Some earlier GTA could be better for this. I tried driving around for the scenery, but there was so much random violence happening around that my kid got scared. I did manage to explain everything upside down in the end, so no harm done, but it did not feel nice.

GTA3:SA still wouldn’t have had that effect, I think(?)

At what age?

Depends on what’s meant here with “GTA”. GTA 1 was not really that bad. There’s shooting, which is not cool, but it’s not very graphic.

Then there’s GTA2 where you collect people from the street and turn them into kebab meat with a lot of screaming. And, starting from GTA3, the games start getting seriously.bad fir children.

But, the meme might mean GTA1 or GTA2.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that GTA is good for kids. It just means that something else is even worse.

This answer comes super late, but is perhaps still of use for you.

Personally, I prefer Hufvudstadsbladet. It’s in Swedish and my Swedish is far from good, but I still feel that among all newspapers in Finland that one has the best investigative journalism, and it does a better job with remaining neutral than other newspapers do. Its only noteworthy bias is that it makes relatively big fuss about small events in small towns if those towns are by majority Swedish-speaking. And since what happens in those towns is largely irrelevant to me, that bias does not really matter. It just means that there is a certain low percentage of news articles that I skip.

Besides that, there’s also http://yle.fi/uutiset/tuoreimmat that I like to follow regularly. There was a purge some ten-ish years ago where people who were not good enough friends with the political party Keskusta were removed from all decisionmaking, and that has not been reversed. However, that has apparently not hurt Yle’s neutrality in a very bad manner. I dislike Keskusta a lot but Yle’s news have not become uninteresting for me, because they are still neutral enough.

To my knowledge, there have been no plans that this decision would cover. The only talk there has been about sending foreign troops to Ukraine would be as a peacekeeping force, and that would be organized in a way explicitly allowed by this decision.

This decision was probably made to cater to some Bulgarian domestic discourse, right? Anybody got any idea which one?

Voihan sitä lähemmäskin matkustaa kuin tuonne asti :))

Itsellänikin kyllä on tuo suunta suunnitelmissa, ehkä tälle syksylle. Mukaan voisi ehkä ympätä vähän Ranskaa Pariisin ja Välimerenrannikon muodossa. FB:n puolella esiin tuotu toimiva reitti yöjunalla Perpignanista herätti inspiraatiota.

http://back-on-track.eu/ sisältää oikein mainion kartan Euroopan yöjunista.

True, but there is the army that handed all the logistical trucks to the Red Army. The backbone of the Red Army was US material support. They provided the manpower, USA provided the tools. Plus, USA and UK provided a notable amount of manpower from another direction. And the tools for that manpower as well.

It is true that the Soviet army did a lot there. But still, the Russian claim that they did basically all of the job, especially when a huge chunk of “their” soldiers were actually from Ukraine and not from the Russia, is a lie.

It was a coöperational effort of several countries. USA could not have freed us of Nazis without UK and USSR. And USSR could not have freed us of nazis without USA and UK.

Also, in this case we are discussing here it is crystal clear that this was an actual intended nazi salute. Those other ones in the photos probably were not – at least each picture has visual cues that point towards the hand gesture having had a different meaning than on this one now.

On first one the fingers are much more open than now. On the second one the arm is quite low and the facial expression looks mostly worried. Probably he’s just waving his hand there. And the same goes for the rest of the pictures. Especially the facial expressions are very different from the video shown now, where there is nothing ambiguous.

Of course, if the context is shown, some of those photos could prove to really have been hitler salutes, but I highly doubt they were.

Naja… Ich bin selber ein Wähler von wechselsweise der finnischen Linke und den finnischen Grünen…

Aber… Seit etwa 2004/2005 fördert Putin aktiv die Rechtsradikalen. Und überalls in ex-UdSSR gibt es deswegen jetzt ein Nazi-Problem. In Rußland ist das Problem am schlimmsten, da es von dorter stammt, aber am bekanntesten ist es in der Ukraine. Dort nimmt es mit den Zahlen von Rechtsradikalismus und Antisemitismus seit 2014 ab, während die Zahlen im Rußland gestiegen sind. Je engere Beziehungen ein Land zu Rußland pflegt, desto mehr Geld haben dort die Nazis zur Verfügung.

