voidbanana

Kanske mer nyheter än podd, men: Radiokorrespondenterna Ryssland.

https://sverigesradio.se/play/program/2946

Sammanfattning och analys av kriget under veckan som gått.

One wonders what mindset people have, who goes on vacation to a contested occupied territory in a war zone. An area which at this time is only barely out of reach from Ukrainan artillery.

Jag har några frågor till er i tråden som är för fastighetsskatt. För egen del kan jag anse att det vore bra eftersom det antagligen skulle dämpa de skenande huspriserna vi sett sedan sekelskiftet.

Men jag har hört några invändningar som jag funderar över. Dels kan husägare som råkar ut för gentrifiering i området eller förlust av inkomst, trots värdeökning i en fastighet, hamna i ett läge då de inte ha några reella medel att betala fastighetsskatten med. På snarlikt tema uppstår frågan om vi inte då av rättviseskäl också behöver införa förmögenhetsskatt igen? Fastigheter kan ses som en slags placering, varför inte beskatta en aktieportfölj på motsvarande sätt? En annan är att investeringen som ett husköp innebär för en privatperson sker med redan beskattad inkomst som då blir beskattad två gånger, dessutom kontinuerligt före en eventuell placeringsvinst är uttagen, till skillnad igen från den där aktieportföljen.

Sweden is definitively a part of the problem. Everyone needs to make changes. On an individual level, as a community, state, and internationally. And, like everyone else, Sweden too can do more than one thing at a time. There is nothing stopping Sweden from both 1) do everything in their power to clean up their own act and go all in on renewables, while they also 2) act forcefully on the international scene to get other states to do the same thing.

Besides, while the carbon emissions per capita in Sweden isn't the worst of the bunch, we're not the best either. We're still a net-producer of carbon emissions. That must stop.

In addition Sweden and Swedes are ideal placed to improve on this area. We have very good living standards, are well educated and have a high tech industry, are resource rich as a country and have a high GDP. We can make huge changes without hurting our quality of life. I'd rather see that we sacrifice more of our comfortable life, if that means that less fortunate people around the world can leave poverty, poor health and bad living conditions behind.

Inte helt sant. Turkiet och Grekland har legat i krig med varandra medan de båda var Natomedlemmar. Många Natomedlemmar har dessutom varit involverade i krig i andra länder.

Inget krigande har kommit varken till Sverige eller Finland under den tid vi stått utanför Nato.

Agree, though just because we currently have not been able to establish that something is harmful, we should still be open to reevaluating that assumption given new evidence.

Consider PFAS, which we for a long time thought was completely inert and harmless, at least after production. Only recently we've discovered or perhaps rather accepted that it has adverse effects on human health.

Another example is freon. A completely awesome product, until we found that it caused the ozone hole and we had to ban it.

It's a waste spending time and money on nuclear today. Building a nuclear plant takes a decade and costs more than renewables. Better to go all in on renewable sources, especially wind and solar power.

Sweden, like many other countries, already experience a huge interest in, and investments and production of renewables. Why not build on that? It's less expensive, has faster time to market, and results in a more resilient power grid when large single points of failure can be avoided.

What is sorely needed in Sweden is making it easier to getting approval for building wind turbines, especially at sea where noise and light pollution is a non-issue, and power grid improvements to support distribution from these new production sites. One area where government support could be really useful is investing in large scale energy storage to be able to deal with peak load.

Update. There's an official statement from the Swedish government, on the 16 June.

The armed forces are tasked with orientation training for Ukrainian pilots and associated ground crew personnel on the JAS 39. The background is that the Ukrainian armed forces have expressed requests to be able to operationally evaluate the JAS 39 as one of the most urgent measures is to strengthen the Ukrainian air defence with a modern combat aircraft system. https://regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2023/06/tolfte-stodpaketet-till-ukraina/

In another statement the defence minister stated that the air force "has no gripens to spare, as all are needed for the defence of Sweden", and that the offer was primarily intended to prepare for a future sale of Gripen to Ukraine. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/direktrapport-forsamrat-sakerhetslage?inlagg=bd201131a47d882621ba5dad2679a292

So, Ukraine will be able to train on and evaluate the Gripen, but there is currently no official plan to supply them as part of a military support package. Not to rule it out entirely, just not very likely at this time.

AFAIU. Swedish regulations as a general principle state that arms cannot be sold to states that are either, actively engaged in a military conflict, have a non-democratic rule, or violates human rights.

The catch is that there are some exceptions in the law which are often used as a loop hole. F.x Sweden sell arms to Saudi Arabia, USA, Pakistan, and Thailand. All of whom violates one or more of those rules to some extent.

So in reality that law does not stop Sweden from supplying Ukraine with arms, and indeed Sweden has already repeatedly supplied Ukraine with weapons after February 2022.

Ja, Glad midsommar! 🎉