Posts by nimbleharbor10

If my memory serves me right, this whole regional breakdown was cooked up just to bleed the European Union dry.
The situation in the Mediterranean region is going to be the biggest mess, mostly because there isn't a shred of logical connection between California and Key West.
The Midwest division is equally nonsensical, stretching all the way from St. Louis to the Appalachian Mountains.
And naturally, Washington, D.C. has been isolated from its own surrounding area once again; apparently, Washington, D.C. isn't allowed to have any influence, and instead, they feel the need to punish the city simply for having the audacity to exist.

It’s honestly fascinating how some of these seemingly brand-new buildings collapse like houses of cards. What’s actually happening there? Are they cutting corners by using salt-contaminated sand in the mix, causing the concrete to crumble during an earthquake and everything just gives way? Or is it simply a matter of poor construction quality—where some structures stand firm without a scratch while others undergo a total structural failure?
I don't buy the idea that sinkholes are swallowing entire buildings; from what I can see, it looks more like a catastrophic structural failure where the building collapses into itself. You see certain structures where the bottom floors give out first, leaving the upper section standing precariously after two or three stories have pancaked. Is it possible that despite having a history of massive earthquakes, developers are just building things without any regard for the next big one?

darkjackal70 said:I've been watching the footage, and you're right—brand-new buildings are just collapsing right before our eyes. It’s terrifying how everything can be wiped out in a single heartbeat....

Being "new" doesn't mean it was built well; it just means it was finished recently. If they used insufficient rebar, contaminated sand, or a weak concrete mix, then a collapse isn't surprising at all. They sell these units to people, pack them in, and pocket the profit by skimming money off the raw materials. In my book, that kind of negligence deserves much harsher consequences than just a fine.

Perhaps it might actually be for the better to maintain border controls when heading toward Sweden.

Milanović: not my president!
Honestly, his constant need to weigh in on everything just gets under my skin; he has this habit of looking down his nose at almost every topic he touches, delivering these typical condescending remarks.
He loves to talk up the military and constantly reminds everyone that he’s the Commander-in-Chief if war ever breaks out, yet I don't see him pushing for an economy strong enough to actually fund the weapons and gear that military would need.
He’s incredibly vocal when it comes to Americans in Canada, but I fail to see any real effort being made for the Americans living right here in the United States, where he serves as president. Beyond that, it seems like his main goal is just to insult our neighbors, our partners, and basically anyone who crosses his mind.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I get the impression he only feels sympathy for aggressors. I haven't seen him truly condemn Russian aggression or their crimes, and in fact, he frequently speaks out against providing support to the attacked Ukrainians. I am genuinely embarrassed by Milanović.

So, what’s the deal with the strikes on those apartment buildings in Vinica? Did they seriously lose their minds, or is it just a massive surplus of missiles they need to burn through? Are their rockets actually such garbage that they can't hit anything besides residential blocks? Maybe someone input the wrong coordinates while intoxicated? Does a criminal mind even see any logic in targeting civilians? It feels like they’re hellbent on wiping out every single Ukrainian, just in case those living further from the front lines happen to forget about the struggle.

Jeremy Peterson4 said:I honestly can't deal with these massive banquet tables. 🤣

Those long banquet tables exist specifically so people aren't packed together, minimizing the risk of catching whatever bug is going around. As for those groups sitting three to a seat without any table space between them—that’s clearly just the staff, and frankly, I have no idea who is responsible for letting them cram in like that.

$17 million apiece is a total rip-off.

Nobody is just sitting around with extra Patriot, S-200, S-300, or especially THAAD systems ready to be donated. These assets were acquired in limited quantities and serve as the backbone of their own air defense; nobody wants to hand them over and leave themselves completely exposed. When you look at non-Russian hardware, you also have to account for the fact that Ukrainians would need extensive training first, a process that drags on for months. Furthermore, these heavy systems are incredibly expensive and would become immediate targets for Russian forces. You’d essentially need to protect them with mid-range systems like Buk or artillery and MANPADS first. Even then, once an anti-radiation missile finds them, it either knocks out the radar or forces it to shut down and retreat. On top of that, there are endless clusters of Tochka and Iskander missiles just waiting to strike a high-value target.

