Anyway, our descendants will hate current generations for what we have 'achieved' with the only place we can realistically live en masse for next 1000 years at least, almost all in in past 20 years, I'd say rightfully.
But as long as their stocks are up many folks here properly don't give a fuck. Tells you something too, don't put automatic morality into folks just because they have above-average intelligence, selfishness is a very powerful emotion from which none of us is completely immune from.
Under a continued Biden regime or a renovated Harris regime the climatic trajectory was similarly in overshoot. Like if you pay attention to what scientists, or even just general NGO representatives are saying... You should know that we are far off the rails.
Id encourage you to read the world meteorological organization's report from just last week; we are no where near what is manageable for a stable and prosperous future for our descendants. The climate has absolutely destabilized and we now have left a dismal future laced with intermittent catastrophe. Our generations greed and myopia means we have also left a momentous task to our descendants who might seek to try and restore the planet to equilibrium. Trump or Harris at the helm --it makes no difference-- the ship is going down.
Future generations will inherit a ruined biosphere, food insecurity, resource wars, etc. Humand can obviously mitigate tha somewhat but there's not a single political entity in the US or perhaps even the West as a whole that is currently engaged in doing so.
Environment aint just directly co2 or temperature raises, its everything. And everything is connected.
Just because the ship has sort of sailed it doesnt mean giving up and ignorance is the right course, especially when vuewed on really long term scale
The very first step here is to phase out extraction of fossil fuels. Kamala Harris was not going to even stop fracking, which is by far the most environmentally damaging extraction, let alone phase out drilling.
Basically no state/country nor any politician is going to save us. Currently it's up to regular people to work on building a better world, restoring the biosphere, coming up with ways to adjust our manner of living towards a sustainable course and one that will be resilient to catastrophic climate events and even social upheaval.
Instead it seems a lot of people want to just cast a ballot and then forget about it, but this will be a fundamental lifestyle change, and it's going to involve sacrifice.
Perhaps that was the problem with the messaging from the start, it didn’t appeal to people’s selfish nature enough.
No, no it has not. It has been about a multitude of subjects like the oceans and forests and preserving habitats from human interference. Humanity mishandling those has consequences for humans, but that has historically not been the crux of the message.
It has never been about “floating rocks” either, but the life in it, nature as a whole.
Both the candidates were in favor of a continuation of the petroleum based industrial society that will inevitably collapse in on itself.
In fact an argument can be made that this election and it's result are a symptom of that.
KH was also pro nuclear.
In other words, it seems to indicate pretty strongly that no matter how you vote, climate change is going to destroy us.
It's difficult for many people in America to accept that the "climate change" narrative is primarily a propaganda tool and wedge issue to rally votes, and that the DNC doesn't actually care about "solving" it. Just like abortion.
Two things are true: climate change and reproductive rights are genuine issues, and they are also weaponized for political nonsense. People need to be away more skeptical around these debates and stop getting so angry/depressed about them (which is the goal of those groups trying to manipulate you through powerful emotions).
This is such a bullshit way of thinking. No one snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche. "But China…", "But India…" is not an excuse for not giving a shit. I hear the same arguments over here in Germany, and they're usually coming from the "I don't want to change" crowd.
China is 30% of global emissions in 2023. India is 7%.
You can't get one country to stop all, so you have to get everyone to cut as much as they can.
But the point being made isn't to emphasize the importance of everyone collaborating on cutting emissions. The point being made is that we may as well not cut back because someone else might not. It's especially disingenuous to bring up India when they emit less than the US does (and especially on a per-capita basis).
> You can't get one country to stop all, so you have to get everyone to cut as much as they can.
Exactly, but the US accounts for 11% of emissions for 4% of the population. Maybe they have more fat to cut than others.
Also the state that has more renewables than any other state voted for Trump.
I think that this is one of the most incorrect, and, what’s more, plainly and obviously incorrect things I’ve ever read. I am almost at a loss for words when I read it.
Are we going to pretend that people would have adopted EVs anyway in the west without Tesla? Did you think we would just abandon the entire western auto manufacturing infrastructure and start driving BYDs? Did you forget what the auto industry looked like before (and during, in the early years) Tesla?
