Tuuktuuk

Thank you!

The Ukrainian system of names basically functions this way: If your name is Oleh Melnyk and you want to call your newborn child Nastia, what gets written in the documents is Anastasiia. Then, people will call that Nastia this way:

• If they have to be very formal, they call her Anastasiia Olehivna (this is the father's first name with a suffix)
• If they have to be formal, they call her Anastasiia Melnyk (this is Nastia's family name)
• If they have to be somewhat formal, they call her Anastasiia
• If they have to be informal, they call her Nastia

Every Anastasiia is always called Nastia by most people around her. And every Nastia has "Anastasiia" as their name in their official documents. Nastia's parents will never* call her Anastasiia. Not even when telling their friends what their newborn's name is. They will say "Look, this is our Nastia!"

The same applies to basically all other names as well. There are lists online for what name corresponds with which nickname and there is no simple pattern that you can reliably use to automatically turn a name's informal form into a formal form of the name or vice versa. For foreign names, -chka is a very common solution. When I lived in Ukraine, I would have ended up being Tuuchka, which is kind of funny because it means a small cute cloudlet, but people found that weird and just had to resort to always using my name as in documents, which made them feel kind of uncomfortable. If they cannot distinguish between whether the form they use is a formal or an informal one, their brain breaks a little.

Oh, and when I call my wife's phone from an unknown number, she answers with "Anastasiia ", but if I give her my phone and she knows she's talking to a friend of mine without knowing precisely whom, her first words in the phone are "Nastia ". And no, her father's name is not Oleh. Nor Melnyk. I just took those names randomly. Melnyk is the most common family name over there.

*) Never, except when they are super angry at her for some seriously bad mischief. Then they shout ANASTASIIA MELNYK, and she knows she in trouble. And if it's "ANASTASIIA OLEHIVNA, come here NOW!" then it means she immediately knows she's been caught after all for having killed her sibling three years ago, or something like that. And similarly, if they want to be just generally stern and not angry (although: almost angry), they can go with just "Anastasiia. Come here. Now."

I cannot get that to work. I tried this link: https://piefed.europe.pub/post/35873 . And no. Nothing.

The US instituted a mandatory draft to fight that war.

But that was an offensive war, and most countries don't do those.

Finland was much much safer before.

Depends on how you define "to be safe". The Russia had declared that its goal is to return the borders of the Russian empire. That sounded a bit scary, but we shrugged it off, because it would require a war and that would hurt the Russia so much that such a war would be idiocy and therefore will not happen.

In case you don't know where the borders of the Russian Empire were, they included for example these:

• Finland
• Estonia
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• half of Poland
• Ukraine
• Moldova

The Russia has declared that it wants to make all of those countries part of the Russian Federation.

So, we were not in danger, because the Russia would not be stupid enough to begin a war in Ukraine or in Finland, as it was clear that it would hurt the Russia's economy more than it could ever be of use to it. The Finnish defence doctrine was based on the concept of credible defence. We were told in school that "they can attack us and they could most likely even take over all of Finland, but our army is able to incur such big losses to them that they will not want to do that."
But then, it turned out that the Russia does not care about losses.

So, we found out two things:

• the Russia is really interested in acting to its declarations. They are not just empty words as we had assumed
• the Russia does not care about losses – therefore the doctrine of credible defence does not protect from the Russia

You can say that we were not in danger because we didn't know that we are in danger. And in some way that's true. But, once we found out that we are in danger, then, well, we were.
Since the doctrine of credible defence went down the drain, meaning that Finland effectively did not have a defence that is able to protect it, what else than joining NATO do you suggest we should have done to gain a level of defence capability able to keep the Russia out of Finland? Name one other option that we had.

Your idea that the Russia has a right to defend itself by preemptively taking over Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, half of Poland, Ukraine, and Moldova is, well... It would be impolite saying what it makes you look like.

EDIT: And of course this is relevant: In January 2022 the support for joining NATO was around 35 %. No "let's join NATO" propaganda had been made at all, but in May 2022 the support for joining NATO was around 80 %. The only thing that caused this was that people around Finland saw that what we had been taught about the Russia in our schools was crap. It was part of the school curriculum to make sure every Finn knows that the Russia is not going to attack us, with an explanation of why not. And it seemed to make sense. And everyone had that in their heads. And then... We saw what the Russia is doing in Ukraine, and it was clear from that alone that shit, we are fucked! That meant, 80 % of the people decided they wanted a new kind of safety against the Russia.
Maybe you can say that they told that in our schools for about 40 years just so that in 2025 Finland could join NATO. But... Well, you know.
In May 2022 you could go to any bar to talk with random people and it would be clear that the assumption was "we are joining NATO. There is no other option." There was no real dialogue about it, because basically everybody was of the same opinion. For the abovementioned reasons.

