Pelicanen

The singular point of the UN isn’t to prevent conflict, there’s been plenty of armed conflicts since its inception, but one important part of it is hosting a forum between countries and especially giving the countries who are otherwise typically underrepresented (e.g. South American and African countries) in international discussions a means of making their voices heard.

It also hosts a number of organizations that allow international cooperation for common goals, with or without the US, that is usually more effective than any country doing it on its own.

There are issues and this recent visible regression to “might makes right” rhetoric is absolutely dangerous, but the UN shouldn’t die because the three biggest nuclear powers are assholes.

I also get that perception, at least what they’re showing outwards, but it’s starting to feel like the EU is actually starting to plan for a future that has at least a much smaller dependence on the US.

I think for the pragmatic diplomats, it makes sense to show you’re willing to go back to the old way of doing things because it might make the transition less painful, you get to keep at least some of the benefits and goodwill while you prepare to move away from them.

However, I also think there are unfortunately a lot of spineless (and greedy) people in power who would go back to, for example, a president Newsom in a heartbeat despite the risks it poses.

Be the change you want to see in the world. Beautiful.

That’s an odd way to troll but you do you, I guess.

I think there’s a difference between the problems with leading a nation stemming from the natural ails of very old age versus what minority someone was born as.

I think the idea is that if the infrastructure for hydrogen fuel exists and using fossil fuels is penalized, there’s an incentive to start producing more of it via electricity by, as an example, using excess power produced by renewable energy sources when demand is low, balancing the grid and leveling out electricity price fluctuations at the same time.

This relies on a lot of technical, economical, and political ifs though. The end goal is desirable but it’s not clear if there’s a feasible path there, considering the physical properties of hydrogen alone.

Well, no, tariffs are import taxes, whoever imports the product to the country pays for it, the exporter does not.

Don’t mistake Ukraine’s ability for self-defense as Putin’s mercy.

“I’m for euthanasia but I think we need to introduce it in a way that doesn’t reduce access to healthcare”

What part was negated?

The UN only has power insofar as other countries agree that it does. If they start taking harsher stances, countries will start pulling out of the UN which defeats its whole purpose.

Would be much easier to counter if there was a functional system of checks and balances or a well-educated population that’d hold their leaders accountable, but here we are.

It doesn’t quite feel right for other countries have to send their citizens to fight and die against a former ally just because American citizens can’t hold their government accountable.

If I’m not mistaken, the US spends more on military than the rest of NATO combined. How do you imagine a military engagement against the US would end for us?

Sweden, long known for being neutral (up until joining NATO last year) and peaceful, can by law compel every single swedish citizen between the ages of 16 and 70 to serve during wartime.

Exactly as you state, almost every sovereign country on the planet likely has some version of this.

Again?

Starts with green card holders, then it progresses to those who weren’t born in the US via denaturalization (as the administration has already started with), and finally it gets to all citizens. The people cheering for this are the ones who don’t realize that the leopards will eat their faces sooner or later as well.

I don’t know if it’s related to the culture of American exceptionalism, that people are so used to the idea that they’re special and that they won’t be affected, that they never even stop to consider the possibility.

> “no goalpost moving”

> immediately moves goalposts

Thank you for proving my point.

Now you’re just moving the goalposts and playing with words. Your initial comment only said

NATO membership is off the table, virtually no NATO country wants Ukraine to join.

Which is absolute nonsense.

Ukraine is currently in a war and already pretty early on after the start of the full-scale invasion there were discussions that a country joining during wartime is not something that seemed plausible but that a membership when the conflict is over is something that almost all members stand behind.

You mentioned nothing about it being effective immediately in your initial comment and only claimed that virtually no NATO members want Ukraine to join.

France: “The Participants reaffirm that Ukraine’s security is integral to Euro-Atlantic and global security. France confirms that Ukraine’s future membership of NATO would make an effective contribution to peace and stability in Europe.”

Germany: “‘It was agreed at the last NATO summit that Ukraine should be given the prospect of joining NATO. A joint NATO effort is needed here, so I do not agree with those who say that we should immediately give up on Ukraine’s membership in NATO before negotiations with russia,’ Merz said."

Now you’re just parroting talking points from the Kreml.