This is like saying that he doesn’t have a good sense for building orbital rockets. The guy has basically only done two big and meaningful things with his life and attacking the #1 carbon emission source is the bigger of the two.
EVs are growing, and will continue to grow, for reasons unrelated to climate.
They are the superior product in nearly every way. Regenerative braking is a huge objective improvement. The acceleration and torque control is a huge improvement. The lack of maintenance is a huge improvement.
The only downside of EVs is range and charge time, and both of those are being actively improved.
Elon deserves some credit for joining on to Tesla in 2004, long before these benefits were clear, and for being at the first company to really demonstrate these benefits in reality with the Roadster in 2008. But I do not think the existence of Tesla accelerated the adoption of EVs by more than a couple years.
The Model S was released in 2012. The Nissan Leaf was released in 2010.
Attacking cars as a carbon emission source would not mean killing an HSR project on purpose. It would mean building public transit.
Anyway EVs aren't special. Every major car manufacturer has them now, and the PRC makes shitloads too. Elon Musk probably beat the market, but it's not like his designs were genius - they lacked critical, simple safety features for example. Need I truck out the stories of people slicing their hands open on the cybertruck frame?
As for orbital rockets, that doesn't really have anything to do with climate change.
Also, I think your idea that cars themselves are the problem is probably incorrect. Decarbonization isn’t primarily about reducing overall energy use per person, although you can possibly deflect with the argument that it requires both that and also clean energy.
In any case, American culture and cities are car culture and cities, and even if you could do the impossible and magically deploy tons of HSR between every metro in the US it wouldn’t make people stop driving. Any solution that requires first rebuilding the whole country and replacing its whole population with people who don’t want to drive a large vehicle to the grocery store is obviously a nonstarter.
Tesla accelerated the electric car market several years, that's for sure. But nothing more than that.
The most important development for the feasibility of electric cars has not been automotive innovation (not the powertrain, the motor, the wheels, the interior or whatever), but battery innovation.
And battery innovation (i.e. cheaper, lighter, more capacity, better heat management, better durability) has been ongoing regardless of automotive even existing as an industry.
This has been the driving factor for the electrification of cars, not any one car company but the battery industry. Tesla simply was the best first mover.
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Battery-cost-dec...
It's clear that Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accords and famously wants to start up a massive amount of drilling for oil.
Whereas recent democratic cabinets banned certain oil drilling, dedicated the US to the climate accords, installed large subsidy programs including one that prevented Tesla (fully kickstarted the electrification of the entire automotive industry indefinitely) from going bankrupt, and just recently launched the IRA which is the biggest climate change prevention investment ($3 trillion) in the history of the world, prompting the EU to follow with a similar program to compete to attract green investments and innovations.
There is simply a massive policy difference between the two parties here. And showing a graph of world emisions that have kept going up in the decades prior to mainstream climate change awareness, is grossly misleading. For one because it says nothing about US policy. Two because it happened prior significant climate change policy and a divergence between republicans and democrats on this issue. And third because without frontrunner countries there is no way that you can ever overcome the tragedy of the commons issue with climate, because India/China are certainly not going to make investments if the US doesn't and fucks the climate anyway. We can't all use that excuse, certainly not if you're the richest and most innovative country.
Otherwise, why didn't Trump already abolish the entire constitution and voting straight after the 2016 election just to make himself a dictator?
Things have changed since 2016, go ahead bury your head in the sand about it. Don't come crying to anyone else when the leopard eats your face, though.
Climate change absolutely is a technical problem and not a political one. It's about the cause and effect patterns of actual weather phenomena, and has nothing to do with conflict resolution within human societies, or anthropocentric psychosocial rituals.
We don't really have the technology to purposefully engineer macro-scale climate patterns, and we absolutely do not have the technology to secure wide-scale cooperation among vast numbers of people with different value systems and incentive structures. We've never had that.
Where do you get the idea that politics has, or has ever had, the ability to do anything of the sort?
> There was a last chance to do it right around these years
You're not getting it. There was never any chance to do it. You might as well be arguing for sacrificing goats or reciting ritual incantations. There is no political solution to climate change, and there never was.
Peace and enforcing laws are now negatives to Democrats, that's why you lose.
