Only 31 members of US Congress dared to not use funding from the Israel lobby. 3 Republicans, Bernie and 27 Democrats. Also Vermont is awesome with all of them not taking Israeli blood money.
Running against AIPAC grantees your opponent gets extra funding and most of the US media is against you. It really is not easy to win that. It becomes easier the more refuse though, as that forces AIPAC to fund the Republicans
If you spoke out against the Nazis, you would have ended up in a concentration camp and people knew that. So few actually did something. However you have some interesting statistics, like for example that there was a massive drop of children being named “Adolf” in Germany in 1942.
You can actually see a number of things happening. However European countries are deeply into the US hegemonic system and have benefited from it for years. Cutting it would hurt Europe a lot and they also really want some US support against Russia. So the solution is to be somewhat nice to the US, while slowly building up systems to replace the pieces of US influence.
We can already see that. The EU has signed a lot of trade deals since Trump started his trade wars. That does not work over night, but will move EU trade towards other countries. There are also things like the digital euro to replace Visa and Mastercard, which would cause a lot of issues, if they are removed in the EU. As well as moving away from US software. This is done especially quickly by the armed forces.Fossil fuels are also replaced with green alternatives, which is key as those are a massive US export. You also see a massive rearming, to be able to handle Russia easily without US support. If Russia looses, then the EU would be in an actually very good geostrategic position on that.
This is the sort of stuff, which somebody like Trump can not really understand. As in really bureaucratic, not flashy at all and somewhat slow.
I think this type of push from the US will show us a lot. Like, are we really expecting Germany to arrest Netanyahu?
The truth is that Netanyahu is just not going to travel to Germany as long as the ICC tries to arrest him. He is 78, so going to die soon anyway.
The hard truth is that winning without support of AIPAC has been really hard in the past. Certainly a part of the reason Bernie never became president for example. This only started to turn with Gaza.
It also shows that not taking AIPAC money, has to be rewarded by voters.
Other way around. Russia attacked a Ukrainian grain shipment.
Also no that would be dumb to attack Russian grain shipments. Currently the Russians have a huge issue producing food due to diesel shortages, which makes the harvest basically impossible. Russia selling their grain abroad would lower their own reserves making food shortages more likely.
Something like this:
Because it is the “Yale Environmental Performance Index, 2026” and well…
Hamburg main stations is the second busiest in the EU…
No it is the politicians. Germany used to have a reliable train system. There are a number of issues though. First of all Germany uses trains for freight in a significant way. Then since the 90s they gave some control over regional trains to the states, who then increased the number of trains, because that was popular. They also added high speed trains to the system, which is great but when they are run alongside slower regional and freight trains, they need to overtake them, which lowers a railways capacity.
That all combines to Germany having way too many trains on its tracks, which creates traffic jams. The solution is pretty obviously to build more tracks and at best more high speed lines to add capacity. However that is blocked by the car lobby.
I believe 20% of household spending in the US was for cars. So people could seriously work a day less every week, if they got rid of their car.
Do you not have digital tickets of some form?
Also light rail is not that fast. So if you have to wait a long time, you are probably better off riding a bicycle. Obviously infrastructure permitting. Your description sounds like that should be possible in a bit more then an hour, but I have obviously no idea where you live and your work is, so can not honestly judge. Just wanted to throw that out there.
The US is rarely invading countries. Mostly it is just bombing or a fairly small special operation, but not a full scale invasion. The two large scale invasion of this century namely Iraq and Afghanistan ended up both being failures for the US on a strategic level.
Not all cops are always bad. This one for example feed a turtle.
The division between electrostate and petrostate is really starting to form.
The EU has three times the population of Russia and an even larger economy. Russia can not hope to win an arms race and they know that. If they go for it, they end up bankrupting the country. So the smart option is for Russia to not try to keep up with Europe and make some sort of deal to limit the threat. The Soviets did that with the US btw and there are other examples as well.
Is any of the people who praise the rearming have an idea of what happens in case of war with Russia?
We see it in Ukraine and it currently looks like Moscow is burning. So a lot of death and destruction, but no way they win a war against Europe, when they can not even defeat Ukraine. Hence rearming to make sure that Russia does not have any stupid ideas. It is much cheaper then a war.
Did people forget that they are in a military alliance with China, Iran and N. Korea?
They have one with North Korea. Afaik Russia is not at war with the US right now, besides the US clearly being at war with Iran. There is no way Iran supports Russia in any meaningful way. They also do not have one with China. Hell China refuses to sell arms to Russia.
The goal is to show the other side that you are willing to fight and at best a war is impossible to win for them. The issue here is that just saying it does not work, you have to pay for it, so the other sides believes it.
In this case Russia has proven they willing to go to war. They also have a fairly large military and have repeatedly threatened other European countries. So they need to show that they are willing to fight Russia. The big issue is that the US, who has a stronger military than Russia and has made claims they would not protect European allies. So they need to show that they have both the means and will to defend themself. Hence more military spending, moving soldiers closer to Russia and so forth.
The ideal outcome would be Russia collapsing again or a deal, where both sides agree to reduce their military. However it has to be both sides.
the Maginot Line didn’t stop Germany.
France declared war on Germany, after Germany invaded Poland. In that sense the Maginot line actually worked to deter Germany from invading France.
The sanctions have not stopped Russia from fighting the war. It is clearly not enough to just sanction a country. Especially with the world splitting into different blocks right now and China and somewhat the US liking countries like Russia. So strong sanctions are no longer a viable option for everything. Similar story with Iran btw.
Also arms races have ended peacefully. The Cold War certainly did. The trick here is to still have the credibility to be able to defend yourself. Having a strong military is part of that.
But if someone has “hit their limits” like the article claims it means they can’t go on anymore.
When somebody “hits their limit” that means they are stagnating and not falling or collapsing. It is also important to be clear that this is about the economy.
If the Russian war economy would not be able to increase overall production(not necessarily production of specific weapons, but overall), you would expect them to slow down their advance and take higher losses, as the soldiers lack weapons and whatever to make that happen. We also we see fewer air attacks against Ukraine.
That seems to be the case. Russian personal casulties are generally pretty high and they are not taking a lot of land. At the same time Shahed attacks are 30% down in June compared to May.
Big losses would happen, if Russias economy collapses and only some time after that. That might be the case given the current fuel situation in the country.
That is not building an alternative though. You are only destroying the current system by shooting the execs and are merely hoping that things improve.
Building an alternative would be some way of dealing with sewage without dumping it on the beach. The main problem with that are usually combined pipes for rain water and sewage. So when you have heavy rain the sewage plant can no longer deal with all the sewage, as a lot of it is just rain water. The alternative for that is something like a sponge city, where the rain water goes straight into the ground and is not blocked by asphalt or the like. Other then that lowering sewage going to the company using say compost toilets might work or maybe buying up the company and turn it into a cooperative.