#autocrator

[roehenstart]

Lazar Hrebeljanović (1329-1389) by Đura Jakšić.

He was a medieval Serbian ruler who created the largest and most powerful state on the territory of the disintegrated Serbian Empire.

[primepaginequotidiani]

PRIMA PAGINA Il-quotidiano-del-sud di Oggi mercoledì, 23 aprile 2025

[stephanemortimore]

Anesthésie générale

Ce blog a bientôt douze ans. Commencé par hasard à la demande d’un site aujourd’hui disparu, je l’ai alimenté toutes ces années de nouvelles, romans, inachevés ou non, critiques cinématographiques, d’articles personnels mais surtout j’en ai fait ma tribune politique. Une tribune dans le brouhaha incessants des blogs, sites, et autre magazine en ligne, pour, les meilleures années près de 6000…

[radiophd]

autocreation -- dark smile

[observatoiredumensonge]

Macron, contrefacteur de l’article 16 de la Constitution

Pour tout autre motif, un tel emprunt des textes, ne peut se concevoir qu’en violation de la règle qui prévaut dans une démocratie qui se doit de respecter la séparation des pouvoirs

Ou possible point de rupture de la démocratie sous l’enseigne d’un autocrate enragé Par Daniel Desurvire Vous pouvez soutenir notre travail en vous abonnant mensuellement pour 2 € par mois via STRIPE totalement sécuriséEn cadeau, un livre PDF vous sera envoyé par mail Macron, contrefacteur de l’article 16 de la Constitution Ou possible point de rupture de la démocratie sous l’enseigne d’un…

[anchesetuttinoino]

Massimo Giannini contro Elon Musk: "autocrate nichilista che sfugge a ogni controllo"

(lo avrà confuso con Soros o con Bill Gates?)

[biblioflyer]

Star Trek and the Maquis: A Contest of Metaphors

This was inspired by an Ask many moons ago. I had the majority of this written within a week but then two hurricanes and a lot of wrangling over how to edit it coherently later, I'm just going to publish it as a series of rather messy and meandering essays.

The Maquis are a bit of an inkblot test for fans. While the narrative certainly goes to great efforts to skew us towards being sympathetic to them and aghast at the Federation's complicity in trying to squelch their uprising, I maintain there is room for valid disagreement on just how "in the wrong" the Federation was.

The inkblot test aspect of it comes down to how different members of the audience think about state level warfare and irregular warfare, aka insurgency, and maybe even terrorism.

For instance the Maquis, or at least Michael Eddington's faction, will wind up crossing the line that most people seem to think is the line between insurgency and terrorism: namely the indiscriminate targeting of civilians and noncombatants. Although a disturbing feature of debates about fictional and non-fictional peoples and movements can include some litigation of who is really a non-combatant and whether the moral protection that status confers can be stripped away by mitigating circumstances like being the beneficiary of state violence or being an accessory to atrocious acts without actually directly carrying them out.

At the same time, we also know that the Federation's attempt at a lasting peace with the Cardassians was doomed from the start: brazenly insincere on the part of the Cardassians, purchased by the Federation with a high price in moral credibility, and ends in the Cardassians welcoming the Dominion into the Alpha Quadrant. This line of thinking often ends in a presumption that since efforts to secure peace ultimately failed, those efforts were wholly a waste, preemptive violence should have been undertaken, and anyone who acted as if the failure of peace wasn't preordained was a blind fool.

Knowing where the story ends doesn't mean we can't still debate the Federation's degree of culpability for not intervening sooner to ensure that things don't reach a point where indiscriminate targeting of noncombatants by ex-Federation civilians is imminent.

A big part of what makes this an inkblot test is because it almost assuredly is a reflection on which analogies loom largest in the mind of the viewer. As it turns out, your preferred reference point for understanding war may strongly influence who you are sympathetic to and how you interpret the risks and ethics involved in any course of action chosen by the Federation and Maquis.

Understanding the Maquis

What I am going to do is, look at three main ideas that I think are most critical for seeing different sides of arguments around the Maquis, the Federation, the Cardassians and how each is understood by fans in terms of sympathy or malice, and in some instances, how they might be understood differently depending on how said fans process stories of state and irregular violence.

The social context of how different fans (and Trek writers) think of state level warfare and irregular warfare.

What was actually happening in the Trek universe around this time and to what degree the Maquis narrative encourages treating its storyline as existing outside of any other broader context.

