>You guys are so deluded in your little bubble it’s hilarious.
Please do not lump all HN posters in one category, and if you insist on doing so, please be courteous and generous with your interpretation of their words.
As an aside, I had to look up what pwc is because they're totally irrelevant to me. But in general, it costs you nothing to tell people to spend years retraining their hard-earned skills, which is roughly what your advice is worth. You can't promise that the industry they pivot into will exist by the time they qualify to work in it, and the cost of their career retraining is denominated in time they don't get back. Nor will you be there for their journey to even know if they made it.
Honoring it, no doubt, by restricting firearms to duly registered militia personnel as written in the plain text for all to see? What about the 14th Amendment section 3, also written plainly?
Excuse me. The law(14th Amendment section 3 specifically) clearly prohibited Trump from being eligible for federal office. That the Supreme Court abrograted state's rights to run elections free of federal interference, not to mention the lack of recusal given the blatant conflicts of interest, is a separate matter altogether.
*It's my current understanding that Ukrainians performed this sabotage.*
If that were vaguely true, Germany which owned 51% of NordStream would have sued UKR immediately and abolished diplomatic relationship. The fact they didn’t tells you everything you need to know about the absurdity of your claim.
Things being a talking point doesn't mean they're untrue. The US is and was the only party that made any logical sense, to say nothing of also being one of only a handful of nations with the technical expertise to do so as well. The US was against the Nord Stream from the beginning because we felt it could deepen ties between Germany and Russia, unilaterally sanctioned companies involved in it, and of course Biden publicly alluded to threats of blowing it up: "If Russia invades ... then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." "How will you do that, since the project is under Germany's control?" "We will, uh, I promise you, we will, uh, be able to do that *smirking*." [1]
With it blown up we're able to make Europe completely dependent upon US gas sold at a high premium. Well, at least that was probably the goal. Technically the attack failed and at least one of the pipelines was/is still viable, but the US probably was hedging their bets because there was no way to anticipate exactly how enthusiastic Europe would be about setting aside their own self interests for the sake of US geopolitics. It also helps ensure less chance of a reconciliation between Russia and Europe which is probably seen as a reasonable way of weakening both.
Reading "Rebuilding America's Defense" [2] by the typical names that show up in basically every US presidency, Democrat and Republican alike, is crucial to understanding US geopolitics. And one thing we obsess over is/was the prevention of the emergence of new superpowers. This is even mentioned quite explicitly in the text, "[Deploying US forces to Europe] is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward an independent defense "identity" and policy; it is important that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs."
> Things being a talking point doesn't mean they're untrue.
Obviously, but hence the other things I put in the comment.
> The US is and was the only party that made any logical sense,
I aver none make sense, including the USA. The USA has limited capacity to transport LNG, most already being in use. Not really a growth opportunity.
Also, whoever does this, US or otherwise, runs the risk of getting caught; if it was the USA, the scandal of it would likely push Europe much closer to China.
So far as I can tell, the only apparently-involved nation who wouldn't care about the political fallout of getting caught would be Russia, but it was their gas so why would they attack it?
> to say nothing of also being one of only a handful of nations with the technical expertise to do so as well.
I find that many people over-estimate what can be done by a small motivated team. I understand it is well accepted that human divers capable of this are relatively rare, and there wasn't e.g. really enough time for the accused Ukrainian team to have done so, and the ship they were known to be on was very poorly suited to such a task.
However, the Ukrainians have demonstrated significant skill with remote control vehicles. Hell, the only reason I'd rule out anyone like say Greenpeace is that they didn't claim responsibility, such groups would be whom I'd say have the smallest required dose of sudden insanity to mistake this for a good idea.
> and of course Biden publicly alluded to threats of blowing it up: "If Russia invades ... then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." "How will you do that, since the project is under Germany's control?" "We will, uh, I promise you, we will, uh, be able to do that smirking."
The problem with this, is that Germany had already brought an end to it, before it was blown up. One thing Germany is very skilled at, putting red tape around things.
The explosion turned an indefinite suspension into a kinetic suspension.
> Europe would be about setting aside their own self interests for the sake of US geopolitics. It also helps ensure less chance of a reconciliation between Russia and Europe which is probably seen as a reasonable way of weakening both.
