Unipolary didn't have strict rules either.
Neither is convenient for me because there will be a very inconvenient war. It's just that people only count when there is an election, and then they only count as a manipulatable resource. Otherwise nobody in power cares about what people want.
You are right about your expectations about future wars. It's time to come up with something to make a better future.
A buyers market. Let competition drive down prices, or cooperation from people with UBI who don't need the profits.
That's for basic goods. It's good that other prices rise so that people are motivated to work.
Sure. Unfortunately that's not what counts. Also history is more complicated and doesn't start in 2014.
Wang was said to have given Kallas – the former Estonian prime minister who only late last year took up her role as the bloc’s de facto foreign affairs chief – several “history lessons and lectures”.
Ukraine seems to be more of a unipolar project than a multipolar project. The important part is the last part of the last sentence.
David C. Hendrickson, in his article in Foreign Affairs on November 1, 1997, saw the core of the book as the ambitious strategy of NATO to move eastward to Ukraine's Russian border and vigorously support the newly independent republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus, which is an integral part of what Hendrickson said could be called a "tough love" strategy for the Russians. Hendrickson considers "this great project" to be problematic for two reasons: the "excessive expansion of Western institutions" could well introduce centrifugal forces into it; moreover, Brzezinski's "test of what legitimate Russian interests are" seems to be so strict that even a democratic Russia would probably "fail".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
Of course there can also be wars in the multipolar world. But there are enough started by the US that peace seems to be secondary.
Es gab auch einen Post mit Kommentaren, ich habe gerade nur das gefunden
Why should it not happen? If they track everybody crime becomes impossible, as does dissent. The latter is the motivation, the former, as you say, the talking point. Not looking forward to it, but political development suggests that it will happen.
Was ist denn mit dem Hamburger Modell, ein Jahr vor Einschulung einen Sprachtest zu machen und Kinder mit Defiziten ein Jahr früher einzuschulen?
Once all thieves are 'treated', who should move a bike?
So what does all that violation of human rights actually buy us?
Violated humans. Political stability by removing all dissidents.
I am not arguing for surveillance, I just assume that it will come.
Theo Müller
Danke
Es gab die Oligarchen vor Putin. Das wird die Referenz für die Russen sein.
Ich weiß ja nicht, ob du das weißt, aber unser fleißiger Wladimir hat direkt in den 90ern angefangen, sich sein Netzwerk der Bereicherung zu stricken. Er ist der Gipfel des Oligarchentums.
Gipfel ja, aber Oligarchen vor ihm waren schlechter.
Nichtsdestotrotz ändert deine nicht ganz passende Antwort nichts daran, dass Putin die Gründe für die Misere Russlands zu verantworten hat.
Wie gänge es besser ohne dass alle Resourcen nachher im Westen landen? Ohne Putin hätte Russland noch die alten Oligarchen.
Also dafür, dass Putin doch so ein gerissener, schlauer Hund ist, wäre er hier ja Vollgas wie der letzte Depp in die Falle getappt, die der ‘pöhse Westen’ ihm da gestellt hat. Wie kann das sein, wo er doch kein Idiot ist?
Weil der Westen besser und stärker ist. Wie hätte er es verhindern können?
Ganz heißer Tipp: seinen Truppen im Februar 22 nicht den Einmarsch befehlen. Zumal, wenn es offenbar doch so eine große Falle ‘des Westens’ war.
Ganz schlechtet Tipp, siehe vorherige Wikilinks. Da war die Falle ja schon zu. Das Vertrauen in Minsk 2 war sein Fehler.
Er wird sich noch sehnlichst wünschen, dass er das Verhältnis zu China haben könnte, das wir zu Amerika haben.
Ausser die Multipolare Welt ist ernst gemeint.
Da China andere Länder von der Qualität seines Bündnisses überzeugen will, werden sie Russland gut behandeln.
The US wants to stay the hegemon but China is advancing technology faster than the US. The conflict is about the multipolar world. Unfortunately the US, and the EU, haven't explained why they don't want to be part of a multipolar world.
we should create such a society
The problem is that nobody knows how.
helping the group that otherwise make the community unsafe
Why does such a group have to exist?
Why the downvotes. I cannot think of a group that is inherently unsafe. Who do you have in mind that you consider it an insult?
Wenn das doch die Realität ist, dann ist es doch erst einmal zu begrüssen, dass sie ausgesprochen wird.
Das Idiotische ist, dass als Lösung bessere Seilschaften für Frauen vorgeschlagen wird, und nicht versucht wird, eine leistungsbasierte Gesellschaft zu formen, von der wir dann alle was haben.
The US will lose hegemony during the next ten years if nothing changes. Going from 4.1x to 3.3x in 25 years won't be relevant for that transition.
This also assumes that China cannot change their child policy once more.
Thus, a big war is coming.
What technology will disappear in the next 10 years?
It will be fully automated. You mark the position and time, an AI checks the record and the thief will be punished. No police nor judge needed.
That depends on how much people with morals stick together. People are isolated so that they can be manipulated.
Bike locks. Surveillance will be expanded to the point that petty crimes will become impossible.
Why the downvotes? Do you disagree with the expectation or do you dislike the development? The question is about what will happen, not what we want to happen. I don't like it but I expect full surveillance in 10 years.
Also doof. Kuss des Todes.
Better don't worry about tomorrow and ask yourself why you didn't get up today.
Could be a trick question if you don't find a reason for not doing something.