General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Archangel17
TLDR News EU
comments

Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "TLDR News EU" channel.

Previous
1
Next
...
All

Essentially Le Pen is just going the populist route, while Macron seems to advocate for a more realistic route. Pension age of 65 is pretty common in a lot nations these days. Hell, there in some countries is even talk of upping to 67. And I doubt Le Pen is going to save so much by taking social care away from non-French citizens, so yes, just being fiscally irresponsible. I am interested in seeing how a 1 on 1 debate will go though, I'd expect/hope Macron to bury her and her proposed policies as completely unsustainable, which it clearly seems to be.
169
Something that I found strange is that from 2007 to 2013 Belgium apparently has been a net contributor (and not a small one compared to gni), but this changed from 2014 into a net receiver. Does anyone know why? Did something change in the formula (for example did costs of administration located in Belgium get added to expediture or something)?
168
It seems to me Mariupol might actually be an interesting target. 1) on that map shown there appear to be fewer defenses in that direction. 2) you'd cut off a much larger area that needs to be supplied by that one bridge, putting even more pressure on those forces and potentially more forces out of the fight if you can fully cut the supply lines (destroy/damage the Crimean bridge). 3) Melitopol might be pretty unscaved with how quickly it fell early in the war. Attacking it directly might cause Russia to turn it into a defensive hardpoint, like Ukraine has been doing, likely causing huge destruction to the city and difficulty for Ukraine. A siege is ofcourse possible, but also manpower intensive and time consuming. 4) Driving a wedge there might also directly threaten the Donbas, forcing Russia to divert even more troops there and potentially opening other opportunities in the north like what happened with Kharkiv. Obviously I am not fully aware of the sitation, it might be that logistics will be a problem, or that the defenses are greater than it seems or ... but it might also be more unexpected than the currently discussed options (obviously).
120
@striker8795 So France is the most taxed country in the world according to you, and yet it can't pay for all these benefits? So how are you going to pay for more benefits with a lower taxes? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
91
Turkey has stopped being a real candidate for a decade or so by now. At this moment any "attempt"/move to get Turkey into the EU is for show.
72
I really don't understand the idea of preventing Ukraine joining NATO by essentially threatening an invasion. In fact this likely would do the opposite with Ukraine wanting to join even faster and the West possibly moving towards it more quickly once the dust settles. What is even more Worrying for Russia is that Sweden and Finland now are actually more likely to join NATO than ever before, this after refusing for decades. If they'd join NATO has another way of threatening Russia's second largest city in case of war and could lock down the baltic sea much more strongly.
71
@theodoresmith5272 You are overestimating the US tourist influence on overall european tourism. Will a lot of income be lost? Yes, but compared to the overall tourism industry it will be limited. In this video it is clearly said that around 7 million americans visited the entire EU in the summer last year. Compare this to just France receiving 80 million tourists every year (or spread out over the all the months 20 million in the summer months). Now even if the US makes up 10-15% of European summer tourism, it will not be so bad that it will starve or be pushed to allow US citizens in. Most of EU tourism is still internal tourism. And these kind of safety measures have a lot of support in the EU nations, many people would even have accepted a complete closing of borders (even internally) probably. Oh, and many Europeans would love to see NATO be disbanded in a controlled way, it might even push the EU to form it's own proper united army, maybe even similar to that of the US (federal and national guard). And even without Nato we could still have a regular alliance. The thing is that NATO is a political game and is mostly beneficial for the US to keep pressure and soft power in Europe and to use bases as a staging ground for military actions elsewhere, like the middle east and africa. And European leaders go with it, because it keeps them from having to divert extra resources and attention to a closer military co-operation in the EU itself and moreover they overall don't want to be responsible for souring US-EU relations too much. As for money from military bases, I don't really see how this matters. The host countries in Europe pay around a third of the cost for these bases. Even if the economical outcome afterwards is still positive, we're talking about around a billion dollar at most.