The competing interests of the state to protect the many vs the rights of the few to defend their homes and way of life.

These are going to get elaborated on in subsequent posts, but very quickly here's a summary of the main points:

Social Context

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, this has become a dominant metaphor for understanding the Federation - Cardassian relationship. Suffice to say, those for whom this metaphor has the most power understand this as an unambiguous contest of moral systems wherein the Federation is guilty of abdicating responsibility for victims of an expansionist autocracy with numerous atrocities on its record and no extenuating circumstances that reduce the magnitude of the Federation's guilt.

Prior to 2022, it is my observation that several other metaphors might have applied: the Kurdish resistance to ISIL (another metaphor that strongly favors the Maquis and condemns the Federation), the Afghan Mujahideen (a cautionary tale in which the nurturing of a sympathetic resistance movement facing oppression has unintended consequences, i.e. 9/11), and finally Cold War dovishness. Cold War dovishness I would describe as not so pacifistic as to be unwilling to engage in any amount of armed conflict but a deep wariness of it. This is an idea that conflicts between a great power and a lesser may be much more challenging than expected, pose escalation risks that could become existential, and even if carefully managed the conflict may have second and tertiary consequences that neutralize, even harm the agenda of the greater power: i.e. "blowback."

I bring this guy up a lot, but I do think there was an episode or two where Tomalak might have been the Romulan Vasily Arkhipov. The Soviet officer who arguably saved the world by defying standing orders to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis when certain conditions were met. I bring up Arkhipov a lot, along with Stanislav Petrov (a second Russian who may have saved the world) because I think he's incredibly important to understanding how Pre-Dominion War Trek understood state level conflict and why a power like the Federation that constantly signals about how important it thinks universal sentient rights are might sign away some inhabited planets to move down a few steps on the escalation ladder.

Astropolitical Context

The careful viewer recognizes that the Cardassians are far from the only problem the Federation has and thus, while we are not explicitly reminded of these issues, they are important context for the Federation choosing a bad peace over waging what many fans perceive to be a virtuous and largely consequence free war. After signing the peace treaty with the Cardassians, these problems are also likely explanations for why the Federation seems to dither and pursue largely diplomatic solutions to the Maquis crisis with the Cardassians rather than throwing its weight around or even directly siding with the Maquis.

The Borg are a known unknown: they are an existential threat if they choose to be, the Federation lost more ships in one battle than had ever been previously mentioned as being in one place at one time in Trek history. We can massage this to fit with later canon by assuming the Borg were, to borrow an Ian Banks term, an "Outside Context Problem." It had been a while since some inscrutable, unstoppable weird alien thing had bypassed every patrol and defensive position to menace Sol directly (although there was that time where it happened twice in the span of a decade) and the Federation had grown so dramatically that it really couldn't afford to have more than forty ships within 48 hours notice to cover Sol, including ships just fitting out, under refit, or in ready reserve.

The Klingons fought a civil war that ultimately exposed ties between the Romulans and the now disgraced, but previously deeply influential Duras Family. Schisms like that don't necessarily heal cleanly or swiftly. The allies of the Duras were shamed and likely had to pay lip service to unity, but they almost certainly had ideological and pragmatic reasons for aligning with the Duras, a disdain for the Khitomer Accords being among them.

The Romulans are another known unknown. They certainly want the Federation to think that they're willing to risk an existential conflict over particular disputes but play their actual motives close to the vest. The fact that these conflicts don't actually spiral into war at least seems to strongly suggest that the Romulans are paranoid, not suicidal, and that their imperialism is tempered by pragmatism. We're never privy to any info dumps on Starfleet's intelligence assessments about their relative power compared to the Federation, but logically even a weak Romulan Star Empire is capable of a lot of mischief up to and including inflicting massive civilian casualties if it desires.

I'm open to correction on this if someone with a more recent engagement with the Maquis arc thinks I'm wrong, but it's my contention that very little of what I just wrote found its way into the foreground as part of the Federation's rationale for accepting a peace with the Cardassians. By foreground I mean cited as reasons for the peace or for siding against the Maquis by Federation characters.

I don't think making peace with an authoritarian regime is the sole reason why the Federation gets held up as an example of why the Federation is a more cynical and "US-coded" actor than it likes to pretend, but even I was surprised at just how exculpatory the broader context is. I expected to wage a rhetorical fight to defend peace on its own merits and wound up being shocked at how during the same period the Federation is trying to maintain the peace with the Cardassians, how many near misses the Federation has with open war with powers that had the potential to decisively win against the Federation, and in the case of the Borg, not just subjugate but utterly annihilate the Federation.