Trump promised to deport all the undocumented migrants. All of them. That's roughly 10 million people.
How would you, within 4 years (he is famously a man of his word and we can count on him to accomplish his campaign promises within his presidency), find and then move 10 million people, and to where would you move them?
What does it look like to move 10 million people against their will? What mechanisms would allow for this?
I have an idea, but I'm curious your alternatives:
First, to find them, you could create a federal bounty program. Rat out illegals, get 100$ a head. Well, that might lead to rampant suspicion and neighborly misbehavior... somewhat exploitable too since you can get ICE to kick your annoying neighbor's door down by claiming they're harboring an illegal... not ideal. Maybe instead give NSA blanket wiretapping access to root them all out? Well, now they're listening to everything everyone says, but hey, anything in the name of freedom!
Regardless, awesome, now we've got ICE kicking down doors and dragging screaming families into the street. Part 1 accomplished. They load them into paddywagons and take them to local jails. Oops, those filled up within the first five days of the program. Now what? Stadiums? We're using those. Walmart parking lots with UNICEF tents? Sure, but what's to stop them from simply running away? Fences. We need lots of fences, and lots of UNICEF tents. Cut in some latrines (jobs!), run some plumbing, done. We've got some great staging areas.
Obviously, we should centralize these, right? We don't want to just take over every walmart parking lot in the country. Instead, while we negotiate with mexico and some other countries about how we're going to dump 10 million people over the border, we'll park them in several centralized locations, preferably out in the middle of nowhere because nobody wants a concentra--- sorry, undocumented migrant staging area, in the middle of their town!
That's a lot of people to move, 10 million. A greyhound bus fits, what, 30 people? 50? That's too many busses. We need trains. We can build the undocumented migrant staging area in remote areas with train access, just add an offramp straight into the camp- sorry, undocumented migrant staging area. Fix up some cattle cars, jam the people in there, gorgeous!
Oops, mexico told us to fuck off and won't take these migrants, now what? We can't just let them loose after having stuffed them up in there for a couple months, can we? I guess we can just keep them in there a bit longer while we try to negotiate with a couple other countries...
This sounds like the good version of America, right? With the screaming families being dragged onto mass transit and shoved into unicef tents? The alternative (aka, status quo for decades) is just lawlessness.
They believe that with these two major policies in place, most of the unlawful aliens will self-deport, and just considering human incentives on an elementary level, yes most of them will self-deport.
https://x.com/juandr47/status/1854199336860590416
Are you saying she's lying?
I agree with you that conservative voters often put their own thoughts on the words of their candidates. "Well he wouldn't actually..."
Today Trump said he would use the military to do mass deportations.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2nrg4deyjo
Can you help me understand how you square his words with your belief that actually he won't do this?
Most illegal immigrants are only in the US for economic reasons. Don't give them any welfare, make hiring them actually illegal and punish the companies that hire them. When this happens, many of them will just go back to their country.
Then if somehow their countries refused to take in their own citizens, they can just be sanctioned, or stop being given foreign aid by the US.
The only reason you believe that mass deportations are impossible and would cause an apocalyse, is because you really want it to be true.
https://x.com/juandr47/status/1854199336860590416
Are you saying she's lying?
Today Trump said he would use the military to do mass deportations.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2nrg4deyjo
Can you help me understand how you square his words with your belief that actually he won't do this?
The EU can't let Russia "win" as it would set a precedent. If the US withdraws their support, the EU will have no choice but to ramp up theirs, meaning funneling money to the military complex. Double or triple that if Trump goes through with his NATO defunding/withdrawl threats. This could easily destabilize the EU economy, cause internal friction, provide fertile ground for nationalism and, ultimately, lead to the fracture of the EU. Now recall Trump's cordial alignment with Putin, which will undoubtedly encourage this sort of development, and it all starts to look outright scary.
...
This is not about what Russia is doing. Russia, like the US, is an imperial power that cares little about the rights of other. This is about the US testing how much it can get away with by enroaching on what it mistakenly thought was a much weaker Russia than it turned out. And Ukranians are paying the price in blood, often against their will.
The US supports what benefits them, so I'm sure they were supporting the opposition. Russia was supporting the then president Yanukovych because that was the best for them. That's what countries do.
