d-RLY?

The obvious choice would be to stay of course. But the offer with the chance of wiping debit in the even they didn't want to stay gives a "safety net" vibe. Puts a nice outline with a goal of taking out two birds with one stone. And if a student doesn't want to stay even with having their original debts, it doesn't prevent them from still getting a degree without owing extra. Some people like to know they have options (even if the options are in most cases dumb)

Kind of not sure if this is actually just a really really weird pro-IOF propaganda thing. As it says that only 25% of US interceptors worked, while also that around 90% of IOF ones did. Given the site, seems like IOF government propaganda machine is doing the normal uber-nationalist thing. Downplaying the effectiveness of even diehard supporting nations as "cute but dumb" and the nationalist hawks as "the real fighters of true justice" or whatever.

Though I also would believe that even with it being Israel the weapons are being supplied to, would still not be the "full version" as to not allow enemies to know the real effectiveness of (in this case) the US tech. Pretty sure that most high-tech weapons that are sold outside the originating nations are very different than the ones said nation actually fields. Or at least gimped in such ways that allow the "full versions" to take out the gimped ones. Then again, I also imagine that Israel has many more spies inside the US military and all companies that make up the US's military industrial complex. Which means they also have the shit needed to make their own copies that have the extra benefit of constant data and testing to make a better version with real-world shit

I am not "pro-USA #1 ra ra ra!!!" and very much sure that the "effectiveness of our weapons are generally very inflated. Just like all massive private/for-profit weapons manufacturing nations do. Just finding the propaganda machines of two deeply involved allies painting the other as "lesser" to be both odd to actually see, and kind of hilarious at the same time.

The mainland should both find ways to make sure they get access to the shit being sent/sold to Taiwan to strip-down and obvious shit for better understanding the builds and tech. And make a big show about how the US breaks its own rules on selling arms to supposed adversaries. But also sending "thanks to the USA for the toys" bit of snark, as they are supplying China with weapons. Would be funny to see such an announcement and have all kinds of war vehicles and other high value weapons paraded around with the PLA markings added to them.

Would be hilarious to see both capitalist parties and the military industrial complex have to deal with the massive L in the media. Or at least the idea of such a massive multi-decade sale of arms, and thus arming of, such a big enemy of the US scandal sounds amazing to me. Hell make it even more a "fuck you" by the PLA transferring US made shit to the DPRK and really all other socialist nations that want them. lol

I have found that leaning into being openly what and who I am has worked to at bare minimum create a softening effect on opinions. Wearing a "Mao hat" most of the time while out and about, and have a hammer and sickle pin that says "Equality, Brotherhood, and Liberty" while at work (I work at a big box electronics retail/services national chain where I fix computers). Being really honest and most importantly I try to be as helpful while interacting with customers and try to take time when they need it.

They often don't see the pin right away, and already see how much I actually try to fix or explain in less technical ways where possible. Even folks that have some kind of American flag on are maybe a bit puzzled at actually interacting with a communist in a positive way. If asked about the pin (or the hat for that matter), I first say that I am extremely pro-worker and try to just feel out the interaction. Not going out of my way to push anything outside of saying that I stand with regular ass people and even take very light jabs at libs if the person is obviously conservative. I have even helped one guy that is not at all very tech literate over the past few years here and there. Dude is still a conservative, but one day he came in after I started wearing the hat and pin. He said the hat was nice, and asked about it. I said I am very pro-worker and a socialist, and just really hate how little working people get. Dude even asked if I ever get flack from my co-workers for it in a actual concerned way like he was willing to step-in and chew them out. So not only has he actually started trying to learn modern stuff like his PC, but is excited to tell me how he now uses some streaming apps. But he knows I am a real person that likes to help.

My reasoning (aside from liking them) for being visibly open about being a socialist/communist is that the majority of people haven't physically met one of us in person. All they know is what they have been told via media and political leaders or whatever. Which is all that we are evil, hate freedom, want to take all their shit, idiots, and/or the peak versions of all the worst parts of US liberals (since they are also taught that Dems are actually somehow communists). It is extremely easy to hate/fear something/someone if you never actually are in a position to interact with the thing/person. Which I took from hearing multiple instances of former WW2 and Vietnam vets when saying how they only first met a POC after enlisting or while deployed. And how spending time with them showed how all the shit they were told about them was wrong. That they are just regular people just trying to live.

