that a conviction will create fascist narrative

The other way round. Fascists create their own narratives no matter what we do. For example, at the beginning of the Covid pandemic, the german AfD were among the first to cry for curfews, lockdown and mask mandates. Just to cry ”dictatorship“ when said measures where implemented.
When you don’t ban fascists from elections they say: ”Look, we can’t be that bad otherwise we were banned,“ but when there’s discussion about banning a fascist party they cry about being oppressed.
If you want to act without fascists creating a narrative of oppression, you won’t be able to act at all.

That’s just dumb. We must focus on Europe and the European Union. China is a systematic enemy seeking to disrupt and destabilize us.

The US defence industry does pretty well

At what cost though? What about the rest of the U.S.'s public infrastructure, i.e. healthcare, education system, social security, etc?
The U.S.'s military industrial complex does well because the U.S. defense budget was $886 billion in 2024.

The U.S. drives on a fucked up system. We should be very careful about what we use as a role model.

You’re missing my point. I even stated that the block would benefit from a concentration of military development instead of each nation’s own industries with occasional transnational cooperative projects.

My point is that I don’t want to simply replicate the U.S. american.military industrial complex and focus more on civilian issues first. Military must stay a means of defense, not a means in andof itself as I often have the impression of the U.S. military is.

A government funded, unionwide research agency does sound like a good idea to me. But DARPA is a military r&d agency and I’d rather see an agency focused on benefitting civilian life, preserving nature, sustainability and such.
EU would clearly benefit from concentrating each nations military industries into unionwide companies and projects, too, though, but idk, I feel like we as a society could benefit from a strong, well funded civilian research effort.
I don’t know if there is such already out there, all I ever hear about is either underfunded or financed by private profit-oriented companies.

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.