I last saw a psychology thing on TV about people reserving theur strong reaction to the second severe transgression. Bad guys get 1 abuse for free, modulo some stern looks and grumbling. Second time, the big hit comes. The number of transgressions is a more important fact than the time or size.
There is some truth to this, once you look at it. So Russia took Crimea as first abuse, and got some survivable sanctions. Then they hit Ukraine a second time.
Trump, well, it is hit after hit after hit. Liberation day, ICC, threatening greenland, backstabbing Ukraine, Iran. And we're not even halfway his term, and we got proof from the last 2 Republican presidencys that this is no outlayer.
I think the main EU fear is ex-soviet countries fearing they are next if Ukraine falls. So Ukraine should not necessary win, it should mainly bleed Russia and not loose. An eternal standstill is probably best, realpolitik-wise (To be clear, I am not happy with this analysis).
True. As far as EU BigPowers are concerned, they know Ukraine has lost the war but don't really care if Ukraine is being destroyed and Ukranians are dying, as long as they kill as many Russians too.
It astounds me that even in 2026 people are still regurgitating this standard-issue Russian propaganda canard about "Ukraine already lost the war", consciously or subconsciously. While the war is going on, you can make equally vacuous claims that "Russia already lost the war" with about as much cause.
Ukraine is fighting for its survival against a fascist and colonialist invader that aims to end its nationhood. The final outcome is unclear.
The real tragedy is that intelligent people like you buy the EU propaganda that "Ukraine is winning this war" without truly understanding what is happening on the ground.
The stark facts are simple - nearly 20% of Ukranian territory has been strategically captured by the Russians. Ukraine has no real chance of getting it back. Ukraine's counter-offensive has failed twice. It cannot launch any more counter-offensive because it doesn't have the men - any counter-offensive by recalling men from other parts of the frontline would weaken the defence line. So any new counter offensive launched needs to really bloody the Russians to completely back off, or the whole frontline will collapse and Ukraine will face a complete military defeat. Whatever Russian territory Ukraine had occupied has been recovered by the Russians. In case Ukraine doesn't accede to Russian terms, Russia has also been working on a plan B that entails systematically destroying Ukraine's industrial infrastructure (demilitarisation through de-industrialisation - https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/94244 ).
All Ukraine does now is to launch drones and missile attacks at Russian infrastructure for western and social media PR (as it is the only way EU will keep funding Zelensky's government and the war), while it is forced to retreat in the frontlines every week as the Russians slowly keep advancing.
>The real tragedy is that intelligent people like you buy the EU propaganda that "Ukraine is winning this war"
All depends on your victory conditions, tovarish.
>In case Ukraine doesn't accede to Russian terms, Russia has also been working on a plan B that entails systematically destroying Ukraine's industrial infrastructure
You don't seem to be following this war very closely. Short of nukes, Russia has already done everything it possibly can, including trying to freeze old people in their flats during cold snaps, multiple times. They've been targeting industrial infrastructure since day one, but interestingly what's been changing is that Ukraine is increasingly playing that game too, focusing on demilitarizing Russia by targeting its defence industry and increasingly taking its oil exports offline. Turns out two can play this whole de-industrialisation game. It remains to be seen who succeeds, but things aren't looking as good on this front for Russia as they did in 2022 or 2023, that's for sure.
>All Ukraine does now is to launch drones and missile attacks at Russian infrastructure for western and social media PR
Well and also to do things like take 46% of Russia's oil export capacity offline just when oil prices were soaring. You know, small trifles.
>while it is forced to retreat in the frontlines every week as the Russians slowly keep advancing.
Slowly is doing all the heavy lifting here, to borrow a common AI slop refrain. Russia is now losing more men per month than it can recruit, somewhere in the vicinity of 30-40 thousand. Ukraine is extending the drone kill-zone to 30+ km from the so called "front line" (more of a zone). It produces millions of drones and is at the forefront of a drone revolution in warfare. In other words, its demilitarization is progressing swimmingly, but for the minus sign.
> All depends on your victory conditions, tovarish.
The break with factual reality in your post is enlightening. As is the misinformation of Russia "running out of men" when that is the situation Ukraine is facing. There is no "victory", is the point. There is no path to defeating Russia without a nuclear war. That Ukraine can bring about the economic collapse of Russia is a delusional fantasy.
You are just lazily "no u"-ing and projecting at this point, and your uninformed cheerleading of Russian fascism is profoundly uninteresting, so there's nothing further to discuss with you. You're either a Russian Z-bag, or one of those tedious people who make up their minds on a topic they mistakenly think they mastered and then shut themselves off from contrary information. Case in point, the hilarious timing of you saying the Russian economy isn't nearing collapse, when it's one of the main topics of discussion on even on Russian TV and press. Which of course, if you're the second type, you can't watch/read.
What is clear that you have no understanding of either superpower politics, military capabilities or how economies work. You are clearly one of those shameless EU cheerleaders who don't care about Ukrainians getting slaughtered and their country destroyed, as long as they "weaken" Russia in the process.
