Reminds me of “it’s only Imperialism if the West does it”.

It is a Chinese firm. Why would one not include this in the title? Chinese investments in Europe are a contentious topic, not in small part because the country is notorious for exactly the kind of crimes against the environment as described in the article, as well as poor labor practices (including slavery), corruption (obviously a hot topic in Hungary right now), human rights abuses, IP theft, espionage, intimidation, etc.

It is not xenophobic (or “sinophobic”) to report these things. Why are you carrying water for this awful regime?

There is a noticeable difference to America’s aggressiveness since Putin placed his Manchurian candidate in the White House. While the US has certainly acted in an imperialistic fashion in the recent past, it was nowhere near as blunt, callous and, for lack of a better word, “Russian-style”.

America hegemony was built predominantly on the basis of soft power instead of occupying territory long-term. Coca Cola, Levi’s jeans and rock and roll, combined with skillful diplomacy, consistent foreign policy between Republican- and Democratic-led administrations and a backing of unparalleled hard power projection capabilities was a winning combination in the second half of the 20th century.

Threatening to annex the territory of close allies in particular would have been unthinkable at any previous point in American history, even when they were fighting Colonial wars (e.g. in the Philippines) or during the most coke-fueled periods of the Cold War, when the CIA seemingly enjoyed a carte blanche, especially in Central and South America.

The difference is that these companies have to adhere to EU regulations, e.g. on harmful chemicals. Cheap Chinese products famously do not, often times to an absurd degree, exceeding limits by thousands of times.

They recently added the ability to pay with an EC card upon delivery.

You missed the second part of my comment.

Good ol’ moving the overton window.

The more unstable the world becomes, the more frequent and aggressive moves towards authoritarianism will be.

Better education, more measures against fake news and propaganda. Some nations (like, as per usual, the Nordics) are working hard on this, including even with providing courses for adults on how to spot fake news (as well as incorporating it into the general curriculum), but most are complacent at best, far too slow at adapting to rapidly changing times.

Yeah, the UK adopted 1984 as an instruction manual ages ago. I last visited it almost 20 years ago, but even then, the level of public surveillance alone was already ridiculous.

Because as we all know, every problem goes away by selecting a group of people and shooting them.

Relevant saying: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Is this really a common sentiment among conservatives in the Netherlands?

In Germany, it’s 14. I made absolute bank tutoring slightly younger kids (and a few old people on how to use computers) as a teen and young adult. Since I also used a bicycle to get to all of my clients four to five days per week, I was in the best shape of my entire life.

Still, the reality of these laws, especially in countries like Russia, is that kids from poor socioeconomic backgrounds will be forced into awful (even dangerous) jobs at terrible hours (not the easy-going “self-employed” middle class tutoring I voluntarily did), resulting in lower quality of life and poor performance at school, which means their chance of having a decent life later on will be seriously hurt when they are tired in classes and don’t have enough time to learn, play and socialize outside of school hours.

It’s part of the Nazi “silent majority” narrative. They believe that because most people are not saying anything, they must be secretly supporting them. That’s why it’s so important to confront these fucks everywhere - it shatters this narrative.

One of the activists started the brawl by grabbing an officer from behind. That was more than stupid.

True, but you can build a strong army and security apparatus that are able to resist Russian imperialism while also protecting fundamental rights at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive - and the country is more than wealthy enough to achieve this, but only with fair taxation that rewards labor and primarily makes those contribute their fair share who have the most.

Yup. I’m all in favor of militant pacifism (and taxing the rich). It’s crucial for maintaining peace in today’s world. Look dangerous, be dangerous, but only use this power to defend yourself and others from aggression.

There’s a reason I contrasted the West-German with the East-German situation. One was clearly an occupation, the other was a lot more nuanced. Perhaps I should have elaborated on just how independent the West-German government was in its decision making even before 1955. This kind of behavior simply isn’t possible under anything that can be described as an occupation.

I didn’t say figuring out, I said figuring. Presented with two choices, close everything down or pay rent, they chose the latter.

Alright, fair enough.

Germany is very different in this regard. They haven’t been perceived as occupiers in ages and rightfully so. Until Trump began destroying the close relationship with Germany, US soldiers on German soil weren’t seen as much of an issue. It’s not like they were omnipresent after the end of the Cold War, outside of close to where they are stationed. You’d occasionally spot a handful e.g. on the train (although these days, you’re more likely to come across Mormon missionaries, at least it feels that way) and it’s not like anyone has an issue with their easygoing nature. British soldiers had nowhere near as good of a reputation, by the way. It had nothing to with the British government, but rather with the behavior (often drunken excesses) of poorly disciplined conscripts stationed here and the (to Germans) shockingly rough discipline imposed on them by their officers and MPs.

That’s not to say that US soldiers being stationed here wasn’t controversial at times. When Bush Junior started his illegal war against Iraq (an immensely unpopular thing in Germany - I was one of millions protesting against it), the fact that Germany was a major logistics hub in the war despite not officially participating (it only secretly did) was being heavily criticized. Earlier during the Cold War, when Reagan had his “Star Wars” moment, it led to a surge in anti-American sentiment, since Germany would have become an irradiated battleground between the two superpowers in case of a hot war, so anyone heating it up wasn’t exactly looked at fondly. By the time Bush Senior was in office, the whole thing had cooled down again though and shortly afterwards, the whole thing was over anyway.

This is incorrect. Occupation ended in West-Germany in 1955, when the Federal Republic of Germany joined NATO - and it had already been gradually reduced from 1949, when more and more powers were transferred to the German government. Sovereignty was officially granted to the young democracy that year in both foreign and domestic matters, but there were a number of exceptions: The right to station troops (as part of NATO) and to deploy them in Germany in case there was an invasion from the East, even without explicit consent from the West-German government, as well as the right to restore order in case of national unrest, in case it endangered the stationed troops (but this came with the caveat that the German parliament could override this).

This doesn’t mean that America (as well as other Western allies like Britain and France) didn’t exert a great amount of influence on the young republic, but even under Adenauer already, it was able to forge its own foreign and domestic path and did so often against the wishes of what the West wanted, exhibited sovereignty far more quickly than many (more so in France and Britain than the US, for obvious reasons) were comfortable with this shortly after the end of WW2.

The situation was fundamentally different in East Germany, which remained under strict control of the Soviet Union. This ranged from the relationship between occupying soldiers with civilians to the way even major internal decision making within the ruling party had to get signed off by Moscow. Russian soldiers stationed in Germany were not just there to possibly attack NATO (it was never a defensive force - their doctrine was all about offensive, contrary to NATO), but also to maintain Communist rule in case of a revolution (see e.g. the 1953 workers’ uprising in East Germany, the Hungarian revolution, the Prague Spring, etc.). There’s a reason the reunited Germany went to great lengths to get rid of these troops as quickly as it could, even paying Russia handsomely to bring them home. When Russian barracks were inspected after the soldiers had left, they were found to having been in an absolutely desolate state.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US didn’t just flippantly “figured something out”, but instead dramatically downsized its deployment, but kept it active as both a logistics center (same as Britain, which by now have left the country) and as a deterrent against Russia, which despite a thawing of relations with the West still had nukes and conventional troops pointed West. While “Ami go home” was a popular sentiment particularly among the Left and especially when tensions heated up again in the early '80s due to Reagan heating up the arms race with the Soviet Union again (which would ultimately be a major contributor to its downfall, as the mismanaged economy had no chance of keeping up with the West), most people understood that American soldiers on German soil were there to protect them against the Soviets and later Russia, not an occupying force anymore.