They have invaded Ukraine, a country that is not in NATO nor in the EU, this article is talking about a war with all the European member states of NATO. I think my wording was clear.

And considering rearmament, do you know what the security dilemma is, and what that means for the security of everyone in Europe?

Is there any credible material proof that Russia is preparing for an invasion of Europe???

They are just barely capable of winning a slow war of attrition against Ukraine, how can you make a credible argument they could achieve any war aims against all of Europe?

You can’t even argue they can take one country at a time, the entire border is riddled with NATO tripwire troops, guaranteeing the direct involvement of each major European military from the get-go.

Is this just fearmongering to drum up support for more military Keynesianism?

Given that they have already designated all Palestinians as being terrorist this feels like the legal preparation for the next phase, maybe even the final phase…

The article does not mention the evidence basis, so I will keep my comment general. In the Netherlands similar accusations were made against Lucia de Berk, the evidence was based on opinions of superiors and colleagues plus the statistical unlikelihood of so many patients dying under her supervision. But crucially there was never any direct evidence that she deliberately killed patients, and in the end it turned out that she didn’t. She was particularly unliked by her colleagues because she was a sex worker in the past and that is why she was given the worst shifts (and coincidentally the shifts where more patients die). In the end her life was ruined by her colleagues and the judiciary system not understanding statistics (5 percent of all nurses have a statistically-significant high death rate). Again this case could be a real psychopath but the fact that they don’t mention the evidence basis makes me think of Lucia de Berk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk_case

My point isn’t who is right or wrong, my point is that this war was preventable. A different security arrangement, for example a neutral Ukraine could have prevented the country from being destroyed. This was not a fringe opinion, many international relations experts and politicians have stated this, yet somehow knowing all this the US pursued. It’s almost as if there is a group of Russia hawks within most administrations that actively seek to escalate conflicts with Russia.

And if you think the US supports Ukraine altruistically you’re delusional, especially after what they are doing in Gaza. (Or Iraq for that matter).

Merkel literally said that adding Ukraine to Nato would cause war, and here we are. Is Merkel a „Tankie“?

The US fucked us so bad. They started this entire shit show by persisting on expanding Nato after the Iraq war, even though Merkel and Sarkozy both said that it would lead to war. Putin stated publicly that Nato expansion would be interpreted as an existential threat, and still the US pushed. They spend billions on pro US propaganda via USAid and the NED (just look up Red lines not to cross Zelenskiy, which is basically an open thread from the US to Ukraine not to sign a peace deal or there would be „civil unrest“).

And even during the peace talks in Istanbul, they convinced (or coerced) Ukraine not to sign it „hey we’ll have your back you can win this war, trust us, we have never cynically abandoned proxies before“. And now they let the Europeans pay for it and the Ukrainians die for it.

Yes, Russias attack on Ukraine was illegal, but the war was also preventable. And I have a hard time to believe that the Finlandization of Ukraine would have been worse than the complete destruction of it. Especially for all the man that have been killed or maimed for a preventable and doomed war from the beginning.

Maybe I‘m being too suspicious here, and should take off my tinfoil hat, but this plastic panic feels a bit like the next distraction by oil companies to stop any movement on the energy transition. Especially these types of articles where it’s said that both are equally bad, or plastic pollution is the next climate crisis.

The climate crisis will render most of the earth uninhabitable within a 100 years if businesses as usual continues. But the plastic pollution crisis is thus far mostly hypothetical, yes it’s everywhere, yes it’s probably not the healthiest substance to have in your body, but most articles fail to mention any proven effects even remotely close to the health effects of, for example, smoking.

Again maybe I‘m completely wrong here, or it’s the classic stupidity of journalists misinterpreting and exaggerating earnest science.