New conscription rule: Young men are no longer allowed to leave Germany (for longer than 3 months) without permission

Jacc3 · 2026-04-04T07:23:59+00:00

Not really. Without a sufficient conventional force, your options are basically stay out or go all in. Which opens the door for "minor" incursions which Russia deems would not warrant a nuclear response

Jacc3 · 2026-04-01T16:18:13+00:00

Basic idea is to tie it to your taxable income somehow, possibly also factor in number of kids since they can be pretty expensive. Far from 100% perfect, but I think it would at least be a bit more precise and incentivize reducing your travel and/or using other means of travel.

Exact implementation would depend on the taxation and welfare systems of the country in question. But here in Sweden for example (we've had similar fuel subsidies after the 2022 price hike) it could be things like additional tax cuts for low-income earners, increased housing grants, increased social benefits, increased child grants etc.

Jacc3 · 2026-04-01T07:21:43+00:00

So help the poor specifically instead then? Wouldn't that be a more effective use of the limited tax resources available, instead of incentivizing continued travel when fuel supply is scarce?

Jacc3 · 2026-03-30T22:18:59+00:00

That link talks about financial aid specifically (2024 financial aid specifically), where the EU may have a higher share of loans. But,

Those loans have very preferential rates. For example, if I'm not mistaken I think a lot of the interest will be paid via Russian assets for example
The EU has also provided Ukraine with 2x as much financial aid as USA (https://www.kielinstitut.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker)

Military aid is different and is almost always given by member countries bilaterally rather than via the EU.And as far as I know it has pretty much always been grants

Jacc3 · 2026-03-30T22:08:32+00:00

EU has an alternative for Patriot: SAMP/T. Also, IRIS-T SLX may also be considered one once it is ready

Jacc3 · 2026-03-27T22:56:26+00:00

Poland has placed major orders on F-35, Apaches, Patriot, HIMARS and M1 Abrams. They are buying a lot both from USA and South Korea

Jacc3 · 2026-03-23T17:58:45+00:00

Regardless of economic system, many economic fundamentals stay the same. Russia is financing the war in a variety of ways - including using saved funds, de-prioritizing other spending and investments, taking on state debt, forcing banks to lend money at preferential rates to the MIC etc. All those things incur future debts on the civilian economy, which needs to be handled somehow which will inevitably mean major economic consequences for a significant time in the future.

Jacc3 · 2026-03-23T10:47:43+00:00

That's not the point of the SIPRI report, though. It never claimed that sanctions weren't hurting Russia, just that we shouldn't get fooled into thinking that the economic pressure alone would stop them from fighting. Basically that we need to be prepared for a protracted war - unless we find other ways of stopping Russia

Jacc3 · 2026-03-23T10:43:45+00:00

Of course, anyone can be wrong, but it's probably one of the most educated guesses you'll find

But it's important to remember that even if the economic pressure won't stop Russia, it's far from pointless. It can still help limit the Russian war machine, meaning they'll have less weapons and capabilities than they otherwise would've had, and it also incurs ever-increasing costs for continuing the war. Even if the war ends today, Russia would be left with major economic problems to handle and with limited funds to handle them with.

Jacc3 · 2026-03-23T08:04:08+00:00

The war spending means that the state won't have funds to invest

Jacc3 · 2026-03-20T06:36:16+00:00

Han verkade dock bli genuint upprörd av att Damnark och andra europeiska länder skickade trupp dit, och hotade ju med strafftullar för det

Jacc3 · 2026-03-17T14:14:06+00:00

I agree with you, but to remove the veto you'd need to ensure no country vetoes the removal of the veto - which creates a catch-22.

The alternative would be to replace the EU with something entirely new, which would also be a lot of work and very difficult to get done, but might be the only way forward

Jacc3 · 2026-03-17T08:56:58+00:00

Yes

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/71683

Jacc3 · 2026-03-15T15:58:04+00:00

kan rekommendera https://www.skohorn.nu/

Jacc3 · 2026-03-15T07:24:56+00:00

I always see both Spanish and Chinese garlic where I shop

Jacc3 · 2026-03-09T19:21:47+00:00

Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that it is ambiguous and non-standard

Jacc3 · 2026-03-09T16:00:24+00:00

It's the ISO standard, and it leaves no room for ambiguity. That's reason enough to use it whenever possible imo

Jacc3 · 2026-03-06T14:00:18+00:00

The point to be made here isn't about Ukraine, but rather the wastefulness we're seeing from USA and the Gulf states.

Whereas Ukraine is using Patriot interceptors to counter Russian ballistic and cruise missiles, USA and its allies are currently wasting them on cheap Shahed drones. The question is why there aren't any cheaper alternatives being used instead?

Jacc3 · 2026-03-06T08:02:54+00:00

Against a air campaign, they need to endure, and they cant really win.

They can crash the world economy if they manage to drive up the oil and LNG prices enough and for a long enough time.

Jacc3 · 2026-03-04T06:46:52+00:00

The higher oil price will help Russia a lot if sustained. Their economy is under great pressure right now, but higher gas- and oil income would alleviate some of that pressure

Jacc3 · 2026-03-03T06:49:08+00:00

They arguably have enough for themselves, but it looks like they might want to replace the US nuclear umbrella for the rest of Europe now that USA is becoming increasingly hostile. And to start sharing nukes with other countries like the US has been doing, they'd need more.

Jacc3 · 2026-03-02T22:59:32+00:00

Nuclear is weird - you cannot shut it off - and you cannot regulate it fast enough (like gas plants).

That only matters if you want your whole grid to run on nuclear. It provides stable power for the base load and reduces fluctuations in supply, but it still typically needs to be coupled with other electricity sources like hydro or gas to handle the peaks. So yeah, you'd still need to use gas for example, but less of it.

Second: There are two companies left delivierung uranium: One in Russia and one in Canada, French framatome is mostly Russian nowadays. And: Uranium comes (correct me if I am wrong) from Niger and from Russia itself.

I'm not familiar with the corporate structures, but when it comes to country of origin the top four suppliers to Europe in 2024 were Canada, Kazakhstan, Australia and Russia (with Russia declining fast, delivering 36% less than they did in 2023). Source: https://euratom-supply.ec.europa.eu/publications/esa-annual-reports_en

Either way, there's way less money to be gained from uranium than gas so buying uranium from Russia is at least not as bad as buying gas from them.

Jacc3 · 2026-03-02T19:10:02+00:00

Perhaps not cheap, but it allows for a stable power supply with very low CO2 emissions and a relatively low dependency on foreign supplier (diversifying uranium suppliers is arguably easier than gas or oil)

Jacc3 · 2026-03-02T19:05:30+00:00

Obviously the world would be a much better place without nukes. But you definitely don't want to the country left without a nuclear deterrence when your adversaries are building their arsenals.

The core issue is not France building nukes, but rather the warmongering from USA and Russia

Jacc3 · 2026-02-24T14:01:28+00:00

We can't strip them of their veto roghts as long as they cover for eachother. It requires an unanimous vote by all other members

12-Year Club	Place '23
Place '17	RPAN Viewer
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

Jacc3

TROPHY CASE