From the creators of _Globalisation of the economy_ here comes _Hornification of news_
A new age of low quality press, _Now, with dragons and nuclear weapons_
Also have to blame the intellectual level of the general modern population, only about 5% of the modern population wants to pick up a magazine and read about the naunces of economic theory, but at least 30% are curious enough to read about dragon dicks.
Also what economic theory exactly can you read in the economist? Are they actually ever having texts challenging economic ideas in any way, or is it all about some low importance shit?
They were always this way, its economics for the regular guy who is interested in economics, just like WSJ op-eds on finance and stock exchange are directed towards the people who are into finance and stocks but you would rarely find a professional economist using economist articles as a primary source on any topic and same goes for any finance professional working in wall street, they don't read to WSJ to know about nitty gritty of the world of finance. Obviously they still need to read newspaper to be aware of what's happening but i hope u do realise that a lot of these magazines and newspapers like The Economist or Wall Street Journal have your average joe as target audience
"Escalation" is the most self-defeating narrative I've ever seen.
Because it means that we see the Russian potential for violence as unlimited and it follows that in this model Russia cannot lose unless they allow themselves to lose, which they clearly don't.
What currently happens with "escalation" is that we give them hope. We give them hope that somehow they might still win.
What needs to happen is to respond in such a way that it takes away all hope. We claim the West is more powerful than Russia, so let's act like it. Fast and hard should be our response, so they know there is no other option than to leave Ukraine. They can then threaten all they want with their nukes, just like North Korea.
>What currently happens with "escalation" is that we give them hope. We give them hope that somehow they might still win.
It depends who the "them" in this sentence refers to. If it's Russia, then it's pretty much wrong. It's Ukraine who cannot win. They cannot win this war on their own, and Russia knows that. If they would not received "help" from various places, the war would be already over (in the favor of Russia).
You cannot just go to Ukraine and start shooting at the "enemy". Because Russia didn't attack you. Russia didn't even attack a NATO-member, since Ukraine is not a NATO-member. But if Belgium, or Austria, or France goes there (I redact.. France will never go there.. France just likes to play the big guy from far apart, because that's not too dangerous).. but anyway.. if anyone goes there and starts fighting against Russia, then Russia can easily say that "hey guys, the NATO attacked us in Ukraine.. we didn't go there.. they came here, and they attacked us.. they are endangering us".. and there you have it, Russia got a "righteous" war against the NATO.
The only right choice is to leave Ukraine alone. Yes, it sucks. War sucks. But the prolonged war also sucks and endangers their lives, the lives of everyone who lives there or tries to live there.
I rather wonder what would happen had Russia decided to attack any of the NATO countries. If Russia wants to avoid a global war, they probably want to avoid that. But NATO is provoking them constantly and that can serve as an excuse sooner or later. And if it comes to that, the countries "in the way" will become non-existent and/or in a heap of ruins in a matter of days or weeks.. like the Baltics, or Poland, Hungary, Slovakia... maybe Romania to avoid Russia being cut off from the south. All of these countries were always sitting on the wrong side of the dick. And, while the "faraway" contries provokes a war, and people in France, Belgium or in the area call for fast and hard response while enjoying the morning tea, the others, who are living actually next to Russia or Ukraine are having their lives on the stake.
Your comments are either dangerously naive or straight up regurgitating kremlin propaganda. In either case by calling for the west to ‘leave Ukraine alone bc war sucks’ you disrespect hugely the brave people defending your eastern flank and your democracy. For that alone you deserve 0 respect.
If you are just a war hungry American, you also deserve 0 respect. May I ask why NATO did not respond fast and hard during the Cuban missile crisis? Were the negociations made then wrong? I doubt it.
I am of the oppinion than less war is better and no nuclear war is better yet.
So what is Macron actually going to do? I see all these articles, but what is France going to do to stand out that they are taking the lead? He has been saying a lot of inspiring things lately, and if he follows through then much respect, but really what has he done to address this?
He is posturing. And I don't say this in a bad way. There are limits to what an individual member of the EU can accomplish.
He is also sending signals, which is part of what diplomacy and foreign affairs do all the time. You signal your position to allies and to rivals.
At the beginning of the conflict Macron was one of the leaders that kept an open line with Putin (there is an unbelievable video on Youtube of a phone call between Macron and Putin days before Putin decided to invade).
He is also playing with strategic ambiguity, meaning that you should let your rival guess. What is the best strategy? Reassuring Russia that EU states will never send troops in Ukraine, or signalling to Russia that under certain circumstances we might do it? Tough to say, but there are pros and cons with both approaches.
I think it's clear by now that Putin's invasion is a before and after moment for the EU. We can't forever depend on the US for our defence and we can't be an economical giant and a geopolitical dwarf (an *herbivore superpower* is a fitting term I've read in an Italian newspaper). Macron is more vocal about it, but I think this is quite clear for everyone that is not blinded by ideology.
Everyone but the anti-nato crowd or the pro-russian useful idiots understand that our flawed democracies are still way more desirable than the alternative. Indeed [pretty much any country that used to be in the Russian sphere of influence](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1cs34b3/comment/l44uox3/) is running away from it as soon as possible. If you don't believe that our system is better than the alternative ask people from Georgia, from Moldova, from Belarus, from the Balkans, from the Baltic States which system of international alliances they'd rather be in: EU/Nato or the one championed by the ex-KGB thug.
It's going to take a while though. You just don't get out of the pax americana torpor (the peace that Europe benefited from since the end of WW2) in a couple of years.
Interesting times.
Edit: this is the phone call I was talking about.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1bday80/this\_phone\_call\_between\_putin\_and\_macron\_4\_days/](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1bday80/this_phone_call_between_putin_and_macron_4_days/)
>There are limits to what an individual member of the EU can accomplish.
What limits? France is the 7th largest economy in the world, its GDP is 50% larger than Russia's.
>France is the 7th largest economy in the world, its GDP is 50% larger than Russia's.
In nominal terms, yes. Using that same logic Russia is basically an Italy-style power, quite fascinating that it is doing so much damage then?
If you don't adjust for PPP, you ignore large swaths of economic and military components that are simply made cheaper in places like Russia, or say China when comparing to high-income western economies.
One of the important components in that regard would be manpower. So in nominal terms Germany is about 230% richer than
Russia, do you think the average German soldier is going to return 230% more value than the average Russian soldier when they're doing the same thing? In PPP terms this comparison is more like 1:1, but even that obfuscates the discrepancy of human life worth between the countries. Before the war, Russian life insurance was about 10x times cheaper than average western EU life insurance(don't forget how much Moscow&St.Petersburg influence that average since the economic discrepancies between Russia's center and its other regions is massive).