It also helps that I do truly try my best to find things that we might agree on to some level as a starting point when a conversation starts up with co-workers. It is only through being willing to actually talk with people and find how they best communicate by actually showing empathy and listening to them. Then you can find out how to convey what is and isn't socialism. Because they don't actually know what it is and what is actually bourgeoisie liberal capitalism (liberal liberal or conservative liberal) or fascism for that matter. Shit is not always easy and can get beyond heated. But it is needed and can help you see where you might need to learn more about if unsure in the moment. Major thing is to do everything to show that you are speaking in good-faith and hearing them.

On a less "softening to have a better opinion of socialism" and more just fun level. The hat has also been really interesting for random interactions. I have gotten into very positive conversations with US/US allied Vietnam vets that are jazzed to see it. One guy that was in the Thai military for the war almost scared me with his getting my attention to tell me he liked it and had saved one to keep from back then. There was some language barrier, but I believe he was on the US allied side. But was just very excited to see it and ask me if it was Soviet or Chinese. Even just interacting in Asian restaurants gets older folks excited to say they like it. Not really about changing their minds about communism. But still really nice to have interactions I wouldn't have had.

I kind of think that the US leadership is just making select shows of not doing what Israel wants just for the headlines and political theatre. Just enough to claim that they are putting any level of "pressure" on Israel. But of course they will keep funding the genocide.

Also noticed that the Israeli flag on the table is on a slightly taller stick. Not really important, but couldn't unsee it after noticing it. lol

So many of these kinds of people tend to get off so easy when compared to folks that commit actions impacting a small number of people. So many in the US are ready to call for the death penalty for everything other than these evil greedy fucks who's actions can have impacts for multiple generations. It is telling that the rich and powerful make sure no such penalty is placed as a legal option. If it is possible for someone that kills another person to be sentenced to death. Then it sure as fuck should be the only option for people like her and those that constantly play games with people's lives and the entire economy of a nation just to hoard more money.

The capitalists are providing the very ropes from which we shall hang them with. It is crucial that leftists really really start agitating dramatically everywhere, but especially in states like KY. If not, then it allows the fascists to use their false narratives and reactionary actions to spread. Too many workers suffered, fought, and died to bring the basic protections we have. It is beyond time to take the power back after so many decades of the masses believing the lies used to remove everything. The libs can't be allowed to claim that they are the "heroes" of the workers and the poor. They will try to steal the movement and just stop real change.

A vanguard of socialists must form and counter the propaganda that has rewarded ignorance in painting anti-capitalism as somehow being the worst option. Getting unions on board would also help as they too are painted in a similar light as socialism. They aren't the solution, but they do have structures that can be applied to quickly shutting things down and copied by other workers that are still asleep with what needs to be done (aka the "I don't really follow politics" crowds).

They had to go out of their way to fly it wrong. You can see the white strip that the metal hoops are set in on the end of it. So it would be kind of funny if they did manage to unintentionally mess up so bad.

At least based on the picture, the flag appears to be flown flipped from the end that isn't normally on the flag-pole side. So like seems like a point of using it as an insult, since everyone still likes to act like Russia is still the USSR. So I am guessing it is just reactionaries being reactionaries and not using the Russian Federation flag since it is less "scary" or something compared to the USSR (from the perspective of anti-Soviet right-wingers).

One of the main things that hurts the other AES nations is that they are much smaller and easier to deeply impact with all the sanctions placed on them by the US. Also China was able to get so many of the greedy US corps that only care about cheap labour for so long to move industrial manufacturing bases there. Which aside from the massive issues with corruption that came along with it, was not wasted in getting a fuck-ton of modern equipment and knowledge to catch-up with western nations fast as fuck. But the corruption is being dealt with dramatically. With China now having so much sway on getting other nations that have really only stuck with the US for fear of money/trade (and being attacked by our military of course). It is much more likely that we see the other AES nations be able to trade with those nations.

