Kekkonens Nightmare reaction

[@ristusnotta1653]

Kennonen was an interesting charecter, he sometimes is called the dictator of Finland because he suppressed opposition and was president as long as Putin has been president and he had also similar cult of personality around him but he also at the same time did many good things and managed Finland's relations to both east and west and was also a good man in general, literally the definition of balance 😀 He was from the centre party of Finland, a centrist dictator 😀

[@themalcontent100]

4 generations of realative peace is pretty impressive. Especially in Europe. 200 years ago, such a thing was unthinkable

[@Elpyramide]

Maybe You can react Trump biggest Failure from they same change, it's pretty interesting

[@seanegli7118]

they same change?

[@PhilHug1]

Highly recommend reacting to Polymatter's China's Reckoning series on KZbin. Many talk about china's strengths that few talk about their weaknesses (which are very serious).

[@aufiblue8490]

Yes. And to his Video on Taiwan.

[@nielskorpel8860]

17:18 Nonono, you gotta understand. He did not declare *wár*. He declared a special military organisation... ... and the spirit of Helsinki lies wounded in the hospital nonetheless.

[@suchtruemuchreal34]

You should react to "China vs India | The state and the society" also by Kraut

[@dakapo8985]

Oh and this and the structure Kekkonen aimed for is for Europe and war in Europe from border conflict. No one saying "the world" except you. Indian continent, African contintent and South&North American continent had no where close to the war and blood the Chinese continent and European continent had during ww1 and ww2 (1900-1950). This is Europes "solution" to it. And East Asia got there solution.

[@nintendofan1749]

React to squire

[@nathanraby7659]

Bruh

[@AleksanderK12]

To be fair, this is a kind of liberal myth and should not be taken seriously. It is such a charming assumption that we had peace in Europe because the West and the East got along, not that there were two blocs that would have killed each other at the first opportunity had it not been for nuclear weapons. Especially as the war in Ukraine is not the first war in Europe. Before that there was the war in Yugoslavia, the war in Moldova and the invasion of Georgia. What, that was less important? Because what, because they are small countries?

[@LiteralCrimeRave]

Yugoslavia was a civil war, and Georgia is on the far borders of Europe.

[@blaxxun9051]

This is a beyond ridiculous comparison. The yugoslavian wars was the only major one, being a series of internal civil wars when yugoslavia was broken apart. This is not a case of "I am an established country and i hate a seperate established country so im gonna roll tanks across the border to take their land". The moldovan-russo war was again one of independence as the soviet union broke apart, with between 800 and 2000 casualties, including civilians. And the invasion of georgia had, what, 200 casualties at the very edge of europe (basically in the middle east)? Again including civilians. With how massive of an event the dissolution of the soviet union was, it is a miracle we had as few conflicts as we did. These situations are not comparable to what has just happened.

[@AleksanderK12]

@@blaxxun9051 No, Russia has invaded other countries before, so did not accept this whole ''Kekkonens'' thing from the very beginning. And the fact that for you Georgia or thereabouts Moldova are insignificant places? OK, so the geopolitical situation in Europe was not decided by some "spirit of peace" but by sheer force, if you were a small country and someone attacked you, some guy came along and said that it didn't really matter anyway, because the life of a Georgian was apparently worth less than that of a Ukrainian. And the description of the situation in Yugoslavia is absurd, because the situation in Bosnia was a carbon copy of the situation in the Donbass and the creation of pseudo-banana republics, in Bosnia in the form of the Republika Srpska, in the Donbass in the form of Donbabwe and Luganda.

[@blaxxun9051]

@@AleksanderK12 Scale of conflicts does in fact matter. If we don't accept this fact the whole argument devolves into absurdism. You would never categorize a small scuffle on the border of territories between two local insurgent groups as a "war", because if these were also wars then the word would lose it's impact and meaning. This is why such conflicts are usually referred to as just that, conflicts, or skirmishes. If a terror attack happens, is that now a war? What is effectively an enemy combatant of foreign origin has just crossed your territorial borders and killed your citizens and/or military personnell. Is it only a war if it is directed by an enemy state? Then civil wars aren't really wars since what is "the state" is what is being fought over. These are by definition murky and unclear lines. But just because i can't point to the exact point at which your neck turns into your head, that doesn't mean i can now dispute that the neck and head are different things. This is not to say that small countries don't matter or are of less importance, just that the effective scale does matter in a conversation regarding the security fabric of an entire continent. The only conflict even remotely comparable to ukraine v russia in scale since ww2 is yugoslavia. A state that succumbed to infighting along ethnic lines eventually leading to the dissolution of not just yugoslavia but the entire soviet union. The only way to make ukraine comparable to this would be if the eastern parts of the country all rose up by themselves and rebelled. The tiny fraction of militarist insurgents on the border to russia being kept artificially alive on life support by russian training and equipment is not the force that almost took Kyiv. Russians almost took Kyiv. If you honestly can't see the difference between this and the hornets nest that was Yugoslavia then i frankly don't know how to get through to you.

[@AleksanderK12]

@@blaxxun9051 The invasion of Georgia was a normal full-scale war involving tanks, rockets and aircraft. Do you know why the war lasted only three days, and why only 300 people died? Because the Georgian government capitulated. If Kiev had fallen after three days, as Putin had intended, would we have been able to get away with it too? I like this game with definitions, first you say that a war can only be between two states and then immediately afterwards that there is such a thing as a "civil war", which means that there can be a war without the participation of two states. And I don't really know what you want to defend. I'm focusing on the fact that since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia and its allies have already engaged in fighting and invasions against their neighbours, and to claim that it is only NOW that Putin has broken the order in Europe is wrong, because it suggests something sudden, where Putin and other Russian leaders have been working for 30 years to destabilise the situation in Europe, whether by supporting the Serbs, invading Georgia or supporting Transnistria. It is not as if Putin suddenly decided to attack Europe with a single decision. It was a process lasting decades.