tal

https://archive.ph/JSHFy

We're probably going to have to bump our own aid as well, unless we're confident of an asymmetric counter to whatever Russia's doing with her funds (e.g. building munitions factory == strike on munitions factory).

I did read an article discussing that the US should be on firmer ground than last year politically on funds:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-united-states-needs-a-long-term-approach-to-ukraine-aid/

The April 2024 aid package was delayed for months by House Republicans, with Speaker Mike Johnson fearing that hardliners would strip him of his leadership position as they did with his predecessor. But Johnson was eventually convinced not just of the urgent need to help Ukraine win, but also that he had political cover to do so. Democrats pledged to save his position should it be at risk and, more importantly, former President Donald Trump came out publicly in support of the speaker’s efforts and backed him up after the package passed.

Many Republicans in Congress had feared that supporting Ukraine aid could mean losing their seats, as the supplemental fight came just as members of Congress faced their intra-party primary election. Some incumbents were accused of putting Ukraine’s interests over those of the United States and faced attack ads over their past votes for Ukraine aid.

Crucially, every single member of Congress who voted for the April 2024 supplemental aid package won their primary election. The importance of this cannot be overstated. These primary results will likely quell the fears among Republicans that supporting Ukraine could derail their political careers. On the contrary, given that polls show majority support for US aid to Ukraine, it could be an asset.

https://denvergazette.com/colorado-watch/colorado-parental-evaluator-indicted/article_e24e85f4-810a-11ef-8bf2-23b05d767098.html

Alternate source

If China wants a war with the US -- which I doubt, seeing as they haven't started one by now and Taiwan would be a better reason for them to do so -- they don't need a treaty to have one. They can just go kick one off. The treaty just means that:

• They have an obligation to act.

• It provides grounds under the UN rules to act legally. But, end of the day, that only really matters to the degree that it affects what other countries do. And in this context, that probably mostly means the US anyway.

If you look at Hong Kong, China just told the UK to get out or they'd take it. They didn't have a legal basis for that. I don't expect that a piece of paper would be a huge obstacle to involving themselves in Korea if they were willing to have a war over it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong

During talks with Thatcher, China planned to seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon", to which she replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like".

There’s a reason they are constantly provoking Filipino ships and the like

I don't think that that indicates a desire for war. China has had outright hostilities over the islands before, with Vietnam, and China didn't aim to convert it into broader war. I think -- though I don't follow the South China Sea situation much -- that China's aim in the South China Sea is to maintain a level of friction high enough that it's painful for the countries to maintain a claim over those islands. At some point, the country either de facto or de jure cedes the territory and China keeps it.

EDIT: There's the Vietnam instance, where they brought friction up to a level of conflict, grabbed de facto control, but didn't initiate a broader war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands

Article 6 of the treaty requires North Korea to commit to only peaceful reunification with South Korea. They're in violation of the treaty if they try to forcibly annex South Korea, and China doesn't then hold obligation to aid them against attack.

Honestly, if there were a simpler way to sell their personal data to retailers for people who want to do so, that probably would be more appealing for the users.

I don't think that it'll go away. I think that there will be a longshoreman.

It'll just do something different than in 2024.

Same way a longshoreman a hundred years ago, pre-containerization, would have been wrestling boxes around instead of moving containers on a crane.

Your realistic choices are Harris or Trump.

I'm pretty sure that you're not going to be happier with Trump in office if your objection is US support for Israel, and especially US-Iran conflict, seeing both past policy and that Iran got caught in the act of trying to off Trump several months back.

But, your vote.

Context:

https://www.twz.com/news-features/claims-swirl-around-israeli-strikes-very-near-russias-airbase-in-syria

Claims Swirl Around Israeli Strikes Very Near Russia’s Air Base In Syria

Targeting weapons bound for Hezbollah, Israel appears to have struck very close or within Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base in Syria.

They already sold a fair bit of munitions from their stockpile to Russia. At least some of which Ukraine then blew up in their recent ammo depot attacks.

I don't know how much they have left, but my guess is that North Korea is probably in a worse place to attack South Korea than they have been for a while.

Also, while North Korea does hold a strong deterrence ability over South Korea in that they can cause a lot of damage with artillery to Seoul, the flip side of that is that they'd be starting a war that they'd lose.

From past reading, I believe that estimates are that it'd take us and South Korea days, but less than a week, to knock out North Korean artillery near the border. In that time, they'd cause horrendous damage. But then they're in a really bad place. They don't really have a route to militarily take over South Korea. All it'd mean is a horribly-damaging war for them.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/dockworkers-union-reach-tentative-agreement-wages-suspend-strike-talks-rcna173963

The union also sought limits on automation at ports. The joint statement only mentions wages.

So I'm guessing -- though we'll see what further articles talk about -- that they probably got concessions on wages, but not on automation.

Macron: EU has only 2 or 3 years to stave off total US, China dominance

Out of curiosity, looks to see when the next French presidential election is

Well, there's a coincidence. It appears to be between 2 and 3 years away.

I imagine that it'd be urgent to adopt Macron's policy proposals to avert such a situation, then.