If nations like Cuba have been able to make make such amazing advancements (especially medical ones) while under US restrictions. Just imagine what they can do once said restrictions are made moot. I just hope that China and the other nations (AES or not) are able to be united in putting the US in check as the war-hawks and rich that so fear losing what they have stolen become more and more erratic.

They might have really made a certain level of bank if they were somehow able to have even gotten the current version out a little bit before COVID forced people home. Could have been a good grift for schools (mainly private ones with money) and companies not having to send so much office stuff to peoples homes. Now the comfort thing is and will always be an issue to various levels. But the hype puff pieces would have moved units. Just like so many other weird things got sold and used by people to feel more "normal."

Gotta love when the public sector military officials and those serving in offices go nuts condemning and de-funding publicly/state owned things in favor of heavy privatization/for-profit corps. But are somehow shocked and emotionally hurt when said for-profit corps don't find public/state stuff profitable after so long.

The US Postal Service is one example of the massive differences between publicly/state owned service and for-profit private corps. The pro-business/privatization elected officials drone on and on about it needing to be made "profitable" or shutdown. But the whole point of a public service is that it isn't supposed to be about being profitable, it is about always having a service that is both accessible and affordable to all citizens. Any profits are supposed to be put into either employee wages and/or re-investing into making it better/maintaining infrastructure. Which is also seen in how so much of our public infrastructure nationwide are being held together with tape and bubblegum.

The war-hawks are not really by their own hands not really allowed to complain about this shit, when they are the ones that have been wrecking shit. A pro-capitalist government can't be seen fucking with for-profit/private companies. As it would mean that the anti-capitalist nations and masses have been correct this whole time. For-profit private companies are like mercenaries. They only work for you while the profits are high and the flow of money never drys-up. They aren't friends, family, or really members of the communities. Which also makes it fucked up that they are legally equal to (technically higher than) people.

Also any non-western power launching any kind of rocket or putting satellites in orbit are defaultly "aggressive." While any US or US aliened western power is somehow not only "good" for doing these things, but they are also the global gatekeepers of what is and isn't "allowed." Much like how the west/US are entitled to have bases all over the world and stage larger and larger "war games" right off the coasts of whatever nations they wish. But China sailing or flying a millimeter past their shores is "ramping up for war."

Seems to be Communist Party of Germany/Marxist-Leninists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany/Marxists%E2%80%93Leninists

US has convinced itself and many of the most powerful nations (ie the West) that it is China that is trying to "take over other nations" or otherwise control them by "expanding their empire." Even though they are not, and are anti-imperialist. Or how places like Cuba aren't allowed to be traded with due to their "oppressive governments." But the US is still somehow the "good guys" and should just be allowed to patrol the whole world by land, air, sea, and space. That it is allowed to strike and occupy other nations without any approval by said nations. Oh and it is also somehow fair or good that even if all other nations in the UN vote one way that the US can stop a democratic vote by voting the other way.

Just love how this is what US lead democracy for the world works. /s

True, but being fair to the DPRK, Google hasn't had the most powerful nation in the world literally blocking almost all trade with them or all the sanctions. Google has been allowed to make mad money and do whatever they want more or less (at least as long as the US gov can still tap into the info), and it really isn't shocking they have what they have at this point. The DPRK was able to do this basically completely on their own despite everything. Even the US had to start with one satellite at one point. So a "fuck you" to the US is a win for the DPRK no matter how small it is when compared to rich companies.

True. The main thing they care about is talking without actual actions, and they would rather fascism take over instead of excepting that the centrist systems of liberalism's version of democracy has failed. They fail to see that sometimes there isn't a "next time" to rely on for them or their parties to exist let alone run again.

Here is the second part

Taken together, this state of affairs poses an unprecedented challenge for Western leaders. Washington and its allies have been remarkably effective at tackling the most urgent aspects of this problem: staving off Ukraine’s collapse, keeping it well-supplied with advanced weapons and real-time intelligence, and devising sanctions against Russia.

