Elerond

Estonia's seeing 14.1% increase in food and beverages. 63.2% increase in electricity and gas. Overall HICP 19.1%. Wage increase in Estonia is higher than euro are average 7.8%.

Projected wage increase is 4.2% and projected HICP is 6.8% (projected peak 7.5%) (in comparison projected HICP without energy is 4.1%). So in 'average' wage loss is 2.6% even if we pretend that energy price spike effects everyone same and that people use all their money in products and pretend that average people don't use big sunk of their income in rents, maintenance charges etc. that aren't projected to increase, so that we can pretend people's effective income decrease full HICP percentage. And in 2023 predicted wage increase is 4.3% and predicted HICP is 3.5%. And in 2024 predicted wage increase is 3.7% and predicted HICP is 2.2%. So projected 'average' wage loss with above standard in next 3 years is 0.3%. Even downside scenario that assumes following The scenario assumes a complete cut in Russian energy exports to the euro area starting from the third quarter of 2022, leading to a rationing of gas supplies, significantly higher commodity prices, lower trade and intensified global value chain problems. Predicted HICP is 8.0%, in that scenario 'average' wage loss in with above standard would be close to that your 4% (3.8%). In this scenario projected HICP in 2023 is 6.4% and in 2024 1.9%. There is no estimates if this scenario would effect in predicted wage increases. This scenario predicts also full collapse of Russian economy. US spending in Ukraine is same as their spending in Afghanistan, so almost all the money goes to US companies, even more so than in case of Afghanistan as they don't need to pay to their troops, translators, local suppliers etc.. So US spending is not increasing 40 billion dollars when they give 40 billion dollars aid to Ukraine.

That is pretty simplified reality. As it is energy and imported goods that are causing most of the inflation. So it effects will not be evenly distributed among citizens. HICP increase without energy is predicted to be 4.1%. So people who live in cities and use mass transits as their main form of transportation will not actually see any change in their living standard, which is majority of population in EU. It is the minority population that live in countryside that will see their living standard drop. So prediction is that average person/median person will not see any major change in their PP

Question was about ability to continue to fund the war. In perspective that US was able to run two wars that cost more, increase its spending in new warfare outside of those wars, do countless military and intelligence operations around globe for two decades and still grow its economy significantly. Meaning that west has ability to fund Ukraine for indefinitely with current level and it will have only minor impact in their economy in long run. More meaningful question would be is current level enough to give Ukraine actual fighting change or does it prolong inevitable result?

Currently West has given relatively little to Ukraine. With current speed amount of aid to Ukraine would be about half what USA spend in Afghanistan if they would continue to give aid in same speed for next 20 years

That is difficult question to give truthful answer . As to answer if scoring is racist you need to determine if their methodology or data sources they use have any racial/regional bias that could cause data prefer or discriminate one or more country/population group/region So you need to determine does their criteria of selecting data sources have any racial/regional biases Is there something that causes racial/regional bias in their method of standardize data sources And does their aggregation of rescaled data cause any biases towards regions/races And how well their measure of uncertainty takes account possible biases in the data sources You can find their methodology from https://images.transparencycdn.org/images/CPI-2021-Methodology.zip

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021

So western countries aren't using famine as weapon of war in Afghanistan like you claimed With Afghanistan you somehow forgot that its infrastructure was bombed down by Soviet Union and then civil war that lead Taliban to take control it in 90s. There was quite little infrastructure left for US to bomb in 2001 or assets to steal. In 2000 Afghanistan's GDP was $3.5 billion (). 2020 it was $20 billion. In 2001 Afghanistan was suffering for famine for third year in row. WFP estimated that millions would die because of lack of food and carried out emergency programs during summer 2001 to deliver 0.5 million tons of food to Afghanistan. 2002 threat of famine ended in Afghanistan according to WFP.

After Taliban took control in Afghanistan Western Countries have given it 2 billion dollars worth humanitarian aid (food, water, medicine and other basic need products)

Mostly food price spikes because producers are moving future prices in product prices, meaning that many of them are currently increasing their profit margins not because their production expenses have increased. Reasoning behind it is to prepare harder times by building companies funds.

'CRT' probably needs different version if you want to taught it in SA. As it is very specific to USA history, laws and culture It is similar situation like trying to use other US civic classes outright in SA schools. CRT = "Critical race theory (CRT) is a cross-disciplinary intellectual and social movement of civil-rights scholars and activists who seek to examine the intersection of race, society, and law in the United States and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice." CRT itself is academic way to look things and challenge general academic narrative, so as it is it can't really be taught as it is way to do and argue academic research. I am not sure why academically solid results of CRT research is such boogie man for people that they feel that people hearing about them is much worse than censoring teachers, media, books etc.. And make people protest even idea of looking if there is any value in the results.