65
Article 7 is more about very harsh sanctions, though if this does get triggered, it means more than enough support to possibly go further. Afterall if all memberstate are willing to activate the nuclear option and this doesn't cause the sanctioned nation to back down, there likely will be enough support to just push them out, existing articles or not.
60
@aniket5993 USSR couldn't defeat Afghanistan either, a guerrila war (especially far from homesoil) is not easily won.
55
@stevenbalekic5683 They talked with French officials hours before the announcement. Regarding something like this, that is blindsiding France.
53
Again the "it would be the occupation of a border, not an invasion of a nato country" stupid reasoning? In order to occupy that border Russia has to invade Poland and/or Lithuania, thus certainly triggering article 5 of NATO. The border isn't a neutral piece of land between the countries, it is just a line on a map, you can't 'occupy a border' without controlling the land on at least one side of it.
51
But at the same time they are pushing Ukraine even more to NATO, keeping Ukraine out of NATO would be done much better by not threatening ukraine in any way.
48
@theodoresmith5272 Oh please, the impact is going to be barely noticable compared to the overall impact of covid. At worst governments will have to give another 20-50 billion in aid to the sector, compared to the hundreds of billions (possibly trillions) that are already spend against or lost due to covid, this is not that much. You are hugely overestimating the impact. Now if this the only thing impacted by covid, yes people might have called it a huge disaster, now the loss of US tourism is just another side cost. And even if the borders wouldn't be closed, for all we know many tourists from the US could still have decided to not travel outside the country this summer due to the financial costs of covid that do not permit them to travel or spend much. So with US tourism to Europe already to have likely take a large hit, it might not really matter that much either way.
43
@Ericnorify With monopolizing it is mostly meant that now a company can create their own charger for their products, and essentially monopolizing that part of the charger market. It also forces 3rd party companies that would make charger to license it from said monopolizing country. Apple is a great example of this, but so is Tesla for example with their charging adapter (though in the EU they were forced to use CCS adapters).
42
So far not a single poll (taking into account the left as a coalition) indicates Macron would lose his plurality, ofcourse it is possible, but would be quite the upset. For now the real question according to the polls is whether he'll get a majority or not, since most indicate a number of seats right above or around the needed seats to get it.
36
dislike for the clikbait title. Macron clearly is talking about just strengthening the outer borders and better security cooperation within Schengen, this doesn't even infer the end of Schengen as we know, rather improving it.
35
@wakey87 I doubt that will happen before the UA would have similar development/wealth as the EU, but in the future, who knows.
34
@PabloTBrave A memberstate doesn't have a vote when it is about sanctions against them obviously. This is the same in every democracy, a party can't vote/take part in preceedings that decide about sanctions against them.
31
@megaangelic What the f*ck are you talking about? It doesn't need to be in the EU to trade with it No, but without a free trade deal the just in time option (which many british industries have when working with european industries/stores) will be all but impossible, trade will definitely take a hit. And being outside the EU allows it to trade more freely than it is allowed to within the EU Maybe once you replace all the trade deals the EU had all over the world. The EU is one of the entities with the most trade deals in the world. allowing its higher standards to be the standard, not the lower EU standards This doesn't make sense at all. The EU standards are high, that is precisely one of the reasons a US-EU free trade agreement is so difficult to achieve. One of the demands the US has for the UK to get a FTA is to lower the standards.
28
@FLPatrick1095 Germany (and its allies) also lost something like 800k there, not exactly something Russia can afford either.
25
@MuzoEph Except NATO doesn't send troops into Ukraine, just material. So it very much still is a Ukraine-Russia war. If it was a NATO-Russia war, the skies above Ukraine would be controlled by NATO, not Russia and you'd see a lot more missiles going towards Russian troops/positions than to Ukrainian positions.
24
@davrosdarlek7058 What the hell are you talking about?
