Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dnw009 Le Pen rises because she promises much, mostly things she won't be able to do without just passing the bill onto future taxpayers. Macron could also do that, but he realizes that 1) he already has governed, so people would ask why didn't do it before and 2) if you don't keep your promise afterwards you get a lot of problems (like protests, you and your party losing a lot of support, ...).
That is the thing with fake/'ignorant' populists, they promise much, get support because of it, get elected and then after a while without being able to fullfill those promises, they lose support, just look at the 5 star movement and Lega in Italy, they both got +-33% support at their peak of the last 4 year and are now 15% and 20% in the polls respectively.
Governing isn't easy, and keeping big promises is even more difficult
1
-
@corradomancini3271 Populism in of itself isn't bad, however you have many kinds.
Fake populists: those who know they'll never be able or willing to fulfil the promises they make
Stupid populists: those who don't realize they'll never be able to fulfil the promises they make
Opportunistic/shortsighted populists: those whe promises much and might actually do it if they have the ability (ie. full control of the government), but doing it in such a way that the people will pay for it in the future, and most likely the same kind of people who he 'helped' with executing these promises.
And then ofcourse the real populists, who fulfil their promises in the best way for their voters/the people.
Le Pen seems to be either a fake, stupid or opportunistic. I can't she here being stupid honestly, so it is mostly one of the other.
Macron seems to try to act like a realist, but that is never popular if things aren't already good.
France is in urgent need of reforms, but the way in which they are needed are absolutely unpopular, so Le Pen will never mention them, even if she'd eventually (have to) try to institute them. Macron has no real choice, he needs to act the realist because people wouldn't accept that he wasn't able to fulfil populist promises before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@borisnoone
The EU recently asked Qatar to up their LNG production and were told they can't meet their demand.
In the short term most likely. If the EU creates a long term contract with Qatar, investment likely can be made to increase the LNG production in the next few months/years. I am not talking about short term, but long term ie. 5-15 years.
I am very well aware of the nuclear situation, and I am not per se in favor of nuclear due to the time to build and the cost, however if Russia keeps playing games, it might lead to higher investment in nuclear. And yes the recent reactors took a lot of time and cost. EDF gave a cost estimate to the French government regarding new similar reactors for a much lower (though still not really cheap, more average like coal-gas) price. If EU nations are more determined to go all in (like France in the 70's-80's), we might see things go a lot faster in the next 15 years and this might somewhat drive the costs down too. Greatest problem really is political, which might be somewhat abated by recent events.
Russia and China aren't the only ones, Korea recently also build new plants, so if push comes to shove and EDF (or other European companies) can't deliver, maybe a Korean company can.
1
-
@borisnoone
Yep, such overly optimistic forecast will certainly keep them dreamy Europeans warm during long cold winter nights for the next 10-15 years.
Now you're just overly dramatic. If need be, the EU will just overbid other nations to get gas from elsewhere, at best there would be just one cold winter and even then, nothing clothes and blankets can't fix. At worst you'd get some gas rations (highly unlikely), not completely collapse.
It isn't like I expect no gas during the 10-15 years of the energy transition, just a bit more expensive.
And gas prices will likely spike for everyone worldwide, likely causing a general recession, and Russia would be pointed at for it. While Europe just needs to pay a bit more for gas from elsewhere and quickly roll out some more LNG infrastructure (maybe immediately designed to afterwards be used for hydrogen), Russia would lose more than 20% of their GDP. Maybe Russia would supply China more cheap gas as a consequence, but this would help alleviate the world gas market too anyway, since China would buy less from other countries that then would supply the EU.
1
-
Thorium shows promise, but we need to be carefull as to not be too optimistic about it. Early on early generation nuclear powerplants were also hailed as the end solution and a way to get real cheap energy, now it is one of the most expensive forms of producing electricity.
Eitherway the true potential and cost of thorium will probably not be known for at least 10-15 years, so by the time it might become mainstream we already are +-20 years further. There is at this moment not a single thorium reactors operational and past reactors have often been shutdown due to cost, mechanical problems, etc or found large problems when shutting after having run it for a few years. I certainly hope thorium fullfills its promises/hopes, but we'll still have to see.
