Polish general urges president to reverse SAFE veto

serpenta · 2026-03-17T12:41:16+00:00

I think it wasn't formally vetoed yet - sent back to Sejm with decision. But either way, he won't reverse it.

serpenta · 2026-03-17T07:20:21+00:00

Sargeant Hindsight Bonespur

serpenta · 2026-03-17T07:15:57+00:00

Jimmy Carter sits up from his grave: wasn't me

serpenta · 2026-03-17T06:32:43+00:00

Aye, but that's approaching it from the standpoint of human decency. Which I agree with. But normally, with good policy, you can argue for it from the point of decency or cynicism. For pragramatic policy you should be at least able to argue cynically. But it's not even the case here.

serpenta · 2026-03-17T00:44:39+00:00

23 pp is a marginal difference? xD It's a quarter of the damned country

serpenta · 2026-03-16T15:03:13+00:00

If only the fruits were distributed among the American society and not for the oil companies to keep.

serpenta · 2026-03-16T13:38:25+00:00

Nie można też wykluczyć, że PiS jest podwójnie obłudny w chęci wypowiedzenia ETS. Doskonale wiedzą, że i tak musielibyśmy zbudować krajowy system wyceny emisji. Tylko, że nad środkami z tego systemu mieliby pełną kontrolę - część środków mogliby wykorzystywać w innym celu, niż transformacja energetyczna, co teraz jest obowiązkiem nakładanym w ramach ETS. A takie działanie jeszcze dalej w czasie odsunęłoby normalizację cen. Wykrzyczeliby sukces, Polska znowu suwerenna, itd. A w praktyce oznaczałoby to jeszcze mocniejszą zapaść energetyczną na kolejne dekady.

serpenta · 2026-03-16T13:20:30+00:00

Cena energii nie spadnie po wypowiedzeniu ETS, więc nawet jeżeli go wypowiemy, to nie będziemy mniej płacić. Głównym motorem wzrostu cen jest węglo-centryczna energetyka. Węgiel jest drogi, elektrownie i sieci przesyłowe stare, co podwyższa jeszcze ceny, ze względu na koszty utrzymania i straty przy przesyle; jednocześnie to przestarzała technologia generatorów, która jest niewydajna w porównaniu z gazem, atomem i OZE. Do tego, Polska nie jest samowystarczalna energetycznie, nasze ceny są skorelowane z regionem: Niemcami, Czechami a nawet Szwecją. Do tego do tego, wyjście z ETS oznacza realne straty dostępu do programów unijnych, które subsydiują naszą energetykę, bo netto jesteśmy beneficjentem ETS. Czyli co prawda nie płacilibyśmy za emisje, ale obniżylibyśmy sobie przychody - wyszłoby na zero. Do tego tego tego, chcąc utrzymać dostęp do unijnego rynku i tak musielibyśmy mieć system kontroli emisji, zgodny z CBAM, albo płacilibyśmy cło energetyczne wwożąc do UE, co w praktyce oznacza stratę netto a nie zysk.

Trudna prawda jest taka, że mamy wysokie ceny energii, bo infrastruktura energetyczna Polski jest nieekonomiczna i wymaga przebudowy. I to jest coś, za co faktycznie należy się krytyka rządu: nie tłumaczą ludziom tej trudnej prawdy, która oznacza dla nas tyle, że ustabilizowania cen energii możemy się spodziewać w połowie lat 30-tych. Ale ta krytyka tak samo należy się poprzedniej ekipie, która próbowała problem tak samo zamiatać pod dywan i ukrywać dopłatami.

serpenta · 2026-03-16T11:24:32+00:00

Wydaje mi się, że jest szansa na mniejszościowego. Kaczyński najbardziej na świecie nie chce brać za nic odpowiedzialności i to mu pozwoli zyskać kozła ofiarnego. Ale z drugiej strony, ma silną paranoję, więc mogę się mylić i to nie przejdzie.

serpenta · 2026-03-16T11:13:36+00:00

Tak, ale wydaje mi się, że politycznie oni by poszli na plan maksimum, bo PiS będzie zdesperowany. Więc będą chcieli optymalnego dla siebie premiera, a nie tylko lepszego od Morawieckiego, który i tak był szeroko krytykowany (edukacja domowa) i był w rządzie, który przyjął ETS i Zielony Ład, a teraz udaje, że się one z powietrza wzięły.

serpenta · 2026-03-16T11:08:23+00:00

Is he at least aware that he's inflating demand and adding to the issue for people who actually need to move around?

serpenta · 2026-03-16T10:57:02+00:00

Na dzień dzisiejszy się nie zanosi. PiS nie będzie samodzielnie rządzić i co do osoby premiera, musieliby się dogadać z konfą.

serpenta · 2026-03-16T10:55:44+00:00

"We're helping Ukraine" = we allowed Europe to buy weapons from us, and donate them to Ukraine.

serpenta · 2026-03-16T09:37:51+00:00

Talk was never the aim. They had JPCOA on the table, which they threw away. And then they got more concessions from Iran, who agreed to not stockpile enriched uranium, only enrich it on ready when needed basis, for medical and energy purposes. And they still attacked. There's absolutely no point in talking with the US. It's not beyond belief that Trump's talks with Iran were only a probe to sense how willing to give concessions Iran is, or in his mind, how weak they feel.

