I know. Here in Germany, the Bundeswehr also often does disaster relief work. It’s just the wording of the title that is kinda… Well, could be read like a title about violent protest abatement.

Am I a cynic for expecting batoning down protests from this headline? I mean, I am a cynic, but given our timeline and the title, am I wrong for being surprised the article talks about emergency relief?

sigh please don’t

Destabilization and fragmentation of western powers. China wants the EU and North America not to act in union so it has an easier time cementing itself in power.

I’m also not bombed with spam. I got an ionos mailbox, the basic tarrif is 1,50€/month and it comes with your own domain for free. I can recommend it, also for families. I also heard good things about posteo and mailbox.org.

His policies are cringe, too.

Next up: russian envoy questions effort to get independent from russian gas.

Okay, and what are “we” (as in Ukraines western partners) to do about this? We cannot send ukrainian refugees back with a gun and a helmet. We cannot wololo russian soldiers into ukrainian ones. We cannot conjure up soldiers magically. What we can do is send weapons, ammunitions, medical supplies etc. We can enforce sanctions against Russia and its oligarchy making it least profitable and discouraging to fight this war.
Or do you want to send troops?

Did you recognize I’m answering to a comment, not the article? Don’t “Don’t just read teh headline” me, because you’re wrong.

The article itself is (imo) problematic, too, though. First, the headline feeds into the dangerous narrative that Ukraine couldn’t win the war. It is a statement, not a question that gets examined and studied. Second, the article itself doesn’t support the headline as a definitive statement, it talks about the issue of desertion and recruitment, not the actual number of soldiers. It’s a misleading headline. Third of all, it’s one persons opinion and observation, not an objective, broadviewed examination of the issues that tries to take many viewpoints into account (for example the influence of slow support by Ukraine’s partners, that Russia faces similar recruitment issues etc).
The Article is a representation of one person’s view, and it’s fine at that. But it’s nothing more.

And superior equipment would save the lives of ukrainian soldiers so fewer would be needed to fight back Russia. So the conclusion should be to supply Ukraine with what it needs.

However, you said

Russia has no regulations whom to send in battle and how many.

and that simply doesn’t matter as much.

That is trivial, I thought.

This is not Hearts of Iron IV or something alike. The pure size of an army or population is not a relevant stat when trying to predict the outcome of a war. Superiority of equipment, training, strategies, logistics, supplies etc are all far more decisive.

Like when people use “average” incorrectly? (You’re talking median here.)

Removed by mod

My bad, I thought my sarcastic formulation was clear enough. By ‘people’ I mean Macron.

Maybe if people would stand against fascists instead of siding with them against leftists, we wouldn’t be that deep in the shits. (Edit:) And by ‘people’ I mean you, Monsieur Macron.

Or maybe just accept that nuclear is not a feasible option given we have actually cheap, clean and safe renewable sources that also are more easily decentralized.

Car producers are begging for years for clear guidelines so they can develop solid plans instead of having to speculate how long they need to keep ICEs in parallel.

I don’t quite understand this. Nobody’s forcing manufacturers to keep producing ICE cars. They could just say ‘screw it’ and decide on their own to only build BEV.

So they fucked up one time 50 years ago and thus the entire process is deemed to be flawed?

Nope, it’s only an example. Castor caskets have always been critized for safety issues, especially because testing wasn’t done thoroughly enough. That’s not a mistake, it’s a systematic issue.

Your second paragraph is just not a good argument. We should opt for the safest feasible option and that is not nuclear. It has safety issues (especially with waste), takes too long to build and is too expensive.
By the way, for the reasons you mentioned (and more) you will not see me arguing for hydro power, and also I strongly argue for reducing the use if cars. The issue is, we have a straight up fetish for cars, to the point that we swipe away legislations that would improve the safety of drivers and non-involved (like a general speed limit on the Autobahn). Cars in Germany are similar to guns in the US regarding their respective standings in society. It is simply irrational.

I can’t find the source for you claiming higher cases of thyroid cancer and leukemia due to the leak of hazardous materials from the Asse-II mine.

Auswertung des EKN zur Krebshäufigkeit in den Gemeinden Cremlingen, Stadt Wolfenbüttel, SG Baddeckenstedt, SG Oderwald, SG Schladen, SG Schöppenstedt und SG Sickte is the source.

By the way, there is still no disposal site deemed safe enough for final storage of nuclear waste in germany.

The caskets don’t leak radiation, you can hug them and be perfectly fine.

Asse, Germany, radioactive waste deposit. Known since 2008 to be leaking, research shows noticeable higher numbers of cases for thyroid cancer and leukemia.

Hug that shit all you want.