19
@irham191 well, to be fair, Russia (or at least its leadership) gives ample reasons to hold negative sentiments towards Russia. Personnaly I hope that Russia someday might join the EU or at least becomes an allied nation with friendship from both sides. That is just not possible with current Russian leadership. Also I think (though I don't know enough about it), that Russians might be just as much if not more anti western due to for example the propaganda of Russia vs the west, eventhough most of the west couldn't give a shite about Russia in the last 20 years, except for when it was forced to due to Russian actions (like crimea annexation, Ukrainian invasion, Georgia, ....)
17
@MikeS_PP If EU laws and core values can be ignored by just putting the opposite in a national law, the EU can't exist. If a country doesn't like to follow EU laws (in which they have a say), they should leave the EU or try to have the law changed on EU level.
16
Isn't that essentially always the case? That the French president is disliked by a majority of the people? That isn't even really surprising since they often get less than a third of the votes in the first round and then it is about whose worse. Overall Macron even seemed to be doing better than his predecessors.
16
@kieragard Not really a lifeline either. The marshall plan came pretty late, the nations at that moment already were starting to recover on their own, all the marshall plan really did was speed up the recovery by a few years at most.
15
I can give the Ukraine and moldova take, but no way would Russia attack the baltics, Poland or Bulgaria since it would mean war with all of NATO.
15
@ianbirchfield5124 Several of these empires actually lasted a pretty long time and did fairly well, the problem is any empire (and even nation) eventually comes to an end regardless. The oldest nations currently probably exist for a thousand years, having gone through a lot of changes in that time (for example France today vs France 500 years ago or France 1000 years ago, big difference). Some empires (like the Romans, Byzantines, Ottomans, ...) lasted for several hundred years, longer than several large nations today (US +-250 years, modern China +-70-100 years, Russia +-500 years, ...). Now, if we look at why these nations fall, it usually is more due to corruption and internal powerstruggles together with outside pressures then ethnic and cultural differences, these usually started to really cause trouble once the empires already were in decline (essentially when things go great/fine, people don't really care, but when things start to go more difficult/badly, they start to look at reasons and often they use culture and/or ethnicity as a possible solution, even if this is not the best thing to do).
14
@xthor86 like Firch said, when they are rejected the council needs to appoint a new possible person. Thus it isn't like they get to choose just this one. How exactly are cabinet members in the US appointed? Oh that's right, appointed by the president and then confirmed (or rejected) by the senate.
14
I highly doubt their proposals are financially possible. It is easy to make promises, not so easy to implement them. A 60 year retirement age for example is a joke. Countries all around the world are increasing it but France (who already spends more on social expenditures than any other OECD nation) is going to decrease it?
14
@AndrewMcMenemy03 The problem of expansion isn't economics, it is structural. We first need to fix structural problems in/to the EU before adding more nations, which will only make it more difficult to reform with the necessary changes.
14
Several Ukrainian cities (among which Kiev) are very close to the border, Bagdad wasn't. Moreover the coalition forces lost less than 200 troops, Russia already more than 5000 according to reports. So while taking over Iraq took time, it didn't cost so many lives/material in the entire invasion vs just now the first few days of fighting in Ukraine Russia already losing thousands of troops, almost 200 tanks and around 20-30 planes and similar number of heli's. And this while the most difficult parts of the Russian invasion still need to happen: large scale invasion of the larger cities with likely more resistance and afterwards making sure the population accepts a pro-Russian government and doesn't just overthrow it upon Russian troops leaving, making it all for not. Time or ground taken isn't a good measure, that isn't really costly, losing material and manpower is what is costly.
13
Grid storage is expected to be where it needs to be around 2030-2035. Even if we decide today to go nuclear, it will take just as long, if not longer, to get it operational. So both are at best medium term. However by the time grid storage can be implemented in large numbers, we better also already have a large amount of renewables to actually make use of it. So we can either spend the next 10 years planning to build nuclear and then another 10 to construct it, or we could spend the next 10 years increasing renewables and then maybe 5 or so years rolling out storage. Ofcourse this is all too simplistic, there can be a time and place for nuclear too, it just isn't a solution that can be executed faster than renewable+storage.