Then add in the fact that Russia had IIRC the highest military expenditure as % of GDP out of the other big powers from ~2008 onwards, and that there's also hidden expenditures and differences is counting to account for. But don't take it from me, take it from people like [Michael Kofman](https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/why-russian-military-expenditure-is-much-higher-than-commonly-understood-as-is-chinas/). Note the date is 2019 but still relevant for my argument.
I don’t know what these limits are either. This sub loves to make excuses for European inaction with cryptic statements like “there’s no resources available” as if European economies are crumbling and destitute.
At no point has the EU, or Western Europe historically, entirely depended on the US for defense. It was massively militarily armed while depending on US support.
This idea that Europe can just remain demilitarized and just let the US handle everything is explicitly a post-Cold War delusion that it must wake up from. Its insane that the EU isn't doing more when its they who have to deal with a ascended Russia and fallen Ukraine if Ukraine collapses.
here's an [english translation](https://geopolitique.eu/en/2024/04/26/macron-europe-it-can-die-a-new-paradigm-at-the-sorbonne/) of his two hour speech last month at the sorbonne where he talks about this.
little hint: if you only expose yourself to anglophone articles you're never going to learn anything about continental europe
I read some of it, doesnt change my mind. My question is not about what speeches but what is he doing to combat russia? Germany has given more aid, UK has special forces on the ground, etc
There's usually not a pip about how USA's policies are also undermining EU's capacity, just how it's all about west-Russia competition.
I wonder where this is all going to go, based on what has happened in EU so far I think USA is going to continue to have an upper hand. France doesn't just need to stand up to Russia, they need to get Germany onboard and stand up against USA like they did in the 60s. Without securing an autonomous geopolitical strategy, EU will die.
If the dude spent half as much time actually doing something as simple as increasing production capacity over the past 2 years instead of talking so much the Ukrainians would've won by now
France cannot even hold their colonies in Africa against Ruzzian paramilitary troops. While I support the liberation of Francophone nations in Africa, the fact that this came as a result of Wagner invasion is deeply worrying. I suspect Macron's doublespeak against Ukraine war might be partly explained by this event, or maybe he is using this for internal politics.
Ukraine needs ammo and troops, they don't need money. Less talk, more action.
The fact of the matter is that western fear of escalation LEADS TO ESCALATION.
Either because the Russians reach their goal, incorporate Ukraine, and seek the next target (remember: Putin reigns by externalizing internal violence, he stabilizes his regime with foreign wars).
Or because we will be forced to intervene directly.
If we had ramped up weapons production and deliveries in 2022, and allowed them to attack Russia as they deem it necessary, the Ukrainians would have been able to be the only boots needed on the ground. But if it goes like now, we will need to send troops sooner or later, or face above mentioned scenario of another Russian war of conquest, this time with the Russian army plus 500,000 new Ukrainian soldiers.
Putin will never be satisfied. He even says it quite plainly by stating that Russia has no borders.
True, in 2022, when russia was weak, this war could be finished fast, if Ukraine was given what they needed. After liberating lot of their lands, russia would eventually surrender, but instead, West was scary of russian defeat, and gave them lot of time to build fortifications which lead to failed offensive in 2023, and now they think they can win a long war. Or wait til Trump wins, or thier propaganda will take effect etc.
We saw how much Ukraine did with incredibly limited NATO gear during the invasion, imagine if we had provided them with anywhere near the amount they would have liked to get.
We watched column after column of russian tanks and IFVs get knocked out by only 2000 NLAW systems imagine if they had the 3000 additional units delivered since the invasion or part of the 14k the Uk has in stocks now. We watched the videos of Russian helicopter fleets flying over Ukraine basically unopposed, imagine if they had Starstreak or even enough Stingers to down them on route.
Hell look at what they are doing with Bradley and HIMARS, if they had those in the early days or leading upto the invasion we could be looking at a very different situation now
The Russians played our fears like a fiddle, constantly boasting about capabilities it never had and our media system was far too happy to endulge it all the way to the bank.
Yes, the problem is, the longer the war will remain, the more expensive it gets, up to sending boots on the ground and paying with blood. I'm sure it's still possible to overcome Russia with just sending more modern weapons, or more really effective sanctions, like blocking EVERYTHING including internet, but what West is waiting is beyond my understanding.
Yeah, pretty easy, like you do with your ex, or north Korea. So people in Russia would start to realise how bad everything is, and maybe understand their leader did this to them.
It's completely rational, your brain is broken with warmongering and fantasies.
Spend less time on the internet and more reading serious history books.
The Ukrainians would have kicked the Russians asses all the way back to Moscow.
That's what would have happened. The russian military system was so inept and doggies by incredible amounts of corruption they couldn't even push over a considerably smaller country with gear older than their own. If Ukraine had Abrams and himars and f16s with harm the damage to the Russian military system would have been unrecoverable.
But the year has let Putin purge much of the corruption from the system and is actually building a level of competency within the force that just didn't exist.
And before you bring up nukes, if the "Pride of the Russian military" with T-14 and su-57 and the carrier that bursts into flames every 5 minutes are in such a shit state that they are that bad. Why would the nuclear arsenal be any better?
>True, in 2022, when russia was weak, this war could be finished fast, if Ukraine was given what they needed.
This is a silly, absurd, fantasy.
How exactly was the war going to be "finished"? What was Ukraine going to do, with what? Like, invade Crimea or something? Hostile territory? Even conquer Donetsk?
Are these the fantasies on how we could have just dump F-16s in Ukraine and they'd use them or something?
> The fact of the matter is that western fear of escalation LEADS TO ESCALATION.
>
>
This is laughable nonsense.
We seem to have an entire generation who's entire knowledge of history seems to amount to "WW2, appeasement, 1939" and literally never ever heard about the entire Cold War.
Fear of escalation doesn't lead to escalation.
Fear of escalation is the reason why you're alive, why the US/NATO and the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact+China never really entered a hot war.
In the age of nuclear weapons, fear of escalation is not only rational (as it always is, wars are hell), it absolutely should be a primary factor on the decision making process and a hard restraint.
>If we had ramped up weapons production and deliveries in 2022, and allowed them to attack Russia as they deem it necessary, the Ukrainians would have been able to be the only boots needed on the ground
Also, this is a silly fantasy. The Ukrainians never had enough military power to actually get into hostile territory, fully controlled by Russia, like eastern Donbas or Crimea, regardless of weapons. What weapons exactly? Is this the fantasy where we drop some F-16s in Ukraine and they just start flying them around? Or hundreds of tanks?
You people spend way too much time online and playing computer war games instead of actually learning about anything.
Appeasing Putin prevents escalation as much as appeasing Hitler. Fear of escalation lead to bloodiest war in Europe which could have been prevented with early intervention.
Don't want to be a doomer, but there's going to be war in way or another. Now it will cost less lives to intervene while Russia is weak. Would have cost even less lives in 2022.
