Zoraptor

First ten minutes of our tv news bulletin was talking about that 'plan'. Not going to escape the accusations that everything done is about making people feel good about themselves any time soon. Indeed, it seemed to be the result of one of those self help books where you're told to constantly talk about the best case scenario as if talking about it will make it happen. Not even really the concept of a plan- hence Starmer and Macron not even agreeing over a one month partial truce being part of it is telling. They haven't even really got Zelensky on side- "long long way from peace", needing 200k+ peacekeepers etc. OK, the guy makes Trump look like a conservative- and consistent- negotiator since he's also said peace is needed as soon as possible. Even the wildly biased are pouring cold water on it- eg Frank Gardiner's BBC article. Three questions about the whether the 'peace plan' could work and the answer to all three is 'no'.

Ukraine has no proven exploitable Rare Earth deposits, though they have a lot of other stuff. The closest is Tantalum and Niobium, neither of which are capital letter Rare Earths, and neither is economically exploitable. And we're speaking relatively tiny amounts like 300mn USD of Niobioum. Which is a shame in some ways since they're what you get from coltan which is one of the minerals being fought over in Congo. It's pretty much entirely so Trump can say he's getting a win and 'value' for US taxpayers. You can read the deal's text in various places: 'concept of a deal' is not much of an exaggeration, at all, and it's clearly designed solely to get signed rather than achieve anything. Which would have been a win for both sides. Trump could even have kept up the aid under the pretense that it was all going to be paid back It doesn't make any sense, except in the context of Trump being Trump. Which is unfortunate, but not much anyone can do about it. It's hindsight* more than being disingenuous. We know what actually happened, and that just about any other option could have turned out better than what we got. I wouldn't necessarily have advocated for it and most of the other suggestions were ones I would personally have advocated for first. It may just be a problem with two non politicians meeting but it has also been an issue for Ukraine in general. They've picked unnecessary diplomatic fights with Poland, India, China, Africa and have had a distinct tendency towards maximalist demands even when it was clearly not the best approach. *not entirely so though given how Zelensky said he was going to approach things.

Forced? Doesn't seem like Zelensky was marched in at gunpoint. He could have said no to the press conference- it would hardly have turned out worse. He could have grinned and borne it instead of reacting. He could have decided to have someone else there as well, or to use translators to slow things down, or to try and wind things up. Once again, Zelensky said that was going to be his approach beforehand, and Trump reacted exactly as you'd expect him to. Can anyone actually say that they thought a "very direct" approach to Donald Trump was a good idea? They'd done the hard work by making the minerals agreement utterly nebulous, he only had to make it through the signing It's all very well talking about ambushes and humiliation and implying that Zelensky was brave and stuck to his guns or whatever but that ignores that Ukraine needs the US while the US does not need Ukraine. Doesn't matter if that is an unpalatable fact, it is a fact.

Don't know if it was poor prep or a (bad) plan. Zelensky must have- must have- been told how best to handle Trump. The reactions of the Ukrainian ambassador weren't exactly subtle as things were going downhill. Even if he wasn't it's not exactly rocket surgery: massage the guy's ego and talk about how ready for a deal you are in general terms. Normally you might blame Trump more but... you kind of have to deal with reality, even if you don't like it and the reality is that Trump is Trump. Zelensky behaved exactly as he said he would before the meeting and Trump reacted exactly as you'd expect. If anything it took him longer than you might expect given it was ~50 minutes and things only blew up in the last 10. Dunno, I'm fairly cynical by nature especially when it comes to geopolitics and I find it difficult to believe that was what Macron wanted- too much risk of a permanent break occurring, and Macron talks a good talk* but is inherently risk averse. Might make sense if he's already written Ukraine off as a lost cause, but I can't really see that. *one of the funnier things is reading breathless headlines like "Macron to send troops to Ukraine!!!" and checking the context to find that he actually said he'd send troops, if there was a ceasefire and international agreement accepting them. So, not sending them any time soon in other words. Also stuff like planning to spend 5% of GDP on defence; easy for him to say, but Not Going to Happen.