13
@cvdbdo9471 You can do clickbait without going to far. "will the energy crisis destroy the EU" is a very stupid clickbait.
12
You could have mentioned that France offered Australia nuclear subs, but that Australia instead for various reasons asked for diesel-electric. But they didn't just ask for regular diesel-electric subs, they wanted subs that could be transformed into nuclear subs at a later date if they wanted to do that. Thisprobably meant a complete redesign for the French with unexpected problems/difficulties causing the costs to balloon and several delays, now these costs and delays are used as a reason by Australia to end the contract with France.
11
@rphb5870 Not sure where you get these numbers from. The support to join the Netherlands isn't even in the double digits in most polls and pretty disliked by most (both pro- and anti-independence supporters). It is currently either independence or Belgium for most Flemish. Hell, some polling has found that there are more flemish people in favour of returning to a unitary state than there are in favour of independence. I've met people who want to go back to a unitary state (usually young people), I've met people who want an independent/more autonomous flanders and I have met people who are fine with the status quo (most people weirdly despite the often critique). But I have never met anyone in favour of joining the Netherlands. Pro-independent people see it as just exchanging wallonia for the dutch lands, in which structure Flanders will have even less power than it has now. Pro-belgian people see no reason to split belgium to join the netherlands for different reasons (less power, don't like the dutch enough, like belgium as it is/can be, historical reasons, ...). There isn't really an upside to joining the Dutch except for the shared language which doesn't really matter at all. Further cross border cooperation, now that is overall quite liked by many. And it really sounds like you have little clue about what the EU really entails. The EU has nothing against enlightment ideals (these are even part of the EU treaty), it isn't opposed to christianity (it is non-religious since church and state are seperate or is national sovereignty) and it is definitely not opposed to the people of Europe.
11
Most pension systems in Europe are at risk of serious collapse long term, mostly because they are overall build up on the idea that the workforce is x times larger than the pensioners, which changes with increased expected age and decreased birthrates.
10
@jacobite2353 Isn't the french presidency limited to 2 consecutive turns? Thus Macron can't participate in 2028.
10
@myonline1985 And there are enough stories of people going with these $1000 repair cost items to independent shops and there sometimes paying less than $100 dollar for the repair. It is clearly a standard practice of Apple to force people to buy new items as much as possible.
10
@hiufgterde Except we generally heard the opposite, with Russian recruits having poor equipment (even needing to buy a lot of the basics themselves), with Ukrainians getting better supplied. Likely it will be about even, though if Ukraine get a lot of basic necessaties in regards to equipment from the west, it could be better than old soviets equipment.
10
@mrsam0496 Many analysts said that the muddy ground would harden around may and that it would make more sense for the Ukrainian "spring" offensive to happen in late spring or even summer. Next to that Ukraine might be waiting for more weapon shipments to arrive, more troops to be done training and more intel being gathered + waiting for an opportune moment to strike.
10
@KubiIay Brussel isn't pulling shit. Every power they have is given freely by the memberstates. Maybe some want to give less, but if most don't they'll have to take it up with the other memberstates. The EU power is from the bottom up, not top down. In the US the federal government kept pulling power to them, which led to the secessions and civil war, the EU learnt from that and knows that the better way is to be given power, not take it.
10
That is pretty much the opposite of what the situation is currently.
10
@herculeskoutalidis1369 You again? And again with a pathetic statement. Stop commenting if you don't know about it.