If the US sees the European reaction this way, then the US has misunderstood the European thought process.
It was, and is, in the self-interest of Europe to end the threat posed by Russia.
> And one thing we obsess over is/was the prevention of the emergence of new superpowers. This is even mentioned quite explicitly in the text, "[Deploying US forces to Europe] is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward an independent defense "identity" and policy; it is important that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs."
That is indeed something I have heard from other sources.
Unrelated to Ukraine, it is interesting to see how Trump is doing the exact opposite of US interests in this regard.
« Germany had already brought an end to it » – Wrong. And of course refusal to start pipeline operation and the ridiculous legal shenanigans (at EU level) were down to US pressure.
« It was, and is, in the self-interest of Europe » – Where are you talking from, geographically? What European languages do you speak so as to be able to know "the self-interest of Europe"?
There's quite a bit of smugness and hypocrisy in your response. Because I don't believe you're as dumb as your responses suggest.
> Wrong. And of course refusal to start pipeline operation and the ridiculous legal shenanigans (at EU level) were down to US pressure.
Sounds like you're agreeing with me that they did in fact refuse to start pipeline operation. Regardless of who put what pressure where, that it was not started is by itself sufficient to make the destruction pointless for basically everyone.
> Where are you talking from, geographically? What European languages do you speak so as to be able to know "the self-interest of Europe"?
Ich spreche Deutsch, ik spreek een beetje Nederlands, hablo un poco de español, μιλάω λίγα ελληνικά. I have visited roughly half of EU member states, and live here too.
None of this is relevant to learning about national self-interests, as these are widely reported, taking quotations from politicians and military leadership across the continent, because news sites have actual translators and they're rather better at these languages than me. Even if they didn't, Google translate exists and works across the continent.
In this case, Russia started this war of aggression on our doorsteps, has been engaged in assassinations and sabotage in our countries, and some of their weapons keep ending up landing in our territory. The two largest armies in Europe right now are the Ukrainian and Russian armies, and the transformative nature of drone warfare during this conflict means that even though the rest of Europe has more money than Ukraine, it is not yet ready to defend itself from the kind of threat Russia would be immediately if Ukraine gave up, as we are all set up for elite forces, i.e. small quantities of high value systems, not mass forces, i.e. deploying 7,000 FPV drones per day every day for years.
> hypocrisy
I don't think you know what this word means. I assume from this random attempted insult and your quotation style that English is not your first language.
« national self-interests … are widely reported » – What's “widely reported” by the propaganda apparatus is often at odds with “national interest”, which is at least something that makes sense, whereas “the self-interest of Europe” is a highly questionable concept. Still, cheap gas from Russia would fit the bill, expensive wars on behalf of the US and the UK do not. Rich people making lots of money from it does not equate to “national interest”.
« assassinations and sabotage in our countries » – They did assassinate a Georgian terrorist, murderer and war criminal in Berlin in 2019 (whom Germany refused to hand over to justice), and a Russian traitor in Spain, and maybe others I'm not aware of. Compare these to the mass murder via US cyber-attack (true one), on March 24, 2015, of 150 people (mostly from Germany and Spain) by crashing an airliner into a mountain, and then ridiculously claiming (via NYT) “pilot suicide” (as they did with Egypt Air 990 on Oct 31, 1999). I ignore the exact motive, but I suspect it had sth to do with Merkel's trips to Moscow earlier that year.
English is indeed not my first language, and yet I know exactly what “hypocrisy” means. You can see an example of it by looking at the top of your reply, where you slyly pretend not to understand that the US had ample motive to destroy the pipeline for geopolitical reasons. It is absolutely not meant as an insult, just an analysis of the rhetorics you're using. After all, such rhetorics and styles of twisted reasoning are often unconsciously absorbed and reproduced due to exposure to propaganda (“free press”).
You can see data on US LNG imports to the EU here. [1] After the invasion they more than tripled with the US now accounting for more than 58% of EU imports. Gas prices are up more than 10x relative to their lowest lowest in the 2020 before the war. [2] The EU was most certainly a growth market, if Russian supplies to the EU could be disrupted.
