Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@marycaine8874 There has not been the dire consequences forecast by the doomsayers on the remain side
Have you actually looked at the trade figures?
Actually, support for Brexit has has jumped to 70%
Can you give me a polling source for that? Yougov polling has had it "brexit bad" ahead untill april, where "brexit good" just beat out the "bad" option. It is nowhere near 70%.
Besides, at this moment there still are some transition plans active and covid helped hide any brexit impact. It is way too early to see what the impacts are.
Five million EU citizens have recently applied to stay in the UK post-Brexit.
And? This was already planned from the start, which is why this application scheme was set up. If EU citizens left the UK, it would hit some crucial sectors hard (like healthcare). And this is btw also something the EU fought for, to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who live in the UK and the capability for them to remain in the UK if they prefer.
Besides, membership cannot be said to be voluntary when the bloc tries to make difficult the life of any member state wishing to extricate itself.
The bloc just negotiates the best deal for itself and its citizens, just like the UK did too. This isn't something that was unforseen (at least not by anyone with a brain).
Is that the yarn that the Eurocrats have cooked up: it was all Greece's fault?
Not only obviously, but yes the Greek government lying about their financial situation and mismanagment of funds really was the main factor. Ofcourse one of the reasons they could mismanage it so severely was because they could loan at low rate due to international trust in the euro. There really should have been more checks in regard to euro members spending and lending, which has actually since the greek/eurozone crisis been introduced/strengthened.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@LeadLeftLeon
exactly. The accounts I've heard from western "volunteers" fighting for Ukraine have not mentioned anything about either side losing catastrophically.
Because they overall won't be deployed where these success are achieved. The number of western volunteers is still very small compared to the overall total involved amount of troops.
Russia has firepower superiority and escalation dominance.
Yes, and it had it since the beginning of the war, since then it's share of firepower superiority has only shrunk while gaining very little land and losing a lot more itself. Russian firepower superiority is only set to dwindle, while tht of Ukraine is likely to remain steady or even to grow.
their manufacturing is made for war
This might have been the case for the USSR, not entirely certain this is still the case for Russia now. In any case it can't produce any highly technological equipment anymore or only in small batches/low reliability. So at best it has a good production capacity of regular 'old type' dumb shells, which are only usefull in large quantity, and here come logistics and Ukrainian long range HIMARS attacks on supply depots in play.
I'm banking on Russia winning this by demilitarizing Ukraine. If Russia wins
There is no indication whatsoever currently speaking in favour of Russia winning. The seemingly best outcome they can achieve currently is a stalemate, and more likely a prolonged war of attrition will see Ukraine win, they have the morale as the defender, they can 'afford' taking high casualties, Russia can't even just from an internal unrest point of view. Furthermore Russia has been losing military equipment at a faster rate than the Ukrainians since the beginning of the war.
You know Russia now controls Ukraine's industrial heartland.
Even if that is the case, it doesn't really matter. Ukraine now is fully focused on waging war anyway and this is where their manpower is needed, not in factories. The West still is more than capable to produce what Ukraine needs, certainly more than Ukraine could ever produce themselves in that industrial heartland.
That 20% of Ukraine that has gone back to Russian leadership is where 80% of Ukraine's natural resources are
Again irrelevant. Ukraine wouldn't have the manpower to mine it and Russia also can't afford to try and extract it as long as the war goes on, that is even if they had need or money for it.
Western nations are still buying Russian resources on the down low.
A fraction of what is was before the war and soon regulation comes into play limiting this even further.
Ukraine's best trained guys have been dropped.
So have Russia's by all accounts. In fact currently it is expected that the average Ukrainian soldiers is better trained and equiped than the average Russian combatant.
Ukraine is currently sending guys to Britain for 5 weeks of training to replenish their casualties.
They are doing this because they can. Why not send troops you don't immediately on the frontline to get better training and be more usefull later on?
It takes 6 months to make a combat ready soldier.
The same can be said about the Russian mobilised conscripts, yet a lot of reports indicate that plenty of those already have been send to frontline instead of getting proper training. If anything it is Russia suffering from manpower shortage due to the limitation of not being at full mobilisation.
West deindustrialized long ago
The west indeed partially deindustrialized in the recent past, this however doesn't mean it doesn't have industry left and it sure as hell beats out Russia. Russia isn't even in the top 10 most industrial countries in the world, however 5 of the western countries supporting Ukraine are, making up 28% of the total global manufacturing. The idea that Russia is a powerfull industrial juggernaut is outdated for a long time now. And besides this the west has more funds to buy things from other industrial nations if need be.
and is running out of sht to send over to Ukraine
Just because it isn't constantly in the news doesn't mean it is running out or not improving its own production. Russia also doesn't share its numbers and for good reasons.
Western leaders are worried they won't be able to replenish Ukraine at the current rate.
Ofcourse they are, just like they were worried about weathering covid, just like they were in WW1 shells production, ... They often are worried, and yet in the end they find ways to prevent the worst outcomes. Don't expect the West to just let its shells supply run out.
On conducting a special military operation had the stated aim of demilitarizing Ukraine.
And yet they are further from this goal than before the invasion.
Ukraine exchanges lives for land to make headlines and continue getting support.
Russia even more. For Ukraine a stalemate already is a victory against Russia, for Russia a stalemate is bad news.
Land can be retaken, lives cannot.
Good advice for Russia, though in there case both lives and land being lost seems to be the problem.
no one has been educated on what Russia has recently gained with its annexations. Consider what Russia has gained. Why is that land valuable
As of now, nothing. It can't develop or properly use this land as long as there is an active conflict raging in the region and much of the infrastructure is damaged at any rate.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Intreductor Renewables are the cheapest new production method currently. However they were expensive when Germany started the energiewende. And ofcourse there is the problem of intermittency and with storage it is more expensive. However cheaper gridstorage is coming, it just needs some time to get here, just like what was the case with renewables and EV's.
Bjorn Lomborg's book is nothing to take account of. Essentially he is saying the opposite of what almost the entire scientific community says about the urgency and possible consequence of climate change. I won't trust him over peole who actually studies and did research on it their entire lives. His main message seems to be to follow a market driven solution with only slight government intervention, this didn't work that well in the past and won't work well now. Besides, renewables are market driven, the governments just aided in increasing the adoption speed. Instead of it taking decades, it now takes years. If we followed his approach, gas and coal powerplants would still be the go to thing for the next several decades.
Patrick Boyles video just said that prices will be higher. That is true at this moment. Every transition is expensive and often costs more than status quo initially. However this doesn't take into account the costs of the status quo in the long term, ie. the cost of climate change, which can be several magnitudes higher. Also the current increase is mostly due to the shortage of natural gas and coal, not the energy transition in general. Where there the same shortages 10 years ago, the price would also have shot up like it did now.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
@Destereir I am Belgian myself and seeing that we (based on GNI) were the 2nd largest net contributor between 2007-2013, I can only guess that in 2014 some tallying changed. Our yearly contribution didn't go down, so it must be that a lot more was spend here, maybe investments in EU adminstration buildings or some other things that cost a lot of money?
I think I just found it, in 2014 €4,7 billion from the 7 billion expenses in our country were administrative, so probably for some reason administrative costs went up or formerly non counted costs got counted, causing a massive increase.
If we discount all administrative costs in all countries, Belgium becomes the 6th net contributor gross and the same when divided by the GNI of the countries. This makes a lot more sense.
And as for splitting, don't get your hopes up, there is no popular support, only around 15% of Flanders want to actually split up, for comparison according to polls an around equal amount want to move back to a unitary system.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4