>when were you vocal on M23, Haiti, Kashmir, Kurds, Muslims in India...
That is the entire point, Gaza protests have been very vocal (and in many cases very misinformed). Human right abuses in Iran are but another example of this blindness.
It's very obvious what they are trying to accomplish: ethnic cleansing. The idea is to make life so miserable to Palestinians that they will give up their national liberation struggle and venture into the punishing Sinai desert, allowing Israel and Trump to build a riviera and a gas pipeline on the sea.
If they can't get them to leave, the partial genocide will escalate into a full blown mass murder campaign.
>Makes sense. Russia and friends would seem to have an interest in Scottish independence as it undermines the UK.
Do they? Since Independent Scotland is very likely to rejoin EU it seems to me Russia & co would be interested in keeping it on the sinking ship that is post-brexit UK(economy wise).
I don't think that's a given, or even necessarily a strong likelihood. A majority of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK, unlike the Brexit situation where a shrinking minority of the UK's trade was with the rest of the EU, the only EU member for which this was the case. Scotland is accustomed to deficit spending and to large subsidies from the rUK, neither of which would be epecially palatable to EU finances.
And while I certainly think it's fair to describe the UK economy as a sinking ship, I also think that blaming that on Brexit is, to put it politely, "starting with your conclusion". UK growth has been higher than France, Germany or Italy since 2016. Brexit has obviously had impacts, but they haven't all been negative (the City in particular has zero enthusiasm to fall back into any EU alignment) and I think the COVID lockdown shambles and the Homerically inept current government have been bigger factors.
It would disrupt UKs defence (nuclear submarines in particular) and energy (oil fields) both of which currently are primarily based geographically within Scotlands territory. This is classic Russian tactics. Its not about whether Scotland joins EU or stays with UK, or which is economically or politically the best decision - its about seeding chaos and uncertainty within one of Russias largest antagonists.
Given that a sentiment for independence of Scotland has only really became an actual topic people discuss semi-seriously after the Brexit, I think it is fair to assume that there is a quite high likelihood of it, and there are quite some EU states that get preferential treatment budget wise, no reason to assume that Scotland cannot become that.
Covid has been global, lockdowns have been everywhere, UK is not unique and did not even have the worst of it in terms of lockdown strictness. While "averaged out" UK economy post-brexit/pre-covid might not look that much worse than EU, if you look into specifics the picture gets far uglier with entire economy sectors going bankrupt, all in all it was a spectacular self inflicted damage that will be felt for decades to come, especially now that US is becoming a hostile actor.
An independent Scotland or Wales would have pretty much the same trading relationship with the EU, as England has.
At least for several decades after independence
The level of integration of everything, including trade and supply chains and finance etc, is so big as to be almost total.
In addition, I'm pretty sure that EU would not welcome another hard border with England, it's already waisted far too much time and effort on the issue in Ireland. I'm sure it doesn't want to have to go through that again.
An independent Wales is a non-starter and I say that as a Welshman… Wales is just to reliant on subsidies from London (as is Scotland and the majority of England)
The EU has not yet set a precedent for allowing breakaway states into full membership, so it's far from a given that an independent Scotland would be able to rejoin the EU.
Scotland is of enormous strategic importance due to its location relative to Russia's naval ports. An independent Scotland with no other backing would have minimal resources to monitor and deter Russian naval activity.
The precedent is now the promise to allow Ukraine into the EU.
I note that if you're looking for a weakly defended EU country reachable from the North Atlantic and quietly relying on the UK defence umbrella without admitting it, Ireland is already there.
That is an interesting precedent. However, Ukraine is not a breakaway state from an existing EU member state (or a state which has been in the EU). There are numerous regions in the EU on a similar path, and none have yet succeeded (including Kosovo, which has been independent since 2008).
I'm also not talking about the defence of Scotland itself, I'm noting that monitoring and curtailing Russian naval activity in the Baltic Sea corridor is of wider strategic importance. If Scotland became unable to do this, Russia would have an easy exit path for naval vessels from its Baltic Sea ports.
In your example, Ireland as an EU member has significantly more access to military resources than otherwise.
I think it'd make the remainder of the UK weaker and more divided if Scotland joined the EU after leaving the UK, so I'd think that serves their interests too.
> Since Independent Scotland is very likely to rejoin EU
That is in no way clear because Spain has previously (during the Scottish independence referendum) indicated they would veto such a thing (because they don't want to give Catalonia any ideas or hopes).
But in any case, a Scottish independence would force the UK to find, and invest a lot in, a new base for its nuclear submarines. Scotland is also the most important UK part of GIUK gap, where there is a lot of infrastructure to catch and track Russian assets entering the North Atlantic. UK losing access to that is not good for it nor for the US with their special relationship.
A Scotland in the EU can also create tensions between the UK and the EU, which would also be good for Russia.
1) Cry me a river about bloody dictators being deposed, wah wah.
2) Nobody is asking to "accept Israel's dominance", but dropping the "Destruction of Israel" as one of the main goals of the state would be a quite welcome.
The world does not revolve around Israel, and the less bloody dictators it has (theocratic or not) the better.
Why should they? Palestinians have a home. Jordan consists of majority palestinians. Why should they take in Palestinians? Besides Egypt and Jordan are puppet regimes, paid for by the West. They receive billions for weapons annually. One dicatator and another monarch suppressing their people and getting weapons and intelligence in return.
If Israel were to be magically relocated to the moon or mars or 'the sea', region would resume the explosion of local wars, now that common enemy briefly uniting them is gone.
For this reason I have hybrid homelab, with most stuff hosted at home, but critical things I'd need to have running are on a VM in cloud. Best of both worlds.
Or, is reducing it to “dictator bad; gone good” unobvious, and something that slipped by everyone?
To wit: we’re in a thread for the top comment for a 3844 comment post, and that comment is noting that when there’s a power vacuum, things usually* get worse for the citizenry.
If it had been about taking out dictators, they were kind of spoiled for choice in that regard. They could have picked an easier one, or at least one which made strategic sense in some way.
Current dependency hell that is modern development, just how wide the openings are for supply chain attacks and seemingly every other week we get a new RCE.
I'd rather 100 loosely coupled scripts peer reviewed by a half a dozen of LLM agents.
But this doesn't solve dependency hell. If the functionalities were loosely coupled, you can already vendor the code in and manually review them. If they are not, say it is a db, you still have to depend on that?
Or maybe you can use AI to vendor dependencies, review existing dependencies and updates. Never tried that, maybe that is better than the current approach, which is just trusting the upstream most of the time until something breaks.
By vendoring the code in, in this case I mean copying the related code into the project. You don't review everything. It is a bad way to deal with dependencies, but it feels similar to how people are using LLMs now for utility functions.
It actually is pretty bad, the person might read it and appreciate, only to realize moments later that it was a thoughtless machine sending him the letter rather than a real human being, which then robs them of the feeling and leaves in a worse spot than before reading the letter
That is the entire point, Gaza protests have been very vocal (and in many cases very misinformed). Human right abuses in Iran are but another example of this blindness.
reply