I think the threat from Russia is questionable. This war was predictable after 2014, much in the same way that an eventual war with Moldova over Transnistria seems quite predictable today. However, war with e.g. Germany seems entirely nonsensical. But let's just assume there is a threat for the sake of discussion. How does escalating this conflict, most recently with highly provocative attacks explicitly targeting civilian infrastructure [3], aim to reduce such? And how would aiming for reconciliation and de-escalation not be a much more reasonable way to achieve such?
Even if we again assume reconciliation is not possible, which is also very questionable, you end up with the point that [3] not only serves no viable military purpose, but actively escalates the conflict in a likely self destructive way. Ukraine's attacks made some catchy headlines in the information war, but now they've been predictably been met in kind, putting Ukrainians in an even worse situation, increasing food scarcity and such, all with winter on the horizon. I haven't seen so many headlines about that, however. Go figure. Are these escalations making the EU more or less safe?
US interests in Europe are ensuring we maintain the dominant force in their geopolitical positioning. I think that is probably now more true than ever before. The EU showed some basic degree of self interest and defiance by staying out of Iran, but I'd hope and assume that would also be the case even if the US had a more reasonable President. That was just a particularly stupid war to start. Curiously, something Trump himself acknowledged before becoming president.
> You can see data on US LNG imports to the EU here. [1] After the invasion they more than tripled with the US now accounting for more than 58% of EU imports. Gas prices are up more than 10x relative to their lowest lowest in the 2020 before the war. [2] The EU was most certainly a growth market, if Russian supplies to the EU could be disrupted.
Pointing at the wrong thing: consider not EU imports but US exports, which went from 3,865,643 in 2022 to 4,343,027 in 2023.
Those gas prices surged very quickly, but the spike was very short-lived. The change in longer-term averages was much smaller than the spike; from your own link, the US total from 2020-2025, in dollars per thousand cubic feet: 5.64, 7.62, 12.24, 7.57, 6.41, 7.92.
> However, war with e.g. Germany seems entirely nonsensical.
To us (I mean, their troops are bogged down within a few tens of kilometres of their own borders), but the media rhetoric is that kind of revanchism.
> But let's just assume there is a threat for the sake of discussion. How does escalating this conflict, …, aim to reduce such? And how would aiming for reconciliation and de-escalation not be a much more reasonable way to achieve such?
First, the soft-touch approach was already tried with Crimea.
Second, consider Russia's stated aims with their "special military operation", which they still do not officially call a war. They invaded with words translated as "de-Nazification", but their use of the term means something very different to how it is understood in the west: ~"the enemy of Moscow". Consider that Ukraine was not actually threat, yet they invaded anyway under the pretence that they might at some unspecified time in the future join NATO: the Russian leadership today (not always) sees NATO as a threat, treats NATO membership as being a signal of being in the sphere of influence of the USA rather than voluntary mutual self-defence. Putin does not recognise the sovereignty of any nation that is not a "great power", regards Ukrainian nationality as fiction.
And third, we know that civilians in the occupied territories get conscripted and sent into war against the rest of Ukraine. Documented in Crimea as well as the more recently occupied parts Ukraine. So, the more Ukraine loses, the more of its own people and infrastructure becomes the tool of the invading forces to take more. Losing all of Ukraine means that all of Ukraine gets pointed at wherever Putin wants Russia to invade next.
> you end up with the point that [3] not only serves no viable military purpose,
Dual-use. It's not great that it is a target, but I think Amazon warehouses would probably get targeted similarly if e.g. the US tries this with Canada, given https://www.amazon.com/s?k=bullet+proof+vest+mens (no comment if any of this is good for more than cosplay, I wouldn't know).
(Edit: But also, consider that strikes by Ukraine against targets inside Russia were restricted by the Biden administration. The end of direct support by the USA coincided with Ukraine feeling free to make such attacks, so to the extent that the US can be seen as supporting Ukraine in this conflict, it was the exact force of moderation, holding Ukraine back, as is now called for.)
> putting Ukrainians in an even worse situation, increasing food scarcity and such, all with winter on the horizon
Not really "worse": in this regard they are in a bad position every winter, because Russia has never had a problem attacking Ukrainian food, power, or other civilian assets.
