So you are supposed to experience a life of misery, so that others around you wont have to suffer momentarily(mostly after your death)? That doesnt sound like a good argument.

This meme is from a different game but similar

Ukraine can survive without american support. Russia has the GDP of Spain. The EU has the resources to help Ukraine, we just need

1. Political will
2. Ability to produce(or procure) stuff for Ukraine

For the last 100 years, everyone was dependent on each other, since we were all allied, it made less sense for every country to reinvent the wheel. Now the EU will need to create new production capabilities and that takes time and money. This will have a noticeable negative effect to the quality of life of europeans so the europeans will need to be willing to deal with that.

South Korea has a strong defence industry that can help cover the gap, especially if things are chill in SouthEast Asia.

If the EU can guarantee the safety of Greece(maybe with the creation of an EU army or through stronger defence treaties), Greece has a lot of military equipment that could potentially be sent to Ukraine, especially if Turkey is cool. Greece for example has more Leopard 2 tanks than any other country(including Germany).

I think if the EU sends troops to Ukraine, the EU will need to completely commit to that. The war in Ukraine is rough and very different than any other war, especially the wars western forces have fought in the last 50 years. So you cant half ass it and send a couple thousand soldiers to die there, you need to commit with proper air support, etc. This escalation needs to be managed carefully.

The EU needs to start pumping nukes and developing its missile program. Without the american nuclear shield, the EU needs its own. There is a reason that China is pumping nukes like crazy, because they are way behind the americans and russians. MAD is the only way to de-escalate and prevent a nuclear war.

Most of the aforementioned cost is these nukes/missile and building capabilities(stealth planes) programs. Helping Ukraine is cheap.

It is hard to find a date where nothing bad has ever happened. Most devs just write a random date, because who cares.

Having a popular, standardized pc with fixed hardware and OS would enable game developers to aim that as minimum(or recommended) requirement and to optimize their games for that. And since it will be running linux, this means that gaming in linux would become even more mainstream and better supported too.

The US government does not recognize the ICC. The UN has no power, at most it can sent a stern letter. What could happen is the EU maybe complaining or even sanctioning the US but considering that Germany literally passed an illegal immigration law yesterday(the conservatives with support from the nazis), my hopes are not high.

Human rights is more of an optics(or an excuse) issue, rather than something that governments care about.

1. The msrp is good, maybe too good, we just need to wait and see the actual prices and availability.

2. I dont care about frame generation but it might be a decent last resort for when the gpus are old. Having a small latency, some visual fuckery and a “playable” game is preferable over not being able to play the game.

3. The biggest advantage of dlss 4.0 is their new ray reconstruction(transformer model) that will improve image quality but this feature is coming out on older gpus too.

4. We need to wait for benchmarks. Any card can be good or bad, it just depends on its price and performance. If the 5070 is 20% faster than a 4070super but also costs 20% more, then it isnt really that relevant, is it? I expect we will see something like that.

You won’t hear this often in mainstream media but NATO expansionism

Dont sovereign countries have the right to join alliances? Would you support the US invading Mexico if Mexico joins a chinese led alliance? Would you support a cuban invasion during the Cold War for similar reasons?

the involvement of neo-nazi far right paramilitary groups in the Maidan revolution in Ukraine were legitimate grievances for Russia.

Putin is also supported by neo-nazis. The premiere russian military organization in Ukraine was named Wagner. What is your argument here? Shitty people follow shitty ideologies. You fight with the people you have, not with the people you want to have. This is problematic but it isnt as if Ukraine was left with many alternatives.

Ukraine is not that different to Russia in the end. Both have insane corruption issues and both have neonazis. Neither is an excuse to invade anyone or to not help the victims of an invasion.

Russia’s resources are vast and they are supported by China. Ukraine is backed by the deep pockets of NATO.

Russia has the gdp of Italy. Russia is big in terms of geographical area but not really in terms of economy. If you think Russia has vast resources, wait till you find out about the resources the West has. It’s all about political will.

And China doesnt really support Russia, at least not in terms of military help, at least not for the moment. China supports Russia as much as Turkey supports it, ie it facilitates trade and takes advantage of Russia’s lack of alternatives when it comes to trading.

Over half a million troops on both sides have been killed

Casualties are not dead. It is dead+injured.

A diplomatic solution three years ago could have possibly prevented all that.

What diplomatic solution would have prevented Russia from invading? Should have the West pre-emptively sanctioned and cut off Russia from the world economy in order to prevent the invasion? Should the West have said “ok, we wont let Ukraine join NATO and EU”? Should countries not have the right to choose what they do?

Even during the early stages of invasion, Macron legitimately thought he could stop it, he still wanted to keep the bridge with Russia alive. Go back and read some articles. Now Macron is one of the most anti-Russia politicians in the world? Why? Because he eventually realized that there was no alternative and that Putin was bullshitting him the whole time.

In Russia’s mind there are 2 types of countries, sovereign countries where rules do not apply to (the US, China, Russia) and minor countries that are just following what their “master” country tells them. It is inconceivable to the russian mind that 2 countries could freely associate with each other. Hence the whole “NATO expansion” narrative. As if NATO tanks marched in and forced those countries to join it.

The exact opposite happened actually. Eastern Europe was so afraid even after the USSR collapse, that some of them blackmailed NATO to let them join. Poland literally threatened to get their own nukes if they werent allowed to join NATO.

Ask yourself, why would all eastern european countries want to join NATO? Your answer is the Ukraine invasion. They wanted to join because they didnt want to be like Ukraine is now.

So invade your country, grab a few parts, then we have a ceasefire and a diplomatic solution where i keep the land that i already got. And then i repeat it. Is this a “pro-peace” stand? Or is it a “pro-conquering” stance, that enables this behaviour?

Would he have the same opinion about nazi Germany invading and conquering other countries? Maybe a peace for our time kind of deal?