But now is the time to transition to a long-term strategy that increases and sustains the pressure on the rogue regime in the Kremlin. There should be no illusions that any possible combination of short-term steps will be sufficient to force Putin to abandon his war.

What Western leaders conspicuously haven’t done is level with their publics about the enduring nature of the threat from an emboldened, revisionist Russia. They have indulged all too often in magical thinking—betting on sanctions, a successful Ukrainian counter-offensive or the transfer of new types of weapons to force the Kremlin to come to the negotiating table. Or they have hoped to see Putin overthrown in a palace coup.

During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy thinkers didn’t bet on a sudden change of heart by the Kremlin or the overnight collapse of the Soviet system. Instead, they put their faith in a long-term vision of resisting a dangerous regime and making the required investments in national defense and the military capabilities of our alliances—a policy, in George Kennan’s classic formulation, of “patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”

A policy of containment today would mean continuing Western sanctions, isolating Russia diplomatically, preventing the Kremlin from interfering in our own domestic politics, and strengthening NATO deterrence and defense capabilities, including sustained U.S.-European reinvestment in our defense-industrial base. It would also mean mitigating all of the damage—diplomatic, informational, military and economic—caused by Putin’s war.

That is not to say that we should fight the Cold War all over again. Embarking on a global competition with the Kremlin would not be a wise investment of U.S. prestige or resources. It would consign us to a pointless game of whack-a-mole against any and all manifestations of Russian influence. Putin’s Russia has little of the hard power or ideological appeal that made the Soviet Union so influential in various parts of the world.

Moreover, today’s circumstances are vastly different from the Soviet threat. Europe is not the devastated wasteland it was after World War II. NATO has welcomed two new members, Finland and Sweden. Putin is reduced to knocking on doors in places like Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang. The proverbial correlation of forces has tilted decidedly against Russia.

Most important, against all predictions, Ukraine has withstood the Russian onslaught. In less than two years the Ukrainian army has reduced an entire decade of Russian military modernization to dust. Keeping Ukraine in the fight and supplying it with weapons and ammunition, as President Biden pledged in a speech on Oct. 19, is not charity but the most urgent—and cost-effective—element of Western strategy.

No less crucial is helping Ukraine to navigate toward its rightful place in Europe. No post-Communist country in Europe has gone through what Ukraine is going through now. The country’s reconstruction will be a generational undertaking not just for its own people but for its many friends, partners, and allies.

Maintaining cohesion and resolve among the Western allies will be essential for leaders on both sides of the Atlantic. The Kremlin long ago mastered the art of driving wedges between the U.S. and its allies. Unfortunately, the prospect of Putin’s eventual departure from the scene is already sparking talk about a new strategic opening to Russia that could somehow lure Moscow away from China’s embrace.

But we should be extremely cautious about giving any new leadership in the Kremlin the benefit of the doubt. Former President Reagan needed a lot of convincing before he felt that Mikhail Gorbachev was different from his Soviet predecessors. That challenge is now vastly more difficult, given that whoever might replace Putin would have to end the war and engage with Kyiv in genuine, serious negotiations.

The U.S. and its allies need to be clear about the long-term nature of this undertaking. The war’s end, whenever that happens, is unlikely to quell the confrontation between Russia and the rest of Europe. Ukrainians and their friends rightfully want to see the rise of a prosperous, independent Ukraine that is secure and fully integrated into the political and economic life of the continent. Putin and his successors would see that as Russia’s ultimate defeat. They will do everything in their power to prevent it.

Eugene Rumer, a former national intelligence officer for Russia at the National Intelligence Council, is director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Andrew S. Weiss, who worked on Russian affairs in both the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, is Carnegie’s vice president for studies.

