bouh

joined 1 year ago
[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

That's been dismantled already. He already tried it and failed. EU managed to work something that doesn't need Hungary approval to be done. It was a small step toward confederacy, which is is a nice turn of event if you ask me.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

I wish it was, but it isn't. It usually about them being able to ban you from playing for whatever reason they deem worthy.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

Liberals are the best at pretending that nothing is their fault, ever. It's always the fault of the leftists, a coincidence, or bad luck. Being liberal is like the art of being the most irresponsible you can be.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

The problem with Harris is the problem of all liberals: they don't understand the problems liberalism is causing. Fascism offers terrible solutions to those problems, and thus it wins.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Well, technically a solution of a quantum mechanic equation is a projection on a vector space, so a mediocre answer is merely a projection on this <accurate ; stupid> vector space.

So your comparison is actually brilliant!

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I hate macron direly, but that's one thing he got right: promote an indépendant Europe.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure Europe can make F35 parts for example, which will not fly for long without it, or ammunitions for various US weapons. I hope it'll be a wake up call to make and use EU instead.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (4 children)

No. I mean the weapons they have now. F35 for example. If a war happens in Europe, will those planes be useful without US support and authorizations? US can do a lot of harm to Europe with that.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (7 children)

The biggest thing will be all those nato countries who can't do anything with their US weapons if the US says so.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (11 children)

And thus, instead of fighting the actual enemy, the republicans, you're antagonising the people who are more reasonable. Next time you can do it like France and call leftist crazy extremists so you'll seem less hypocritical about it.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I see two reasons for Russia to accept a cease fire : they are happy with what they took and want to keep it, so a cease fire is better because there is no treaty to give back anything ; or they want a bit of time to rebuild their supply of ammo and equipment before they go back at it.

The first one would be if the US continue to support Ukraine. It would make it like the west is now supporting the war while Russia is asking for peace (totally hypocritical of course). Russia could stand on its positions and solidify them if it's accepted. If Ukraine continue the war, it'll be Ukraine on the offensive, which is a harder position.

The second one would be if Ukraine loses US support and ask for a cease fire after the dombass is fully taken. Russia wouldn't be armed to take it to rebuild it's supply before going again. The risk here would be that nato or UN send forces in Ukraine, and if Europe take this time to increase its weapon production too, but those are unlikely on a short term.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

My guess would be that they wa't to settle the frontiers as far as they possibly can to keep as much territory as possible with a cease fire that can become a frozen frontier. If Harris wins, they can ask for a cease fire, and then will the US and Europe deny it? If Trump wins, Russia can probably take the whole dombass rapidly before accepting a cease fire from Ukraine.

It's all speculation though.

view more: next ›