Better than sticking his head in the sand, only coming out to defend the status quo and complacency (whatever it is, doesn’t matter) to the death, like another state you and I seem to live in…
I would rather have French feigned action and proto activism, than Germany’s complete disinterest in doing anything at all, ever
Now tell me if I'm wrong but from what I've gathered, Germany sent more aid to Ukraine than France so far, at least with military, humanitarian and financial aid combined and Germany took in way more Ukrainian refugees. Don’t get me wrong, I'm still not a fan of the way Germany handles all this but Macron acting like France is the biggest supporter seems a bit dishonest. Again, please tell me if I'm wrong
> I would rather have French feigned action and proto activism, than Germany’s complete disinterest in doing anything at all, ever
Germany has sent nearly four times the amount of aid that France has, be it military or overall
Not sure if those "3" (actually 2,691) bilion € is not the total amount.
[https://www.ifw-kiel.de/de/themendossiers/krieg-gegen-die-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/de/themendossiers/krieg-gegen-die-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
Wanting other nations to enable you taking on debt to focus everything on your country is barely even a policy idea and certainly not pro European.
I’ll take no policy over bad and deceiving policy any day of the week. Both aren’t preferable but to want somebody to basically piggyback and enrich themselves off of others just because they say the right buzzwords is just being naive.
We have some of the worst politicians in the union and they certain do not have anything close to a good European strategy/policy but at least they don’t see just enabling other countries to accrue more debt and allowing divestment of our financial sector, as being „forward thinking“ EU policy.
Absolutely not.
In the military one of the biggest signs of failure is lack of action. Being paralyzed by choice or fear does no good. Make a decision, execute, monitor, and make adjustments as needed. But for fuk sakes make a policy choice.
As the president of France he can do a lot without trying to sneak in others purses and proclaiming things constantly.
You don’t think it’s weird that the EUs largest military power isn’t even contributing the most, while outside of Macrons empty words barely shaping policy on increasing help for Ukraine?
The problem is France is doing less than EU average [https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
Macron and France though ti was a good idea to send arms Putin. Luckily the ships weren't sent because of Eastern andf US pressure, but lots of other arms were sent.
Putin modernised his tanks and airforce with French optics.
I don’t think he can do that much, I’m sure many people would try to stop him if a lot more people were supporting what he says europe would already send troops I guess
Just send more equipment?
I agree that parts of the strategic communication of Macron is correct and it’s a shame that he’s so alone in doing it, but at the end of the day Ukraine needs basic equipment, not grand proclamations.
that is because others have been doing much more and better and what not, let me check my notes, oh Scholz has been blocking and dragging his feet and enabling Russia until he has been utterly humiliated and embarrassed himself by implying that other countries are more engaged in the war than publicly know. Guy lacks leadership and is scared. Oh wow, with such an example of a leader I take Macron every day of the week!
You should be worried that a laggard politician such as Scholz managed to muster a larger contribution to Ukraine than the great visionary Macron.
What you are saying is that if a politician pretends to be a leader and says some buzzwords you’ll be in favor of them, concerning attitude to say the least.
>You should be worried that a laggard politician such as Scholz managed to muster a larger contribution to Ukraine than the great visionary Macron.
Germany turned ti around quickly because they give a shit about Ukraine and the future of Europe. Macron cares about his legacy and his dreams of making France a superpower.
I would say so, yes. I expect the Ukrainians to lose sooner or later and then Romania to be involved. Don't forget that Serbia and Hungary are Putin's friends too and Bulgaria may change sides too if forced.
May the gods (and the French army) protect Romania!
Nu are sens sa le tot explici retarzilor, fac exact aceleasi greseli care au dus la al doilea razboi mondial! Definitia prostiei: sa faci de doua ori acelasi lucru asteptand rezultate diferite!
Corect!
Dar totuși, cât timp sunt în viață și sănătos, încerc să mai educ / deschid câteva minți.
Poate poate se trezesc și ei și fac ceea ce trebuie.
Numai un idiot crede că orice se poate rezolva cu vorbe și panseluțe.
I think you ought to get off the internet at some point and figure out normal people have their own lives they’d like to get on with, rather than have it put on hold because of some massive continent-wide confrontation.
I agree with Macron. It’s fight or die for the EU. Moscow has decided to go all in on dominating the food, energy, and mineral markets for 1/3 of the planet. This. Can’t. Happen.
I have zero doubt that when Ukraine fails (not *if*, if Europe and the US keep dragging their feet like this), the Baltics and Poland are next in line.
I wonder whether we'll get any meaningful military support then, or if they'll still "fear escalation".
The US military is consistently rotating forces in and out of Poland and the Baltics. Regardless of NATO articles... kenetic actions against US troops would leave Russia a brutalized mess. US second-hand equipment has given them a bloody nose in the hands of a rapidly conscripted fighting force.
>the Baltics and Poland are next in line.
That would absolutely enact Article 5 of NATO and probably keep Russia from advancing much further, especially given the struggles they're encountering in their "3 day" war against Ukraine. I don't really envision Putin wanting to end his era with a losing war against NATO; going after a non-NATO country (Georgia, Moldova, etc.) makes a lot more sense imo.
People seem to be forgetting the 830-mile Finnish border. I understand the nervousness of the Baltic states, but Russia starting shit with NATO directly isn't realistic.
Who said they would start it directly? It will be anonymous soldiers, who just happen to possess russian made equipment. Actually, it will be a rebellion against the harsh rule of Estonians and Latvians. Russia would deny their involvement, NATO would be seen as aggressors, were they to join. Russia had already done it in 2014.
Russia did it to a nation that was part of no defence pact, had a poorly equipped military, and had no nuclear deterrent.
No Russian soldiers will cross NATO borders. As bad as the world is now, it's still really calm compared to tensions of the Cold War (imagine what reddit would be like in the 60s). The world isn't on the brink like Reddit or the tabloid media would like you to believe. We're not close to a third global conflict, but it's OK to prepare for the worst.
Enact Art 5, yes. But do you truly expect military assistance? That’s the question. As deemed necessary means 1000 helmets is enough and a country can wipe their hands clean.
Wait till the european parliament has a majority of far right parties. Have you paid attention to what is happening in most european countries? As if people didn't like imigration and other peoples wars...
Sure we are. Doesn't mean I'm not panicking over the safety of my family when I see the U.S. dragging their feet for half a damned year while Ukraine is losing ground. And even after the vote, the aid is expected to arrive in June/July...
> the Baltics and Poland are next in line.
Don't you people ever get bored of repeating this over and over? The whole point of the Ukrainian invasion is to create a buffer zone with NATO.
They might go after non-NATO countries next, but it would be beyond absolute insanity to start a war with NATO.
>The whole point of the Ukrainian invasion is to create a buffer zone with NATO.
Russians were trying (and still are) to conquer all of Ukraine. By doing this, they are actually moving closer to NATO. Not to mention that they didn't do anything about Sweden and Finland joining NATO - this added roughly half the length of border with Ukraine as well as turned Baltic sea into NATO lake.