As for ITER, while it costs a lot and takes a long time, this is the entire thing with research and development. But the possible pay off is huge. It might never work and then at least we know this, but if we can use it to eventually reach commercial fusion reactors, it will be an important step.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johsenior1535 You do realise imposing a no fly zone would require attacking military installations on Russian soil, right? Also sending in western troops is a clear large scale escalation of the conflict.
Putin will not just be ousted by Russia being humiliated a bit. First off his government controls the narrative in Russia, so any humiliation will be severely downplayed or covered up within Russia. Any kind of humiliation that can't be covered up/spun around would require a clear escalation that Putin then also will use as an excuse to escalate things in Russia, by for example starting a mass mobilisation and moving to a war economy, potentially even executing small scale nuclear strikes on ukranian military positions.
If Putin isn't already looking for a decent way out, no well formulated ultimatum is going to change this. If Putin already is searching for a way out, you don't use an ultimatum, but negotiations.
At this point putin is clearly looking for an exit out of the conflict.
Not really seeing that yet tbh.
Im sure putin would see losing to ukraine more shameful, than being forced to retreat by the whole Nato bloc.
Except if he backs down to NATO, his whole image is gone, he'll be seen as weak and his days in power are numbered. He either has to win or reach a compromise (which should entail keeping Crimea and some arrangement in regards to Donetsk and Luhansk), that or he is done likely done for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ianbirchfield5124 Corruption is existing in European nations (and essentially all nations) already anyways, that isn't going to change. You'll almost never have a nation without corruption, the rate of corruption matters, which in Europe is kept well in hand.
multicultural states don't collapse usually because the complaining minority is conveniently ignored.
Except many of these empires didn't have a majority culture, often these empires practiced a rather tolerant policy towards the different culture groups in their empire, understanding that that is the best way to keep the empire together.
just look at northern ireland; they never wanted to leave the EU, but because they have barely any representation in the UK gouverment they're along for the ride anyway. same goes for Scotland, btw.
The UK has one gigantic cultural majority: the English. The EU however does not. If we look at it based on languages, you get: German 20%, Italian 15%, French 14%, Spanish 9%, Polish 9%, Romanian 6%, Dutch 5%, ... If the UK were still in it, it would have been even more divided (probably with German around 15%). For comparison in the UK you have 84% English, 8% Scottish, 5% Welsh and 3% NI.
So the dynamic is completely different.
if europe unites into a single nation ruled by a single gouvernment, i doubt it will be voluntary
The EU literally has every memberstate ascending by choice and has a provision to allow members to leave. Ofcourse some members might put pressure on other members to accept further integration (be it by flexing their influence or just holding a vote with a majority in favor), however the members truly opposed can leave (or stop it if they can get a majority coalition) and form their own new EU/block based on their vision.
Belgium
Problem in Belgium is more historically (as in problems in the past that are now no longer relevant) and recently more just a anti-establishment mentality causing people to vote more for extreme parties (like Flemish nationalists). There actually is a large part of Belgium voters that wants to go back to a unitary state, more then people who want independence/more power to the regions in fact, there just isn't really a large obvious party for it.
The culture isn't really that big of a problem, the politics in general is. In fact me as a Flemish brabander has more in common with a walloon brabander than with for example a Limburger or a west flaming, with the only exception being the language, but in the EU you'll likely get a more universal second/third language, in fact this is already slowly happening with English naturally, so language will be less of an issue as time goes on.
1
-
1
-
@michaelwalsh1278 Clearly you don't know much of how people think of the EU, due to the brexit support for the EU grew. Everyone here agrees that the EU didn't negotiate in bad faith, rather that they protected the interests of the EU, as they should. The US wouldn't have done differently if they were in the EU position. For some reason people (in the UK and outside the EU) expected the EU to be softer on the UK than it is on other nations, that was stupid, the UK has become a 3rd nation like any other. Experts both from the UK and the EU warned that the negotiations wouldn't be as easy as brexiteers said it would be.