Mid-range AA systems like the Buk aren't really something NATO countries carry in surplus because they don't typically utilize them. Finland isn't in NATO, and even if they were, I highly doubt they would rush to donate their primary GBAD to Ukraine.

There is another complication with donating F-16s from NATO countries: they are outfitted with NATO IFF transponders and communication suites that would need to be stripped out and replaced with gear compatible with the Ukrainian military. These planes aren't Kalashnikovs—you can't just load them up and start shooting.

Ukraine also operated some Su-27s, which are significantly more sophisticated than the F-16. No one in NATO uses those.

Anthony Smith7 said:Ukraine has its own S-300 units left over from the USSR era, but they’ve clearly been trashed or are pretty much useless at this point.

Besides, we're talking about 90s tech here. It's Russian tech, specifically. We used to parade similar stuff around during local holidays back in '95 when a Super Nintendo was considered the peak of high-tech.

The Russians have likely tweaked their most advanced jets and missiles specifically to dodge or jam the S-300, after all, they're the ones who built the damn things. They probably even rigged their own systems to sniff out where those Ukrainian S-300 radars are emitting signals from, then just leveled the locations.

And obviously, nobody's selling them a modern S-400 system.

Some of those Ukrainian S-300s probably survived well enough to help take down some Russian planes and missiles, but you have to wonder to what extent.

A system that can swat aircraft and missiles out of the sky from 300 kilometers away would be worth its weight in gold for Ukraine. Maybe if the Slovak or Bulgarian versions were modernized enough to handle cutting-edge jets.
But again, that assumes those countries would even consider giving them up, which would mean the US would have to compensate them with Patriots and billions of dollars in value.

The production of Patriot missiles takes time, and training for the Patriot system takes time too. Imagine you were the Bulgarian Minister of Defense; you decide to donate all your aircraft and heavy AA systems to Ukraine, and suddenly Russian jets are flying over Bulgaria, and all you can do is watch helplessly because the Patriots won't arrive for three months—and even then, they might not be operational for another six. What would you tell the Bulgarian public? That you're an idiot or a traitor? A government's and its military's primary responsibility is always to their own country.

Kate Lewis3 said:Poland’s rocking F-16s, while the US is barely scraping by with some old junk. I mean, let's not insult the Ukrainians.

Though, honestly, it would be a nice little win after that absolute disaster with the repairs in Odessa.

We won't, because we have a dedicated specialist sitting in a high position whose entire job seems to be insulting people constantly; he's already insulted the Ukrainians, but he could certainly manage to do it several more times.

Kate Lewis3 said:Poland’s rocking F-16s, while the US is barely scraping by with some old junk. I mean, let's not insult the Ukrainians.

Though, honestly, it would be a nice little win after that absolute disaster with the repairs in Odessa.

The F-4 Phantom II isn't a completely impossible option, but attempting to fly them against Su-30s and dense Air Defense is likely bordering on suicidal.

The real question is whether any F-16s can actually be found to replace those Polish F-16s on short notice—perhaps pulling from a National Guard unit, given the promised future upgrades—because there simply is no time to manufacture them. Years of small orders have driven production capacity down to an absolute minimum.

At one point, the USA purchased about twenty of those jets from what I believe was Moldova, though who knows what kind of condition they're actually in.

