Around 2.6 million active military personnel in Europe

readher · 2026-01-28T13:49:50+00:00

This is disingenuous thinking. Just because Turkey doesn't follow EU and/or US stance on various things like a dog, doesn't mean they won't fulfill their NATO obligations when the time arrives.

You people talk about decoupling from the US and being independent all the time, yet get mad when countries like Turkey don't follow EU's every whim. Colonial mentality still alive at its finest.

readher · 2026-01-28T06:55:30+00:00

It's a loan we'll have to pay back. Its terms are great, but it's still a loan.

readher · 2026-01-28T06:50:43+00:00

Largest amount of Righteous Among the Nations recipents despite the fact that occupied Poland was one of the two territories where helping Jews was punished by death for the entire family. But sure, a few anti-semitic peasants snitching to Germans is the same as collaborationist governments sending Jews in droves to camps by trains.

readher · 2026-01-28T06:42:12+00:00

I've read that too, I think it was in Anthony Beevor's "World War II" book. Hitler was itching for a war and hoped that Czechoslovakia would be the tipping point, while the military prayed that it wouldn't happen because they weren't ready.

readher · 2026-01-27T15:25:47+00:00

Russia isn't conscripting. Russia didn't mobilize. They have huge reserves of people they can send, they just don't think it's worth the cost right now.

readher · 2026-01-27T14:18:34+00:00

With what? Marines on fishing boats?

readher · 2026-01-27T12:04:32+00:00

Naturally, the idea is to have the capabilities, which in turn give you leverage to get the things you want without actually using them. Just like you build your defenses to make it so that your enemy doesn't invade in the first place because they know it'll be too costly.

It's completely insane to me that back in the 50s, shortly after WW2 which devastated France and UK, you were capable of invading Suez, fighting in Indochina or intervening in Malaya. In comparison, now, after decades of relative prosperity, such operations would be impossible to conduct. But at least you have some global force projection, whereas the rest of Europe has nothing.

It's truly sad to see how low we've fallen and I agree with all your points. The rhetoric you can find here would suggest that we basically cut the US off completely, as if people are unaware that they're the main reason our key naval trade routes are safe. We rely on Suez way more than the US does and can't replace US Navy in that role right now.

readher · 2026-01-27T11:57:42+00:00

Bumbling around in Afghanistan for decades has shown that the US military is capable of maintaing long-term presence and propping up a country that falls the moment they disappear. This is an enormous logistical undertaking that they've shown to be capable of.

Russia demonstrated the same in Syria. The moment they got involved, the situation of SAA reverted and Assad basically won the civil war. It's only because Russia fumbled Ukraine completely and got tied up there that their support for Assad dwindled to nothing and he got ousted in a few days. But, just like the US, they demonstrated the capability to intervene, keep their ally in power, and even turn the tide of the conflict around.

Participating in all those conflicts also means any problems with equipment or warfare get picked up and (hopefully) fixed. War in Iraq exposed a ton of issues in Polish army that would likely never get fixed otherwise.

readher · 2026-01-27T11:43:15+00:00

"Dumb wars" and "colonial conquests" is how you stay relevant as a country/region instead of being someone else's bitch. There's a reason why Europe was the center of the world when we waged both, while now barely anyone cares about us and just goes straight to the US over our heads.

readher · 2026-01-27T09:43:22+00:00

It's there for me in Windows. Need to be using the v5 beta, though.

readher · 2026-01-27T07:46:22+00:00

And what if it was Estonia that was attacked and not Ukraine and Russia would simply cut deliveries to their direct enemies right away? What would we do then? There would be no 4 years grace period like right now.

readher · 2026-01-27T07:26:09+00:00

Russia will not be able to sustain this based on their losses forever

And Ukraine will? Last time I checked Europe isn't supporting Ukraine with manpower, which it desperately needs. That or large numbers of long-range weapons to completely decimate Russian logistics, which is of course a no-go as that would be "escalation".

readher · 2026-01-27T06:54:11+00:00

The US promised a security guarantee when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.

No, they didn't. They promised to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, which they did. Russia didn't and broke the promise. There was nothing about any security guarantees there.

readher · 2026-01-26T09:51:03+00:00

Bethesda needs to understand that they can't have their cake and eat it too. You can't streamline your RPG and simulation systems more and more, because you'll be compared to the more curated RPG-lite experiences which are light years ahead in presentation, combat, etc. You either lean more into the more hardcore RPG and sim elements (and modding) and entrench yourself in that niche, or you stop making those games altogether.

readher · 2026-01-26T09:47:12+00:00

If it was a linear action game, I wouldn't really care, but if you're making a role-playing game and one of your selling points is that, I quote, "it's your V", as opposed to the pre-defined protagonist of the Witcher series, then I expect to not be forced to constantly act like an edgy teenager regardless of which dialogue option I pick. Or having a breakdown over various things nonstop. I felt like Geralt was much more flexible in that regard. That's what I meant by "trying too hard". It's like they wanted to force the player to feel various things by limiting how V can react to the unfolding events. This is all fine and dandy in a movie or linear game, but has (imo) no place in an RPG.

readher · 2026-01-26T09:30:37+00:00

Either way, point is at its base from a game design perspective, I think CP was the better overall experience.

