Zoraptor

That is obviously doomposting. The situation isn't that bad, though it is bad. Ukraine clearly isn't going to accept just any old deal just from the events of the last few days even if they've shifted significantly in terms of what they will accept over the last few months. Europe also clearly doesn't really care that much about the current corruption scandal given who they just welcomed with open arms- Yermak, probably the second most important guy who has been implicated; and the chief negotiator with Rubio and the Euros. Which, one suspects, was Zelensky calling their bluff as much as anything, making sure there's lots of footage of Euro politicos shaking hands with him in case of more pressure to sack him. The collapses are strictly localised, at the moment. The problem is that while Ukraine can still stop the really critical ones they just shift elsewhere, which then eventually become critical themselves, and the timeframe for the collapses is accelerating. They are at real risk of losing three very important towns inside a month which hasn't happened since the start of the war; one of which people would have thought you mad suggesting it was in play a month ago (Huliapole; for all that people make fun of Russia not learning you'd think Ukraine would have some defences facing north for a major defensive city after 40 months...). The desertions are a big problem though, that isn't overstated. Getting actual figures is difficult, since there are at least three classifications for desertion adjacent absence from service (~awol, 'missing*', and criminal desertion) and the whole thing is highly politicised. Best estimate seems to be at least a 5 figure number deserting every month and something like a quarter of a million total. The interesting recruitment method videos are also so ubiquitous now that only the most die hard of Ukraine supporters think they're just Russian propaganda. *though more usually that's dead rather than deserted, and used to avoid paying widow pensions/ compensation it's also for those who desert under combat conditions or surrender without a fight and don't want to register with the RC for fear they'll be traded back.

There isn't really a comparison between the two. BM has literally no detail at all and its only 'enforcement' 'mechanism' is consultation. It's specifically written to avoid committing any of the big players to anything concrete. OTOH, language like "such actions as it deems necessary" is about as explicit as you can get in treaties. It's far more direct and committal than the contemporaneous ANZUS alliance's III/IV/V, for example. And so long as the eventual text includes an article 5 provision and a trigger mechanism ('art 4') it is effectively enforceable, even if it isn't a big T Treaty. If everyone is happy with it- or more realistically, not unhappy enough with it- you could even get it through the UNSC at which point it is to all intents and purposes an actual treaty. Yes, there are various ways it might not work out that way, and yes, even for NATO triggering article 5 does not necessarily mean the invoker gets exactly what they want. But there's literally no treaty anywhere that has literal forced compliance which isn't a surrender document; because in the end countries have the last resort of simply repudiating treaties and obligations whatever they state.

We've done this before, but the BM is not a security guarantee since it isn't a treaty. It has all the legal weight of a new years' resolution. It's also been abrogated by every signatory to some extent- China the least- people just tend to ignore that it 'prevents' western interference in Belarus every bit as much as Russian interference in Ukraine. Article 5 does have legal weight though, which is why the 'article 5 like' usage is important in either document. The EU does actively extend/ renew the sanctions every six months, apart from the 19 packages that have been approved unanimously including one within the last couple of months. That includes Hungary, every time, and Slovakia every time. Orban's position is a lot closer to the old UK one- we want carve outs, to benefit Hungary- than actually being pro Russian. ie if he were pro Russian he'd veto the sanctions, not approve them. It was also the old stridently anti Russian Slovak government that got Slovakia's carve outs, not Fico. They obviously weren't pro Russian; Orban largely makes a convenient scapegoat for the sanctions not being anywhere near as effective as Europe hoped. That does make it beholden on you to show how it would actually be different to now; because per above they both approve sanctions, now. The weapons, I personally kind of agree that that reflects reality. But, at least in theory Europe itself does not agree at all. We get monthly news of supposed modern weaponry deals. 100 Rafales/ SAMPT++ this month, 100 Gripens++ last month, and there was a UK announcement a month before. German IRIST++ before that. Personally, yes, I reckon those deals are pie in the sky for a continent that cannot even spin up artillery production over nearly 4 years. But europe seems to expect people to take them seriosuly at least. (with the caveat that both documents are leaked/ 'leaked' so not definitive, where appropriate)

Fun game: replace every instance of Ukraine in that plan with Palestine. Does make you wonder if the whole point of that proposal is to make Euro politicians feel good about themselves. Doesn't even have the advantage of 'standing firm' or whatever, since it's notably worse for Ukraine than their previous 'proposals' that have been floated. I do rather like the blatant Trump sops though. Freeze along current lines- except Trump gets the energy infrastructure held by Russia.

That's more than a little overstated. Ukraine demonstrably got 2/3 of the things listed without any security guarantee other than the BM, if you count that. They'd get the same, at least, again.

