I don't go to that degenerate hellsite. It makes me feel extremely misanthropic and despondent.
Skiluros
joined 3 months ago
I am just saying Serbian independence movement in context of Austro-Hungary was only a small part of the buildup to WW1.
German unification and expansionism (but failure to establish colonies), weakness of the Ottoman Empire (this was going on for centuries), internal issues in Tsarist russia, changes in warship building dynamics in the early 20th century, general rise of socialism, rise of national self-determination, increase in literacy rates among the plebs, urbanization. etc.
Oh course Gavrilo Princip's actions mattered. His name is still somewhat well known over a hundred years later. But there were many other very important moments w.r.t. start of WW1.
The insurance industry has pushed back against the outrage. “The people in our industry are mission-driven professionals working to make coverage and care as affordable as possible and to help people navigate the complex medical system,” said Michael Tuffin, the president of AHIP, a major trade group, on LinkedIn.
I am curious if Tuffin would support a single-payer system to make the US medical system less complex. Perhaps the savings from all that wasteful insurance company spend could be used to help bring down the cost of providing medicine.
The impression I got from when I lived in the US is that at his level, US oligarchs generally don't like getting their hands dirty and there are strong communal disincentives to disrespecting "honour among thieves" laws. All the oligarchs groups will gang up on you if you use direct violence against another oligarch.
From what I've read, the "mob" in the US largely has no power, definitely nothing on the level of Brian Thompson. Even transnational groups (Mexican cartels, EU gangs, central American gangs) keep a low profile in the US and make a concentrated effort to avoid publicity.
I will admit, family issues is a possibility. Difficult to say. The business rivalry or mob connection doesn't seem even in the realm of possibility, but I could be wrong.
A bit of a tangent, but Gavrilo Princip wasn't really the cause of WW1 (and WW2 which was on some level is an extension of WW1).
His actions were the spark and he has gone down in history for his assassination, but in an abstract, analytical sense his actions had nothing at all to do with the beginning of WW1.
This may be their goal (it likely is), but it's honestly too early to speculate on the long term viability of implementing and holding such a plan.
That hit sure looked pretty professional.
I am not expert, but I would be cautious with calling this a professional job.
I live in Ukraine and we've had a wide variety of assassinations run by the russian security services. Some where clearly much more professional than this one. Others were less professional than this one, but still organized by the russian security services (this was confirmed by subsequent investigations).
Is this Matt Walsh fellow genuine in his beliefs or is this just a finance/brand-building exercise? I am not from the US. A quick look through his YT channel and overall structure and presentation of his polemics suggests a strong tendency towards demagoguery.
What is intent though in this context? If all you actions go against your publicly stated intent, then what is the value of you public statements.
Back in the 90s, early 00s, there was a definite possibility of Russia getting its shit together, they actually had, for a change, a civil society.
What are you referring to? Mind you, I agree with the statement (I lived in russia in the 90s and 2000s), I am just curious how this is related to Merkel who was elected in 2005 and have a very consistent foreign policy approach to russia throughout all her rule. She always supported and enabled russian genocidal imperialism (show me an action that would suggest this is not true).
The Bayraktar example is a general example of broader German policy. It's not like Merkel's reaction would be any different. I am just highlighting how shallow Merkel's statement are about giving Ukraine time to prepare.
We are not discussing France, UK. We are discussing Germany. Specifically Merkel's claims.
I am not a PhD in history. Yet, even I know that russians are incapable of good faith actions (nothing inherent about russian culture, it's just a fact). Merkel knows this too, so I don't buy the "believing in Minsk" BS. At best, it was PR cover for enabling russian genocidal imperialism.
Nothing to do with assigning blame. I am not looking for someone to blame. What I am saying is that Merkel supports russian genocidal imperialism. She might claim to oppose it in terms for platitudes, but de facto she supports russia conquering independent countries and exterminating their cultures.
The improvement in the Ukrainian army was primarily driven by internal needs. One region was annexed and two others were invaded. At the beginning of the russian invasion, Ukraine only had around 5,000 battle ready troops (as per local media); of course there would be a change in military posture. Much of the early anti-air defense (S300 variants) were procured under Poroshenko who understand the risks of having russia as neighbour.
Military advice and training were primarily provided by US, UK, Canada, the Baltic nations and Poland. Where exactly did Germany play a role in military support? Can you be clear and specific.
I will highlight the reaction of the German government to the initial use of the Bayraktar drones at the LOC before full scale invasion:
Also don't forget that much of the performance of the Ukrainian army is also driven by motivation. Ukrainian soldiers are defending their country. Russian are fighting for loot and their Tsar.
Germany under Merkel did nothing from a military perspective and ignored and enabled every escalation by the russians. Show me how I am wrong.
Have not read it. But does look interesting. I will add it to my to-read list.
Cheers! 😀