10
@mattayele1906 The war in Afghanistan cost the US around $2.3 trillion, while the entire war on terror apparently $8 trillion. It is ridiculously naive to think the US would spend much much less when they can cripple one of their main rivals (after which only China is a relevant rival). Hell, the US defence budget is around $700-800 billion, using a part of that to support Ukraine would be a much better return on investment than almost any other military investment. The aid currently given to Ukraine is actually still fairly low and overall public support for Ukraine hasn't really gone down much. Moreover now with the falling oil and gas prices, inflation should also lower again. It is very possible that the worst impacts of the Russian invasion are already behind us (for the western economies that is). Important republican leaders also already made clear that support for Ukraine is important and should even be increased or at least delivered faster. That lesser republican members are trying to get some anti-ukrainian/war weariness support isn't necessarily indicative of the general US government plans. Trump never cared about responsible fiscal policies. Sure he might use the 'fiscal responsibility' republican talking points, but under him deficit grew to high levels, despite Obama before him systematically lowering the deficit putting it on a path that should have led to a surplus eventually. In fact the republicans overall have been the most fiscal irresponsible party in the last 40 years. Also European countries systematically are upping their defence budgets, so that isn't a good excuse either (wasn't even one before this).
10
@First Last The US wouldn't pay less into its military if all NATO members spend 2% of GDP, they just want to give a reason for that high spending. If NATO members all spend 2%, they'll just come with a new one (increased threat, global power, ...). The main reason btw why the US wants European nations to spend 2% is because European nations tend to buy a lot from the US defence industry.
10
@luxy9530 No, Germany and France don't control everything, but their power is massive. If you want to oppose them, you need to do it in a coalition of multiple members, even if you have a veto, you aren't going to use it without any support. Moreover the frugal four aren't minor nations. They are the 5th, 7th, 9th and 11th memberstates in terms of GDP. Moreover the dutch were a founding member, which might give an extra bit of influence and they are all net contributors to the EU budget too.
9
It never really was a faint, they just had the means to attack another part of the frontline at the same time and noticed how weak Russian defences were in Kharkiv after Russia reinforcing Kherson, making use of that situation. This could work again, though difficult to say for sure. Russia made some crucial mistakes in Kharkiv, they should have learned from those, though looking at the state of Russian military operations, no one can say for certain.
8
@teaser6089 Problem is that the 22% isn't a unified block, rather quite a lot of diversity. Part of them want an independent Flanders, another part not. Part voted for them out of protest against regular parties and most for some certain specific reasons. You could listen to the overall ideas of the party, but these ideas just are not popular with other parties or if one idea is fine for party x, another of their ideas is inconceivable for that party.
8
@six2make4 Your average person don't care for modern art Exactly, so why the f°ck do you mention this in shared culture. Modern art is the culture of none. Nothing of what you said about culture is unique to the EU or being pushed by the EU, it is more of a general Western trend. The EU mostly doesn't engage in cultural affairs, or if it does it is usually to support cultural things with funding. Honestly the US doesn't have one unified culture either, they have a unifiyng thread for sure, but if you start comparing New York, California, Florida, Missisipi, Mexico, Nebraska, ... you'll find quite some differences between them too. No unified or reliant military power. Most of EU members rely on the US for military protection due to low spending and no real unified command except for NATO which is none EU specific The reason there isn't a unified EU military is because it is controversial, especially if you don't have an efficient EU government to actually lead it yet. However NATO countries have agreed to spend at least 2% of gdp annually by 2024 and it isn't like the EU isn't strong either, all in all they are even now the 3rd biggest military spender in the world and if they all reach 2%, it could become the 2nd behind the US. The division does make the EU military weaker than is can be, therefor it most likely will eventually form one unified structure eventually. And there are already programs for closer EU military cooperation, which overtime are being expanded. Weak borders: By not setting a proper border a massive strain is put on the "border regions" There is/was no real EU outer border program, because this was a demand from members, they wanted to keep control over these outer borders. Since the 2015 crisis, the EU has been strengthening Frontex to aid the border nations when asked for help. *Foreign focus By prioritizing foreign investments and not incentivizing "local" growth it will eventually make people question what the point of such a union is if they can get better deals outside, this is further exacerbated by point one.* Are you here refering to the EU budget? If so, this in nothing different than is already being done in countries overall. Nothing you mentioned here proved the EU won't last, all it showed is that the EU is still in its early stages, between an international organisation and a federal state, which is nothing new, everyone with a bit of knowledge about the EU knows this. The EU is slowly moving towards further integration.
8

Previous
1
Next
...
All