Deme

Adhering to the treaty would result in there only being half as much anti-personel mines for civilians to step onto after the war, so it would still be doing something very positive. That being said, I do understand the reasons for withdrawing from the treaty. I miss the optimistic world where the treaty was drafted up, when it briefly seemed that most issues could be solved with multilateral international cooperation :(

Ai slop

“Apex predator” my ass, I will hug the teddy bear.

…while still listening to everything they say in order to control them more efficiently.

The lander most probably made it down in one piece. It was designed to survive an atmospheric entry on Venus and from interplanetary speeds. It almost certainly survived a reentry into Earth from a low orbit. That being said, it probably shattered in the splashdown due to the parachute not deploying.

The war is bound to happen at the latest when the Himalayan mountain glaciers melt away and a sufficiently bad drought hits the region. We’ll see if they have the patience to wait that long though…

I think someone is just utterly clueless about how any of this works, and decided to wipe the slate clean and try again.

No it isn’t. Employees have relatively strong rights here. Nurses and healthcare personnel were the only ones who actually had to take the vaccine(at least in my country), and for good reason. I think you have poor media literacy skills, and/or you are consciously pushing an agenda.

Also pay attention to what communities you post in. Posting things that are not on the topic of the community is annoying and you may well start getting banned from communities if you keep this up.

I think they might mean all european social media users. The vast majority of those are still on corpo socials.

Trump is probably too old to survive a proper sauna. I hope he goes into one.

Thales’ Theorem

For the sake of clarity I will say that I was referring to the hegemonic position the US has within NATO. This is the result of them simply being a trusted ally with the largest military on the planet. The latter isn’t about to change soon and the former would require very little effor, but the Trump adminstration seems to be doing it’s best to demolish the trust between the US and its allies. (Soft power protip #1: Don’t threaten your allies with invasion!)

No I do not believe that. I was talking about NATO troops in Russia, which could in theory also happen through a coup and a new government more alligned with the west. Even then I find it hard to believe that there would be “NATO troops on the Amur” as you put it.

Greenland and Canada aren’t about countering a Russian military threat. Both are NATO members with US bases in them. The Russian threat to the US was much larger during the cold war and yet the US didn’t annex them back then. This is about force projection in the arctic. Control of both the NW passage and the Panama canal would increase US leverage on the world stage, including on their so-called allies. Local resources are most likely of interst as well. Even then, I suspect that a large portion is just rhetoric to stoke up visions of grandeur and might among his supporters, since that would track pretty closely with how fascist regiemes have operated in the past.

I admit that “current de facto US ally #1” might be a bit strongly put, but it’s not like the bar would be too high at this point. They do get along well enough. Putin isn’t dumb enough to antagonize the US president who is more useful than any of his predesecors in a long time.

A NATO occupation of Russia, be that through overt means or a friendly coup, would still be incredibly expensive and thus politically unpopular across the board. Also Trump is all about pretending to be the peacemaker when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, so this would never go forward barring a major restructuring of NATO where the US is booted out or at least knocked down a peg from their current hegemonic position. Both seem unlikely to say the least.

The way I see it, China is just trying to position itself as a force for reason and making the most out of recent US shortcomings in soft power projection by exercising its own to fill that vacum.

Why would they wish to stabilize the current de facto US ally #1?

I think they should have a duel and the loser has to resign