Mateoto @ Mateoto @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

159

Joined

2 yr. ago

It certainly does in today's global political landscape. Regrettably, we've reverted to a more conservative and pragmatic scenario where autocratic regimes are somewhat constrained by power dynamics.

As you may have observed, actors like Russia are disregarding international norms. Instead of pursuing diplomatic de-escalation, they're spreading misinformation to exacerbate conflicts and disrupt international relations, particularly in Western regions, bro.

You are aware that China is currently the aggressor, and the US and Canada are showing symbolic strength with these maneuvers to support Taiwan?

I wouldn't be surprise if Russias FSB is using money to create a bigger migration crisis to divide Europe in this matter.

I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree. An internal strife alone doesn't necessarily lead to military action.

A military conflict involving Taiwan would have global implications, affecting regional stability and the world economy. Xi is fully aware of that and knows that his political power extends only as far as his economy remains stable. Looking at the last BRICS meeting, we see that China is eager to compensate for any economic embargoes with a stable structure and demand from its partners – which, as of today, is still a work in progress.

Furthermore, the Ukrainian war has shown, the West can swiftly mitigate major impacts on its economy (see Germany moving completely away from gas exports from Russia). China is aware of that too and knows that while devastating, the west will work closely together to compensate such an economic distaster and cut ties with China completly.

While the current situation requires vigilance and preparation for the worst, we can at least see that China remains in absolute need of its Western allies, and a military intervention would be a complete disaster, even for Xi.

That's likely why he's consolidating power by eliminating political opponents and critics, but history has shown that being blinded by power, as Putin is in the case of Ukraine, leads to devastation.

We can assume that Italy's fascist party's strategy of deterrence on its borders is not working. I hope that Italian voters can now see that the tough and cruel approach of Italy's far-right and fascist parties is not effective.

This is a global issue that the entire EU needs to address, instead of relying on inhuman rhetoric and policies.

China still fears economic and military repercussions in the event of an invasion of Taiwan.

As long as its economy is ill due to current factors like inflation, banking instability, and the inflated real estate market, we can assume that a war would be an economic and political shock right now that even Xi might struggle to navigate.

Edit: for everyone disagreeing, every foreign expert is expecting a war, and even the current US deterrence (criticized here as escalation) is not enough for most experts.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/08/us-military-deterrence-china-taiwan-war-east-asia/

A more realistic scenario might be Sargent getting sacked, Mick Schumacher taking the Williams seat, and Lawson securing the AT seat.

Regarding Ricciardo, he could face the possibility of being sacked too, or he might have to contend with Tsunoda for consideration in the second RB seat if Perez doesn't improve.

Formula Dank going full circle

It's an incredible stat, although I do feel a bit sad that Vettel lost this achievement in a way.

I've mentioned this a few times in other threads. When it comes to pure speed, Leclerc is exceptional. However, he has struggled with consistency and missed opportunities for improvement on occasion. There have been moments where it seemed like Leclerc expected Ferrari to grant him preferential treatment without making a substantial investment in the team.

On the contrary, Carlos Sainz has shown significant improvement. He emphasizes that consistency is the key at Ferrari, and his performance reflects this belief. This strategy isn't entirely new; Vettel tried a similar approach during his time at Ferrari. Despite Ferrari's internal politics hindering them from achieving more wins, Vettel's consistency was a key factor in their success during his tenure.

I believe Ricciardo's chances of retaining his AT seat are currently quite slim.

I've been quite impressed with Carlos Sainz lately. He appears to be the more mature driver of the two Ferrari drivers. While Leclerc has pure speed, Carlos has invested more in consistency, and it's paying off for him. It also highlights that Leclerc needs more than just a fast and reliable car to become a world champion.

Additionally, it seems that Ricciardo might have to worry about his seat, as Lawson is showing his potential as a great driver. We know Daniel is past his prime, and he's yet to regain his top form, but Red Bull needs to decide whether they believe Ricciardo will return to his former glory or if Lawson has the potential to become a top-tier driver - and the latter seems more promising.

Not only that, they've capitalized on past crises to bolster their profits and jack up prices, playing a significant role in the artificial inflation we're experiencing.

A truly just society places a strong emphasis on protecting its most vulnerable members. However, in American politics since the 1980s, there has been a predominant focus on deregulation, primarily benefiting the most powerful.

The establishment of new agencies aimed at safeguarding the weakest is a positive move toward reestablishing justice.

The misconception lies in assuming that French people can afford to protest, which isn't the case. Railworkers and farmers, like anyone else, can't afford to lose their jobs or miss work. However, they understand that the alternative could be even more devastating.

By organizing and protesting collectively, they have the power to bring the system to a halt, ensuring that the negative consequences are felt primarily by the wealthy and ruling elites.

What exactly does the appointment have to do with the corruption taking place?

A nomination and appointment of judges done by a democratic legitimized party and process is one thing. Still, if those judges are stepping outside the democratic discourse, you can't shrug it away as "no big deal."

There are more people voting center and progressive than conservatives in the US. Otherwise, conservatives wouldn't need gerrymandering and all those other tricks to win elections. So, most US citizens ignore three corrupt justices and their spouses and let them destroy the very foundation of their proud nation?

Protest or organize a nationwide strike and show some real patriotism instead of sticking star-bangled banner stickers on your cars.

Just explain to me as a European: how can a wife of a supreme court justice actively undermine the democracy in the US, her husband rule in favor of their donors and corrupt money elite, and no one, really no one in your country cares or protests against it?

Please take some lessons in being citoyens by the French people.

The cornerstone of American politics, full democratic representation, was once a powerful force, enabling smaller states and minorities to influence US politics and direction instead of being marginalized.

Regrettably, some actors with ulterior motives have exploited this system, steering it away from democratic principles, prioritizing minority rule, and serving their own interests over the democratic spirit.

I use Sync.com for years (since 2015 after my very privacy heavy swiss cloud service shut down). It's Canadian, the end-to-end encryption (on device,upload and cloud) is the highest I encountered and it's extensive zero-knowledge policy was my reason to sign up.

They added some nice sharing features with quite the extensive control and easy Setup. So might be worth checking out.

And obligatory referral link for a free account 🙃:

https://www.sync.com/?_sync_refer=7265130

Absolutely, targeting activism towards the lifestyles of the rich is a crucial step in addressing the issue of higher CO2 emissions and climate change. It's not about vilifying individuals, but rather recognizing that certain lifestyles contribute significantly to environmental harm.

Focusing solely on the lower and middle class isn't the solution, as they are the ones who often bear the brunt of climate change impacts and economic adjustments. What might be considered "luxury" for them is often just basic necessities, and their livelihoods are directly affected by climate-related changes.

On the other hand, the elite and super elites can afford to make substantial changes to their lifestyles without sacrificing their basic needs. Cutting back on private flights, yachts, and excessive consumption won't significantly impact their quality of life. Their choices to reduce their environmental footprint can send a powerful message and create a domino effect, encouraging positive change on a larger scale.

This doesn't mean demonizing anyone; it's about promoting awareness and responsibility. We need systemic changes, and these should start from the top down. By targeting the source of excessive consumption and promoting sustainable choices among the rich, we can create a more equitable and sustainable future for everyone.