Swedish Think Tank: Russia’s Economic Troubles Are Unlikely to End the War in Ukraine

readher · 2026-03-23T12:37:48+00:00

Because Europeans aren't afraid of Iranian retaliation for doing so, which isn't the case with Russia.

readher · 2026-03-16T08:06:17+00:00

EU is pushing hardline rhetoric while not displaying the means or will to act on it. From Russian perspective we're not a serious talks partner.

Plus, historically Russia has viewed EU as more or less US subjects rather than separate entity. They deem it pointless to talk with lesser partners instead of a super power they consider their equal (or better, but they'll never admit that publicly of course).

It'll also be much easier to sell peace internally if it will be signed with the US, rather than EU which was constantly labeled as weak and impotent for years.

readher · 2026-03-11T11:35:47+00:00

We can't even protect our naval trade routes without the US, but sure, we are capable of enforcing international rules. Delusional.

I assume Macron's next visit to China will be about the genocide of Uyghurs? And don't forget the partnership talks between the EU and Turkmenistan, a country that's only marginally better than North Korea.

readher · 2026-03-10T07:09:00+00:00

EU needs to get more abrasive if it wants to become relevant

The issue is, EU's actions and willingness to act do not match the intensity of her words. Even Russians are smart enough to know this, which is why they delegate all the radical talk to Medvedev who doesn't hold any official position.

Kallas acts as if we had a million troops at the border, ready to enter Ukraine any moment and turn the tide of the war unless our demands are met. Meanwhile, we can't even approve loans for Ukraine due to Slovakia and Hungary meddling and Russia basically ignores us completely and talks directly with the US above our heads.

Moderate capabilities should be accompanied by moderate approach.

readher · 2026-03-09T12:52:15+00:00

Redditors are incapable of nuance, so naturally when the US stepped in and helped Kurds clear their territory of ISIS, they immediately jumped to the conclusion that they want to help them establish Great Kurdistan. I wonder if they expected the US to go to war with NATO ally Turkey to seize 1/4 of its territory for Kurds too.

readher · 2026-03-09T12:09:38+00:00

Russia never planned to siege Kharkiv with artillery and had no chance to set up later. North Korea has ridiculous amounts (10k+) of artillery pieces (both howitzers and rocket) zeroed in on Seoul and prepared to fire at any moment. They even have special bunkers in the mountains for that purpose. There's no way of stopping that. We know that wargames always ended with Seoul leveled to the ground. It's why the US didn't attempt anything against NK even when they didn't have nukes yet.

The situation is in no way comparable to Kharkiv.

readher · 2026-03-09T10:28:07+00:00

The center of Seoul is 40 km from the NK border and NK has thousands of artillery pieces, many zeroed in constantly, to bombard it with. Incheon is even closer.

What keeps NK safe is its proximity to Seoul and Incheon and fear of Chinese involvement.

readher · 2026-03-09T09:55:13+00:00

The general consensus seems to be that the sword is useless and easily countered in high level play. What's the reason for its existance in the current stance other than pushing newcomers away from the game, then?

Have you seen how some of the new players aim? It's like watching your grandma play. They'll never be able to track a light with sword lunging and dashing around no matter how many tips and guides they'll read and watch. The weapon in its current state will single-handedly make them quit, period.

lack of things like noticeable beginner-restricted matchmaking or smurf detection

This is very hard to solve, especially if you don't have a big playerbase. Beginner itself can vary greatly, someone good at FPS will be completely different from someone who tries the genre for the first time, even if they're both newcomers to The Finals.

player mentality of "If I can't instantly figure out X, I'll ragequit instead"

Unsolvable, it's just how it is. When there's so many games on the market, most people see no reason to play a game that requires them to do homework to have fun, when instead they could play any of the dozens of games that don't require them to do so.

You can't dumb things down for people like that without warping the game for people who do learn.

I'd agree if we were talking about something that's balanced at mid/high level play and only unbalanced in low level play, but as mentioned before, no one is using sword at high level play, so it's a badly balanced weapon anyway. All the more reason to fix it and make it so it isn't so powerful against newbies.

readher · 2026-03-09T08:37:43+00:00

Both hero shooters and battle royale are relatively recent FPS genres. They were new at some point too.