Furthermore most of the problems during the negotiations were due to the UK, which was unprepared, with little experienced negotiators, while the EU had many experienced negotiators and more importantly the UK couldn't even get their act in parliament right. It was always said well in advance that the four EU pillars could not be seperated, getting one would mean getting the others and cherry picking wouldn't happen. The UK didn't want several so they couldn't get any. In the end a choice between doing what it s good for the UK, but threatening the single markets integrity and the opposite is a no brainer.
The EU isn't as unpopular as you think it is. There are no indications at this moment that the EU will go down in the next few years. Can it happen? Ofcourse, but it is not as likely as you think. People have been saying the EU is going down in the next few years for decades, it is still here, and stronger than it was in the past.
It has come to the point where most eurosceptic parties that talked about leaving the EU have changed their tone to just reforming it, because they know how unpopular leaving the EU actually is.
1
-
1
-
@snowcold5932
This time, since Macron is deeply unpopular and got elected by default against Le Pen for a 2nd time
I disagree with this statement. Macron received more votes in the first round this time than in 2017. Now he might have become more impopular with those who already didn't really support him, but his core base definitely hasn't shrunk since last time it seems. In a second round he was almost always expected to win unless his opponent was too much like him. If Melenchon made it to the second round, the right likely would have voted for Macron, against Le Pen a large part of the left likely voted for him. Macron had the advantage of being in the center, the 'least worst' candidate in most 2nd round scenario's.
Though in the legislative elections his party did receive more votes than he did in the first round in 2017, possibly due to local representatives and it is this advantage his party seems to have lost, though despite this the polling does predict that the loss in number of seats wouldn't be too bad, most likely because if a candidate of Ensemble makes it to the 2nd round, that candidate also gets the 'centrist advantage' bonus.
I'd say these elections might be interesting, it could swing either way, but a full on majority for the left is going to be incredibly difficult considering polls still suggest a (smaller) majority of Macron's party in seats even after this left coalition was already formed.
I'd expect that the best this coalition causes is that no single party gets a majority and thus a coalition will have to be formed. But likely one between Ensemble and Republican if it is possible.
1
-
@mtk77621 The left gained around 1.05 million more votes in total, so even if these were all Macron voters, it isn't really that much. It really is the far-right that gained a lot of support with 2.64 million more votes compared to 2017.
I don't think Les republicains voters mostly inflated Macron, more like the far-right, that or voters from Macron/the left went to the far right.
Yes, the right that Macron and republicains has shrunk a bit, by about 4 million votes, again mostly to the benefit of the far right, not the left.
But so yes, Macron likely has gained from Republicains fall, but he definitely hasn't been the biggest winner there and he definitely didn't lose too much of his 2017 support to the left.
If you look at Macron's approval ratings, they currently are around as high as a few years ago right after his 'inaugural honeymoon' was up. The main difference is maybe that his dissaproval ratings are higher than back then, but for a sitting French president his numbers aren't bad. I don't think any french president will come better out of their term compared to the start.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ludovicartu4239 Most polls were around 4-4,5% off, not 5,5%, considering the margin of error which is usually around 3%, that isn't that far out of bounds, especially not considering some left wing voters might have decided to do some strategical voting, all other left wing candidates afterall slightly underperformed their expected results. If we add up the underperformance of the other left candidate you get around 1,6% or the amount outside the margin of error.
You'd need more than double that (4,5%) mistake to turn things around for the polls in the second round. That is a huge difference. And the outcome of the second round polls make more sense than the opposite all things considered. All you have to support your theory is your own opinion that is much less to go on. And remember Macron overperformed his second round polls too.