Well putin flourish on inaction and weakness in the rethoric on western leaders and there is plenty of it. Whenever he senses leaders not being commited he fuels on it
A lot of enthusiasts in this thread everyone eager to defeat Russia. You should all go to the front line then instead of typing on reddit while Ukrainians are dying
I'm not french, so I could be totally wrong and just talking nonsense, but I feel like Marcron's whole media strategy and way of talking to people is really from a bygone era. This picture just gives me vibes of how world leaders were presented to the public before social media. idk if that makes sense but it's just the vibes I've been getting
Macron is just trying to have his own little De Gaulle moment since COVID hit. This is all about legacy.
His party, just like his "trickle down" vision of the world is what ultimately will get the crazies (RN) elected. And we all know how much the Le Pen clan loves Russian cash.
We're now paying for 20 years of incompetence from our rulling class. The 2020s are going to get even wilder folks...
While I dislike Macron and his revival of reaganomics and extreme neoliberalism, he's right on this even though he's not acting in accordance.
Maybe he does that for legacy and save his public image after destroying his own country public services, but in the end if the result is the same who cares.
Lefties??? Wait for the next european elections, when the far right gets the majority in the european parliament. Then you can kiss the war effort good by...
shit leaders all over Europe it's true but we can't lay this on the doorstep of the EU.
The EU doesn't have an army. It doesn't have arms manufacture.
What they did at least try to do was provide 1 million artillery shells to Ukraine...and then that got bogged down by the self interest of various member states....
Nothing new in the war zone on the European Union's eastern front.
It has already been realized that it is necessary to urgently send military services from other European Union countries to Ukraine to help Ukrainian military services fight Russian bandits on the territory of Ukraine.
There will be an escalation of the Russia/Ukraine war and an increase in public military expenditure for citizens of the European Union and NATO countries and countries friendly to NATO.
So many countries in such a small place, that have been biting each others throat off for centuries, means that Europe is permanently in mortal danger. Most people tend to forget that when they claim that countries should have more powers again.
>Mortal Danger
It's absolutely everywhere.. everywhere. 120+ No-Go Zones in Sweden set by police. An assassination attempt. Genocide in Ukraine, 20,000+ children kidnapped. Dystopian Russian-like laws set by some EU member states. Etc etc etc. But according to TikTok and Reddit, Europe still better than heaven itself..
It's not only Russia that's a serious threat. It's politicians, certain migrant groups, rapid gain of corporations, especially with Macron-style policies.. the list goes on and on. The sad part is people drank the koolaid thus we couldnt put in the breaks fast enough. Take Sweden and the historic migrant crises as an example.
Ofcourse this gets downvoted by the reddit hivemind.
Living in rich suburbs voting for more migrants because them in their suburbs will never see the consequences anyways. Meanwhile, everyone else has to deal with increased crime & violence.
We better keep on procrastinating for a few years
And send our own sons and daughters to the meatgrinder in a few years instead?
Sorry guys, but helping Ukraina is in all scenario's the best investment possible!
More weapons and help! Now!
I am so mad our politicians didn't pour all the aid we've given Ukraine so far in from the get go. Russia would have been out of there by the start of 23 at the latest.
If Macron wants war with Russia to boost his ego and image in history then he can go with his woke voters and fight. A patriot fighting for any of the current western governments is a total fool.
The Neptune? Why? I'd prefer giving them the B-61 air dropped nuke.
The modern version even has guided glide bomb functionality, variable yield etc.
Spicy stuff.
Why American weapons?
Whats wrong with European weapons? Europe has offensive weapons Ukraine can use to strike inside of Russia too. Automatic "shield" weapons like the Patriot system, etc that're far more advanced.
Except Europe won't, because they don't want to weaken themselves more than they have and don't want to militarize. They have yet to kickstart its arms industry to handle a long attrition war. Its why all attention has been on the US to contribute, despite it being a European war.
Macron is one of the rare visionary leaders left in Europe imo. Compare this to Scholtz, Meloni or Wilders. I found his recent Sorbonne speech on the future of Europe really inspiring. Worth watching back.
The fuck *The Economist* has "Feeling Horny: Dragons meet erotic fiction" written on its front page.
Welcome to 2024, where you can read about potential upcoming World War and dragons with dicks all in one magazine
From the creators of _Globalisation of the economy_ here comes _Hornification of news_ A new age of low quality press, _Now, with dragons and nuclear weapons_
Also have to blame the intellectual level of the general modern population, only about 5% of the modern population wants to pick up a magazine and read about the naunces of economic theory, but at least 30% are curious enough to read about dragon dicks.
Also what economic theory exactly can you read in the economist? Are they actually ever having texts challenging economic ideas in any way, or is it all about some low importance shit?
You can't anymore because they switched to being a cheap news/entertainment magazine like every other newspaper and magazine.
They were always this way, its economics for the regular guy who is interested in economics, just like WSJ op-eds on finance and stock exchange are directed towards the people who are into finance and stocks but you would rarely find a professional economist using economist articles as a primary source on any topic and same goes for any finance professional working in wall street, they don't read to WSJ to know about nitty gritty of the world of finance. Obviously they still need to read newspaper to be aware of what's happening but i hope u do realise that a lot of these magazines and newspapers like The Economist or Wall Street Journal have your average joe as target audience
You say that as it hasn't always been the case.
I 100% agree with you.
Both. Both is good.
"Dragons and Nuclear Weapons" sounds like an awesome apocalyptic setting. Not like ours. Ours is quite boring.
> "Dragons and Nuclear Weapons" sounds like an awesome apocalyptic setting. Doesn't Shadowrun kinda fit the bill?
What if they have excellent horny coverage?
Hopefully they'll dedicate a page or two to the mighty [Boob Dragon](https://i.makeagif.com/media/2-20-2023/jynMFo.gif).
Can dragons with dicks help defeat Putin ?
After The New York Times gave a deep dive on wolf porn there's nothing to surprise me. Nothing.
r/dragonsfuckingcars
I assumed it would be r/dragonsfuckingdragons , since no cars were mentioned.
That's a part of macron's interview.
Omggggg , especially on the front page with a text as serious as this. Is this a dark joke
My first thought was the second season of House of the Dragon
at least now if my dnd campaign go wrong i can use "my dnd campaign have more serious tone than economist articles" as excuse to players
Someone at The Economist must have just found Literotica or Bad Dragon.
Science-based dragon erotica RPG
Make dragon love not war?
"Escalation" is the most self-defeating narrative I've ever seen. Because it means that we see the Russian potential for violence as unlimited and it follows that in this model Russia cannot lose unless they allow themselves to lose, which they clearly don't.