If there's one thing Europe has acquiesced to frequently it's Trump ordering them how to spend their money. Indeed, that's almost certainly one of the reasons the slush fund provisions are there for realz rather than being laughed at. The EU/ US (and UK) trade deal is riddled with 'EU will spend this, EU will do this' provisions quite apart from accepting the tariffs. At the time of course we were told getting the US to keep helping Ukraine was one of the reasons for von der Leyen's capitulation. (I am of course of the opinion that the agreement is more realistic than spouting pie in the sky 'stay the course/ more of the same but harder' rhetoric and insisting on conditions Russia would never agree to as if you're winning. But it's exactly the sort of agreement you'd expect from Trump, especially after he's been encouraged to see the EU and Europe as pushovers. In the end, if you fold every time because standing up to Trump is hard then having your opinions marginalised is the obvious result precisely because you've told Trump that you'll fold when pressed)

Yep, it was definitely an Amazon original. It was on network TV here which is what I was remembering. (Same was true for Orange is the New Black/ House of Cards and whatever the werewolves show was with Famke Janssen for Netflix, all were on network tv here but not in the US. And funnily enough, Rings of Power is on a domestic free streaming platform at the moment here)

Fallout is hopefully a good comparison, considering they've got some pretty good and committed talent involved. Not Nolan level in absolute terms, but in relative terms about as good as you could hope for. (The Jordan stuff was a bit complicated: the first book of WoT was written potentially as a standalone. Which is why it has some... oddities in its conclusion. All the books had a lot of foreshadowing, some for things that happened much much later so it was obviously planned from the start as more than three books; if it sold well. Still, compares well to a certain other fantasy author whose planned trilogy is meant to be 7 books if he could ever finish the sixth one more than a decade later) Amazon didn't make The Expanse, it just funded the last three seasons. The same people made all six seasons, and the first three were not Prime exclusives (->on Syfy in the US). (Pretty sure it was the same for Bosch, not really my thing but I'm 90% sure I remember it on network TV)

Eh, they were good friends, to Zelensky. To Ukraine, not so much. Time honoured tradition though, Yulia Timoshenko infamously went from owning a video rental shop to billionaire when she got the natural gas concession. Very little- none, really- chance that Zelensky didn't know what was going on and what was going to happen, after all he tried to effectively shut down NABU's investigation in July this year by subordinating it to him and the attorney general. While coincidences do happen, sometimes, them targeting his associates and potentially him was the obvious reason for that.

That's the trouble with losing a war, the longer you wait the worse the concessions will be. The worse the situation is on the ground for you the better it is for the other side and the more than can simply take. The situation on the ground for Ukraine, well, it isn't necessarily developing to their advantage. "But it's unfair" is irrelevant if it's the best offer you're going to get and the alternative gets progressively worse. If the rest of Donetsk and (the remaining .002% of) Lugansk are taken by force the next offer will be for Kherson/ Zaporizhia, then Dnipro/ Kharkov/ Odessa, then Sumy/ Chernigov/ Mikolaev. No one is negotiating for Crimea, now, because there's zero prospect of Ukraine being able to retake it and everyone knows that and, realistically, there's no negotiating for Lugansk either for the same reason. As soon as they're taken they aren't a bargaining chip any more.

Ah yes, the democratic elections where 1 in every 3000 people got to cast a vote. Every one of them, selected by al Jolani's hand picked committee, as were the candidates they could vote for. Makes you wonder why he bothered only directly appointing 1/3 of them really. I don't really need to say much except the guys that al Jolani 'accidentally' sent off to genocide alawites on the coast a few months ago? You know, when the western media buried their heads in the sand because al Jolani changed his name and is a Good Guy now? Hamza division? Sanctioned by the US for genocide against kurds? One of their fricking leader is on it (M. Ali M. Yassin). So is at least one other 'ex' al qaeda guy, and another who was associated with the genocidal turkish proxies, and at least three other turkish stooges. A couple of liberal sops there so the cheerleaders aren't too embarrassed, but they're Quislings.

Images, supposedly. Guess Gamespot wants you to click while ign just tells you straight out in the url/ headline. It wouldn't be a surprise if the plot was AI slop as well, though maybe they just hired the writers from Amazon's Wheel of Time now that they're free.

Poor old Juan Guaido. A standing ovation in the the US Congress one day, off to the scrapyard of history the next. Someone must have finally pointed out his resemblance to a certain former President to Trump. Still, I guess at least neither he nor Machado were deputy to ISIS' first caliph Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, which puts them one up on Al Jolani. That obviously stood her in good stead with the Nobel Committee.