Also, these strikes against Wildberries make it much harder for civilians to directly supply their conscripted families (and those civilians kinda have to, given the military often doesn't bother with even the basics to the extent a new Russian soldier's average life expectancy on the front line is measured in minutes).
> US interests in Europe are ensuring we maintain the dominant force in their geopolitical positioning. I think that is probably now more true than ever before.
If we are clear "US interests" != "Trump's personal interest", yes. Trump is throwing away that position of dominant force in European geopolitical positioning.
On gas prices, US volume, relative to 2020, is up by 120%, and it's being sold for 40% more. That's less than the spike, but it's still the US relentlessly milking the EU for everything she's worth, all thanks to severing Russian and EU gas relations. There was never any soft touch approach with Crimea. The territory annexation was never recognized in spite of there being little doubt it was the will of the people there. Just prior to the invasion, Ukraine had passed a measure seeking to 'de-occupy' Ukraine using all measures, including military. [1] The West was actively indulging of such bravado.
---
I think you know the dual use arguments around Wildberries are farcical. Ukrainian propaganda didn't even try to pretend it would have a military effect, but instead cheered about trying to make life for the average Russian less comfortable. The exact phrase used in most Western messaging was "bring the war home" along with some broader argument of economic damage. Why they would want to make that a goal and can't see the mirror response incoming, is quite stupefying. Why the US/EU indulge such things is even more stupefying.
Russia in the past had not been directly targeting civilian infrastructure being used for civilian purposes. What damage had happened was a mixture of Ukrainian anti-air/ECM weaponry resulting in downed drones/missiles detonating on civilian infrastructure, or targeting of civilian infrastructure that was being used for overtly military purposes. You could see things like video of a 'shopping center' being targeted, followed by large immediate and then smaller ongoing secondary detonations - it was storing weapons.
Completely destroying civilian infrastructure, on a very wide scale, is not difficult, because such tends to be completely unfortified and unguarded - the exact reason Ukraine was able to destroy the Wildberries facilities so easily. And Ukraine has started an escalation where this is now exactly what is happening in Ukraine as well. I don't know what the outcome of this will be, but this is not, by any sort of logic, making Europe safer or Russia less of a threat. It's also likely to result in a much weaker Ukraine after all is said and done.
---
As for the US - EU. The EU is now completely dependent upon the US for both military and energy. In its current state the EU lacks the ability to be an independent power, and they have tied themselves to the US to an unprecedented degree while also accepting an unprecedented degree of abuse from the US. You might argue I should say Trump, and not the US, but watch - the DNC will win 2028, and the tariffs will continue until morale improves.
The EU does not serve Europe but US interests, origins go back to the “American Committee on United Europe”, where only one or two Europeans were represented (who were already aligned with “globalism”).
You might already know this, but as for US intentions in this war, here's the 2015 Friedman video about US involvement in the Ukraine and the “drumbeats of the future” (very unsavoury person, dishing out quite some lies to a naïve American audience, but also quite revealing):
George Friedman, "Europe: Destined for Conflict?" – Chicago Council on Global Affairs, February 2015
From my perspective, I do not perceive the world as "falling apart" and I wonder how much of your perception of the state of things (as if there was a universally defined "perfection" to strive towards instead of humans creating these concepts) falling apart is derived from your faith, which has a vested interest in presenting itself as a real-feeling thing in order to promulgate its existence. As a meme, it appears to be persistent in the environment for roughly 2k years, so clearly there's some fitness to its host species. And contrast its feelings of apocalyptic end times to Buddhism, where things are more cyclical rather than ending soon, and I wonder how your feelings would be affected were you to have been raised in that environment instead.
I believe it's more that the library contains the finite set of all books which have a (unique) permutation of the language's characters to size N. The challenge to finding the cure to cancer in such a collection of sufficiently large N is indeed finding which book it is in.
Aside from the low-effort snark and lack of empathy towards someone's project, this is also how you filter people out of caring about software development at at a young age, and then who's going to keep the computer systems running?
Nobody cares about the future, only the present. America forgot how to manufacture things, too, because it was momentarily uneconomical and there was no concern about how to keep the living knowledge going.
reply