Which many, whose needs?

The argument you very rarely see these days, especially in a post 9/11, post Russian invasion of Ukraine world is that the Federation should have just removed the settlers and called it a day. The irony here is that from a strictly utilitarian, harm reduction standpoint this might actually be the right move.

However, two extremely valid critiques are that this is rooted in presentism: we can argue that there are reasons to suspect the peace with the Cardassians isn't worth the isolinear chips its encoded on but the principle actors can't know for sure in the moment it's all going to be pointless.

It also flies in the face of Trek's ethos that, while consequentialism is highly important, it's tempered by the notion that virtue ethics has its role to play as well. That is to say that some actions are just or unjust, good or bad simply because they are. Thus I cannot think of a lot that would be less Star Trek than a forced relocation of people from their homes. Of course one might also say that it's not especially noble to risk interstellar war and billions of lives over attachment to said homes.

Whether the same Star Trek ethos demands that these people be protected is a nastier business that circles back to what metaphor we use to think about state and irregular warfare in Star Trek but also whether we as fans lean more towards the virtue ethics side of the equation or the consequentialist side.

What makes the Maquis interesting is that, like so much of DS9, the writers refused to provide the sort of easy, positive sum solution that Trek, or at least TNG, was/is known for. There is no scenario in which risks are not undertaken. No scenario in which an empathetic being is going to walk away with a clean conscience. One way or another, either the safety of the settlers is being used as a commodity, their rights revoked entirely, or the other trillion odd beings in the Federation are asked to be in solidarity with the few and risk everything.

Up next: Storytelling insurgency in Star Trek

[royal-confessions]

“Gaslighting is making people believe that a Constitutional Monarch with limited power and an enormous sense of duty like George V was a tyrant, while an autocrate with absolute political power and dictatorial tendencies like tsar Nicholas was a well intentioned guy. Revisionism at its best” - Submitted by Anonymous

[primepaginequotidiani]

PRIMA PAGINA Il-quotidiano-del-sud di Oggi mercoledì, 23 aprile 2025

[kirikomamura]

steam on linux used to not autocreate desktop shortcuts... i want that back i hate having ten billion random games on my desktop

[claudehenrion]

L'Europe ? Mais quelle Europe ?

Hier, en ce qui concerne la France, mais depuis 3 jours pour tous les pays intéressés, quelque 450 millions d'électeurs –le chiffre exact serait 447-- étaient appelés à choisir leurs représentants à une Chambre de députés strasbougo-bruxelloise qui, pour des raisons de simplification évidentes, est le plus souvent appelée ''l'Europe'' –ce qu'elle n'est pas. Ce vote est intervenu au terme d'une caricature de campagne électorale où très peu se sont intéressés au sort de notre embryon de continent de plus en plus incontinent, leur préférant les querelles de clocher, les motivations électoralistes et la cuisine de basse-cour...

De quoi s'agit-il ? L'air est connu, mais il n'est pas inutile de le rappeler : au lendemain d'une guerre terrible entre peuples voisins, semblables, comparables et historiquement frères ou peu s'en faut, une poignée d'hommes d'Etat à la foi chrétienne vibrante et solidement ancrée a fait de la belle phrase ''Plus jamais ça !'' le leit-motiv d'un rapprochement entre ancien ennemis. L'idée était belle à en être utopique, mais leur volonté était telle qu'ils sont arrivés à proposer une démarche par étapes qui rapprocherait de plus en plus ceux qui ne savaient –en apparence-- que se haïr, jusqu'à bâtir entre eux des raisons de s'aimer. Tant qu'on s'en est tenu à cette sagesse, tout avait bien marché.

Les premières années furent fort belles : je me souviens être parti avec un de mes frères à Hambourg, ville littéralement ravagée, anéantie par les bombes des ''Alliés'', pour reconstruire un stade réduit en poudre, armés d'une pelle chacun... Quelles amitiés, avec les jeunes allemands qui pelletaient avec nous : il n'y avait ni fritz, ni chleuhs, ni fridolins... ni franzosen, ni franzaken... On y croyait, tous... et c'était beau. Mais les jeunes successeurs n'ont pas su attendre... et tout est parti en quenouille : entre le traité de Rome (15 mars 1957) sur la CEE et la CECA, et le désastre actuel, qui se traduit dans les urnes et se mesure en abstentions, il faut se résoudre à parler d'un échec du succès, et d'un désastre en cours.