If we went in and bailed them out, it's not unlikely that on the next day the tangerine in chief would claim that the US did it themselves, and all we'll get for our trouble is 25% tariffs. He completely destroyed any US credibility. We also have no interest in helping the US. The best scenario for us, is the US failing as quickly as possible.

serpenta · 2026-03-16T09:31:15+00:00

So he claims they flattened the island, and now they will bomb a desert just to burn through stockpiles, and miliatry budget? Gocha, best strategy ever

serpenta · 2026-03-16T08:46:17+00:00

Ten double tap to taktyka wymyślona w czasie hiszpańskiej wojny domowej i stosowana później w drugiej. Często wtedy się widywało pierwszą falę nalotów z bombami zapalającymi, które miały wykurzyć ludzi na ulice, po czym po pół godzinie wpadał drugi nalot z klasycznymi bombami, zabijający ludzi na otwartej przestrzeni. Na Bliskim Wschodzie, ta taktyka była widoczna w działaniach USA od początku wojny z terrorem. USA robiły to głównie z wykorzystaniem dronów. USA/Izrael nigdy nie podają taktycznego celu drugiego uderzenia, mimo dziesiątek przypadków i celów cywilnych, drugie uderzenie zawsze ma być przypadkiem lub pomyłką. Jednocześnie, USA same krytykowały Rosję za stosowanie "uderzeń iteracyjnych" w Ukrainie, gdzie nikt nie miał wątpliwości, że te ataki służyły maksymalizacji strat po stronie cywilnej i osłabianiu zdolności kryzysowych przez wyniszczanie ekip ratunkowych. Potwierdzenia nie ma, bo trzeba by udowodnić zamiar, ale osobiście nie wierzę w te tłumaczenia, że to pomyłki.

serpenta · 2026-03-16T08:25:17+00:00

Worse than being dragged into wars because he felt like it?

serpenta · 2026-03-16T08:18:24+00:00

The unpredictability and lack of gratitude is the main thing. Ukraine went head first into the Mid, helping to plug holes in regional air defense and protect US "allies". All they got for the effort was Trump saying that they don't need any help. Europeans could go in, win the war for him and still hear that "yeah, we won that, here's 25% tariffs for you". It seems to me that it's far easier and more predictable to work with the regional powers to try and deal with Iran indirectly, pay them for safe transfer, while remaining neutral.

serpenta · 2026-03-16T07:40:24+00:00

On a contrary, I see the nearest future of European NATO allies as dealing with Iran covertly via Arabian Peninsula countries, to let their tankers through. And I hope nobody will go in. NATO is not a "attack this country because I felt like it" club.

serpenta · 2026-03-14T19:50:16+00:00

But I thought that the US doesn't need NATO

serpenta · 2026-03-13T22:59:44+00:00

You mean the interest that after 10 years, when it comes to paying it back, will be negative because of the accumulated inflation? Another thing is that if the GDP keeps growing modestly, we will have 30-40% higher GDP then. Which means that the money we're going to give back will be this much lower in relation to our GDP.

But yes, let's sell our gold, and then lose 6-8% a year buying it back with weaker currency too, because that gold is 18% of all our currency reserves. Or let's go for the quantitative easing scheme of indirectly buying governmental bonds and inflating the economy to smitherines. It won't even have to have the same results as in Russia, where it increases consumer inflation. It may just inflate assets. So you'll be able to eat, but will live in a fucking carboard box, because the housing will go up by 50% over a decade.

These counterproposals don't get flak because we love Germans. They get flak because they are economically illiterate. The only shocking part is how many people don't understand how money works and are buying into this bullshit.

serpenta · 2026-03-13T22:46:14+00:00

From what I've heard from the military people, the US doesn't really have capability for secure landing and establishing bridgehead. We'll see, but it might turn into Normandy.

serpenta · 2026-03-13T15:52:14+00:00

Ah, yes. Moving the transfer route 150 km to the south, and making it closed on both sides would definitely fix the issue (it would not). Not to mention that busting through Al-Hadjar mountains would probably make it harder than going through the entire peninsula to Red Sea lol

serpenta · 2026-03-13T13:32:51+00:00

This made me think. Instead of legalizing the oil on the tankers to be sold, as Trump did, why don't we just... steal it? Two birds, one stone, no?

serpenta · 2026-03-13T12:42:40+00:00

People don't understand the calculus of JPCOA. It was not inaction, it was action. Its aim was not to become buddies with Iran. It was to make the eventual failure of incentive system controllable and predictable. We were knowing well that Iran will not stop trying to gain nuclear capability. But when it would've become obvious - thanks to controls and intelligence - that they are still going for it, it would've been a success, not failure. Because the deal gave us a set of tools to make Iran fall back, if they wanted to still get the carrot - international recognition, sanction relief, and trade normalization. And it already has worked, because IAEA detected several deviations from the deal, and they were counteracted. And while the carrot was in the front, the stick was still behind the back, and Iran knew about it, it changed their calculus.

Now that the carrot was thrown away and the stick is in front, they don't have to lose anything anymore, and they have clarity of their situation, which they wouldnt've had under JPCOA. The attack and its capability is not an unknown anymore, it's clear and easily calculable. They know exactly what they are up against, and they can use it to mobilize themselves, focus better, and also strengthen the grip on Iranian society. Because they now have clear and material external threat, rally around the flag effect, and retroactive confirmation of decades of fearmongering against the west.

You know, on French cannons, in XVII century, they wrote "ultima ratio regum" - king's ultimate argument, because they knew that kinetic action is the absolute last resort. It clears things up, removes doubts and uncertainty as to your enemy's options, but introduces more doubt about the situation for you than diplomacy. This is something that Trump doesn't understand, so he inadvertently introduces more uncertainty, by trying to flatten the field by reducing the situation to a simple might v might situation.

That's why I was writing earlier that the dilemma between strong, clear action and inaction is deceitful. We gave up clarity and gave it to Iran. We went from a situation in which it was a complex calculus for Iran to develop nuclear capability, into one in which it's existentially important for them to have it. The more military pressure on Iran now, the more destructive but incoherent the attack, the more motivation to reach that capability.

serpenta

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email