Don't know what Macron thought he was doing getting Trump to invite Zelensky to the WH. If you were going to lobby for the meeting you had to make sure it wasn't going to be bilateral at least, so you could try to smooth things over at the first wrinkle. A public bust up was always going to be a very, very real possibility. Zelensky isn't Macron and he isn't Starmer- his normal approach could not be better calculated to annoy someone like Trump and he very publicly said he would keep his normal approach (eg be "very direct"). It's all well and good being true to yourself or whatever platitudes people may trot out; but you should also do what is best for your country when you're its leader* and that isn't getting into a spat with its biggest supporter over the previous three years. *And that's whether or not it was a 'planned' ambush. Indeed, it's quite probably worse for Zelensky if it was planned since if it was he ended up giving them exactly what they wanted.

Eh, the problem with saying Kravchuk supported membership is the historical context- if you say he supported it then you have to say the same about Yeltsin, and Putin too. The only concrete step Kravchuk took was joining PFP, which Russia did as well. And, PFP was only formalised as a pathway to join NATO in Dec94, after Kravchuk was voted out.

What actually happens and what people expect to happen aren't necessarily the same, so what happens is largely irrelevant when explaining motivations. Hitler didn't invade Poland- or the SU- expecting to be shooting himself in the ruins of Berlin a few years later, though it was a predictable result of trying to fight most of the rest of the world simultaneously. Bush didn't invade Iraq expecting to be bogged down in an insurgency 5 years later, but he should have. Bob didn't bet the mortgage money expecting his sure thing to lose. People make mistakes, even predictable ones. There's no reason to believe that stopping Ukraine joining NATO was not the reason for Putin invading just because it resulted in other countries joining and he didn't get the results he wanted. It's the one thing they've been 100% consistent on. In any case while Sweden and Finland loved talking about their 'neutrality', they weren't neutral to most practical effects. We kind of had this discussion a few months ago. The polls were even lower for Ukraine, yet every single leader except Yanukovich and Kravchuk supported NATO membership.

Showing Trump and Bibi sunbathing disqualifies anything from 'looking nice'. Not quite as bad as the ethnic cleansing though.

It doesn't have to be part of the agreement for that to happen. Trump can send- or not- stuff without it being formally mandated- and it doesn't seem like much is formally mandated, certainly not with any great detail. The obvious answer is that no NATO and no troops removes the reason for the invasion; so there won't be subsequent ones. It's clearly not something Putin was actually keen on given it took him 23 (or 15, though that was clearly not anywhere approaching full scale) years to invade in the first place. (That's one of the issues with assigning blanket motivations as if people are cartoon villains: a cartoon villain Putler bent on expansion for the sake of it would have invaded Ukraine far earlier. A cartoon villain probably would have invaded the Baltics before they joined NATO too, not stopped short of Tblisi in 2008 and a bunch of other things. There wouldn't be a Belarus, wouldn't be a Kazakhstan, wouldn't be an Armenia and as a consequence almost certainly wouldn't be an Azerbaijan. One of the great ironies is how Clinton seemed like a good President at the time but so many of his decisions turned out to be garbage in retrospect, including expanding NATO without any accounting for Russia- something he was repeatedly warned about by people like George Kennan. If you want(ed) Ukraine in NATO, you should (have) invite(d) Russia. Couldn't have that though, then Europe might realise they didn't need the US.)

The more cynical might regard that as more of a concept of an agreement than an actual one. Every hard choice kicked down the road so both sides could claim a win.

Bad time for AMD to have gone back to their 5000 style product line. You'd think they'd have some x2/ chiplet designs despite the teething troubles 7000 series had with them that they could trot out if they had to. Very unfortunate for all the nVidia fans who were hoping for AMD to be competitive so they could buy a cheaper nVidia card.