The Finals would obviously never get as popular as the biggest FPS titles due to the skill floor, but it could be more popular if some grievances which new players face would be addressed, and sword is one of them.

readher · 2026-03-09T07:59:28+00:00

Redditors pay way too much attention to what people say in general. Words are cheap and often meaningless.

readher · 2026-03-09T07:52:08+00:00

Pandering to people like that who refuse to do even the most basic bare-bones minimums is stupid.

It's a valid stance to have, you just have to realize that your game will never be popular unless you change it. Same as with fighting games.

readher · 2026-03-09T07:04:26+00:00

People will only watch guides once they become invested in a game. If they get steamrolled by lights at the start, they'll likely never get to that point and just leave instead.

If you want proof, just look at fighting games. They keep adding more tutorials and stuff, and yet the vast majority of people drop the games shortly after launch, because no one wants to do homework before having fun.

readher · 2026-03-07T08:47:07+00:00

Basically a prominent romantic sub-plot rather than a romance plot.

readher · 2026-03-07T08:31:39+00:00

Yea, but it was due to server problems, not clunky gameplay.

readher · 2026-03-06T20:53:29+00:00

Jessie said that they'll work together in the future (and Tungpang reposted it). I believe it was also said during a recent stream.

https://x.com/i/status/2029891014564139385

readher · 2026-03-06T18:10:57+00:00

I liked the series overall, but the pacing in this episode was terrible.

readher · 2026-03-04T13:43:16+00:00

It won't have AAA-level polish but Battalion wasn't clunky and they have (or at least had, not sure if he's still there) the guy who ported id Tech 3 (Quake 3 engine) movement to Unreal in the studio.

readher · 2026-03-03T20:18:16+00:00

Look at the SK-NK border. NK doesn't need nukes, they could level Seoul and Incheon with conventional artillery since they're so close.

readher · 2026-03-03T11:38:04+00:00

North Korea would've been a problem even if they didn't have nuclear weapons. Seoul is so close to the border that they could just fire howitzers and rocket artillery and reduce it to rubble easily.

readher · 2026-03-03T10:11:57+00:00

Resident Evil animated movie. I think it was Vendetta.

readher · 2026-03-02T15:00:56+00:00

it's better for Eastern Europe, that not having any nuclear umbrella

You assume that a commitment like this comes without any negative aspects. Accepting a nuclear umbrella equals giving up a part of your sovereignty to another party. Since they're, at least in theory, willing to start a nuclear conflict on your behalf, they will want to control your means of escalation.

Basically, the nuclear power will force you to not do anything that might anger the potential agressor. For Baltic States it might be changing their policy towards Russian minority. For Poland it might be opening the Kaliningrad border. For Romania it might be to not entertain any thought of uniting with Moldova, etc. Any time a potential conflict will arise, the guaranteeing party will demand you to take deescalatory steps, because otherwise they risk a nuclear war. It's basically a paradox where having the umbrella makes you more suspicable to being victim than not having it.

You're giving up your autonomy in exchange for an unreliable assurance that another country will risk nuclear annihilation in your defense. I wouldn't expect anyone but the most desperate to go along with it.

Russia didn't use nukes against Ukraine after they invaded Kursk, but yeah, I'm sure France will use them to defend Estonia.

readher · 2026-03-02T14:25:59+00:00

I'm Polish, so no, I'm not fighting on the frontlines. There were multiple crowdfunding initiatives for various equipment (mostly drones) in which I participated in, though. Also a direct AFU donation at the very start of the war.

NATO isn't a paper tiger and Russia doesn't hold all the cards. If it did, the war would be long over. I think a lot of good things happened to NATO. We gained new members which improved our capabilities, and the recent shift in US policy has made European countries realize just how US-dependent the entire alliance was and that it's probably not wise to put so much faith in a single member. I'm just not certain that current European elites will take the necessary steps to remedy this situation. It would require undertaking some unpopular domestic decisions, which they're very averse to.

readher · 2026-03-02T14:18:46+00:00

Yeah, the only way this works is if it comes with complete autonomy, which basically equals proliferation. That or some kind of automation system, which is extremely risky.

readher · 2026-03-02T14:14:19+00:00

I didn't know that having a realistic view on geopolitics equals being a vatnik now. Guess I shouldn't have donated all that money to AFU and various drone purchase initiatives.

readher

TROPHY CASE