La question qui se pose, est, évidemment : ''Que s'est-il passé ?''. Le nom propre ''Europe'' ayant été volé et confisqué à tort et sans raison, il est devenu un nom commun... et, depuis que les miasmes du progressisme ont tout esquinté, tout salopé, tout dégueulassé, il est même devenu un nom détesté –et j'exagère à peine : on sent que c'est une solution possible... mais elle ne nous montre que ses aspects négatifs, des inconvénients et des contraintes, le plus souvent perçues comme inutiles –ce qu'elles sont, majoritairement. Pour ''les gens'', c'est quoi, l'Europe ?

1 - ''L'Europe est une fourmilière de technocrates inutiles''. Ce reproche est le plus fréquent, surtout adressé à la Commission : des autocrates qui incarnent un pouvoir froid, distant, sans racines et sans freins –donc sans cœur-- et a besoin, pour justifier son manque d'utilité, d'une armada fort coûteuse de fonctionnaires grassement payés et libres d'impôts. Un pouvoir perçu comme ne pensant qu'à multiplier les contraintes, les normes absurdes, les règlements déraisonnables, et intéressé exclusivement par la destruction de toutes les racines grâce auxquelles... ils sont ce qu'ils sont –ce qui n'est pas faux ! Depuis la création de cette ''Commission'' en 1958, elle est passée de zéro à quelque 35 000 fonctionnaires surpayés, mais jamais élus par personne (auxquels ils faut ajouter les armées de lobbyistes que le pouvoir et la corruption attirent comme des mouches). Pour se doter d'une crédibilité, ils ont fabriqué un processus avec certaine forme de légalisme... qui n'est que cela : malgré ces écrans de fumée, ils ne sont pas légitimes pour deux sous.

2 - ''L'Europe est une passoire pro-immigration''. C'est un autre jugement à l'emporte-pièces, qui fait florès aussi... et qui, comme le précédent, est le reflet d'une cruelle vérité, malgré des astuces de présentation qui ne dupent plus grand monde. Profondément marquée par la mauvaise rhétorique progressiste qui fait des ravages dans les milieux faussement intellectuels, les résultats sont là, cruels et menaçants : en 2023, l'UE a enregistré au moins 380 000 arrivées irrégulières (source : Frontex), ce qui est déjà énorme, mais n'est que le 1/3 de toutes les demandes d'asile de l'année (1,14 million). Mais ce qui est plus grave (si possible...), c'est que les fameux ''réfugiés politiques'' que la Gauche passe son temps à invoquer ne sont que 15 % du total, le reste étant composé de 35 % de ''regroupements familiaux'' (Merci, Giscard !), de 20 % de ''permis de travail'', et de 4% d'étudiants.

Avec 20 % de permis de travail (s ic !), on sait quoi répondre aux tenants illuminés de ''l'immigration rapporte à la France''. La ''cata'' est immense. Rattrapable encore ? Sans doute pluss : les fameuses ''OQTF'', obligations de quitter le territoire, sont si rarement exécutées (cf les viols, les attaques au couteau, les dealers, ou les cambriolages violents) qu'on ne voit pas d'où viendrait le progrès.

On voudrait nous faire croire qu'un soi-disant ''Pacte pour la migration et l'asile'' (vous avez bien lu : ''pour'', et non pas ''contre''!), va s'attaquer au problème. Mais son texte prévoit qu'il a pour seule ambition de ''tenter de gérer le flux des personnes arrivées de façon irrégulière''.... ce qui est vraiment le ''minimum syndical'' ! Déjà qu'un texte ne vaut que par la manière dont il est appliqué, on nage ici dans l'abstraction. Et la cerise sur le gâteau est que, lorsqu'ils se réunissent pour disserter sur des mots creux (''tenter''... ''de gérer''... ''les flux''...), ils avouent que leur seule raison pour laquelle ils s'attaquent à ce problème –le seul qui soit mortel pour leurs administrés-- c'est , exclusivement, ''pour ne pas laisser le sujet à l'extrême Droite''. Question : De qui se moque-t-on ?