The protests started when Yanukovych decided to cancel the EU - Ukraine Association Agreement[0] to go do a similar agreement with Russia[1]. Now, while the US might be supporting the opposition, this decision was made by the government supported by Russia in a country that was turning to the EU for a long time (the exception was the Donbas and Crimea)... of course people were going to protest. After what they experienced in the 90's and early 00's, with many working in the EU for a while and seeing it as a better option, are you surprised that many would want to be aligned with the EU?
How do you go from a protest to killing protestors? That I don't know. Are you going to blame the US for the actions of the Russia-backed government? Maybe they were also part of the conspiracy... /s
In any case, this doesn't justify Russia's invasion of Crimea or the infiltration of the Donbas which preceded many of the horrors that are now known. Their actions and their president history lessons are examples of the imperialism you blame the US for. As someone that seems to have a problem with imperialism, you should be criticising them, but are not... why is that?
---
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customs_Union_of_the_Eurasian_...
You say that you hate Russian imperialism, but then start making excuses for their actions and deflecting blame on to others. If you really had an issue with imperialism, you'd be attacking Russia at least as hard as you attack the US.
I don't think you have a problem with imperialism, just with imperialism done by a side you hate. Russia can do whatever they want, even invade another country, and for you that is acceptable or not as bad. Everyone has their bias, but you're too far gone... It's a bit sad to be honest.
Ps: I recommend checking where Syria, Mali, Niger, etc, are on the map. Hint: Not near the Russian border.
And no I do not support Russian imperialism, but nor do I support any government that does someone elses bidding, esspecially when they force their own people to go to war for someone elses interests. Ukraine really is a NATO proxy, and that is what Russia invaded. And do not pretend that Ukraine is united against Russia. The very simple fact is that a significant portion of Ukranians supported and supports Russia.
It is good you mentioned Syria. Russia intervened to save Syria against from same fate that happened to Libya - ie US financed overthrow by Islamic terrorist groups and criminal elements. Both Syria and Libya were at that time strategic Russian allies. I think it is very likely that the US was so pissed off that Russia dared to get in its way in Syria that they intervened in Ukraine.
Ah yes, Ukraine, a NATO proxy that has been trying to join NATO since the early 00's, always being considered (open doors policy, unchanged since NATO was created), but never accepted. Are you telling me that in 2014, when the bloated and corrupt Ukraine military couldn't even stop Russia in Crimea or Donbas, when they didn't even had a working government to give orders, Ukraine was going to join or get some protection from NATO? Ha!
But notice how you are again trying to justify Russia's actions, as if they had no other choice or as if it absolved them of their crimes. It's the "she made me do it", but applied to international relations. Imagine if I did the same to justify the US' invasion of Iraq... what would you say? And since when does a country has the right to invade another country if many of their citizens live there?
I don't understand your point about many Ukrainians not wanting war with Russia. Usually, no one wants war, even in Russia many don't want war, yet Russia invaded. Ukraine had two options, either bend over and accept it or fight. So far the majority in Ukraine is fighting... and you, smart as you are, don't understand why they don't just submit to Russia, why they don't all love this country that invaded them and sends dozens of drones every day to attack them. Clearly you don't understand how most humans work.
I told you (not Russia) to look at a map because you said their imperialism was "confined to areas of their own borders". Not sure if you are misinformed or trying to misinform, but - again - Syria and Africa is not near Russia. I also don't understand why being present in a country or helping allies is imperialism when the US does it, but it's something else when Russia does it. I hope it's just that bias you've mentioned, because the alternatives are not nice.
I'm not going to continue this discussion... You will, again, blame everyone but Russia for the war Russia started and to be honest I have no patience for that shit.
Let's be honest, it was a good play from Putin. No one did anything, there was no real punishment. He thought that the same thing would happen in 2022, but it turns out things are a bit harder now.
You just can't understand why would any Ukrainian resist an invasion force, that's why for you they're just fighting for US interests. If you had read any history, you'd know that many people have the same reaction, as weird that might sound to you.
I have friends in Ukraine. The week after the 2022 invasion started, one of them shared with the last voice note of a friend that had died in northern Kyiv... I didn't understand anything, but you could hear the sadness in his voice. I never saw this guy speaking of Russia or of politics, but that was the changing point. Having to go to shelters every night due to missile strikes from this "friendly country" didn't help.