Is this really an air alarm?

At least in Finland all air alarm devices are tested on the first Monday of each month. They only run one wave if it, and do that prolonged. The last seconds of the test sound pretty much like this.

It's lower than their inflation. They'd need an even higher interest rate in order to curb inflation.

I don't think we could implement your suggestion. Our wartime maximum strength is about 700 000 soldiers and our population is around 5 600 000. That means, in wartime, one out of 8 inhabitants will be in different forms of military service. There's no way we could pay an adequate salary for that many soldiers. And, that number is still a third less than how many soldiers Ukraine has, and Ukraine is just barely able to keep the Russia from advancing.

I'm not sure why you're taking Vietnam war as an example, as it's an offensive war and for example Finland has no plans to do anything like that.

Our military -- numbers are public.

Yes, but the speed at which one can recruit soldiers in an emergency is not public.

maintaining offensive and diminishment operations

This is irrelevant, because most countries do not have any offensive operations to maintain in the first place.

You may not know what the phrase "proxy war" means, because in this context it's rather insulting. And I do not think you meant to insult me or others. But do tell, why and how would Finland wage an offensive war?

Yeah, this is getting a bit off topic, but you're making wild claims that would really need some clarification.

At the same time, the earlier interest rate of 21 % was considered too low, because a higher rate would have been needed to curb inflation.

Sounds good. Now they have had to choose between rock and a hard place, and chose to let the inflation increase so that companies could at least kind of keep existing in the short term. A sensible decision, but painful, because it means killing the economy in the longer term.

You could directly vote against being sent to die. You might not care about a ski hill funding request.

Uh, people choose when they are 18 whether they want to go to civil service or army. If they choose army, they will obviously be drafted if the Russia ever attacks, unless they have later had themselves removed from the drafting lists. To make a decision on how many soldiers we'll need for the defence is actually an extremely good example of what kind of decisions absolutely cannot be made by a broad public vote. You need a military person relaying secret strategical information to the Ministers of Parliament. It cannot be relayed to all 5.6 million people without compromising the information. If such an amount of people knows about our military strategy, so does the Russia.

So, at least for that kind of decisions something else must be at place. Maybe there could be a restricted set of representatives that are allowed to vote in case we are attacked and you could then choose which one of those will handle your vote in this precise case – before they have talked with the military specialists.

To paraphrase a section of what was already said above:

Once you can make AND, OR and NOT gates, you can do everything. Everything any computer does is done with those three.

In Minecraft you can build AND, NOT, and OR gates.

A hit in the neck is definitely a miss from an intended target anyway. Can't say how much or to what direction. It could have been that there's been a target where the bullet would fly 30 cm behind the person to be guarded, but the bullet is taking a trajectory 10 cm off the intended and the person happens to their head 20 cm backwards just at the crucial moment.

But, I do believe that someone wanted that guy dead. I can imagine someone figuring that "he's actively advocating killing politicians you don't like, and I don't like him. Therefore I am following his own instructions and this is acceptable."

I personally think it's a bad idea to kill a person like that, because it probably causes other people to get shot as well. It's not a culture I want to see spread. But at least I do not see it morally as a very big problem that a person explicitly says that something is acceptable and then that thing is done to him. He wanted a certain kind of society and he got the kind of society he wanted. If there is life after death, he can spend that time being content of having changed the society.

What I'm saying is that there was a very much raised likelihood that someone kills him intentionally.

There is no concept of a parliament majority leader being able to block a proposal from being voted on.

I didn't get what this is referring to. Is it some Canadian or US-American concept? I'd be happy if you could elaborate a bit!

You can change your delegation after disappointment with vote on an issue, and can choose to not delegate your vote on a mandatory military draft proposal.

I am already able to change my delegation after disappointment. Luckily I've never had to exercise that right. Also, another thing that flew far over my head: why is an exception specifically regarding mandatory military drafting important?