3 - L'Europe a-t-elle renoncé à nos racines chrétiennes ? C'est le dernier sujet d'importance, et c'est encore un de ces débats qui refont surface ''tous les'de temps en temps''. Jusque là, il était important, certes, mais avec la poussée agressive de l'Islam contre nos sociétés, le sujet devient primordial, vital même. Parlant des conséquences de la bêtise crasse de Jospin qui refusait les racines chrétiennes de l'Europe, FX Bellamy parlait à la tribune du Parlement européen d'une ''véritable haine des racines qui ont fait l'Europe''. Ce faux débat pose 2 questions. L'une est historique... et l'Histoire a répondu depuis longtemps : depuis le IV ème siècle, ''la messe est dite'' : la civilisation européenne (devenue ''Occidentale'' depuis) est et ne peut être que d'inspiration chrétienne. L'autre est politique, et est davantage sujette à débats.

Certains la refusent au nom de leur laïcité (ce qui revient à refuser quelque chose au profit de... rien !), comme ce zéro pointé de Moscovici qui affirmait sans apporter un seul argument : ''Je ne crois pas aux racines chrétiennes de l'Europe''. Quel crétin ! D'autres y voient une opposition au rêve universaliste de la Gauche … comme si avoir des racines signifiait ''n'avoir que ça'' ! D'autres, encore plus myopes, voient dans ce mouvement plus que millénaire ''une tentative de s'opposer à la poussée actuelle de l'islam''. De belles têtes bien faites comme Rémi Brague (''Il faut distinguer les chrétiens –qui croient dans le Christ-- des ''christianistes'' qui ne voient qu'une civilisation, une morale, une philosophie'') ou Pierre Manent (''Le danger vient de la confusion du christianisme avec un humanisme. Mais au delà des ''racines'', où cette querelle mène-t-elle ?'') ou encore notre ancien Pape, Saint Jean-Paul II (''Un arbre sans racines pourrait-il vivre et se développer ?''), ont enrichi ce débat, sans pourtant ''emporter le morceau''.

Pour une fois, c'est au Pape actuel que je vais demander de conclure (ce qui prouve mon objectivité et une certaine honnêteté intellectuelle !) : ''Ils n'ont pas voulu reconnaître les racines chrétiennes de l'Europe ? Il semble que Dieu leur fait payer très cher cette infamie''. Et devant la situation d'échec programmé --mais déjà atteint pour partie-- de ce que devient l'Europe (''un machin dont personne ne veut, mais que l'on subit par crainte de l'inconnu que serait un arrêt''), il est permis de se demander si le remède n'est pas à portée de la main... mais demanderait une vraie intelligence, que nos ''leaders'' actuels ont perdue en chemin... Alors... on aurait voté pour rien ? Réponse à cette question le 7 juillet prochain, puisque l'Assemblée Nationale n'a pas résisté à ce tsunami contre l'Europe macroniste et progressiste. Et ça, c'est la bonne nouvelle du jour !

H-Cl.

[abr]

Il wokismo – scrive Renée Fregosi (*) – è un’ideologia totalitaria: si appropria di tutti i campi dell’attività umana e distorce la realtà in vari modi. (...) Il corpo occupa un posto centrale: è il primo punto di partenza della logica di vittimizzazione sistematica che è il motore del wokismo. Il colore della pelle è messo in rilievo per denunciare ciò che i wokisti definiscono la “razzializzazione” dei non-bianchi, ossia le discriminazioni, oppressioni e violenze esercitate ai loro danni “in maniera sistemica” da quelli che a loro detta beneficiano del “privilegio bianco”. La differenza di sesso (...) è messa in discussione a beneficio del “genere” che distingue il maschile dal femminile principalmente attraverso l’apparenza (...), vestimentaria in particolare. Il velamento del corpo delle donne, benché patriarcale, viene rivendicato contro una presunta “islamofobia” (...). L’ossessione wokista trasforma (anche) il corpo degli sportivi in uno dei suoi terreni di gioco privilegiati. (...) Il delirio woke raggiunge nello sport il suo punto più alto, mandando nel panico le federazioni sportive che reagiscono in maniera disordinata. Lo scorso marzo, la Federazione internazionale di atletica leggera (World Athletics) ha deciso di escludere dalle prove femminili le donne transgender che “hanno attraversato la pubertà maschile”, ritenendo “insufficienti le prove che le donne trans non abbiano vantaggi sulle donne biologiche”. Indignata, l’atleta francese nata uomo Halba Diouf ha immediatamente denunciato questa decisione sul quotidiano sportivo L’Équipe. Quanto ai (sedicenti, ndr) atleti intersessuali (ermafroditi o di sesso indeterminato alla nascita), come la sudafricana Caster Semenya, devono d’ora in avanti mantenere il loro tasso di testosterone sotto la soglia di 2,5 nmol/L per ventiquattro mesi per poter concorrere nella categoria femminile (...), fatto che essi giudicano come una misura “discriminatoria”. (...) La Federazione internazionale di nuoto ha annunciato nel giugno del 2022 che voleva creare una categoria per le nuotatrici transgender divenute donne post pubertà (come l’americana Lia Thomas), al fine di riservare le categorie femminili alle donne di nascita e eventualmente alle transgender divenute donne prima della pubertà. Nel calcio, i regolamenti cambiano a seconda dei paesi.  Anche nel ciclismo le posizioni sono varie e cambiano in tutti i sensi. I britannici, per esempio, dichiarano che l’atleta transgender Emily Bridges non era “ancora” autorizzata a concorrere in un campionato nazionale. La questione agita tutto il mondo sportivo, e in particolare gli sport di combattimento.  (Traduzione di Mauro Zanon) (*) Filosofa e politologa francese, Renée Fregosi, con un passato da militante del Mouvement de libération des femmes (Mlf) e Partito socialista, ha scritto “Les Nouveaux autoritaires. Justiciers, censeurs et autocrates” (Éditions du Moment).

