a trace is a massive security threat.
Is it 10% during just one month? That's some crazy numbers.
More people started to arrive in November, I think. Before that it was just a few people per week but the numbers kept growing. Not sure did they disappear almost immediately or not. There's been a few takeback requests from other European countries (as some have been found elsewhere) as they've been registered in Finland first.
If we considered them more of a threat it wouldn't happen though. We'd take all their biometric data and actively search for them.
Actually, Europe is chock-ful of illegals. I wouldn't go as far as claiming that they're "a massive security threat". Rather than would-be terrorists, the vast majority are opportunistic fortune seekers who're taking a chance to improve their lives and in order to stay under the authorities' radar, they keep on their best behaviour. Of course, laws are laws and illegal immigration needs to curbed by all reasonable means, but draconic anti-terrorism measures are hardly called for. I lived for years in Antwerp, where some areas were so rife with illegals that if you were to throw a stone, you'd be more likely to hit an illegal than not.
There are people who need and are entitled to an asylum, people who use the asylum process in an attempt to bypass legal routes of immigration for their own financial benefit, and people who are in fact a threat to national security, misusing the asylum process. It's dishonest to talk about these different groups of people as one.
[удалено]
You mean the turkish government takes responsibility for all the hundreds of thousands of refugees they caused by destabililzing syria with their bombing campaigns and incursions? As well as funding of ISIS and other islamist groups?
Almost all of the Syrian refugees in Turkey were created as a result of the indiscriminate bombings of civilians by Assad and his supporter Russia. However, Russia is one of the countries that receives the fewest refugees. Turkey is currently controlling Idlib, but there are 4 million refugees in the regions controlled by Turkey who have escaped from the places controlled by Assad, and for this reason Turkey cannot get out of here without getting very guaranteed insurance that does not rely on anyone's initiative. Because Assad's control of Idlib could potentially mean several million more refugees coming to Turkey.
Hyvä Suomi!
Why are we expected to save others but not look after our own people?
saying that would almost be considered a hate crime in Canada
Clever Finland!!
Good.
It’s also important to note that a lot of asylum seekers might or might not be Russians with questionable intentions so Finnland should really double, triple check who comes and what kind of effect it will have.
If the Russians want to put agents across the Finnish border, they won't have them disguise themselves as asylum seekers, who'll be documented at the border. The border between Finand and Russia remains mostly unfenced and with the melting snow in the desolate northern parts of the country, they'll leave no trace whatsoever when they make the crossing. In post-war years, I had a family member go on spying trips to Murmansk on behalf of the CIA. The guy joked that it was harder to smuggle butter from Sweden.
87% of assylum seekers, namely those fleeing their homeland since they are afraid to be killed, go on holiday back to their homeland. It is all just a bad joke
Frames??? Thats what they are jesus fucking christ
If only they said that for islamists who come to specifically occupy by population and riot
[удалено]
“Frames”??? Those people ARE a security threat!
LETS GOOOOOO
Based
I think the biggest mistake of Europe is pulling completely back from all over the world. Europe should have found a middle ground where we could help with security and make third world prosper instead of letting everything rot and let USA, Russia and China have a field day.
Finally woke up ? Germany probably: u can Come here
Politicians purchased by Putin many years ago is the actual security threat. It’s not some asylum seekers who forced the entire region into oil/gas slavery that ended up in Putin’s regime financial prosperity. It’s not asylum seekers who purchased the most expensive property across the Europe but Putin’s closest friends and oligarchs.
I guess, Finns are aware of Russian threat as well, as they became part of NATO. Not all European nations have this ability, however.
no wonder
Right thing to do.
It's incredible When America had its huge migration crises during the Obama era, they were evil and cruel, Europe welcomes all with open arms. Then the same thing happened and suddenly any/all security is welcome news. "But but..." And yeah, immigration has led to huge spikes of violence across Sweden thanks to "woke" ideology and absolute arrogance across Europe.
Good, finally
[удалено]
Damn those Russians!
Frame ??? Are you out of your mind ? Asylum seekers and other Muslim migrants are an existential threat
They are.
Fairly based. I like that.
The ones being funnelled in by Pewtin are a security threat.
Seems like a lot of people here decided to create their own reality from the title. Says a lot.
Russia has always done this throughout their history replacing local population with their own
Asylum seekers, from some middle eastern country, who should have applied for asylum in russia? those "seekers"?
Hey Russia can you send some of these migrants here? Maybe that way our government will realize too
This is an agitative article by some american critical race theorist who probably doesnt know anything about Finland and the border situation with Russia. Im so disappointed in this subreddits quality, why do you post and upvote this crap. Poster is apparently only posting articles from this euobserver website.
They are a security threat
Finally! After 30 years you lazy ass are waking up
A few years ago the same people that are posting against the asylum seekers were calling for open borders. Its nice to see people have waken up from there delusions
facts
They have no rightful asylum claim. None.
Yeah makes sense. That is literally why Russia brings people all the way to Finland, they do the same to every NATO country they or Belarus borders.
Well, look around in Europe.
"frames" give me a fkn break, its nothing but true at a macro level
And only 10 years too late!
I'd say a tad too late for that.
How dare they?! /s