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.

If you have a blender, you can also throw a ton of oats + a bunch of peanut butter and a banana with some soy drink or whatever in there. It's all pretty affordable and easy to adjust to taste and caloric content.

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.

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.

I was listening to a podcast and they mentioned Russia hit a 'hotel that is no longer in use'. Oh you mean exactly the type of building that you would use to house your personnel in a war?

Blowbaguette

There's going to be a ceasefire when neither side feels they can afford to make anymore gains on the ground. Both Ukraine and Russia aren't interested in that right now. If that continues, I don't believe Trump has any capacity to force a deal. I'm not a big understander of the American system, but it seems like congress could keep arms flowing to Ukraine with Trump in office. So even just cutting off supplies to Ukraine might be too much effort for Trump.

But that seems like the only viable option: cutting off Ukraine and just giving Russia what it wants. Which is still a hard sell for Trump. Especially if most of the people around him will pressure him against it.

If the war in Ukraine has progressed to the point where both sides are ready to make a deal, I don't think it matters who's in the white house.

I mean, if Ukraine didn't put pressure on Kherson the Russians would have happily stayed. Russia made mistakes and Ukraine capitalised on them. 'You only won because I wasn't really trying' is a weak excuse. It takes two to tango.

Not that I don't agree with your analysis overall. But I don't think you have to be completely blinded by ideology to come to see that you have made gains when you were able to stretch Russia's resources (which are highly constrained politically), and to try to recreate that in the future. Even if you know the chances of succes are low, are you not going to try given that you have just received a bunch of weapons and training?