Tbh, this sentiment about the libs being back in charge after a brief resurgence of Marxist seems like wishful thinking about China in the first place.

People can reasonably disagree on the extent to which China is committed to forming an alternative bloc to US imperialism. But it is ridiculous to make a conclusion either way based on a few years. Shit like that doesn't happen in just a few years. It takes (at minimum) decades of carefull strategic maneuvering and risk taking. It's not something you announce and then you just got to do it.

It's like people being sad about whatever BRICS summit not announcing an immediate alternative to the dollar: you basically played yourself by getting excited and then disappointed over an unrealistic wish.

Personally, I'm getting pretty tired of people who most likely don't live in the region criticising the parties doing the most to fight back against Israel for not doing enough because of some bad news of the day.

You don't know what's going on in Iranian government circles either and you've just come to this interpretation based on personalities.

What I'm saying is that there is still value in pursuing a ceasefire even if you believe there's little chance of success.

Even if you believe war is inevitable, the Israeli position is being attrited more and more the longer all-out war doesn't break out. But history is always still contingent and it would be irresponsible towards all the people living under your governance to just jump in head first just because you believe it is inevitable. That's how fascists think.

i don't believe Iran has avoided getting weapons out of a faith in the west or flawed understanding of what they would do to protect them, but because other priorities have been more pressing in recent years

In that regard being close to having nukes already gives you much of the leverage of having them. Countries don't build nukes because they plan on actually using them. It's about the threat, which still exists to a large extent if you are close to getting the bomb. But without the cost of maintaining nukes.

Investing in missile and nuclear technology is worth it because that tech can be used for other applications. Actual nukes just sit in a warehouse until they have to be replaced.

The only good ska punk artist

Thinking about it a bit more and I don't see a direct value in taking Kharkiv considering the inevitable costs of urban warfare. The only thing Russia needs to continue doing is not overextend themselves. As longs as they do that, they won't loose the initiative. Getting caught in a grinding fight in the city might be inadvisable.

Kharkiv oblast was not among those officially annexed by Russia so it is not as politically important as capturing the whole of Donbass. There is a political and military value in creating a buffer zone for the Belgorod region, but that goal does not necessitate the capture of Kharkiv city.

But ofcourse you're right that the calculation changes when there's very little resistance.

The question has to be what Hezbollah going 'all in' would achieve. Will it stop the genocide of Palestinians? Or will it intensify if there's an all-out war?

At the end of the day, Israel is a nuclear state with full ideological support from the US. There is no scenario where the US stays on the sidelines if actual war breaks out. Yes, the axis of resistance could inflict massive damage to the US and Israel but the same can be said the other way around.

Imo the only way to end the genocide without spelling disaster for the whole region, is for Israeli society to become politically untenable. For the Zionist project to collapse in on itself. Atm, that goal is best pursued through anything up to, but not including, all-out war.

You can use a cotton swab to put something like a tiger balm under your nose to relieve a runny nose.

What I'll sometimes also do is take an antihistamine. It'll dry out your nose as well. It supresses the immuno response so it's probably not the best idea. But it can help with your sleep if you take one before bed.

Let me save you the disappointment: they're not going to be coming up with any substantial plan for de-dollarization. Even if they did, it would take decades to negotiate the terms between their members.

My spirit animal. My backside is also like a nuclear furnace when I've had Chinese food.

Yeah, I do agree. The EU commitment to defense is stronger than article 5 it is often said.

Besides, we know what side Sweden and Finland were on long before they joined NATO. Russia saying they don't have a problem with Ukraine joining the EU is imo something they say to attempt to drive a wedge between the EU and US.

After all, Russia's concern over the differences in tariffs between them and the EU and them and Ukraine was an important driving factor for this conflict.

Besides, everybody, including the Russians, knows Ukraine was never even close to joining NATO.

Tbh, I think all this talk of Poland and Hungary taking over parts of Ukraine is at this point absolutely silly. The only people talking about it are Russian propagandists.

Besides, unless the frontline starts collapsing a lot more and a lot quicker the Russians are years away from taking Odessa.

A lot of these settlements have either contracters or the IDF directly providing security. So the idea that Hamas could have broken out of Gaza and just found all the soldiers neatly in their bases seems unbelievable. The IDF is an occupying force, not a European military where it's just some dudes with their thumbs up their asses in a barracks near some nature reserve.

Ultimately we can't know how Hamas leadership told their soldiers to behave. But they do have a clear incentives not to condone the killing of civilians: they want to capture hostages and use them as leverage. They need to create the expectation that these hostages are treated fairly and can be returned safely so that it is entirely up to Israel whether it wants those civilians to die.

Tragically, civilians always die in wars. Both sides always propagandise this to claim that it is the other side that is just killing civilians as policy. The facts however, are abundantly clear when it comes to the question of which side shows the greater disregard for civilian casualties.