NATO led by the US created the issue. By constantly expanding towards Russia, they destabilized Europe. Europeans were simply following the US like lemmings.

Even if Europe or NATO had the military industry to supply Ukraine (which they don't), they would have problems because Ukrainians are their proxy. They aren't trained on NATO weapons because they are ex-Soviet. Maintaining and operating technical weapons like tanks, and artillery takes years of training which they don't have time to do. E. G. Remember the HIMARS? Didn't change the outcome. Just like the various tanks sent from NATO previously.

The US and Europe wanted this war and don't even care if Ukraine pushes Russia back. As long as Russia is expending supplies, USA doesn't care how many Ukrainians are killed or how much the country is divided up.

After that "16 years of liberation", there was a massive economic disparity actually widening between the rural population (where >95% of China lived) and the urban population who are enjoying free healthcare, education, massive salaries, modernization of infrastructure and industry etc etc etc.

Liberal historians mourn over the destruction of ancient Chinese elite artworks but that art was completely invisible to the vast majority of Chinese who were illiterate and living in squalor working their guts out. That culture belonged to the urban ultra rich or royalty of China - a tiny portion of the population.

What about the real folk arts that were eroding because rural people were starving or barely had free time?

Apparently Kirk was hit just as he was smug-answering a question on the topic of shooting deaths, so I imagine the comrade was thinking :"Wouldn't it be ironically great if Kirk was shot right .... OMG! YIPPEE!"

NYT can't seem to travel to the same places and counter the narrative of these bloggers.

Can't wait until the next debate when he can shield himself with a tinfoil hat.

It's pretty obvious I would have thought : Organise with other comrades to collectively own and run productive stuff that helps your standards of living. By pooling your resources with others, you get better outcomes. Those who only can contribute their labour will be more productive if they have access to collectively owned tools. They can still trade their labour even if the currency has gone to shit.

"condensation can fry the electronics inside the vehicle"

Electronics defeated by rain. They've basically described it as an expensive piece of shit.

Realist would be WEIGHING the negatives vs the positives. What positives outweigh funding genocide in Gaza?

Europe would actually save money by disbanding NATO....

What is this lib shit? If they write unironically about organ harvesting, FLG and Tibet in the second paragraph of the intro, they're a bunch of racist white edgelords.

How about you also read the article and understand the historical context:
The past two First Nations advisory organizations have been shut down by the conservative parties each time they won government. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) shut down in 2005. National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples shut down in 2019. These advisory bodies already existed before.

Having won the federal election, Labor knew if they didn't put a change IN THE CONSTITUTION, as soon as they lost an election then all the years of work they might put into funding and creating another body would get thrown in the garbage by the FUCKING SCUMBAG parties.

So the referendum was about giving Aboriginal leaders back what they PREVIOUSLY HAD in a permanent way RATHER than creating another advisory body and then taking it away with the next change in government under the DOGSHIT two party system in Australia. But Australians are too fucking conveniently ignorant to remember the past. Hence the no vote.

So for the article to talk about boycotting the referendum when the federal government has previously abolished the parliamentary Aboriginal advisory bodies ..... Let's just say it's rage inducing.