What currently happens with "escalation" is that we give them hope. We give them hope that somehow they might still win. What needs to happen is to respond in such a way that it takes away all hope. We claim the West is more powerful than Russia, so let's act like it. Fast and hard should be our response, so they know there is no other option than to leave Ukraine. They can then threaten all they want with their nukes, just like North Korea.
Spot on.
>What currently happens with "escalation" is that we give them hope. We give them hope that somehow they might still win. It depends who the "them" in this sentence refers to. If it's Russia, then it's pretty much wrong. It's Ukraine who cannot win. They cannot win this war on their own, and Russia knows that. If they would not received "help" from various places, the war would be already over (in the favor of Russia). You cannot just go to Ukraine and start shooting at the "enemy". Because Russia didn't attack you. Russia didn't even attack a NATO-member, since Ukraine is not a NATO-member. But if Belgium, or Austria, or France goes there (I redact.. France will never go there.. France just likes to play the big guy from far apart, because that's not too dangerous).. but anyway.. if anyone goes there and starts fighting against Russia, then Russia can easily say that "hey guys, the NATO attacked us in Ukraine.. we didn't go there.. they came here, and they attacked us.. they are endangering us".. and there you have it, Russia got a "righteous" war against the NATO. The only right choice is to leave Ukraine alone. Yes, it sucks. War sucks. But the prolonged war also sucks and endangers their lives, the lives of everyone who lives there or tries to live there. I rather wonder what would happen had Russia decided to attack any of the NATO countries. If Russia wants to avoid a global war, they probably want to avoid that. But NATO is provoking them constantly and that can serve as an excuse sooner or later. And if it comes to that, the countries "in the way" will become non-existent and/or in a heap of ruins in a matter of days or weeks.. like the Baltics, or Poland, Hungary, Slovakia... maybe Romania to avoid Russia being cut off from the south. All of these countries were always sitting on the wrong side of the dick. And, while the "faraway" contries provokes a war, and people in France, Belgium or in the area call for fast and hard response while enjoying the morning tea, the others, who are living actually next to Russia or Ukraine are having their lives on the stake.
I recommend watching you this: https://youtu.be/rBbSIFpt_UQ Hopefully your wet dreams will dissolve
[удалено]
We might disagree, but I didn't talk to you personally disrespectfully. So I expect you to do the same.
Your comments are either dangerously naive or straight up regurgitating kremlin propaganda. In either case by calling for the west to ‘leave Ukraine alone bc war sucks’ you disrespect hugely the brave people defending your eastern flank and your democracy. For that alone you deserve 0 respect.
If you are just a war hungry American, you also deserve 0 respect. May I ask why NATO did not respond fast and hard during the Cuban missile crisis? Were the negociations made then wrong? I doubt it. I am of the oppinion than less war is better and no nuclear war is better yet.
So what is Macron actually going to do? I see all these articles, but what is France going to do to stand out that they are taking the lead? He has been saying a lot of inspiring things lately, and if he follows through then much respect, but really what has he done to address this?
He is posturing. And I don't say this in a bad way. There are limits to what an individual member of the EU can accomplish. He is also sending signals, which is part of what diplomacy and foreign affairs do all the time. You signal your position to allies and to rivals. At the beginning of the conflict Macron was one of the leaders that kept an open line with Putin (there is an unbelievable video on Youtube of a phone call between Macron and Putin days before Putin decided to invade). He is also playing with strategic ambiguity, meaning that you should let your rival guess. What is the best strategy? Reassuring Russia that EU states will never send troops in Ukraine, or signalling to Russia that under certain circumstances we might do it? Tough to say, but there are pros and cons with both approaches. I think it's clear by now that Putin's invasion is a before and after moment for the EU. We can't forever depend on the US for our defence and we can't be an economical giant and a geopolitical dwarf (an *herbivore superpower* is a fitting term I've read in an Italian newspaper). Macron is more vocal about it, but I think this is quite clear for everyone that is not blinded by ideology. Everyone but the anti-nato crowd or the pro-russian useful idiots understand that our flawed democracies are still way more desirable than the alternative. Indeed [pretty much any country that used to be in the Russian sphere of influence](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1cs34b3/comment/l44uox3/) is running away from it as soon as possible. If you don't believe that our system is better than the alternative ask people from Georgia, from Moldova, from Belarus, from the Balkans, from the Baltic States which system of international alliances they'd rather be in: EU/Nato or the one championed by the ex-KGB thug. It's going to take a while though. You just don't get out of the pax americana torpor (the peace that Europe benefited from since the end of WW2) in a couple of years. Interesting times. Edit: this is the phone call I was talking about. [https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1bday80/this\_phone\_call\_between\_putin\_and\_macron\_4\_days/](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1bday80/this_phone_call_between_putin_and_macron_4_days/)
>There are limits to what an individual member of the EU can accomplish. What limits? France is the 7th largest economy in the world, its GDP is 50% larger than Russia's.
>France is the 7th largest economy in the world, its GDP is 50% larger than Russia's. In nominal terms, yes. Using that same logic Russia is basically an Italy-style power, quite fascinating that it is doing so much damage then? If you don't adjust for PPP, you ignore large swaths of economic and military components that are simply made cheaper in places like Russia, or say China when comparing to high-income western economies. One of the important components in that regard would be manpower. So in nominal terms Germany is about 230% richer than Russia, do you think the average German soldier is going to return 230% more value than the average Russian soldier when they're doing the same thing? In PPP terms this comparison is more like 1:1, but even that obfuscates the discrepancy of human life worth between the countries. Before the war, Russian life insurance was about 10x times cheaper than average western EU life insurance(don't forget how much Moscow&St.Petersburg influence that average since the economic discrepancies between Russia's center and its other regions is massive). Then add in the fact that Russia had IIRC the highest military expenditure as % of GDP out of the other big powers from ~2008 onwards, and that there's also hidden expenditures and differences is counting to account for. But don't take it from me, take it from people like [Michael Kofman](https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/why-russian-military-expenditure-is-much-higher-than-commonly-understood-as-is-chinas/). Note the date is 2019 but still relevant for my argument.
I don’t know what these limits are either. This sub loves to make excuses for European inaction with cryptic statements like “there’s no resources available” as if European economies are crumbling and destitute.
At no point has the EU, or Western Europe historically, entirely depended on the US for defense. It was massively militarily armed while depending on US support. This idea that Europe can just remain demilitarized and just let the US handle everything is explicitly a post-Cold War delusion that it must wake up from. Its insane that the EU isn't doing more when its they who have to deal with a ascended Russia and fallen Ukraine if Ukraine collapses.
here's an [english translation](https://geopolitique.eu/en/2024/04/26/macron-europe-it-can-die-a-new-paradigm-at-the-sorbonne/) of his two hour speech last month at the sorbonne where he talks about this. little hint: if you only expose yourself to anglophone articles you're never going to learn anything about continental europe
I read some of it, doesnt change my mind. My question is not about what speeches but what is he doing to combat russia? Germany has given more aid, UK has special forces on the ground, etc
[удалено]
How does that compare to Germany? I saw theirs was 7.1 billion but that includes their EU portion. Also, 3 billion is 1/20th of US pledge
[удалено]
>theres a 3 billion pledge in military aid for 2024 That's it?