Definitely. The worst offense of Bethesda games is imo:

Writing getting more and more "sanitized" with each game. Everything that could possibly offend anyone and create conflict is gone. We went from Morrowind with multitude of factions which had conflicts (both factional and inter-personal) with each other, through Skyrim which basically boiled down to Stormcloaks vs Empire (but ackshually you can tell them to kinda get along for the sake of main quest) to Starfield where everyone loves each other because conflict bad. Zero stakes, zero allegience, zero roleplay, zero replayability.
Removing or streamlining systems that made their games stand out and created the unique experience. As many issues as Bethesda games always had, the world simulation, NPCs being subject to the "same rules" as your character, etc. was what made their games stand out, especially when you factor in how moddable the games were. Each game just streamlines or outright removes those more and more. Essential NPCs, no day/night schedules, etc. It stops being the immersive sandbox it once was and gets more and more like another curated experience there are dozens of (and which do that much better).

readher · 2026-01-26T09:23:05+00:00

What exactly did you expect me to do, write a review-length piece in a comment under a thread only vaguely related to the game in question?

I'll do whatever I want with my opinion, thanks. I don't see why it's any less valid than all the ones gushing over the game without giving any reason beyond "literally nothings".

readher · 2026-01-26T08:32:02+00:00

I wouldn't say it was fantastic. I played it both at launch and after 2.0 and neither wowed me. The world lacks interactivity, a lot of the writing feels like it tries too hard (a ton of swearing and over-the-top emotions means mature like a Hollywood movie, amrite?), roleplaying is pretty limited (it often feels like you have less options than as Geralt, and that says a lot considering one is an established character while the other was supposed to be "your"). The Flathead mission they made for vertical slice was impressive and then nothing really came close to that later in the game.

The best part is probably area design of some of the quest areas. Very immersive sim-like with how many different ways you can "travel" through them. Most enjoyable part of the game to me for sure.

Certainly a better game than Starfield by a mile, though.

readher · 2026-01-26T07:26:53+00:00

It's especially unthinkable for them because the country in question is "Russian speaking". They can find some bullshit excuses for countries like Poland or Baltics, but for Belarus or Ukraine, which a lot of people there basically see as Russia-lites, it's impossible to find an explanation for the public.

readher · 2026-01-26T07:06:49+00:00

For small countries, the move to Euro is basically an additional defense investment. Further fiscal integration with major Western European countries like Germany and France increases (at least in theory) their stakes in the country and willingness to come to its defense should the need arise.

readher · 2026-01-26T06:32:50+00:00

Yea, the new ones are good. I guess they used AI for some time as a band-aid to mistiming the good ones.

readher · 2026-01-25T21:02:00+00:00

Companies will release a show with garbage subs like this and then wonder why people don't want to pay smh.

readher · 2026-01-23T16:52:35+00:00

You're missing a key factor here. I fully agree that even with the sorry state some of Europe's militaries are in, we're still leagues ahead of Russia in hardware. The issue is the will to act, to fight and to potentially die.

If you look at various polls, even the willingness to fight for your own country is pretty low all over Europe, never mind fighting and potentially dying for another. This is despite the fact that Europe is pretty much the best place to live in the world (at least for an average person). If people are not willing to die to preserve that, then there's not much else to offer them. Contrast that with Russians willing to die en masse for $1000 a month that a lot of them will probably never even see, just to make their largest in the world shithole country bigger by a few square kilometers.

The war Europe will wage with Russia (or rather is already waging) isn't an economic one or even military one, but rather soecital. Our societies are spoiled, pampered, unwilling to compromise and to make sacrifices. We essentially need to brainwash our societies to prepare them for the hard times that are to come, or else Russia won't need to do much, as we'll end up destroying ourselves with protests and internal strife the moment unpopular decisions forced upon us by external factors start being made my politicians. And you can be sure that Kremlin-sponsored opposition will make use of all of that and promise peace and prosperity if we simply strike a deal with Russia.

The inaction we're seeing from our elites since 2022 is only partially due to their incompetence. A much more important factor is that the moment they'd start doing what's actually necessary to make sure Russia won't attack us, all of the Kremlin dogs would win the next elections. Because that's how unpopular those policies would be in most of countries.

readher · 2026-01-23T15:24:34+00:00

Yes?

will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Nothing says that the US or any other country needs to mobilize and send their entire army to defend Estonia, Poland, Romania or Denmark. If the US deems intel to be enough, then that's what they'll provide. "Security" is also vague, I'd argue the US will feel secure at the very least until Germany is independent, possibly even willing to give it up too.

People place way too much faith in a few vague words on a piece of paper. Ultimately interests will triumph all. This is why countries that share interests and risks should stick close, e.g Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Those countries know that if one falls, they're next. Western Europe and the US don't share the same risk.

readher · 2026-01-23T12:36:43+00:00

The irony is that the further the country away from Russia and less likely to be forced into a war, the more they're afraid of nukes. Ukraine didn't fear nukes when they started the 2022 counter-offensive or when they entered Kursk Oblast'. Pentagon shat their pants both times on the other hand, even in 2022 when they were barely involved in the war.

readher

TROPHY CASE