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

  1.  @sfp2290  The leaders "I" elect, should not have any say in how the peoples of southern, eastern or western europe lives. But the people you elect now have a say in the lifes of people in other parts of Denmark, so in the end you get the same result: your vote influences what happens elsewhere. But it does also mean, that even if all Danes voted for the same party, it would still amount to about a tenth of the strength the Germans would represent in the EU. Yes, but people don't vote in the EU based on nationality, they vote based on ideology. People from a town in Denmark also don't have the same voting strength as a large city. This is universal. If this is something you have a problem with, you'd need to reduce the politics to a "city block" level. It doesn't really matter if you scale this up. Now what could be different is regional concerns. For example many people in Denmark might feel x about Z and in Italy most people feel y about Z. This can be a problem, however this also can exist in a small nation, my country Belgium is a good example of that. That is why there would be a senate where the senators are voted based on equal sized district. A north German district might have similar concerns as a Danish district and completely different concerns than a south German district. Eventually on the European level it would be Germans/Danes/... it would for parliament: left, right, center, ... and for the senate: north, south, east, west, center, ... And for parliament I'd just have a general European list or otherwise few very large lists, not nation by nation. Then there's the whole issue with the media. Most Danes doesn't know even the most basic things of how the EU works. EU media networks would come into existence and the way the EU works would be learned in School, similarly to how it is done now for your national government. I also wouldn't be surprised if there comes a univeral "EU" language that will be adopted in all nations as a second/third language. I'd bet it would be English. And EU wide media would just use that (as well as EU politicians when outside their nation). Add to that, that most people (at least in Denmark) vote for the same parties in the EU election that they do on a national level, despite not knowing what parties the representatives they vote on are a part of in the EU and what they stances on different EU matters are. That is just a problem with the current system. With a better new political and election system that would change. Personally, I believe people who speak of the EU, myself included to a large degree, judge the EU and its' worth based on the idea they have of it and not based on knowledge of how it actually works and what decisions are made. Indeed. I can agree with your sentiment in terms of how the system is operating now. I do expect this to eventually change. A federalised EU can't function with the current system. Also sorry for the long comment :p
    4
  2. 4
  3. 4
  4. 4
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10.  @bjrnhjortshjandersen1286  I'd like to have an EU army and in that case NATO could be replaced by a just a regular defensive alliance, though it would come down to more or less the same. Even if NATO seizes to exist, I don't really care, but there certainly need to be a united EU army before that time imo. As for the need of a credible enemy for a defensive association, I completely disagree. A defensive alliance doesn't really need a clear enemy, it is usefull eitherway. It will diminish the chance of conflicts between members (due to the other members wanting a peacefull resolution) and it defends all members against any attack, whether it comes from a clear enemy or not. A defensive alliance in of itself can never hurt, it just can't be turned into a more offensive one. And NATO definitely isn't likely to transform to an offensive one, too many members are against that. Sure some members might cooperate regarding offensive actions, but that happens regardless of NATO. The only time NATO can be seen as an offensive alliance was Afghanistan, but this was in response to the 9/11 attacks, so it can still be considered a defensive action (though due to the more borderline nature of that situation several members only contributed the bare minimum/no combat troops). Russia overall definitely doesn't need to fear more from the west. Its entire history is one of constant expansion since it conception, ofcourse this sometimes will cause an invasion/war at some point by another power. Even during WW2 there are credible sources that indicate Stalin hoped that the European powers would bleed themselves dry in a war between them, so that then the USSR could invade and easily take over European lands, the Nazi German invasion just came +-2 years too early. At this moment no one really wants a conflict with Russia and definitely doesn't want to invade it. Russia doesn't have anything to fear from Europe or the US unless they themselves make the first move. Russia's problem is it is stuck in a 'war is necessary to grow power' hard power mentality, while Europe is more looking to the economy and soft power. The more powerfull EU countries rather want peace and good relations with Russia and the US focus has shifted to China and the South China Sea. If NATO is a threat to Russia, it is all due to Russia's own doing (more specifically their leadership). This is really shown by the Ukrainian situation. There was really not a movement of Ukraine joining NATO, at best just speculative discussions. By now acting as if Ukraine would join NATO soon, Russia likely has just sped up its future ascension and even made other neutral countries (ie. Sweden and Finland) move closer to joining NATO than ever before.