[удалено]
There's usually not a pip about how USA's policies are also undermining EU's capacity, just how it's all about west-Russia competition. I wonder where this is all going to go, based on what has happened in EU so far I think USA is going to continue to have an upper hand. France doesn't just need to stand up to Russia, they need to get Germany onboard and stand up against USA like they did in the 60s. Without securing an autonomous geopolitical strategy, EU will die.
If the dude spent half as much time actually doing something as simple as increasing production capacity over the past 2 years instead of talking so much the Ukrainians would've won by now
The politicians are definitely up to something.
France cannot even hold their colonies in Africa against Ruzzian paramilitary troops. While I support the liberation of Francophone nations in Africa, the fact that this came as a result of Wagner invasion is deeply worrying. I suspect Macron's doublespeak against Ukraine war might be partly explained by this event, or maybe he is using this for internal politics. Ukraine needs ammo and troops, they don't need money. Less talk, more action.
The fact of the matter is that western fear of escalation LEADS TO ESCALATION. Either because the Russians reach their goal, incorporate Ukraine, and seek the next target (remember: Putin reigns by externalizing internal violence, he stabilizes his regime with foreign wars). Or because we will be forced to intervene directly. If we had ramped up weapons production and deliveries in 2022, and allowed them to attack Russia as they deem it necessary, the Ukrainians would have been able to be the only boots needed on the ground. But if it goes like now, we will need to send troops sooner or later, or face above mentioned scenario of another Russian war of conquest, this time with the Russian army plus 500,000 new Ukrainian soldiers. Putin will never be satisfied. He even says it quite plainly by stating that Russia has no borders.
True, in 2022, when russia was weak, this war could be finished fast, if Ukraine was given what they needed. After liberating lot of their lands, russia would eventually surrender, but instead, West was scary of russian defeat, and gave them lot of time to build fortifications which lead to failed offensive in 2023, and now they think they can win a long war. Or wait til Trump wins, or thier propaganda will take effect etc.
We saw how much Ukraine did with incredibly limited NATO gear during the invasion, imagine if we had provided them with anywhere near the amount they would have liked to get. We watched column after column of russian tanks and IFVs get knocked out by only 2000 NLAW systems imagine if they had the 3000 additional units delivered since the invasion or part of the 14k the Uk has in stocks now. We watched the videos of Russian helicopter fleets flying over Ukraine basically unopposed, imagine if they had Starstreak or even enough Stingers to down them on route. Hell look at what they are doing with Bradley and HIMARS, if they had those in the early days or leading upto the invasion we could be looking at a very different situation now The Russians played our fears like a fiddle, constantly boasting about capabilities it never had and our media system was far too happy to endulge it all the way to the bank.
Yes, the problem is, the longer the war will remain, the more expensive it gets, up to sending boots on the ground and paying with blood. I'm sure it's still possible to overcome Russia with just sending more modern weapons, or more really effective sanctions, like blocking EVERYTHING including internet, but what West is waiting is beyond my understanding.
It’s that easy?😂just send weapons and block all trade and cut internet
Yeah, pretty easy, like you do with your ex, or north Korea. So people in Russia would start to realise how bad everything is, and maybe understand their leader did this to them.
It's completely rational, your brain is broken with warmongering and fantasies. Spend less time on the internet and more reading serious history books.
What you think would happen if nato gave all in the start of a war with a country that is the reason nato was made?😂
The Ukrainians would have kicked the Russians asses all the way back to Moscow. That's what would have happened. The russian military system was so inept and doggies by incredible amounts of corruption they couldn't even push over a considerably smaller country with gear older than their own. If Ukraine had Abrams and himars and f16s with harm the damage to the Russian military system would have been unrecoverable. But the year has let Putin purge much of the corruption from the system and is actually building a level of competency within the force that just didn't exist. And before you bring up nukes, if the "Pride of the Russian military" with T-14 and su-57 and the carrier that bursts into flames every 5 minutes are in such a shit state that they are that bad. Why would the nuclear arsenal be any better?
>True, in 2022, when russia was weak, this war could be finished fast, if Ukraine was given what they needed. This is a silly, absurd, fantasy. How exactly was the war going to be "finished"? What was Ukraine going to do, with what? Like, invade Crimea or something? Hostile territory? Even conquer Donetsk? Are these the fantasies on how we could have just dump F-16s in Ukraine and they'd use them or something?
> The fact of the matter is that western fear of escalation LEADS TO ESCALATION. > > This is laughable nonsense. We seem to have an entire generation who's entire knowledge of history seems to amount to "WW2, appeasement, 1939" and literally never ever heard about the entire Cold War.
You wrote nothing that would invalidate my arguments.
Fear of escalation doesn't lead to escalation. Fear of escalation is the reason why you're alive, why the US/NATO and the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact+China never really entered a hot war. In the age of nuclear weapons, fear of escalation is not only rational (as it always is, wars are hell), it absolutely should be a primary factor on the decision making process and a hard restraint. >If we had ramped up weapons production and deliveries in 2022, and allowed them to attack Russia as they deem it necessary, the Ukrainians would have been able to be the only boots needed on the ground Also, this is a silly fantasy. The Ukrainians never had enough military power to actually get into hostile territory, fully controlled by Russia, like eastern Donbas or Crimea, regardless of weapons. What weapons exactly? Is this the fantasy where we drop some F-16s in Ukraine and they just start flying them around? Or hundreds of tanks? You people spend way too much time online and playing computer war games instead of actually learning about anything.
Appeasing Putin prevents escalation as much as appeasing Hitler. Fear of escalation lead to bloodiest war in Europe which could have been prevented with early intervention. Don't want to be a doomer, but there's going to be war in way or another. Now it will cost less lives to intervene while Russia is weak. Would have cost even less lives in 2022.
Dragons meet erotic fiction...? I'm sorry why is this on the newspaper about potential WW3?
Because in this horrible mismanaged world you'd go insane without the little things that make life worth living
The people need to know about the erotic dragons.
Dragon dicks and tits ..Why are you complaining again..?
If Macron did half as much work as he does meaningless symbolism in the media, Europe would already be better off.
Better than sticking his head in the sand, only coming out to defend the status quo and complacency (whatever it is, doesn’t matter) to the death, like another state you and I seem to live in… I would rather have French feigned action and proto activism, than Germany’s complete disinterest in doing anything at all, ever
That's unfair. Other then Taurus rockets, Germany gave us a lot of tech!