Not just a US thing, there's a bit of an implosion in support for the UNGA condemnation in general. While yeas were still in the plurality (93) it was well down from the ~2/3 majority previous (140ish) and not much above abstentions/ non votes (81). As always UNGA votes are pretty much 100% a chance to do some posturing and nothing more. OTOH, the US resolution in the UNSC did get adopted, though barely. No veto, but one more abstention and it would not have passed due to not having the 2/3 majority required.

That result is a great example of media messaging. By any objective measure AFD getting 20% is a disaster, but because they were expected to do even better it can be easily spun as being Good News™. It's actually slightly more than Hitler got in 1930, and radicalisation wise almost 60% of the youth vote was AFD or Der Links. Far cry from all the status quo types being worried about the Greens, now they are a safe status quo option.

For someone in the southern hemisphere the northern night sky is basically useless for navigation unfortunately- the northern constellations are inverted so Orion is standing on his head and you cannot physically see Polaris; so there's no recognition. I could find ~Celestial South OK using Crux, but much as you can't see Polaris from here you cannot see Crux from Bohemia. Can also do moon navigation since its light side always faces the sun but neither is feasible under forest cover or if the moon isn't out. Compasses were invented a few centuries before the game's timeframe, no real reason they would not be available though probably quite pricey.

Been replaying Kingdom Come Deliverance (1) on hardcore difficulty. Not quite what I was hoping for- which was equivalent to top level difficulty on Stalker where it's more difficult for everyone, not just you- but nicely unforgiving and it's still a top tier experience overall. It is a bit janky for a low save game though, so far I've got stuck on terrain twice, had two ctds and two cutscenes that looped perpetually. Also, I find it hard to believe that c15th Bohemia didn't have compasses. No automap doesn't matter to me but using the sun for orientation is tiresome- since half the time I go the exact wrong direction, as the sun 'points' north in the southern hemisphere not south. Have a fight in the woods at night though, no chance of working out which direction you're facing at the end of it half the time.

That's far from the most onerous requirement. Assuming the document is genuine there's no way anyone could sign it. That's the sort of document that has a high chance of ending with you literally literally dead, not just politically dead. "..The new document states that revenues from Ukraine’s resources would be directed to a fund in which the United States would hold 100 percent financial interest, and that Ukraine should contribute to the fund until it reaches $500 billion.."* In practical terms that is signing away 100% mineral rights, not 50%. If the US decided Ukraine's share would best be used to buy F35s or $1015mn pac-2 patriots then that's where the money would go. If they decided it was best spent on fricking TrumpCoin that is where it'd go. *there could always be a misinterpretation of the terms, since it's second hand info. As it stands though while the document commits to "[the US] intend[ing] to provide long-term financial support to help Ukraine develop economically" the whole point of the fund is to pay back the 'aid' already delivered. Only logical conclusion is that the US will be 'giving' its 'aid' out of Ukraine's 50%, not from an actual commitment from them.

Didn't Musk do exactly the same thing with Twitter? Quite apart from the procedural mess around buying it in the first place. Does make you wonder how he got so much money in the first place when he seems to be trying to alienate both Twitter and Tesla's userbase simultaneously. Otherwise yeah, meme department makes meme mistake; and we'd better get used to it as there will only be more coming.

I'd have said the most likely outcome of inviting Russia was them not turning up for the first meeting, which would have been even better for Ukrainian and Euro feelings of righteousness. They probably would have for the second though. As it was the results there were hardly lent credibility when a sizeable number of the hand picked participants refused to sign the communiqué precisely because Russia wasn't there (or didn't turn up to it). There's limited practical utility in preaching only to the converted in order to convince oneself of one's moral superiority. It really isn't a peace conference if there's both no prospect of it resulting in peace and it does nothing to progress towards it, that's just one side making demands to an audience- and that's true whether it's Russia or Ukraine missing from the negotiations. In any case lending legitimacy to claims is something which is always said about negotiations. Said it for Hamas, said it for the IRA, said it for the Taleban, and others; and for far more minor issues than the current one. For practical matters there was always going to be a negotiated settlement unless you Believed the constant barrage of pipe dream fantasies about Russia's imminent collapse- which, it seems, rather a lot of European leaders did. In that scenario by far the most important factor is not making Euros feel righteous, it's that Ukraine would have been in a far better position for negotiations then as opposed to negotiations now.

