You know synonyms exist right? And "enlargement" and "expansionism" are cleary synonyms in this context.
The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that. The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO.
NATO is not a friend or friendly force, it is one of the great evils of our time, anyone arguing otherwise just wants to bomb third world countries.
Ask the citizens of Libya and Iraq how defensive and friendly NATO is.
The process of "joining NATO" is not anything equivalent to making friends, any country joining NATO essentially becomes a vassal for US interests. There's a reason why Sweden and Finland held out for so long.
I personally, do not have much, if any, sympathy for someone who collaborated with the apartheid government
They also kill performance if you're still using a hard drive as your system drive. I know we should all be using SSDs, it's 2023, but sometimes it's not always possible
It's the start button, I agree
I have the opposite problem, I'm struggling to get enough calories. We'll come back stronger next week I hope!
They do according to the article and what I know
Yeah, everything to do with secularism. That's why France has Christian public holidays. And Macron called for closer ties between the state and Catholic church, and said Europe has "Judeo Christian roots". Oh wait...
If Ukraine enters peace talks now, have they gained anything or put their country in a better position since the original peace talks, which were sabotaged by Boris Johnson and British intelligence, over a year ago? Have they gained any significant territory since what was proposed then? Is their army in a stronger position? Are any gains since then worth the losses?
Just looking at it from a purely pragmatic and realpolitik perspective, I don't see how anyone can argue that Ukraine has gained anything significant in this stalemate of a conflict. If they get similar results now, as what was on the table originally at the first peace talks, it means that their Western backers essentially sold a pipe dream to Ukraine that never materialised. Is the collective West ready to explain that to Ukraine, and the rest of the world? That they used Ukraine as a testbed for their weaponry against Russia, sold Ukraine a utopian fantasy that they'd be able to regain significant territory using Western weapons and tactics which never happened, and hundreds of tens to hundreds of thousands of people got killed or injured to accomplish very little.
Yeah the big trucks suck and are pointless. Here in South Africa they keep making the Ford Ranger and Toyota Hilux bakkies bigger and bigger to try copy American trucks. Honestly only a matter of time before a Ford F-150 or Toyota Tundra model is available at a car dealership in South Africa. Also EVs won't get popular here until rolling electricity blackouts are solved, and since they've been an issue for 15 years now, it's not looking good.
the Russia-Ukraine war has destroyed natural gas supply lines to Europe.
Didn't the US bomb them, tried to blame Russia at first, and are now trying to blame Ukraine? With friends like that, who needs enemies?
The big problem with nuclear is scalability and infrastructure. The power plants take long to construct and require huge investment. Even if that's solved and the whole world goes nuclear tomorrow, there's huge doubts about there even being enough easily minable Uranium. Honestly solar and wind should be the way to go, but then there's the intermittency issue. Which is an issue fossil fuels don't have. At this point degrowth is desperately needed to avert the worst effects of global warming.
Ahh yes, NATO, an alliance well known for respecting sovereignty. That's why they invade and bomb any third world nation with a sovereign project against US interests...
And how did these nations join NATO post cold war? Surely there was no manipulation of the sovereignty of Eastern European nations at that time right?
And do NATO countries have sovereignty themselves, or are they just US vassal states? Be honest here, because the answer is quite clear. It's gotten to the point that the US can bomb the gas pipelines of another NATO country (see nordstream) and nothing can be done about it. And every NATO country has to buy US weapons systems, engage in specific international training exercises, etc. Very sovereign.
Let's be clear, realpolitik is all there ever was, and all there ever will be in geopolitics. The "sovereignty" of every nation on the planet is subject to this. Unless you want to do the Turkey/Cuban missile crisis again. There's a reason Mexico can't join BRICS, there's a reason Cuba can't claim Guantanamo bay as theirs, etc.