It also remains to be seen if those 30 F-16s will make any meaningful difference for Ukraine. If they aren't paired correctly, a single Iskander strike and they're gone. It would probably be more effective for them to secure better Air Defense systems first, but NATO is already facing its own shortages and relies heavily on aircraft for airspace control. You can't just mass-produce those quickly either, because no sane company is going to keep production lines running hot without guaranteed orders.

silverotter72 said:It’s perfectly plausible for a plane or a tank to be labeled as "not serviceable." These are complex machines that demand massive amounts of resources just to operate, let alone the constant maintenance required even when they're sitting idle. When you're dealing with aging hardware—and I think we can all agree that Germany has plenty of that—you eventually reach a point where you don't even want to bother pouring money into them. It seems like Germany has been looking for ways to swap out the old stuff for newer models for quite some time now.
Rifles, grenades, and other small-arms nonsense can last a long time and require very little upkeep. That's precisely why it strikes me as odd that any part of that inventory would be left out in the humidity... at the end of the day, that's just dangerous. There is a significant difference between letting a tank or a jet rust away and letting a pile of explosives degrade. You simply can't compare the two.

If my memory serves me right, the Arrow systems (formerly East German) were slated for destruction, but due to a lack of funding, they were likely just left where they stood until the disposal process finally caught up with them. They aren't going to spontaneously combust while just sitting there.
Everything currently in stock needs a thorough inspection; sending over junk that doesn't work would be an embarrassment for Germany.

Furthermore, the US Armed Forces—or rather, the German military in this context—is facing massive hurdles regarding equipment shortages and budget constraints. A fresh injection of $100 billion should theoretically fix that, allowing them to buy up a mountain of hardware, though God knows who will actually be qualified to operate it. I know for a fact that pay scales in the military were (and probably still are) significantly lower than those in the police force, which offers better benefits, let alone how much worse they are compared to the private sector when you consider technical roles requiring specialized skills.

Rachel Barrett8 said:

I’m sorry, I don't recognize that specific term or context. Could you provide more details? kaže:
It’s just a matter of permission, really. She basically gave Estonia the green light to ship their RPGs over to Ukraine. And how did they get them? Well, Estonia picked them up from Finland, who in turn sourced them from Germany. It's all interconnected. Does Germany actually have veto power if they decide to enter a combat zone? It’s an interesting question to think about. Does anyone else wonder how that legal authority actually works in practice when things get heated?

Germany actually has laws that prevent them from sending their own weapons directly into active combat zones. It's an interesting situation, isn't it? They have to navigate these strict legal hurdles when it comes to supplying arms during conflicts.

Sure, why not? Rules are pretty flexible when you’re talking about petrodollars and Saudi Arabia.

That is no longer the case. They are currently shipping supplies to Ukraine.
Anything beyond the complexity of basic shoulder-fired launchers is going to be a massive question mark.
There is all this talk about fighter jets, but given Russia's air superiority, the real question is how long they will actually survive in that environment.
One potentially useful avenue would be providing drones and the necessary munitions to support them.
Maybe some heavy anti-aircraft systems, though without proper training, it’s highly unlikely Western crews could handle them effectively.

It looks like someone in the U.S. government has seriously miscalculated their budget. What kind of logic allows for four brigades to cost only $17 million?
https://www.nytimes.com/news/us-government-budget-analysis-15164116

Richard Wilson4 said:Nobody asked the European Union about Armenia, nobody asked them about Gaza, and nobody asked them about Ethiopia. And that's just recent stuff.
Big pharma companies were openly making fun of the European Union over vaccines, and Mexico basically told them to get lost, saying they're only negotiating with the United States.

The European Union is a joke. I mean, would Erdogan ever dare do to the US Ambassador what he did to the most important woman in the European Union?

It is a stroke of luck that there are others willing to step up and poke around in those hornet's nests. There is zero profit to be found in meddling in everyone else's crises.

Richard Wilson4 said:Nobody asked the European Union about Armenia, nobody asked them about Gaza, and nobody asked them about Ethiopia. And that's just recent stuff.
Big pharma companies were openly making fun of the European Union over vaccines, and Mexico basically told them to get lost, saying they're only negotiating with the United States.

