Maybe he should ask what he would do in that situation and then he'd have a pretty good idea of what Trump would do.

I keep hearing (in Western media) that Russia doesn't have enough reserves to take Kharkiv. I guess we'll find out if that's cope, or if Russia is just trying to spread the Ukrainians out, especially in light of new ammunition deliveries from the US. Spreading the front will make it harder for Ukraine to use that ammunition to concentrate firepower and create tactical advantages.

I will say it is funny to me how typically Dutch it is to take offence to something like not having to answer a question because it might be a sensitive topic.

Yeah, I'm not going to pretend to know the daily reality of companies in China but we do have something similar in my country for companies with over 50 employees and I wouldn't say it is that significant in terms of workplace democracy. The least charitable reading would be that China is doing something similar but a bit broader.

Still all good things, but to pretend that this is basically China pressing the communism button is silly.

Mr. Bocelli it's time to say goodbye

With all the things going on in the middle-east, a mostly defeated IS finds the time to attack Russia and Iran? If IS is not a US-op there is at least enough ideological overlap to work together.

There have most likely always been connections there. But imo the incentives for how to use IS changed once it became clear Iran and Russia where the big winners in the war against ISIS.

Yes, Putin is popular because he is a crucial part of the state. After the shitshow that was the 90s, his name is synonymous with stability. You quite literally have to be an extremist to want to put that stability on the line. Even if you're not fond of him, you have to recognise there's no safe, viable alternative. There's no way that the people most invested in the Russian state would let anyone else take the presidency without Putin's consent.

In that sense the elections are fake: they're not letting anyone else near the Kremlin no matter what. As opposed to the US where you'll have two fake options.

Personally I think it's weird to reject electoralism in the US/West and then to start defending Russian election results as 'real' because Putin is popular. You're still playing the liberal game of electoralism.

Yeah, if you repeat enough times that you're willing to send troops it becomes a matter of your own legitimacy. Whether you really wanted to actually do it in the first place, now you have to.

Which is the real danger of these statements by Macron. You're creating a red line for yourself and hoping the other side blinks first.

My new cope theory is that Macron is talking about sending troops to increase Ukrainian morale.

The Ukrainian army needs manpower but there's a lot of internal resistance to lowering the age of conscription and Zelensky dares not openly press the issue. Companies don't want to lose their younger workforce and people aren't feeling good about Ukraine's performance on the front right now. They need something to point to so they can make the population more amenable to conscription.

They can't achieve success on the front right now so Macron steps in and offers a (seemingly) strong commitment that they are willing to go all-in. Then the regime in Kiev can push through new waves of conscription. The French announce they are standing back and standing by now that the manpower issue has been resolved.

I don't know, I think the French would, out of all the European states, understand that it is not a good idea to send forces into Ukraine. I feel similar about the idea of France sending troops to how I felt before Russia invaded: I thought they wouldn't do it because it wasn't a smart idea. So I could definitely be wrong.

It is true that the European elite is loyal to the US, but more importantly they are completely dependent on the US. At the same time the Europeans are enthusiastic participants when it comes to Ukraine, moreso than the US.

The US has always held the position that the aim of military aid is to strengthen Ukraine's position at the eventual negotiation table. But the Europeans for a long time believed the goal to be a total retreat by the Russians.

Because of those fantasies, the Europeans have jumped in head first. Now the mood has soured and the Europeans are starting to realised that they have wagered the stability of their entire system on the outcome of this war. Hence those comments Macron has been making.

I hope that all this talk of sending troops to Ukraine is part of a process of Europe accepting the reality that they played themselves. Hopefully the Americans can reign their dogs in before they do anything stupid.

When it comes to Europe and Ukraine, I think it really comes down to moral indignation. They think Russia invading Ukraine is a unique moral crime. Ukraine should win because they are the good guys. Any sense of reality is almost entirely overruled by this moral indignation.

A lot of people in Europe can't even fathom that the West has any responsibility for this war. It must be Russian propaganda because the West is free and democratic and Russia is evil.

Even the people in my country that are at least sometimes better in realistically understanding this war seem to be dumbfounded by the idea that regular people show a greater willingness to protest the genocide in Palestine and not against Russia.

I truly feel it doesn't go much deeper than moral indignation for Europe. They can't conceive the possibility that anything they are doing for Ukraine could ultimately end up hurting Europe more than Russia. It is heresy to suggest that maybe if they went about sanctions a bit smarter, they could've probably helped Ukraine more.

When it's the US/West doing something there's all this room for 'nuance' but when it is Bad Country it's suddenly clear-cut good vs evil.