411–420 of 469 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have there been other rocket launches from continental Europe?
Britain’s Black Arrow could, but it launched from a RAF base in Australia. Definitely not continental Europe, but part of Europe if you consider it from the Eurovision point of view. A real shame Britain abandoned their own research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even the US in general, it's SpaceX specifically. Only the US and China have demonstrated reusable rockets, and only SpaceX demonstrated the actual reuse, the cadence and the economy of scale that it brings.
Reuse might turn out not to be the future - and its SpaceX has embraced this internally. At least not full reuse, or not the way most people think of a reusable spacecraft as a reusable aircraft. A reusable rocket engine might only have 2-3 flights in it, if that, with some routine inspection and maintenance between them. 3D printing has been a game changer that basically allows you to crank out rocket engines from r…
We are not talking about forever spacecraft, and even Falcon 9's reusabilility is partial (the second stage is lost), but even what Falcon 9 has achieved allows for very rapid progress, due to the short feedback loop, including progress in reliability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Belgian here. I think Trump definitely pushes allies away much faster than ever anticipated, that's probably the only achievement from the current administration. The alliance still stands, but it's hard to trust the US when the current president is constantly praising violent dictators and doesn't seem to grasp the concept of laws/rules + tries to blame everyone else + threatens to invade EU countries + the requirem…
Germany is the country where AfD is about to win big. Good friends you're choosing there. China has it's own launchers which shows it's decoupling from Europe now. It's over for Europe as countries race to be independent from them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a French colonial subject as recently as the 20th century. Regardless, a launch facility within Europe seems much less riskier long term from a geopolitical standpoint.
Although you're right about the history of French Guiana, using that term to put on the same level as New Caledonia is nonsense. (Same goes for Martinique.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dont worry the US will hoodwink Europe back into be a compliant vassal of the Empire in a few years when they elect a democrat who pretends to be liberal and acting in good faith, probably AOC(ia).
Why is this downvoted? This is exactly how US foreign policy works. The only difference with Trump is that he says things out loud. This is 100% what is going to happen. US foreign policy relies on deception and decade long plans. The big plans are ruling the Middle East and squash opposition (Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq done, Iran pending). To that end Russia had to be kept busy, therefore the Ukraine proxy war, which…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No we don’t know that the current administration is negotiating in bad faith. That’s your opinion and one that doesn’t really reflect how the world of diplomacy and interactions between nation states work. Why would you waste time and money when any deal in which would be negotiated in bad faith requires Ukrainian participation? Second, yes the Budapest Memorandum was violated. Why didn’t the other parties do anythin…
> Second, yes the Budapest Memorandum was violated. Why didn’t the other parties do anything or immediately declare war on Russia besides just the United States? The immediate reaction of the other parties was roughly the same as the USA's immediate reaction. > Here’s a better question though: why didn’t the EU do something when Russia violated it? The EU isn't party to the Budapest Memorandum. > Is your gear ready?…
Well the US and UK rushed munitions. But aside from that it just makes Western Europe culpable for failing
> It is actively being sent, unlike US gear which appears to have stopped roughly with Trump taking over. We aren't asking you to deploy to the front lines of Ukraine. Why do you even think this has been asked of you?
You can just do the research for yourself to see and understand the troop levels and equipment placed throughout Europe. What you're writing here doesn't make sense and it reflects what you want to be true and not what is actually true.
> This is an entirely separate question to Ukraine.
Not really
> We're already wondering if the USA honour its obligations, so yet again the very fact you have even asked this question makes us trust the USA less.
If the military presence, continued training exercises, continued well, functioning of NATO means you now don't trust us, then why are we there? You don't trust us, we could just turn on you any moment! Your belief does not reflect reality.
> That said, a thought crosses my mind: If I were a Chinese or Russian propagandist, I'd get someone to do what you're doing now. Or, better yet, convince some actual Americans to do what you're doing now.
You're the one saying "we don't trust you" "you don't support Ukraine" etc. and neither of those are true. You're purposefully driving divisions when none need exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No we don’t know that the current administration is negotiating in bad faith. That’s your opinion and one that doesn’t really reflect how the world of diplomacy and interactions between nation states work. Why would you waste time and money when any deal in which would be negotiated in bad faith requires Ukrainian participation? Second, yes the Budapest Memorandum was violated. Why didn’t the other parties do anythin…
Can you honestly say with a straight face that you believe Jared Kushner is in Moscow negotiating in good faith with Putin with respect to Ukraine? Especially given his lack of experience and multiple corruption accusations and investigations. And that Trump has illegally withheld Ukrainian assistance in the past and stopped it in the future. Given that Trump's "peace plan" is essentially for Ukraine to give up even…
I can't say anything other than what is officially reported. Everything else is a conspiracy theory. While I definitely agree with you that he's inexperienced, who exactly from Europe is flying to Moscow and attempting to negotiate? You can't just sit here and say the US isn't trying just because you don't like the folks that were sent.
> Given that Trump's "peace plan" is essentially for Ukraine to give up even more territory and partially disarm - decreasing the size of their military and giving up long-range weapons... and there's no such provisions for Russia to do anything of the sort. The plan all but sets up Russia's next invasion of a weakened Ukraine.
Ok so then you don't want to see any attempt at negotiation and just want to see the war continue? The problem is you're playing ideological games when we need to figure out a pragmatic solution. I don't think Ukraine should give up territory it controls, for example, but if it has to give up some territory that it has little chance of taking back for the sake of peace maybe it should do so. Unless you are willing to go to war with Russia you need to figure something out.
> The US didn't declare war on Russia. The EU isn't a party to the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine, US, UK, and Russia are with China and France giving separate assurances.
So what? You want the United States and United Kingdom to go to war with Russia now? I don't know what citing the Budapest Memorandum is accomplishing here other than attempting to further drive division between western allies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although you're right about the history of French Guiana, using that term to put on the same level as New Caledonia is nonsense. (Same goes for Martinique.)
I wasn’t talking about the historical aspect. Same applies = the same risk also exists due to geopolitics and distance. Heck, didn’t New Caledonia see a wave of protests that were crushed in the past year or two?
Yes, that's why the risk is NOT the same between French Guiana and New Caledonia. Both of them are oversea territories far from the mainland with a colonial past, but their current relationship with the mainland is very different.
Around a quarter of the population of New Caledonia has been calling for independence for decades at this point, with 3 referendum organised during the last 10 years to resolve this issue. Only half of the population was able to vote to the referendums (and some local elections, like Congress of NC), due to local rules than are about to change–this, incidentally, is the cause of the protests you are talking about. On the geopolitical side of things, the independentists are probably propped up by Azerbaijan (https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/geopolitique-n...) and maybe China (https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/ambitions-geostrategiq...).
None of this holds for French Guiana. The risk between these territories is not the same. At all. Putting them on the same level by reducing them to their status as former colonies is nonsense.
EDIT: Title has been updated so my comment seems out of context.