At the moment the only one who isn't visibly losing it is Putin. Trump being Trump, some ludicrous comments and headless chook behaviour from the Europeans (particularly frustrating, not like they had 3 months to prepare for Trump and had Afghanistan as a blueprint for what to expect), Zelensky all over the place. Which is, at least, highly understandable. I'm also slightly annoyed- but not surprised- by the outraeg!!!11!! about Zelensky being excluded from the talks and selective memory being applied. Talks without Ukraine are exactly as useful as talks without Russia. And lest we forget- since it seems most journalists have- there were multiple talks held without Russia resulting in a succession of peace plans from Zelensky that were unrealistic, then, and even less realistic now.

Don't think I'd ever describe using something as open to very obvious abuse as blanket preemptive pardons as 'smart'*, that's a step too far. We are, most likely, going to now enter a cycle of outgoing administrations issuing preemptive blanket pardons for the term of their administration as a matter of course when there's a change of party involved. I'd save a bit of snark for the 'Robust Republic' types as well. If you've got nebulously defined/ limited powers that are open to abuse like pardons and EOs that is absolutely a systemic failure, which was always going to become a problem. There's limited utility talking about how things should work or were envisaged to work if the practicality is different. *necessary, ok, in this specific case that is hard to dispute given Trump's personality. But it's a can of worms opened nevertheless.

Seems entirely appropriate that DOGE has meme level security.

Seems likely. Though if anything has changed recently NWN2 wise or they've just got around to progressing the EE enough for us to hear about it is an open question. Aspyr was doing a KOTOR remaster(?) so simply may not have had the ability to do NWN2 but not the time. I don't think Atari have been listed as publisher on any D&D CRPG for a couple of years at least which implies they lost the rights then.

In a word yes, though it'd depend of course on the request and specific situation. (Fundamentally, shifting the focus to US v China and parking US v Russia alters the balance of leverage for Russia <--> China as well, which certainly favours China markedly at the moment. Russia, now, would have difficulty refusing any half way reasonable Chinese request or agreement offer and, if it hurt the west, likely wouldn't particularly want to anyway. It'd still be highly unlikely Russia would go out of its way to help any anti Chinese western efforts, given recent history and with a realistic 'normalisation' to the US. If the US asked them to, say, close their borders to Chinese goods they wouldn't under any reasonable scenario. But you could certainly expect them to extract a price from China much as China has from Russia, and could get them to up the price by offering sanctions relief or release of currency reserves. Neither of those could be offered under a more Bidenesque approach)

It's far simpler to just get a bunch of people to say that the game is being review bombed and get the rating manually (or 'manually') curated by removing all the zeroes. Indeed, that's what happens fairly often eg to Rings of Power on IMDB* and various games on Steam. *purely coincidental who owns that site, of course

There does come a point where the balance shifts and you have to accept that some of the outrageous things he says are what he actually wants and intends to get- or at least, that you have to take the threats/ statements seriously. And at that point it isn't him living rent free in your head any more, it's real concern that he might actually try invading Greenland/ Canada/ Panama or ethnically cleansing Gaza- or 'sell out' Ukraine. But none of the Ukraine stuff should be a surprise, Trump's position was signposted extensively and there's a pretty direct precedent in what happened in Afghanistan where negotiations almost exclusively took place between the US and Taleban without Afghan government involvement. That Europe in particular seems to have made zero preparations is an indictment on their historically incompetent leadership (well, short term history, not like von der Leyen is literally Hitler) coupled to wishful thinking on pretty much every single aspect of everything. If you want to target China, as Trump obviously does, you need to have Russia if not on side then at least not as an enemy, and that's basic geographical fact.