• 0 Posts
  • 74 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle

  • hitmyspot@aussie.zonetoEurope@lemmy.mlThe Hubris of Brussels
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Lol, so NATO provoking Russia is saying that Ukraine could enter at some point. Russia invaded them as in the future, they may not be able to invade them?!

    At no point has there ever been any indication that NATO countries would impact on Russian sovereignty without provocation. Russia doesn’t want more NATO members as it wants to invade and control their neighbours when it wishes.

    Democratically elected? Do you forget that Victor yanukovich had his competition jailed. Yulia Tymoshenko was democratically elected and was pro eu. She then lost a run off to him and he had her jailed.


  • hitmyspot@aussie.zonetoEurope@lemmy.mlThe Hubris of Brussels
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    22 hours ago

    So, why did they Annex Crimea and invade Ukraine?

    I don’t think Europe should be spending 5% of GDP on defence. That doesn’t mean Russia is not a threat. You’re saying that Russia is a threat, but from a intelligence and misinformation point of view. What makes you think much of the new spending won’t be on that?


  • hitmyspot@aussie.zonetoEurope@lemmy.mlThe Hubris of Brussels
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Nobody expects Russia to march to Berlin. They will selectively annex or invade wherever suits them if they don’t face resistance. This article seems to say we should abandon Ukraine so German industry can have cheaper power from fossil fuels. Merkel also treated Russia like a normal trading partner when it was clear they were not trustworthy.

    No, Germany decommissioned its nuclear plants as an act of foolishness. Ukraine should not pay the consequences. If Germany wants less war, it would be easy to stop supporting genocide in Palestine, while continuing to support Ukraine.

    Germanys economy is suffering, but it has turned the corner. Likely trade with America will affect it more than Russia.





  • It’s not anti worker rights. It’s about keeping air travel safe, which often requires travel over disputed territory, conflicts etc.

    It doesn’t have to makes strikes ineffective. Essential services, like air traffic control, could have a basic overflight service where striking workers are paid overtime rates and all fees collected go to the union rather than agency, or general taxation. Internal flights have already been banned in France for environmental reasons, where there is a train route. Requiring flights to travel around them would upend that progress. International flights originating and ending in France would still be affected, so those most affected would be those that benefit the french economy, therefore more targeting those that the strikers wish to pressure.

    Keeping travelers safe and keeping the concept of apolitical travel cooperation safe is beneficial to workers and people from all countries. Take for instance Russian sanctions. One case where politics has been allowed to affect flight travel. Western flights no longer use their airspace based on the sanctions, but Chinese companies do. Chinese companies can now offer cheaper flights and so European airlines are less able to compete, eroding competition. Do you think Chinese companies care about french workers?

    Are you unaware of the purposeful downing of passenger planes? America did so for Iranian planes, Russia did so for a Malaysian plane, near Crimea. Are you unware of Russia testing giving GPS misinformation on commercial (not military) GPS.

    I don’t think it is reasonable for strikes in one country to affect travel from other countries. Ireland or Iceland striking, for instance could interrupt most transatlantic flights. Saying to go around is not good from an environmental or safety point of view. It’s not just company profits, but passenger safety. Longer flights also lead to cancellations as there would be inadequate supply of planes and staffing.



  • Yes but you have to balance passenger safety. Making air traffic control.subject to politics, which incudes strikes, makes them subject to misinformation which can be deadly. Airline passengers should not be pawns.

    Flyover operating is a reasonable compromise. Ryanair have cut airfares, which depends on cheap staff and cheap destination airports. However, I don’t think they’ve ever had a fatal crash.

    If you think France striking is due to Ryanair, who operate there but not hugely, then lol. Even if they did and were responsible,it’s a reasonable point. Bad actors can make a good point and be right. Your goalpost shifting is quite clear.




  • From the article: O’Leary said that of Ryanair’s 400 cancellations caused by the strike, “360, or 90 percent of those flights, would operate if the Commission protected the overflights as Spain, Italy and Greece do during air traffic control strikes.”

    “Von der Leyen and the Commission made a big song and dance during Brexit about: ‘We must protect the single market, the single market is sacrosanct, nothing would be allowed to disrupt the single market,’” he said. “Unless you’re a French air traffic controller and you can shut down the sky over France.”

    From me: I don’t think it’s unreasonable to require strike actions to not affect non french traffic. In wartime, air traffic control continues. Countries in conflict wills till communicate with air traffic control. It makes sense for it to be an apolitical system and strikes are effectively political.

    That needs to be balanced with the right to strike which is quite strong in France! Frances central location in Europe would affect quite a number of flights.