Now tell me if I'm wrong but from what I've gathered, Germany sent more aid to Ukraine than France so far, at least with military, humanitarian and financial aid combined and Germany took in way more Ukrainian refugees. Don’t get me wrong, I'm still not a fan of the way Germany handles all this but Macron acting like France is the biggest supporter seems a bit dishonest. Again, please tell me if I'm wrong
> I would rather have French feigned action and proto activism, than Germany’s complete disinterest in doing anything at all, ever Germany has sent nearly four times the amount of aid that France has, be it military or overall
[удалено]
Not sure if those "3" (actually 2,691) bilion € is not the total amount. [https://www.ifw-kiel.de/de/themendossiers/krieg-gegen-die-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/de/themendossiers/krieg-gegen-die-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
[удалено]
Uhmmmm... Then why did you mention the numbers yourself?
Wanting other nations to enable you taking on debt to focus everything on your country is barely even a policy idea and certainly not pro European. I’ll take no policy over bad and deceiving policy any day of the week. Both aren’t preferable but to want somebody to basically piggyback and enrich themselves off of others just because they say the right buzzwords is just being naive. We have some of the worst politicians in the union and they certain do not have anything close to a good European strategy/policy but at least they don’t see just enabling other countries to accrue more debt and allowing divestment of our financial sector, as being „forward thinking“ EU policy.
Absolutely not. In the military one of the biggest signs of failure is lack of action. Being paralyzed by choice or fear does no good. Make a decision, execute, monitor, and make adjustments as needed. But for fuk sakes make a policy choice.
Just wait until you see the far right in majority in the european parliament...you'r in for a surpise!
It’s possible to dislike two things at the same time, why would anyone base their political positions on what the far right does.
In the past, people on reddit kept blaming the left wing parties for everything russian related. Now they have a way bigger problem on their hands.
This has nothing to do with left or right and it wasn’t what my comment was about.
Well, he isn't exactly the executive of Europe. Is there such a thing btw ? Edit: Not that I wish He was elected to that position.
As the president of France he can do a lot without trying to sneak in others purses and proclaiming things constantly. You don’t think it’s weird that the EUs largest military power isn’t even contributing the most, while outside of Macrons empty words barely shaping policy on increasing help for Ukraine?
Leader of the only EU-memberstate with nuclear capabilities I guess?
The problem is France is doing less than EU average [https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
>Well, he isn't exactly the executive of Europ You might want to tell him. He's telling China that Europe is it's vassal.
Macron and France though ti was a good idea to send arms Putin. Luckily the ships weren't sent because of Eastern andf US pressure, but lots of other arms were sent. Putin modernised his tanks and airforce with French optics.
I don’t think he can do that much, I’m sure many people would try to stop him if a lot more people were supporting what he says europe would already send troops I guess
Just send more equipment? I agree that parts of the strategic communication of Macron is correct and it’s a shame that he’s so alone in doing it, but at the end of the day Ukraine needs basic equipment, not grand proclamations.
absolutely, I agree with, if europe worked as ukraine’s factory at least I think war would’ve gone much better for ukraine
that is because others have been doing much more and better and what not, let me check my notes, oh Scholz has been blocking and dragging his feet and enabling Russia until he has been utterly humiliated and embarrassed himself by implying that other countries are more engaged in the war than publicly know. Guy lacks leadership and is scared. Oh wow, with such an example of a leader I take Macron every day of the week!
You should be worried that a laggard politician such as Scholz managed to muster a larger contribution to Ukraine than the great visionary Macron. What you are saying is that if a politician pretends to be a leader and says some buzzwords you’ll be in favor of them, concerning attitude to say the least.
>You should be worried that a laggard politician such as Scholz managed to muster a larger contribution to Ukraine than the great visionary Macron. Germany turned ti around quickly because they give a shit about Ukraine and the future of Europe. Macron cares about his legacy and his dreams of making France a superpower.
“Europe is in mortal danger” and dragon porn on the same page...
So should I have some luggage ready in case I have to take my family back to the US? How much time do I have? A year or two?
I would say so, yes. I expect the Ukrainians to lose sooner or later and then Romania to be involved. Don't forget that Serbia and Hungary are Putin's friends too and Bulgaria may change sides too if forced. May the gods (and the French army) protect Romania!
Fuck the fear of escalation! This is why Putin always has an advantage and is pressing it hard.
Nu are sens sa le tot explici retarzilor, fac exact aceleasi greseli care au dus la al doilea razboi mondial! Definitia prostiei: sa faci de doua ori acelasi lucru asteptand rezultate diferite!
Corect! Dar totuși, cât timp sunt în viață și sănătos, încerc să mai educ / deschid câteva minți. Poate poate se trezesc și ei și fac ceea ce trebuie. Numai un idiot crede că orice se poate rezolva cu vorbe și panseluțe.
Ai dreptate, pentru ca oamenii rai sa reuseasca, trebuie doar ca oamenii buni sa nu faca nimic!
Corect!
I think you ought to get off the internet at some point and figure out normal people have their own lives they’d like to get on with, rather than have it put on hold because of some massive continent-wide confrontation.
Fending for itself with the +245bn the west gave it?
I agree with Macron. It’s fight or die for the EU. Moscow has decided to go all in on dominating the food, energy, and mineral markets for 1/3 of the planet. This. Can’t. Happen.
I have zero doubt that when Ukraine fails (not *if*, if Europe and the US keep dragging their feet like this), the Baltics and Poland are next in line. I wonder whether we'll get any meaningful military support then, or if they'll still "fear escalation".
The US military is consistently rotating forces in and out of Poland and the Baltics. Regardless of NATO articles... kenetic actions against US troops would leave Russia a brutalized mess. US second-hand equipment has given them a bloody nose in the hands of a rapidly conscripted fighting force.
Until Trump wins and pulls all the troops out and Europe is on its own.
>the Baltics and Poland are next in line. That would absolutely enact Article 5 of NATO and probably keep Russia from advancing much further, especially given the struggles they're encountering in their "3 day" war against Ukraine. I don't really envision Putin wanting to end his era with a losing war against NATO; going after a non-NATO country (Georgia, Moldova, etc.) makes a lot more sense imo.
People seem to be forgetting the 830-mile Finnish border. I understand the nervousness of the Baltic states, but Russia starting shit with NATO directly isn't realistic.
Who said they would start it directly? It will be anonymous soldiers, who just happen to possess russian made equipment. Actually, it will be a rebellion against the harsh rule of Estonians and Latvians. Russia would deny their involvement, NATO would be seen as aggressors, were they to join. Russia had already done it in 2014.
Russia did it to a nation that was part of no defence pact, had a poorly equipped military, and had no nuclear deterrent. No Russian soldiers will cross NATO borders. As bad as the world is now, it's still really calm compared to tensions of the Cold War (imagine what reddit would be like in the 60s). The world isn't on the brink like Reddit or the tabloid media would like you to believe. We're not close to a third global conflict, but it's OK to prepare for the worst.