I don't think Ukraine lost. They surely did a lot better than anyone expected. Right now, I'd say it can go both ways, with Ukranian deaths vs Russian economic crash and hurt for their rich class seeming the main determinaters. If Putin drops dead, if the rich feel enough bombs exploding in Moscow, .... Then Ukraine wins
They have lost depending on the parameters you use to judge the war - I see 20% of Ukraine territory occupied by the Russia, Ukraine having no real military capability to launch an effective counter-offensive (due to lack of manpower), 75% of their industrial infrastructure is destroyed or lost to occupation. They are only surviving and fighting based on the charity of the EU. And their only hope of victory is based on the fantasy that EU is selling them - that once Russian economy collapses, they will "surrender". Even if an economic collapse were to happen in Russia (ala of USSR level), which I don't see happening, Russia will absolutely not end the war in any manner unless their military goals are achieved. Ukraine in NATO means NATO nuclear missile will easily be able to reach Moscow within minutes. Zelensky is a fool to keep ordering strikes deep inside Russia because every successful strike (with unsophisticated drones and ordinary missiles) inside Russia makes the Russians realise how militarily vulnerable they will be Ukraine were to join NATO, and so they will do everything to prevent that. (And let's not forget that Russia is a nuclear power - Ukraine cannot militarily win this war until NATO joins it).
Before Trump, there was Bush Jr. The world's view on him was also dim, but 9/11/2001 made the world cut the USA a lot of slack. It turns out he was the new normal, instead of a temporary savage spot. Trump is not the only USA leader in the back of the world's mind.
Bush II was awful in all sorts of ways; it's not crazy to say that as chaotic as Trump's first presidency was, it was nowhere near as destructive as Bush's terms. I in no way want to white-wash Bush, which I feel like some people have done in the wake of Trump.
But despite that, Bush's presidency was generally continuous with American presidencies since World War II. He still, at root, steered the ship as though he were a believer in the narrative of America as a leader of the free world, rather than as a selfish actor who needs to get one over on everyone else in order to get ahead. Regardless of the world's judgement of Bush, I don't think it sowed much doubt in many minds about their overall relationship with America, and not just because of 9/11 or because he was just one president. The US could have continued electing Bushes forever and not much would have changed.
Whereas: Trump's presidency - especially this second term - is utterly destabilizing. He's single-handedly destroyed America's soft power and place in the world.
I agree. I think it’s fair to say that while many people might agree Bush II is someone you could have a beer with compared to the current prest his foreign policy decisions lead to excess mortality in the range of half a million.
Somerhing is finally happening. A consultant came talking about software choices. We asked for non US possibilities and he gave a few. While talking about ut, he mentioned the question came up a lot now, typically from governements and bigger corporations dealing with entities outside the EU. Discussion was done on management levels, not just on IT levels. It seems everyone is testing the waters.
It is indeed cool tech. But be aware that e.g. building weapons is also playing with cool tech.
The main problem I see: Who is the attacker and who is the defender. The presented scenario has the machine owner (renter?) as defender, so no problem. In quite a lot of cases, the machine owner is the attacker, and e.g. Microsoft is the defender. That's where things get nasty.
I had a 386 with 40Mhz (which does not exist, so in hindsight it must have been a clone chip) and 4MB Ram. I could run all Doom 2 levels with reasonable speed, except the last one, where 4mb just wasn't enough.
One thing I liked about Gothic 1 was how you could fight people and not kill them ( Kill was an extra action after you won).The NPCs reacted differently to winning vs killing, pushing you to let others live. In a brutal penal colony, this made a lot more sense than win=kill.
Picture of me, outdoors. According to this, I lost 10 years and gain €10k salary. I also moved to the Netherlands, started smoking, don't like computer games and am racist. I might be interested in pottery and painting, also in unhealthy food. The main correct thing is a hetero male. It will try to sell me garden gnomes.
I have no idea who this man is, and am not worried at all for my privacy. Maybe it works better on US inhabitants?
Who would you consider reliable news sources for this war? Honest question.
AFAIK The USA governement has proven unreliable, even more so than Iran. USA news sources are owned by the same oligarchs owning the governement. Other western sources follow the USA train of thought, with more or less doubt thrown in. Mint from India and Al Jazeera from Qatar (not happy with Iran right now) seem closest to neutral of the pack, even if not that great. I am not aware of a reliable Israeli news source.
The ACOUP article was one of the best analysis of this war I've seen, which is pretty damning for the real news sources if you think about it.
> I am not aware of a reliable Israeli news source.
If you consider Al Jazeera a reliable source, then we'll probably disagree on this. But I would say Ynet, Times of Israel, and Jerusalem Post and reliable, just to name some of the big ones with lots of English content online. Or Haaretz for a more anti-government-leaning (but still broadly reliable) publication.
There is some truth to this, once you look at it. So Russia took Crimea as first abuse, and got some survivable sanctions. Then they hit Ukraine a second time.
Trump, well, it is hit after hit after hit. Liberation day, ICC, threatening greenland, backstabbing Ukraine, Iran. And we're not even halfway his term, and we got proof from the last 2 Republican presidencys that this is no outlayer.
reply