    4
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17.  @jg9585  which have unanimously and consistently underestimated the left's results for at least ten years Have they though? In 2012 and 2017 presidential elections the polls were pretty much dead on and this year it was within the margin of error of 3% (when looking at the entire left). In 2012 the polling in the legislative elections the seats and votes for the left were also pretty much dead on. In 2017 it was quite a bit off, but not just for the left, also for the right. It seems the polls overexaggerated the succes of the new LREM party back then. I'd assume with the experiences of 2017, this time the legislative polling might be a bit improved to more match the 2012 accuracy, but that is something we'll have to see within a few days. french polling institute have explained that their formulas exclude electors who are uncertain for whom to vote or whether they will vote. Except I am looking at the results of several different polling agencies, often with different techniques. But I guess we'll find out how accurate they were this time. At the same time the left has been increasingly focusing their campaigns in the areas where participation has been low for a while, so I'd say there is a distinct possibility for an offset of the current power balance and so of polls. Polling should normally look at all of the population, so if more people intend to vote compared to the other times, then this should already be reflected in the polls. Again might depend on the different techniques used. What the current polls show is that possibly the left coalition might get a plurality of the vote, but not even close to a pluraility of the seats, which could indicate the left being very strong in some departments, but overall speaking less strong than some other parties (like Ensemble). In the % of the votes, there constantly is a switch of who gets the plurality, but there never is a switch in the number of seats, there it doesn't seem to even be close.
    4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 3
  21.  @LeadLeftLeon  sanctions have been ineffective. And yet trade is well down and Russia have a clear lack of many more advanced items. But sure no sanctions are 100% effective. Or if that isn't an option, they brute force it via buying Russian from a reseller and pay a middleman markup. If this happens too much, sanctions will get extended to countries/bussiness' that act as middleman trying to skirt the sanctions. Russia offered Ukraine quite generous terms 2 or 3 months into this conflict. Unless it contained withdrawal from all Ukrainiain territories (save maybe Crimea) and payment for damages caused by this invasion, it definitely isn't generous, not even a neutral offer. Legend has it Zelensky was ready to accept the deal. Then UK prime minister Boris Johnson paid him a visit on the behalf of the US. You say is well: "LEGEND", I've never seen or heard any indication that Zelensky was interested in peace deal. In fact in the last few months it are the western nations pushing Zelensky back to the negotiation table. I think this ends with Ukraine being carved up. Russia will have to win first, and there is nothing indicating to this at all. In fact the invasion is already seen by near everyone as an abject failure. Western Ukraine will be occupied by the Poles as NATO peacekeepers. Shows even more that you live in a fantasy world. Question is how would this diminished Ukraine repay the US for all of the lend-lease it has been receiving. Don't you worry, Western nations will just give the 300 billion assets of Russia now frozen by the west to Ukraine, unless Russia agrees to a complete withdrawal (and even then) Quite the mental gymnastics. I give you award for wasting so much words to say nothing. Are you responding to your own arguments? Must be if you state something like this, considering your arguments are the only one in this thread it can relate to.