Das bedeutet, dass obwohl die Linke in Deutchland gegen die Nazis sind, fördert ihre Rußlandbeziehung die Nazis in Deutschland so effizient, dass die Linke im Endeffekt den Nazis eher helfen.

Irgendwie hat man es in Deutschland vor 20 Jahren verpennt, dass Putin damals ein Nazi-Förderer geworden ist – obwohl das zumindest in Finnland damals in Zeitungen zu lesen war, und bestimmt auch in Deutschland! Die enge Rußlandbeziehung der Linke hat dazu gebracht, dass echt wenige deutschen es verstehen, dass Maidan im wesentlichen ein antifaschistisches Projekt war. Und dass dagegen zu sein – das ist passive Faschismus.

You probably meant this is an answer to me, so I’ll reply.

What I mean is that for example France supporting undemocratic regimes in Africa in order to get cheaper minerals and cheaper cocoa and cheaper bananas is colonialism. It does not mean that it is as bad as what France used to do in the past. And it’s not even as bad as France still retaining several actual colonies. But it is still bad. And it is colonialism. It would be colonialism even if France did not have any formal colonies around the world.

And when China does in 2025 what France is now, in 2025, doing with now-independent countries that used to be its formal colonies, then both of those are colonialism in the same manner. If what China is doing is okay, then that part of what France is doing is also okay. And I do not like the idea of accepting European countries’ colonialism, not even a little bit.

Being bombed is worse than being economically abused, absolutely. But it does not mean that abusing a country economically is okay. I do not like it at all that cocoa and bananas are as cheap here in Europe as they are. That luxury of low prices is coming from other people’s lack of well-being. And someone doing something even worse does not make this bad thing any better. At least in my opinion.

For what I understand, in reality we two think much more alike than you think we do.

You calling me dishonest is not colonialism. You stubbing your toe is not colonialism.

You, my friend, are defending colonialism and I am opposing your view that colonialism is okay as long as it’s done by a country on a list of “countries allowed to behave in a colonialist manner” that you are curating. And somehow that makes me a colonialism apologist?

Haha, everyone is a fascist now?

Yeah, the French colonies, such as French Guyana, are not okay. But neither are the things France is doing to many of the countries that used to be France’s formal colonies. Even though those countries are not colonies of France, what France is doing to them is colonialism all the same. Or do you disagree?

Also, calling me “dumb” was impolite of you, even though factually correct. Calling me a fascist was outright weird.

I’m sorry but you sound like the people who call DOGE “auditors” who “look for corruption and end it”.

China has been trying to get into big infrastructure projects in Finland as well, with the precisely same kind of loan arrangements. And it’s very good that we declined the offer. We were a colony of Sweden for 600 years. We don’t need to become one of China’s now.

What you’re saying suggests that France’s current behaviour is not colonialist. What are your thoughts on that?

Lemmyssä vähän hämmentää, ettei oikein ole selvää, kuka näitä instansseja ylläpitää, millä motiiveilla ja millä rahalla. Kun instanssia pyörittää yksityishenkilö omalla kustannuksellaan, jotenkin olettaa että se voi periaatteessa vaan ottaa ja kadota taivaan tuuliin.

Nothing’s wrong with building infrastructure. Why would it be?

What’s wrong is the financing scheme that makes the infrastructure effectively Chinese national property. And when China can decide how and when a country’s infrastructure can be used, China gets a lot of influence in that country’s domestic politics. And it does use that influence.

USA destroying Iraq doesn’t make China any less colonial. China helping rebuild Iraq in a way that will make Iraq a vassal of China… That does make China more colonial.

USA should absolutely focus on itself. And it will do it much more than before, because now that it has decided to cut its international soft power, it does not really have other options, does it? :)

Wie, denn?

How do you know everyone knows its bullshit?

When I was in the Russia – my last time was as late as 2019 – the shocking thing was to notice that people there really think their country is somehow a good and exemplatory place! At least in the Russia people should by all logic understand it’s all bullshit. But in practical terms they don’t. They go with it.