It depends how you look at it. He was fined only once where his subordinates were fined 8 times. Even though there were pictures that he participated in multiple of the events which participants police fined. So you support that employees can refuse using uniform/logos/ads/etc which their employer ask them to wear? I didn't know that you were such avid worker rights advocate and socialist

Or 12 Considering that whole thing was caused by government interfering how people can act... But at least people in private sector are hold in higher standard than prime minister

Question should Kay Burley be paid 6 month salary because she was suspended for 6 months for participating in party that broke covid rules? https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/health/coronavirus/kay-burley-how-did-sky-news-presenter-break-covid-rules-her-birthday-party-and-will-she-be-back-her-show-3061229 As we now know that such rule breaking was not big deal, as members of government were allowed to do so

But rules he admitted to broke are ones that he previously insisted that he didn't break. In case he actually does not know what rules he himself applied for people and what kind event he run in his own house, then people should trust him being prime minister even less than case he lied about the event and breaking rules he himself imposed for people. I mean it isn't great defense to say that I didn't lie I just didn't understand what was happening around me, when you are the prime minister and person who lead creating of the rules you broke.

People don't lie if they don't admit doing so and there is no other ways to prove that person lied? "he was fined for breaching of Covid regulations, not lying " There is no fines for lying for parliament so I am not sure what your point is, especially when lies are about other parties he participated but were not fined even though other people who participated same events were fined but also: "Johnson has previously insisted repeatedly that “the guidelines were followed at all times” in Downing Street, before being forced to apologise for the first time in January after it emerged he had attended a “bring your own booze” event in the No 10 garden. Johnson was asked in December last year by the MP Catherine West: “Can the prime minister tell the house whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November.” Johnson replied at the time: “Mr Speaker, no. But I’m sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.”" But maybe claiming not doing something multiple times and then apologizing doing the thing isn't admission of lying

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/23/partygate-photos-boris-johnson-dominic-cummings-lockdown-breaches-sue-gray-report

Leaders that aren't able to follow their own rules usually lose respect and trust of people. So he is problem for his party currently In politics we overreact always, that is how Johnson got prime minister in first place People demanded that she resign, even though she didn't club during lockdowns, as lockdowns were already ended, her mistake was not having her official phone of prime minister with her (which is not actually required from her, but still it was seen so bad that she made in international news) because someone she had seen for minute was in contact with someone who tested positive to covid. Meaning that she didn't break any rules or restrictions, but people still saw that she should have done more.

Breaking rules he imposed to others Considering that Johnson supported fines for people who break COVID restrictions by going out alone during night, so him participating in any way in parties during those same restrictions is just asking blood from your nose

It is best option available In general I don't have big feelings toward one direction or another, but as long as we see that Finland needs to be defended it is best and realistically only option. As in order to defend country size of Finland we need closer to million soldiers in order to have enough to protect whole country, which would mean in country of 5.5 million people so big professional army that there is no realistic way to maintain it. Which means that we can either prepare our people for case of war so that they have higher change to survive one or just reactively drafting people in army when enemy is attacking in hopes that they do something useful before they die. Of course there is option just give enemy all the land they want and hope that they don't kill all the people. So question is not do I support conscription in Finland, but do I support Finland's independence and way of life, because if there is realistically only one option to do so then it is meaningless if that option fits or fits not in my personal ideology, as I am not able to offer alternatives.

https://www.politico.eu/article/northern-ireland-economy-outpace-post-brexit-britain/ Does British politician oppose North Ireland protocol because it cause issues for North Ireland or because it seems to help North Ireland outpace British main land?

Military service here is constitutional duty. To ensure that there are enough people who know how to use arms and military warfare in case of war. It is most cost effective way to ensure that Finland can defend itself. Military service ensures that in case of crisis there will be much less people drafted to battlefronts who don't have any clue how to use arms given them and how to protect themselves from enemy fire. Because of Finland's size and geopolitical location there really isn't choice for people not to participate if Finland gets invaded by foreign forces.

It depends, but the real electricity highwaymen, electric transfer companies, will still be around with their monopolies

As your own links say "Two sources told Reuters that German gas importers have been told by Berlin they can open ruble accounts to pay for Russian gas without violating sanctions, as long as the payments they make to Gazprombank are not in the Russian currency." "In its written guidance, the EU said companies can buy Russian gas without breaching sanctions if they pay in the currency of their existing contracts – and declare that doing so fulfils their contractual obligations." Those companies currently play grey area buying that can cost them billions in fines if they in some point fail to follow "and declare that doing so fulfils their contractual obligations." guidance.

Currently no energy/gas company in EU is buying gas from Russia with rubles (EU countries themselves don't buy gas from Russia)