Dunno about that. As a comparison going by the name you'd expect The Moscow Times to be, well, pro Russian instead of pro western (Dutch). It isn't, as it has always been aimed at westerners who couldn't be bothered to read Russian and wanted positive reinforcement of their existing views. It infamously didn't even have a Russian language edition for 28 years. I don't know much of anything about Steigan, but a quick web search suggests they've always had some of those sorts of articles, at least. eg, from 2014.

That's a bit overstated- Pokrovsk hasn't been a major logistics hub for over a year now, same as Bakhmut before it as soon as the Russians got close it stopped being used for transit anyway; and at the moment Ukraine still has plenty of strategic depth (practically, alternative supply routes). While it is amusing watching every place Russia take suddenly become strategically insignificant there is an element of truth to it along with the copium. Otherwise, exactly the same mistakes repeated again, Ukraine really has not learnt when to call it quits and keeps pulling troops out of stable areas (making them unstable) to prop up areas they have to all practical purposes already lost. That's how Pokrovsk came into play in the first place; and is how Huliapole is coming into play now.

Eh, leaving aside Bruce being Bruce with his... unique way of posting he'd clearly have preferred someone other than Trump. Implying he'd prefer Trump 'drives engagement' though, same as claiming Trump doesn't habitually lie and didn't while campaigning. That's the exact problem: we know how Trump turned out, but not how Biden would have. If Biden had won, then 'we' would very likely be having this conversation, in exact reverse. ie, what happens when Biden releases his cancer diagnosis, two months into his term? We know he has it, becoming president would not make it disappear as much as it would be nice if it did. We couldn't even be sure he'd still be president, given its severity. I'm sure anyone can imagine what the response to that series of events would be. How could the doctors have missed it? Did they miss it or was it suppressed? Does that mean Biden lied ('lied') about other health issues? Was the whole thing just a con to get Harris in without relying on a direct vote? Is it electoral fraud ('electoral fraud')? Was Trump robbed? Did the whole democratic party systematically lie to the electorate? Is this the death knell for American Democracy? Can we recall the president? Did Harris know? We need a Special Prosecutor to find out! ... Looking forward to President Johnson! That sequence of events would have been terrible, just in a different way from Trump winning, and some would be speculating whether Trump might actually have been better. It would have called into question the integrity of the election, while at least Trump's win was clear cut and non controversial, mechanically, though it just might have slightly called into question the good taste and judgement of the american people. Mate, I wasn't even trying multiple posts back. It's just taken you that long- and multiple theses- to notice. Indeed, I was- barely- skimming your posts.

Both the Outer Worlds dlc were more of the same, but better. Trouble really was that the base game was far too long (practically, far too repetitive) and ended up sapping enthusiasm. Murder at Eridanos was fine, but it most certainly doesn't turn TOW into a Sherlock Holmes game.

To be fair to Bruce not wanting Biden/ being relieved he isn't president is not the same as being happy Trump won. He might well prefer if some milquetoast US Keir Starmer equivalent or establishment republican won instead of either. Yes, it retains its same value. Which was an absolute refutation of your claim. It wouldn't matter if repeating the same thing doubled the value of your gaslighting though, since its value started out at zero. I mean really, you could just have dropped it. Not like I actually care, and it was an easy enough thing to miss. Tripling down, though, that is definition gaslighting. Ah, curiousity, the mother of speculation/ 'just asking questions'. Yes, you do have to come up with some kind of evidence of degeneration, when the source of your 'curiousity' dates back 8 years, two election campaigns, nearly 3 years as president etc etc and cognitive issues are almost always degenerative. Or, alternatively, suggest how it isn't degenerative in his case. Again, he was tested for anxiety and depression as well, does that mean his doctors think he's depressed? Doesn't seem very likely. You only think taking a MoCA is 'curious' and the other tests aren't because the MoCA reinforces your preconceived notion, and the others don't. As always, the only disorder you've shown actual evidence for Trump having is... being Trump, which everyone already knows about. (Said it before, will say it again: Trump speaks how people think. That is one of the reasons a lot of people like him, and relate to him no matter how silly it may seem for some random blue collar worker from Milwaukee or Toledo to relate to a 'billionaire'. Most people in the public eye train themselves for years to not speak as they think since typically a Trump like politician would fail instantly. Not speaking the same way you think is what the more, hmm, politically aware/ educated set tend to expect and will find any deviation from that unusual. But unusual does not in itself imply a disorder)

Must have missed that, or I would probably have picked it up for that price. I do remember decent Stellaris/ CK2 newsletter deals though, so I agree they definitely have them.