via https://www.ilfoglio.it/il-foglio-internazionale/2023/09/11/news/l-ossessione-woke-trova-nello-sport-uno-dei-suoi-terreni-di-gioco-privilegiati-5664212/

IL DELIRIO. E noi siamo costretti a perderci del tempo.

Ah, sempre a proposito di sport, che dire poi quella francese (giornalaia o ministro? Boh) che ha definito la HAKA neozelandese in corso di Mondiali di rugby, "atteggiamento maschlista e violento". Manco più le popolazioni indigene sfuggono al melting pot omogeneizzante del siamo quello che desideriamo essere (non nel senso motivazionale, in quello "fisico" proprio).

[magnetictapedatastorage]

nobody's made a mod that autocreates labor profiles for each individual labor in df?? come on. i dont want to do that shit by hand every new fort. i know the Intended Way To Play is with a massively dumbed down and dysfunctional deskilled mess of everybody doing everything at random, but like, i don't want to do that

[sinnosis-sc]

Oggi è in futuro.

Benché non sia facile e sempre stimolante provare a fare delle previsioni sul futuro prossimo. Al momento, abbiamo una Russia con progetti imperialistici, governata da un autocrate e una classe di privilegiati. Una guerra contro l'Ucraina e una Europa che ha passato gli ultimi decenni in uno stato di pace e prospero sviluppo. Il benessere europeo è messo in dubbio dalla guerra ucraina e dalle divisioni politiche tra conservatori moderati e radicali, che hanno approcci diversi verso la guerra russo ucraina. Il risultato è che gli aiuti all'Ucraina non sono adeguati ai bisogni degli ucraini. In Europa ci sono diversi movimenti di persone che vorrebbero una pace ad ogni costo, ma non a costo del loro benessere e tranquillità. Se l’Ucraina dovesse cedere e dovesse accettare la pace imposta da Mosca, gli scenari che si prospettano sono diversi e oscuri. Mosca potrebbe essere tentata di proseguire la sua conquista verso i Paesi dell' ex Unione sovietica, al Nord e al centro Europa. Per creare una fascia di Paesi sotto il suo controllo politico e smilitarizzati. Il rischio di conflitto con la Nato è alto, come pure il rischio di conflitti interni agli stessi Paesi europei, tra i favorevoli alla guerra e i contrari. Paesi disposti a trattare con Mosca e quelli disposti a combattere. Cosa agognata da Mosca, perché renderebbe tutto più facile. Fino a che punto sarà disposta Mosca ad alzare l’asticella delle minacce? Fino a che punto saranno disposti a combattere gli europei? Una guerra costringerebbe le democrazie Europee a irrigidire le forme di governo e questo potrebbe causare ulteriori conflitti interni. Le economie diventerebbero economie di guerra, le società cambierebbero profondamente. Il rischio dell' uso dell' atomica sarebbe alto. Cosa farebbero gli Usa e la Cina? In caso di conflitto tra Europa e Russia, quale sarebbe l'obiettivo minimo da raggiungere per gli europei? Segue....

[eastgaysian]

I've discovered that in addition to my family and tom, my iphone has also autocreated an album for kieran culkin. Thank you steve job. For technology