Was able to get the Bypass Paywalls Clean extension to get past the paywall after telling it to "clear cookies and permissions". But I will paste the text for those that are having issues as trying to archive the page still triggers the paywall. Also having to post as multiple comments as I think the total length of the post is giving issues for just pasting the whole thing. This is the first part.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin looks toward the second anniversary of his all-out assault on Ukraine, his self-confidence is hard to miss. A much-anticipated Ukrainian counter-offensive has not achieved the breakthrough that would give Kyiv a strong hand to negotiate. Tumult in the Middle East dominates the headlines, and bipartisan support for Ukraine in the U.S. has been upended by polarization and dysfunction in Congress, not to mention the pro-Putin leanings of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

Putin has reason to believe that time is on his side. At the front line, there are no indications that Russia is losing what has become a war of attrition. The Russian economy has been buffeted, but it is not in tatters. Putin’s hold on power was, paradoxically, strengthened following Yevgeny Prigozhin’s failed rebellion in June. Popular support for the war remains solid, and elite backing for Putin has not fractured.

Western officials’ promises of reinvigorating their own defense industries have collided with bureaucratic and supply-chain bottlenecks. Meanwhile, sanctions and export controls have impeded Putin’s war effort far less than expected. Russian defense factories are ramping up their output, and Soviet legacy factories are outperforming Western factories when it comes to much-needed items like artillery shells.

The technocrats responsible for running the Russian economy have proven themselves to be resilient, adaptable, and resourceful. Elevated oil prices, driven in part by close cooperation with Saudi Arabia, are refilling state coffers. Ukraine, by contrast, depends heavily on infusions of Western cash.

Putin can also look at his foreign-policy record with satisfaction. His investments in key relationships have paid off. China and India have provided an important backstop for the Russian economy by ramping up imports of Russian oil and other commodities. Instead of fretting about lost markets in Western Europe or Beijing’s reluctance to flout U.S. and EU sanctions, Putin has decided that it’s more advantageous in the short term simply to become China’s junior partner in the economic realm. Goods from China account for nearly 50% of Russian imports, and Russia’s top energy companies are now hooked on selling to China.

Even neighboring countries that have every reason to fear Putin’s aggressive tactics, such as Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, have made fat profits by serving as enablers of sanctions circumvention and as transshipment points for the goods that Russia used to import directly.

Despite Putin’s indictment by the International Criminal Court and abundant evidence of Russian state-sponsored war crimes in Ukraine, he is still embraced in various parts of the so-called “global South.” The Ukraine war holds little salience for many countries who bristle at what they perceive as U.S. and European double standards or a lack of engagement on issues that concern them.

None of this should come as a surprise. More than six months before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Putin signed off on a new National Security Strategy for Russia. The main thrust of that document was to prepare the country for a long-term confrontation with the West. Today Putin can tell the nation that his strategy is working.

Putin does not feel any pressure to end the war or worry about his ability to sustain it more or less indefinitely. As winter approaches, the Russian army has mounted a limited ground offensive of its own and surely will expand missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities, power plants, industrial sites and other critical infrastructure. At a minimum, Putin expects that U.S. and European support for Ukraine will dissipate, that Ukrainians will tire of the endless terror and destruction inflicted on them, and that a combination of the two will enable him to dictate the terms for a deal to end the war and claim victory. From his perspective, the ideal person to put such a deal together is Donald Trump, if he returns to the White House in January 2025.

The Russian leader is prepared to weaponize everything at his disposal to win the war in Ukraine. Nuclear arms control and European security are now hostage to Russia’s insistence on the West ending its support for Ukraine. What remains of the Cold War-era arms control framework will be completely gone in 2026, and there is a growing risk of an unpredictable three-way nuclear arms race among the U.S., Russia and China. Putin will use every global and regional issue—whether the Israel-Gaza war, food security or climate action—as leverage to win the war against Ukraine and the West.

Do they have official release channels that can be followed? I followed one on Telegram for some of Hamas's releases and I would really like to hear from leftist groups like this. Hamas most certainly deserves respect for doing what they have been able to pull off. But they are not ideologically my bag as I don't like religious groups running things. Though I am not Palestinian or from there, so my personal opinion doesn't mean anything other than my opinion with regards to who is likely to do the best jobs to help the Palestinians.