No, there isn't. It was already addressed, twice, and quite specifically that you could substitute cognition issues for dementia. Precisely because I knew you'd try to make a big deal out of it. Have I ever once given the impression gaslighting works on me? Why you choose to keep trying it is a mystery. No, you haven't actually. You've repeatedly said that he has cognitive issues, you've just tried to obfuscate it behind what is effectively the old canard of 'just asking questions'*. What you haven't done is offer any reason for those issues. I also addressed this earlier when I pointed out that people were looking at a symptom (cognitive decline/ dementia) which is not in itself a disease per se, and requires a cause. You've failed to offer a cause, you've failed to explain (beyond everyone lying) why Trump seems to pass and you've failed to offer any explanation for why a 'disease' that is in the vast majority of cases progressive and would have obvious progression over 8 years hasn't progressed significantly. Trump is still, Trump, 8 years later. He made it through two years of presidency, two election campaigns, all the scrutiny and stress etc. You may hate the comparison, and there's a reason for that, but quite apart from Trumps' obsession with his enemies Joe Biden didn't make it through a campaign when he started having issues. We all know the types of people who hide behind "just asking questions". It's people who want to speculate, but also want to claim that they aren't if called on it. Considering how much you seem to hate other people speculating you certainly do love doing it yourself. *"why did doctors feel it were prudent to have trump take the MoCA?". MoCA is a cognitive test, so --> "why did doctors feel it were prudent to have trump take a [cognitive test]?" --> "why does anyone take a cognitive test? --> "because they have apparent cognitive issues that need testing". So yes, you are saying that Trump has an issue, and it's a cognitive one.

Already addressed. Onus is, of course, on you to show that Trump has a cognitive issue that isn't significantly progressive- over the course of nearly a decade- yet is otherwise hard to detect and thus requires frequent testing. I wish you good luck with your research. Ho hum. Donald Trump's primary cognitive issue is being Donald Trump.

It's the paradox of Paradox: the base game tends to be far too simplistic but the dlc are too many to be consistently balanced/ implemented properly and always (unless the game flops) end up costing multiple times more than the base game did. At the tail end of the dlc cycle they really want you to quickly move on to the sequel after buying the last dlcs too. But if the game clicks it still ends up being good value for money. (Their 'attitude' is also weird when there aren't millions of dlc. Stick a then ten year old game- Victoria 2- on GOG, bundle one dlc with it but the other costs as much as the base game and dlc. Never give more than a 50% discount)

I see our latest Nobel Peace Prize laureate is once more going according to type and calling on armed intervention from the US in an interview with Bloomberg. per the committee and yes, she'd called for armed intervention before the peace prize award as well.

Trump specifically brought up Biden in the quote I provided, that's about as relevant as you can get. Indeed, one suspects that is why you've gone back to 2017, now, despite that utterly torpedoing your argument in other ways that really ought to be obvious. Dementia is a progressive 'disease'. Almost all hard to detect causes of cognitive decline are as well. You can say with about as complete certainty as it is possible to get from casual observation that he didn't have dementia in 2017, for that reason. If he did, and lied about it, he'd be dead or effectively vegetative because... dementia is progressive. ie, it only ever gets worse. Thing is, for the 2017/8 test it doesn't even matter if everyone involved was lying- we know he didn't have dementia then because it's progressive. Your argument is the very definition of circular reasoning, where rather than the evidence supporting the conclusion the evidence and conclusion are one and the same. To whit: Ironically, that's exactly the sort of reasoning you get from Donald Trump and which he too hates being called on. You can substitute cognition issues for dementia if you like, doesn't make any actual difference.

Trouble is, we know that didn't happen. Don't think there's anyone here- even Bruce, probably, when he isn't just being Bruce- who wouldn't prefer Harris to have won. The problem with her acceding after a Biden resignation post cancer diagnosis is that it's impossible to see Biden winning unless you magic away his other health issues. If you're going to do that, might as well just magic Trump (and/or racism) away instead and solve the root issue. Yes, you said. So he's been taking and passing (unless he's lying!!!) cognitive tests for 7 years. Not exactly supportive of dementia, which is characterised by an active decline for almost all causes. That's only a plus for you via a very specific circular reasoning, ie Trump's doctors think he has dementia--> make him take test--> he lies about passing --> doctors know he has dementia so... make him take it again next year so he can lie about it again. And, the doctors are making him take a non diagnostic test, so it's basically useless, except, they want him to take the test because they think he has dementia and him taking the test proves they think that. There really isn't any point at all arguing against that, because it relies entirely on speculation about everyone involved lying/ being incompetent in a very precise way specifically to support one conclusion; and with no actual evidence to back it up. To quote a certain poster on other subjects: maybe one shouldn't do unfounded speculation and just wait for the facts?