    3
  22.  @LeadLeftLeon  Russia's current account surplus is bigger than ever. it was bigger than ever, only to then nosedive as the price of gas and oil went down and exports decreased recently. Russian exports are going strong. I wouldn't exactly say lowering by 5% going strong. Moreover supply lines aren't easily cut, Europe has only just begun moving away from Russian gas and oil, before now they still needed it to fill their storage and to have time to get into other supply options (like LNG). This won't be the case for much longer. Sanctions always are a long term game, not a short term one. Moreover it is more about the imports of crucial goods. Overall imports were down almost 10% for Russia. Then you have the -4% economy 'growth' of Russia, which are official numbers from the Russian government, it isn't unlikely they upped the numbers a bit to paint a more 'positive' picture. US vassal Europe is having its economy crushed because sanctions backfired. US vassal 🤣. And its economies crushed? If that it is the case the Russian economy got destroyed, considering its inflation and growth rate was significantly worse, even by Russian numbers. US thought it could engineer regime change in Russia with sanctions. No one expected any regime change with these sanctions, at least not in the first few years. IF the West is pushing Zelensky back to the negotiating table, they have accepted Ukraine is losing. No, just that negotiations still need to happen. No one likes this war and if it can be over sooner by negotiations, that is the best outcome. However they aren't pushing Zelensky to make peace at all costs, in fact they reiterated they'd keep supporting Ukraine. They know Ukraine won't accept any peace treaty if it doesn't at least include the return of all occupied territories (save maybe Crimea). The West will just GIVE 300 billion frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. Where'd you pull this one from? Out your azz? Logic dictates compensation for the damages caused by Russia in Ukraine. This also happened in the past. Ofcourse this best gets legalised in peace treaty ofcourse, but it Russia refuses, the west likely will just give it to Ukraine. You seriously think Russia will ever see these assets returned? Maybe after the regime change which promises war reparations to Ukraine, though these most likely will be similar or higher to these seized assets. This long distance makes Ukraine's weapons vulnerable as they're being destroyed by Russia. And yet this doesn't happen, and do you know why? Because Russia doesn't have that capability without full control of the airspace, which it hasn't. To make matters worse the US is low on supplies and recently had to go shopping in South Korea to find shells for Ukraine. This kind of shopping isn't anything new. It also doesn't mean the US is running out of supplies either, could for example be to grow their supplies or increase shipments to Ukraine. The US will never let its stockpiles run out, if they get anywhere near this point they'd invest massively into quickly upgrading its production capacity. Even a fraction of what they did during WW2 would be plentifull. Meanwhile Russia is supplying itself Clearly, if you ignore that they need to turn to Iran and NK to buy military equipment 🤣 Russia doesn't have the military industry anymore it once had, large stockpiles, yes. But these are meant to last long enough for production to increase to war production levels, but that isn't possible without a full mobilization and war economy. As it stand Russia is emptying its stockpiles. and can get weapons onto the battlefield faster to maintain its firepower superiority. And yet logistics are one of the key problems Russia so far has faced in Ukraine and it firepower superiority has only decreased in the past few months because they couldn't keep up with logistics after Ukraine started using HIMARS to destroy their logistic hubs. 20,000 Russian shells fired for every 7,000 from Ukraine. Pityfull display from Russia. They are supposed to be the 2nd strongest military power in the world and only outmatch Ukraine, that had no real military to speak off 8 years ago, 3 to 1. If this is the rate Russia can maintain, it would get dwarfed in a war with the west, who'd immediately amp up production of shells beyond that level. The US & the West do not have infinite weapons to send to Ukraine. No, but they have bigger economies and industries that Russia, so can sustain a war of attrition much longer. Over 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers dead already stated by EU's Ursula von der Leyen. Casualties, meaning killed and wounded. The estimates for Russian casualties are of a similar size. Ukraine is being demilitarized. You have a weird interpretation of demilitarisation. A country that has only grown in military strength holding off the supposedly 2nd strongest military in the world for months and having pushed it back on several occasions when the expectations were it would fall in weeks, equals being demilitarised 🤔🤣 Demilitarization happens by destroying all of their weapons or/and annihilating the Armed Forces of Ukraine. By that definition Russia is getting demilitarized even faster. It has lost more military equipment than Ukraine while it can't replace it with new equipment at even a fraction of the destruction rate vs Ukraine who has only seen its military equipment grown thanks to western nations sending military systems Ukraine couldn't even hope to get their hands on before (both due to cost and politics). And in terms of manpower Ukraine and Russia are losing more or less equal amounts. But hey, I guess we'll find out in the end who was right.
    3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3