What you also seem to fail to take into account is that Melenchon has slightly lower approval ratings than Macron (and the same as Le Pen, interestingly around the amount that voted for Le Pen, 43% approval vs 41,5% of the vote), that again would be a thing in favour of Macron. Some other ratings put his approval similar to Macron, but at a lower amount: 35% vs 34%. Though to be fair, I can't really find many approval pollings about him, so maybe there are some that put Melenchon higher.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fresh Turkey
domestic attacks that already existed does not justify more imported attacks from abroad
That doesn't make sense, these attacks both cost lives and are both fought the same way by the same security organisations. Like I said, terrorists can be homegrown (even people whose ancestors lived here can radicalize) as well as get in even with a strong border control. Europe has had a lot of immigration for decades due to the colonial history, yet the attacks increased only in the last few years due to geopolitical circumstances (isis, middle eastern instability, Libya, ...), plenty of Europeans went to go fight in Syria on the side of ISIS, when they legally return they can also execute attacks.
It is stupid to keep claiming it are "imported" attacks, they would just keep happening, since many terrorists are/were actually already in Europe, either having come here as a child or even born here.
And German And Swedish unilaterally taking mass is not sustainable.
Germany took it upon themselves to take so many refugees after the outer border failed to the point that the border countries were just ferrying the refugees through, their policy was not the cause of the refugee crisis. Sweden had a rather "weak" system, but they too already changed that.
Either way this exactly shows why you'd need a unified policy and reaction to these sorth of things.
They would rather the control to be in their own hands and I believe that is the correct way to go.
Which is exactly why the border failed, the border countries (Italy, Greece, Hungary) couldn't take or wanted to take the refugee streams on, and thus just started letting them through to the rest of the EU.
And the deportation is extremely inefficient and delayed.
Again which is why you need a unified system. Part of why deportations are so difficult is because every country for themselves need to check if people can safely be returned to land of origin, make sure refused asylumseekers don't go into hiding and need to make deals with countries of origin. Do this as the EU and you'd need one deal per country and have more negotiating power, can more efficiently plan return trips and can keep better track of denied asylumseekers through all of the EU.
They were incentified by the "liberal" logic of if you stay long enough or some what grew up here you should be granted citizenship.
Honestly I haven't heard this outside of US politics regarding dreamers. I am sure there are some who think and argue this way, but most (at both sides) are usually just criticizing the time it takes for a procedure to end and deportations to happen. I haven't yet heard people/politicians argue to give citizenship to people who have been in the EU illegally for a long time. But if you have examples I'd be willing to inform myself more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What should also be mentioned is that it isn't yet clear whether people who have had covid-19 also have longterm immunity. For all we know now they could only have immunity for a few weeks/months. There are already people who have had covid-19 early on, but don't have significant immunity markers at this moment.
So the idea of immunity might work, but it isn't a certainty. Even if 50% is infected, if there is not longterm immunity, this is basically worthless.
And ofcourse Sweden's strategy can't work everywhere. Just look at Spain, Italy and other countries for example, they already suffered such a high toll, imagine if they followed Sweden's strategy. It seems Sweden is in a rather "lucky" position in terms of population density, social distancing, pre-covid behaviour, ...
1
-
@hiufgterde
Russia is of the biggest arms manufacturers in the world
This is complete bullshit, Russia isn't even in picture in this regard. Maybe in the soviet era, yes. The US arms manufacturer is around 3 times bigger and while Russia is 2nd, France and Germany together already equal it. There is only 1 Russian company in the top 15 arms companies, and it is at the bottom of the list.
but somehow we say they only have old crap
Yep, because Russia hasn't really been creating "new" stockpiles of modern equipment, mostly keeping their old soviet stockpiles. So if they want to quickly equip many new units, they need to grab that older equipment. The current Russian arms industry is focused on export and limited modernisation, while for example the US is mainly focused on keeping it military modern and exports are just an extra addition.
They watched NATO sending in weapons to Ukraine for 8 years.
NATO barely send any weapons before 2022. Only Lithuania send military equipment to Ukraine in that timeframe. That is one of the main miscalculations of Russia, they didn't expect that NATO nations would react so unified in coming to Ukraine's aid after the 2022 invasion.
Russia never starts a war it cannot win
Except they have in the past.
and they knew they'd also be fighting NATO.
Not at all, since Ukraine isn't a NATO member and NATO's response to the annexation of Crimea and actions in the donbas in 2014 was very weak and completely disunified.
We said they only have old missiles and they would run out soon. Well that was a lie.