Another one, from Kharkiv (or Kharkov as he calls it, since he speaks Russian), ended up separated from his family when they fled west after something hit the apartment block some of their family lived in. They're back in Ukraine, but do you think he loves Russia now? You'll blame the US for this "hate"... but the people there know who's attacking Ukraine... it's Russia.
You'll never understand their point of view because you don't want to understand it. You'll keep blaming the US and praising Russia...
I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept that some people might want to fight for their country. Those who are forced - something that every country does - often accept it, not because they love it, but because like their grandfathers, it's their turn to defend their land. I can see a few reasons for someone from Ukraine to fight, a Russian on the other hand... maybe for the money? What else?
Only in your head is that everyone fighting are only doing so for Zelenskyy or NATO... do you think the average person gives a shit about Zelenskyy or NATO? But the fight came to them, so it was either resistance or acceptance of a new master. You think they should bend over... but this is like a robbery... some people just hand their wallet, some try to fight the thieve. It's a mistake to ignore human nature. Not everyone is like you.
Revolutions are not made by moderated people as those are at home watching TV... so yeah, not very nice people were involved. Find me a revolution where this hasn't happened...
I'll make 5 points:
- The "Azov battalion" was only created in February of 2014, after the invasion of Crimea in January and after the Ukrainian army shat its pants (yes, that's the army that was going to join NATO).
- In the 2019 elections when Zelenskyy - a jew - was elected, the far-right party (Svoboda) only received 2.16% of the votes and only had one seat in the parliament. So much for a country full of nazis.
- It's not smart to take some nazis and make them national heroes like Russia did with Azov after their last stand at Mariupol. It only makes the problem worse... another genius move from Russia.
- When there's a war that it's seen as for national defence, it's the ultra nationalists that stand up. The average person doesn't want to fight. It's not a coincidence that you'll find far right people in both Ukraine's and Russia's armies.
- Russia started the fight and can stop at any time. Why only ask Ukraine to stop, but not Russia?
Haha nice to see you come out of the closet. Anti fascist guerillas of WW2 would beg to differ. I my self think it cowardly to hate the other guy on the opposing side just because he was thrown in to fight. Being forced to die for someone elses interests and pocket is a terrible fate, and this applies to Russians and Ukranians alike.
> It's not smart to take some nazis and make them national heroes like Russia did with Azov after their last stand at Mariupol. It only makes the problem worse... another genius move from Russia
For some reason none of those Azov fighters that rubbed bacon on their bullets because the Chechens were coming are so brave and loud now. I wonder what happened
The list is obviously longer than just ultra nationalists, but the anti fascist weren't exactly fighting for some international community (eg: partisans in Italy). They would fight the fascists and if invaded by others, they would fight them too. They were fighting for themselves and to liberate their country.
The point, which maybe wasn't clear, is that it's those with more "extreme" views that stand up, not the average person that wants to run away. The early groups in Ukraine after Russia invaded were not just neo nazis. They even had groups of anarchists fighting in the east.
> For some reason none of those Azov fighters that rubbed bacon on their bullets because the Chechens were coming are so brave and loud now. I wonder what happened
Mostly dead, I assume. For all I care, they can all disappear. Them and the "ruscists".
But you missed the point here too... How many units were named after Azov before and after the siege? Do you think it's a good idea to create conditions for them to be "glorified" since they were sacrificing themselves (whether you agree or not is besides the point) if the intention is to denazify a country?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-of-ukrainian-national...
This is the country waging a prolonged all out unprovoked war with their neighbor right?
I don't know man. What's to the east that makes these countries beg to join? Is it a peaceful country? Or one that sees "russians" in need of protection everywhere, one where the president goes on TV and gives history lessons that reduces these countries russian land, one that makes regular threats about invasion or nuking their cities, etc?
The US has a lot of influence, but that has limits. The good thing for them is that with Russia behaving like this, they don't need to move a finger to have eastern Europe on their side.
I'll ask again: why did the countries in the east tried to join NATO? Why join if there's no threat?