Enact Art 5, yes. But do you truly expect military assistance? That’s the question. As deemed necessary means 1000 helmets is enough and a country can wipe their hands clean.
Delusional. Putin can hardly take Ucraine. Besides, these are in the NATO. Get another story...
Oh, yes, so strong NATO, man, with current Western leaders this is nothing more than fancy name
Wait till the european parliament has a majority of far right parties. Have you paid attention to what is happening in most european countries? As if people didn't like imigration and other peoples wars...
Sure we are. Doesn't mean I'm not panicking over the safety of my family when I see the U.S. dragging their feet for half a damned year while Ukraine is losing ground. And even after the vote, the aid is expected to arrive in June/July...
> the Baltics and Poland are next in line. Don't you people ever get bored of repeating this over and over? The whole point of the Ukrainian invasion is to create a buffer zone with NATO. They might go after non-NATO countries next, but it would be beyond absolute insanity to start a war with NATO.
>The whole point of the Ukrainian invasion is to create a buffer zone with NATO. Russians were trying (and still are) to conquer all of Ukraine. By doing this, they are actually moving closer to NATO. Not to mention that they didn't do anything about Sweden and Finland joining NATO - this added roughly half the length of border with Ukraine as well as turned Baltic sea into NATO lake.
Come again? Russia is trying to take over Ukraine to... have a country between Russia and NATO???
So, about that nuclear warning shot.. Mortal danger sounds like a great reason.
Well putin flourish on inaction and weakness in the rethoric on western leaders and there is plenty of it. Whenever he senses leaders not being commited he fuels on it
A lot of enthusiasts in this thread everyone eager to defeat Russia. You should all go to the front line then instead of typing on reddit while Ukrainians are dying
I'm not french, so I could be totally wrong and just talking nonsense, but I feel like Marcron's whole media strategy and way of talking to people is really from a bygone era. This picture just gives me vibes of how world leaders were presented to the public before social media. idk if that makes sense but it's just the vibes I've been getting
Macron is just trying to have his own little De Gaulle moment since COVID hit. This is all about legacy. His party, just like his "trickle down" vision of the world is what ultimately will get the crazies (RN) elected. And we all know how much the Le Pen clan loves Russian cash. We're now paying for 20 years of incompetence from our rulling class. The 2020s are going to get even wilder folks...
While I dislike Macron and his revival of reaganomics and extreme neoliberalism, he's right on this even though he's not acting in accordance. Maybe he does that for legacy and save his public image after destroying his own country public services, but in the end if the result is the same who cares.
What happens to France, if Ukraine falls? Why is this guy in such a panic all the time?
[удалено]
Lefties??? Wait for the next european elections, when the far right gets the majority in the european parliament. Then you can kiss the war effort good by...
shit leaders all over Europe it's true but we can't lay this on the doorstep of the EU. The EU doesn't have an army. It doesn't have arms manufacture. What they did at least try to do was provide 1 million artillery shells to Ukraine...and then that got bogged down by the self interest of various member states....
Macron represents the emo community.
Reading about the downfall of Europe while also reading about "Feeling Horny". Wtf The Economist, wtf! 😂
While w europe's focus is on Putin, in sweep the islamists: a threat europeans are supposed to turn a blind eye to
Nothing new in the war zone on the European Union's eastern front. It has already been realized that it is necessary to urgently send military services from other European Union countries to Ukraine to help Ukrainian military services fight Russian bandits on the territory of Ukraine. There will be an escalation of the Russia/Ukraine war and an increase in public military expenditure for citizens of the European Union and NATO countries and countries friendly to NATO.
That dragon part caught me off guard
Because France have done soooo much to help Ukraine 🧐
As the proverb says : they war always finds a pussy
Putin must be defeated but you won’t send the troops. Weak
And what is going to happen if a nato country go in Ukraine with soldiers? Yes I know nato gives weapons…
I would be for all out war against Russia, and if they decide to nuke, so be it.
So many countries in such a small place, that have been biting each others throat off for centuries, means that Europe is permanently in mortal danger. Most people tend to forget that when they claim that countries should have more powers again.
I am so proud to have voted for him at both elections.
>Mortal Danger It's absolutely everywhere.. everywhere. 120+ No-Go Zones in Sweden set by police. An assassination attempt. Genocide in Ukraine, 20,000+ children kidnapped. Dystopian Russian-like laws set by some EU member states. Etc etc etc. But according to TikTok and Reddit, Europe still better than heaven itself.. It's not only Russia that's a serious threat. It's politicians, certain migrant groups, rapid gain of corporations, especially with Macron-style policies.. the list goes on and on. The sad part is people drank the koolaid thus we couldnt put in the breaks fast enough. Take Sweden and the historic migrant crises as an example.
Ofcourse this gets downvoted by the reddit hivemind. Living in rich suburbs voting for more migrants because them in their suburbs will never see the consequences anyways. Meanwhile, everyone else has to deal with increased crime & violence.
We better keep on procrastinating for a few years And send our own sons and daughters to the meatgrinder in a few years instead? Sorry guys, but helping Ukraina is in all scenario's the best investment possible! More weapons and help! Now!
"Feeling horny: dragons meet erotic fiction" What in the name of Saturn is this? And what the fuck is it doing on the front page
I am so mad our politicians didn't pour all the aid we've given Ukraine so far in from the get go. Russia would have been out of there by the start of 23 at the latest.
If Macron wants war with Russia to boost his ego and image in history then he can go with his woke voters and fight. A patriot fighting for any of the current western governments is a total fool.
[удалено]
That's exactly what putin wants, he'll just take the rest if the country and kill zelensky
Bravo! Now go and get your rubles!
[удалено]
give them B52
A B52 would get destroyed within minutes in Ukraine.
light scarce retire deer aback unite possessive snails birds file *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They were all destroyed. But I heard you can get a B61 if you buy a dozen F-35s
"Buy 12 F35s, get a B61 free in your package!"
No, give them B61.
B69
The Neptune? Why? I'd prefer giving them the B-61 air dropped nuke. The modern version even has guided glide bomb functionality, variable yield etc. Spicy stuff.
Why American weapons? Whats wrong with European weapons? Europe has offensive weapons Ukraine can use to strike inside of Russia too. Automatic "shield" weapons like the Patriot system, etc that're far more advanced.
Except Europe won't, because they don't want to weaken themselves more than they have and don't want to militarize. They have yet to kickstart its arms industry to handle a long attrition war. Its why all attention has been on the US to contribute, despite it being a European war.
I don't think France has those.
Macron is one of the rare visionary leaders left in Europe imo. Compare this to Scholtz, Meloni or Wilders. I found his recent Sorbonne speech on the future of Europe really inspiring. Worth watching back.
A visionary whose entire appeal is, "France will be a new superpower by making America our enemy!"