You're mistaken. A significant portion of Ukraine's manufacturing now happens abroad, out of Russia's reach. Meanwhile, a large part of its domestic production is decentralized and widely distributed. (You can easily find snobbish and pejorative comments by Rheinmetall's CEO about this.)
Nuclear weapon use would lead to no meaningful military success, but it would immediately alienate the superpower Russia depends on in almost every way. China will not tolerate any nation using nuclear weapons. With its extremely dense population, it can't afford a modern wartime precedent to be set for their use.
There were no airlifts into Ukraine, arms had to cross the border as they have since. The supplies were in small quantities up to the invasion. They were an important help to Ukraine, but you are overstating how crucial they were - as if stingers and NLAWs did the fighting, or as if Ukraine didn't have its Soviet legacy or homegrown systems like Stugna-P which had a much more decisive impact those early months.
Western support at any scale didn't arrive until later in the year.
Russian logistics failed because of Ukrainian resistance. The NLAWs and stingers were extremely useful to Ukraine, but the more important fact is that the Ukrainian army was prepared, disciplined, and didn't melt away as Russia expected.
I've been reading a set of bloggers for 20 years and all but one are all still at it, though one moved a few years ago onto Substack, which ended his RSS feed.
They don't seem to receive high traffic, but they're damn good blogs - which seems to me like a better form of 'success' than any amount of popularity. After all you can find the herd's footprints around all kinds of pointless shit.
> That's easy to say when you aren't the one considering adding a huge liability to the companies bottom line.
Obliging companies to make repairable products? Removing their right to lock everyone into disposability and overconsumption? And even worse - trimming a sliver of their profits? Damn right, buddy: we can't be having that.
The bedrock of economic trust and co-operation that only ever served the USA's interest. What do you imagine the new coolness towards US companies or US lobbying is going to do to US GDP longterm?
You actually typify the myopia of many of Trump's supporters. "Cash in today: fuck tomorrow."
> Nato membership requires 2% of GDP to be spent on military.
No, actually it isn't a condition of NATO membership to spend 2% on defense. This is a myth.
> It's one thing if a democratically elected president who will be out in 2 years is something you hate on... but it's turned from that. It seems every European consintely berates us, from a fundamentally level now.
Do you think that having experienced this treatment from a nation previously trusted as a friend and ally that Europe can sensibly revert to its old confidence in the USA? Sure the Democrats might win power in 2028, or even a reformed and sensible Republican candidate. But who's to say the next populist Europhobic nutter isn't another 4 years behind them? This is the central problem for the US, that many of its citizens still won't confront: there are costs to unreliability, delinquency, bullying and threats.
> I won't defend trump, but what has threatening annexation of greenland done? Billions in additional military buildup, which is good for both our economies.
This is childishly fatuous. Europe, then, should be grateful to the US for threatening to invade it?
It definitely is a reputation issue: unless I'm misunderstanding something, you are using this data to suggest a greater incidence of violent sexual behavior among young men as a result to their exposure to ugly types of pornography.
You don't seem to have any data putting your figures into any context over time: run the same study in the 80s and I would wager you'd see similar even worse results. Wank mags and grainy VHS were passed around schools from the moment they appeared, including BDSM and torture porn - often in the form of sleazy B-movies. Sure, pornography is far easier to access today. But the material is the same, and this notion that somehow, today's boys and young men are worse for this exposure than their predecessors is insidious and deeply ignorant.
It is significantly more difficult to find young men today who think it's acceptable for husbands to beat their wives - or that rape is never rape in marriage. Or who think they can get a woman drunk to seduce her. Campaigners had to work damn hard to raise public consciousness out of the traditionalist inertia around these blights. Frankly, to anyone like me, old enough to compare several different eras and their male representatives, comments like yours and the inferences you'd have people draw from them, are utterly ridiculous - and yes, hugely unjust to the overwhelming majority of young men who flinch from the idea of hurting a woman in bed or out of it, regardless of what type of pornography they've been exposed to.
> Many young boys now think it’s normal to ask girls for sexual acts before having ever kissed a girl.
This is a common media talking point, but are there any hard figures for this 'many'? The type you're describing existed when I was young, long before the internet. My impression of boys and young men today is that they are generally just as decent, cautious, respectful and idealistic as they ever were - but that a small crude and unpleasant minority taints the reputation of the whole generation.
Seeing the word 'cope' lobbed out is usually a sure sign a poster is projecting, and so it is here.
What exactly is there in the USA's destruction of the economic norms that have always served it, or in the pointless dumping of its hard-won soft power, alienation of its allies, deliberate weakening of its intelligence gatherers, rampant open corruption from its leadership, or in any other of the innumerable harms it's inflicted on itself the last 18 months, that you think is conducive to the US maintaining its superpower status?
Europe may face technological and economic challenges, but one thing it isn't suffering is 'an identity' crisis - except in the daydreams of right wing propagandists. The EU's identity is represented in its charter and the various treaties behind it.
> Europe becoming more reliant on the Chinese is not the answer, and will, if continues, isolate the EU from the US
There are sound reasons to avoid reliance on China, but the risk of isolation from a fading superpower - who befriends the EU's enemies, agitates in EU politics, inflict needless damage on the EU's economy, and insults EU leaders - isn't one of them.
It's still clickbait and a good example of how infantile these publications are today. Ars and Nature really should be above all these bullshit headline games, but the fact they aren't explains a large part of their general degradation.
Nuclear weapon use would lead to no meaningful military success, but it would immediately alienate the superpower Russia depends on in almost every way. China will not tolerate any nation using nuclear weapons. With its extremely dense population, it can't afford a modern wartime precedent to be set for their use.