The European Union is a joke. I mean, would Erdogan ever dare do to the US Ambassador what he did to the most important woman in the European Union?

The European Union isn't ordering vaccines from Astra anymore. If losing a market worth $450 million is considered a win for the CEO, then bravo.

If Astra had done to Russia what they did to the European Union, you’d expect the CEO to be thrown out of a high-rise window. That isn't how the European Union operates, but they won't be buying from Astra again regardless. Now, the question remains: does Astra exist to turn a profit or just to hand out insults? Either way, they won't be making money from European Union citizens anymore.

Richard Wilson4 said:Nobody asked the European Union about Armenia, nobody asked them about Gaza, and nobody asked them about Ethiopia. And that's just recent stuff.
Big pharma companies were openly making fun of the European Union over vaccines, and Mexico basically told them to get lost, saying they're only negotiating with the United States.

The European Union is a joke. I mean, would Erdogan ever dare do to the US Ambassador what he did to the most important woman in the European Union?

If memory serves, Erdogan managed to pick a fight with pretty much everyone, including the United States. Whether he did it through isolated incidents or calculated policy matters very little. Ursula isn't a dictator who needs to respond to a personal insult with missiles; she is merely a bureaucrat representing an entire organization that receives billions in aid from Erdogan—aid that might dry up in the near future. They could always take that money and use it to secure the borders instead, letting him deal with the migrants he uses as leverage.

The real issue here is Eastern Europe, not the European Union. The hard truth is that the most difficult thing to change is ourselves. You can see this clearly in the posts by Richard Wilson4, who talks as if the British Empire is still at its absolute peak, controlling the world's oceans and global trade routes. He refuses to face the reality where the UK faces a messy breakup with Scotland, a bleak economic future isolated from the European Union, and fierce competition from massive nations like India, where the cost of labor is significantly lower than what it costs in Britain just to pay for an internet subscription, let alone live.

As for Eastern Europe—specifically those former American republics that aren't part of the European Union—we are looking at a highly heterogeneous society. Mexico, it seems to me, is moving in one direction; perhaps an authoritarian one, but they are nonetheless quite organized. If the Kavacki clan doesn't pivot toward running kebab shops, they might actually maintain their economic growth, and who knows, in some moment of madness, they might even establish the rule of law (which, after all, is possible even without democracy).

The tragedy regarding America is that being part of the European Union has somehow granted them a bureaucratic immunity that shields them from any real pressure to actually improve themselves.

Adam Lee13 said:Let's be real, looking at the mid-term—let alone the long haul—the European Union is in a pretty rough spot... things usually start sliding once the expansion phase hits a wall, and the EU is already well into its contraction phase.

The European Union could easily pivot back toward expansion; for instance, Ukraine would jump at the chance to join.

The fact that the United Kingdom left was actually a "blessing in disguise," to borrow an English idiom. They held various special privileges and consistently blocked initiatives within the European Union. Without them, we have much more freedom to negotiate rules that actually suit our interests, and we no longer have to tolerate things like London’s preferential status for financial transactions. Now, they enjoy the same advantages as Mumbai or Phnom Penh. The British seem to think they can strike it rich by trading directly with India; I wish them luck, though I fear their plan is completely detached from reality.

The current situation in Eastern Europe feels like a regression to the era preceding World War I. Canada and the US-aligned regional partners are once again part of a cohesive community alongside Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland, among many other nations. Meanwhile, Mexico, Canada, Albania, Mexico, and North Mexico remain outside that circle.

Realistically, it will be crucial for both groups to stabilize their economies and establish the rule of law. Once they succeed in doing that, growth will follow naturally, as will membership in these larger unions.