It's not Estonia or Lithuania making regular threats about nuking a Russian city or taking the Russia in 2 or 3 days. They may hate Russia (why did you left the part where they were invaded and their language and culture was repressed for years?), but they're not going to start a war against a huge nuclear country. They will, for obvious reasons, try to have the means to make any invasion very costly though.
You can play dumb all you want, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that Russia's behaviour and their lack of respect for other countries' borders drives those countries towards NATO. NATO was losing its purpose until Putin decided to start invading countries... but of course you can't see this as Russia can't do anything bad and it's all the US fault.
Have you heard the saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Try to understand it, maybe then you also understand why countries that were attacked then sided with Nazis and anything that opposed the country that invaded them.
Russians living in eastern Europe is a well known thing, something that the Soviet Union did many times in different places, so it's not "unspoken" at all. In any case, this is not rocket science: Mexico doesn't get to invade the US because there are many mexicans there. The US doesn't get to invade Berlin because there are many americans there. Ang guess what... Russia doesn't have any right to anything outside their borders. Why is it so hard for you and Russians to understand something so simple?
There's only one country in Europe talking of changing their borders and waging war. It's Russia. No "buts" or "ifs". Russia started a war, full stop. The fanboys just need to grow a pair and stop making up excuses for them.
The US did not attempt to annex Kosovo and admit it as a 51st state. I'm also not aware of any pronouncements from an American presidents in regard to "the historical unity of American and Kosovan peoples".
No analogy here.
You're in explicit violation of site guidelines. Recommend you stop:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders and issued demands including a ban on Ukraine ever joining the NATO military alliance. After repeatedly denying having plans to invade or attack Ukraine, on 24 February 2022, Russian president Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation",
Why did russia lie about what they were going to do?
Putin espoused irredentist views challenging Ukraine's legitimacy as a state, falsely claimed that Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis
If they were "provoked" why did they lie?
Just like you're statement that russia was "provoked", stating that ukraine is not a country is wishful hallucination.
This isn't how reality works. You wishing something was true and saying it is true doesn't make it true.
Even Ukraine supporters admit that Ukraine has a problem with neo Nazis. Like waaay bigger than it should be. Just google it. Its a pretty out in the open fact
Putin doesn't have a say in other countries. Where are you getting these ideas? Why do you think this a justification? Link me some sites that you get your information from.
The things you are saying here are straight up russian propaganda. Sovereign countries don't operate on putin's terms. Ukraine can join NATO if they choose to.
Is there anything you don't like about Putin? Say something negative about him, anything at all.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Im pretty sure all imperialists have a say what happens in other countries. US does it kn a regular basisneven to allies. It is kind of in the definition of the term. This is not about morality of it. I am saying it was down right stupid not to have expected Russia to attack while the country was taking serious steps toward inviting NATO in its borders. Anyone with a brain could have predicted how Russia was going to react toward this. The US tried to pull a bluf but honnestly they couldnt care less since they are on another continent
> Ukraine can join NATO if they choose to.
I mean, that is obviously false as things stand right now
Where did you get any of this nonsense? Say one thing negative about putin.
Even though you have a long history of badly violating HN's rules, I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't feel fair to single out one account. But if you keep this up, we're going to have to. It's not ok.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
However the world let the annexation of Crimea slide in 2014 and that emboldened Russia. Let them chop off a piece of Ukraine now and that will embolden them even more. After all Finland was a province of the Russian Empire before the revolution of 1917 and parts of Poland were under Soviet's control prior to 1941. And that's without going back into middle ages. Lots of places to take back.
In fact, it won't even really be the voting citizens of the USA who make any decisions, because when red/blue splits 50/50 it isn't "tyranny of the majority" anymore, it's tyranny of luck.
Re: your taxes - it'd be prudent to look beyond short-term effects and consider what different scenarios would lead to in the long-term. The EU had no choice but to help Ukraine to resist. Consider where things would've been now if they didn't.
If Germany had any strategic autonomy left (which they don’t, they’re just a US vassal through and through) they would do a second Rapallo, maybe this time also involving China, at that point they’d still have a chance to put their economy back on track.
Dreading it on one level but also looking forward to the entertainment of a watch a slow motion train wreck. If he actually follows through on promises like mass deportation and forcing Ukraine peace that could get intense.