People also said Ukriane would fall in days and her we are. You can be wrong about some things. Though Russian missiles attacks have been decreasing in the past few months and them resorting to using Iran made suicide drones isn't promising about the size of their missile arsenal. Not to mention using anti-air defense missiles to strike ground targets instead.
and the ones they have using so far are only the basic ones.
Yeah, because they don't have many of the more expensive/special ones, which they need to keep on hand just in case. Not wasting it on some pretty meaningless infrastructure bombardment.
They have missiles we cannot match over in Europe.
That is a claim from Russia, yes. However there isn't any proof that they have those, definitely not in meaningfull numbers.
If they wanted to they could level every Ukrainian city easily
Only with nuclear missiles, which would completely isolate them on the worldstage, even China would be in complete condemnation and think about joining sanctions. No one wants to allow nuclear weapons to be normalised.
They have the best air defense system in the word as well, a 3 tier approach copied by many other countries.
One the Ukrainians have now repeatedly got past, though obviously not with big numbers or such. Also pretty useless having the best air defense system against an oppenent with essentially no usable air- or missileforce
Brand new tanks, brand new armored cars etc etc.
The manufacturing capacity of Russia regarding tanks is pretty well know, it isn't even enough to replace a fraction of what they already lost. Most "new" tanks are formerly mothballed tanks put back in operation.
It's not for free.
Most equipment has been, though some loans were also given. And in any case these likely will either be dismissed or the seized Russian assets might even be used to repay it.
we said HIMARS was a gamechanger
It truly was. It hampered Russian logistics greatly, destroyed a lot of shells otherwise used to bombard Ukrainian lines, took out several command posts and troop concentrations and especially in Kherson it was instrumental by damaging the bridges in such a way Russian units on the west side couldn't be properly supplied anymore.
then it was the Patriot system
Never really was a gamechanger, at best it helps protect vital area's against missile attacks, but it would never have changed the course of the war. The game changer in this was only that it formerly was rejected, so supplying it meant another step towards pledges of other equipment, like tanks and maybe eventually planes.
now it's the Leopard tanks again.
It is a gamechanger in a certain perspective. It is more modern tanks than what Ukraine currently has and its addition can help in the creation of a stronger offensive force, whereas Ukrainian tanks currently are used to keep the line. Moreover it again is the step towards further aid. If the US wishes (and prepares Ukraine) it can send hundreds upon hundreds of (pretty) modern Abrams to Ukraine (it has around 3000 in storage).
Russia has the same if not better equipment
🤣 that is a quite naive comment.
Russia has destroyed their equipment 4 times over already
Do you not realize how that sounds? How can Russia already destroy their equipment 4 times over? Not to mention doing so without making any real gains.
We're trying to prolong this war, not actually help Ukraine to win it. Then we should do much much more.
Yes and no. We are definitely helping them first with keeping their ground, but also definitely to win. Though we can do a lot more to speed up the process towards Ukraine winning. This is even a complaint at the highest political circles, but as always things are a bit more complex than one thinks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jazzcat135
- France is expected to decrease their nuclear % of the electricity mix due to costs of new nuclear, and looking at how long and expensive Flamanville 3 took, this might become a bigger reduction than initially expected
- France NEEDS to export its electricity to maintain its nuclear production and price to make sure their nuclear power plants can keep running as baseload and reach best price. If everyone of their neighbours had the same nuclear % in their grid, things would get quite a bit more complicated and prices would be higher.
- France has had problems in summer past few years with cooling the reactors, to the point it had to import quite some electricity.
- France's nuclear has had a lot of government "subsidies" (it is exploited by a government owned company)
TLDR; France is currently living on their old reactors, their new construction hasn't looked promising and expectations are that renewables+storage will drive out or at least outshine new nuclear in coming decades. This would only change if new nuclear suddenly becomes a lot cheaper or experiences some big development breakthrough (or grid storage cost reduction is less than expected).
As for Slovakia, it seems plans are still in early stages, even if it is built, it will likely not be active in the next 10 years, by which time it will have to compete with cheaper renewable+storage, thus potentially reliant on government subsidies.
1
-
1