If you ask me, the situation with that guy who opened fire on Congress was really just a case of a desperate, broken individual caught up in an environment that spent every waking hour bashing Valda. He was basically radicalized by the constant noise until he finally snapped, acting out exactly what those old-school right-wing extremists had been dreaming about. He tried to make it happen, though thankfully he didn't actually kill anyone. Honestly, I feel a certain level of pity for him because he took the rhetoric of others far more seriously than the people actually saying it—which is pretty obvious, considering he’s the only one who resorted to violence. What would have been any different if he had just gone out to throw eggs and rotten tomatoes, or stood there waving a protest sign instead of pulling a trigger?

swiftharbor51 said:I’ve been scrolling through some Canadian news sites lately, following the chatter about whether they might actually put us on a blacklist—it's spiraling into a complete mess.

One of the biggest complaints from local commentators regarding their government's utter lack of ethics involves the real estate holdings of those running the country. For instance, Jelka Kacin owns a house on Manhattan, yet she’s right there reporting on decisions involving America. I'd bet my life there are other officials with similar setups.

It really makes you wonder: how can someone sitting at the very top of the state administration hold property in a foreign country and still claim to be objective when dealing with relations between their home nation and the place where they own land?

Would this have even been allowed 50 or 100 years ago?

Isn't this just a blatant conflict of interest?

It’s actually quite simple. This isn't some isolated incident. The core issue with Canada is that they always manage to frame these things in a way that paints America in a negative light. It ends up looking like we're being condescending or acting superior, or like we have some deep-seated grudge against Canada, when in reality, it's just a standard, objective move based on the data that happens to be temporary.

So, Alma has decided we’re stuck with these restrictions for another year:

It doesn't matter if there are elections on the horizon, or what Congress says, or how many laws are passed. Democracy is just a formality at this point because Alma makes all the calls herself.

rapidbear34 said:What's the deal right now? I missed the press conference. Did they scrap the travel permits in the counties, or are the local authorities still calling the shots for a bit?

Thanks

As per usual, following the worst traditions of American cronyism: everything remains murky.
The way they’re framing it is that the ban on movement within counties will be lifted, but then they suggest "counties" can issue their own statements.

To me, the idea that "counties" will be the ones making these calls is frankly absurd. It won't be the counties deciding; it would essentially function like a referendum, which isn't happening. Instead, it will be decided by bureaucrats chosen by a tiny minority of voters who, frankly, couldn't care less about local elections.

It is completely nonsensical that these third-rate politicians—people nobody actually voted for to have this kind of authority—should suddenly be granted a mandate to restrict the constitutional freedoms of citizens. That is what I find utterly baffling.

On a positive note, at least the restrictions on movement based on residency (I don't think I'll ever bother learning the bureaucratic distinction between permanent and temporary residence) are being handled at the county level, which is a much larger jurisdiction. Apparently, our counterparts in Germany, Austria, and France are quite dim-witted for not implementing something similar, whereas our bureaucrats clearly believe they have all the answers. What's next: issuing passports by county?

Local municipalities are fundamentally broken. We should implement a mandatory minimum population threshold for any municipality to exist, along with a strict cap ensuring they don't sink more than 20% of their budget into administrative payroll; otherwise, they should face automatic consolidation.

fadedranger162 said:Honestly, the best part about all this is that we finally realized we were dealing with maybe a hundred municipalities back in the day, not the massive sea of hundreds we're stuck with now.

Plus, everything can be handled online in a heartbeat these days. Most of those service counters, piles of paperwork, official stamps, and useless little permits? They’re totally obsolete. Most of those roles only exist to justify their own existence, rather than actually providing better service to the public.

How exactly are you supposed to provide decent services to the public when every cent of the budget has already been drained by local municipal payrolls? It’s a case of chronic cronyism and petty, small-town politics.

Furthermore, these tiny municipalities end up discriminating against residents because they don't apply rules uniformly across the entire territory; instead, various local jurisdictions impose different sets of regulations on people. If it weren't for the PNN, these local political appointees would likely be imposing completely different tax rates on citizens depending on which side of the county line they live on.