7788 stories
·
34 followers

🎬 Кеннеди: "Есть два исследования, по которым дети, которым сделали обрезание, вдв...

1 Share

Кеннеди: "Есть два исследования, по которым дети, которым сделали обрезание, вдвое чаще страдают аутизмом. Это скорее всего потому, что им давали тайленол (парацетамол)".

Лучшее в этом видео — лица остальных членов (извините) кабинета. Особенно Рубио.

Read the whole story
cherjr
4 days ago
reply
48.840867,2.324885
Share this story
Delete

Анекдот дня по итогам голосования за 08 октября 2025

1 Share
Сиськи - самый лучший антистресс.
Хуже всего то, что приделаны они к самому сильному из известных источнику стресса.
Read the whole story
cherjr
4 days ago
reply
48.840867,2.324885
Share this story
Delete

Анекдот дня по итогам голосования за 07 октября 2025

1 Share
- Алексей, а почему вы Леночку в ЗАГС не ведёте?
- А вы знаете, меня напрягает ситуация, когда я что-то подписываю при двух свидетелях, это снимают на камеру, а в углу рыдает моя мама!
Read the whole story
cherjr
5 days ago
reply
48.840867,2.324885
Share this story
Delete

Shein picks France for its first permanent stores

1 Share

Asian fast-fashion giant Shein said on Wednesday it had picked France to open its first permanent physical stores in November.

The company, whose environmental record and discount-driven business model are often under criticism, said in a statement that the first shop would open at the BHV Marais department store in Paris.

It would be followed by five more in Galeries Lafayette department stores in the cities of Dijon, Reims, Grenoble, Angers and Limoges, it said.

The move comes through a partnership with retail property group Societe des Grands Magasins (SGM), which owns BHV Marais and several Galeries Lafayette stores.

"This alliance is more than just a launch -- it's a commitment to revitalise city centres across France, restore department stores and create opportunities for French fashion," Shein said.

It pledged to create 200 direct and indirect jobs in France.

Advertisement

Founded in China and now based in Singapore, Shein built its empire on ultra-cheap clothing, a vast product range and aggressive marketing.

But it faces mounting criticism over the environmental impact of its massive production, labour conditions and alleged unfair competition, with European brands accusing it of skirting EU standards and exploiting customs exemptions for low-value parcels.

Shein employs 16,000 people worldwide and posted $23 billion in revenue in 2022.

Adblock test (Why?)



Read the whole story
cherjr
8 days ago
reply
48.840867,2.324885
Share this story
Delete

Why Ukraine is winning the war

2 Shares
  • Ukraine-Russia War Overview: Historian and philosopher analyzes Ukraine's successes against Russian invasion starting in 2014 and escalating in February 2022 across Ukraine to counter propaganda claiming Russian dominance, highlighting Ukrainian resilience under President Zelenskyy against President Putin's aim to destroy Ukrainian independence.
  • Early Invasion and Ukrainian Resistance: Russian forces expected quick conquest of Kyiv in 2022 but faced repulsion by outgunned Ukrainian army; Zelenskyy rejected evacuation, leading to counterattacks liberating Kharkiv and Kherson regions in late 2022.
  • Stalemate and Russian Losses: Frontline stable since 2022 with no major strategic Russian gains like Kyiv or Kherson; in 2025, Russia captured only 0.6% of Ukraine at cost of 200,000-300,000 casualties, controlling less territory than in 2022.
  • World War I Parallels: Russian advances mirror WWI Western Front tactics, sacrificing soldiers for minimal gains misrepresented on maps; Ukraine employs tactical retreats to preserve forces while exhausting Russian assaults.
  • Naval Achievements: Ukraine neutralized Russian Black Sea Fleet superiority using missiles and drones, sinking cruiser Moskva and recapturing Snake Island in 2022, forcing remaining fleet to distant harbors and innovating naval warfare.
  • Aerial and Missile Dynamics: Russia failed to secure Ukrainian airspace despite losses including strategic bombers; Ukraine avoids civilian targets but strikes Russian infrastructure like oil refineries with drones, contrasting Russian terror tactics on cities.
  • International Support and Constraints: No direct NATO troops involved, only North Korean forces aiding Russia; Western arms initially limited, potentially allowing quicker Ukrainian victory if fully provided earlier; Ukraine fights without external military intervention.
  • Political Victory and Future Implications: Putin's goal to deny Ukrainian nationhood failed as invasion solidified national identity through resistance and sacrifices; Ukraine's army serves as key European defense, with war outcome depending on Western resolve against Russian propaganda.

The writer is a historian, philosopher and author

Contrary to the narrative pushed by Russian propaganda, Ukraine has so far been winning the war. Even US President Donald Trump, who in February 2025 lectured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that he must cave in to Russian demands because “you don’t have the cards”, has this week declared that “Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN”.

When the conflict began in 2014, Ukraine seemed completely helpless in the face of Russian aggression, and the Russians easily conquered Crimea and other parts of eastern Ukraine. The war entered a more intense phase on February 24 2022, when Russia mounted an all-out assault, aiming to subdue the whole of Ukraine and end its existence as an independent nation.

At the time, the Russian leadership and many observers throughout the world expected Russia to conquer Kyiv and defeat the Ukrainian army decisively within a few days. Even Ukraine’s western backers were so unsure of Ukraine’s chances of resistance that they offered to evacuate President Zelenskyy and his team and help them set up a government in exile.

But Zelenskyy chose to stay in Kyiv and fight, reportedly telling the Americans, “I need ammunition, not a ride”. The outgunned Ukrainian forces stunned the world by repelling the Russian assault on Kyiv. The Ukrainian army then counter-attacked in the late summer of 2022, won two major victories in the regions of Kharkiv and Kherson, and liberated much of the territory conquered by the Russians in the first phase of their invasion.

Since then, notwithstanding limited gains by both sides, the frontline hasn’t moved much. The Russians are trying to create the impression that they are relentlessly advancing, but the fact is that, since the spring of 2022, they have failed to conquer any target of major strategic importance such as the cities of Kyiv, Kharkiv or Kherson.

In 2025, at a cost of around 200,000 to 300,000 soldiers killed and injured, the Russian army has so far managed to capture just a thin sliver of frontier zone amounting, according to the most reliable sources, to around 0.6 per cent of Ukraine’s total territory. At the rate they have been going in 2025, it would theoretically take the Russians around 100 years and tens of millions of casualties to conquer the rest of Ukraine. In fact, in August 2025, Russia controlled less of Ukraine’s territory than it did in August 2022.        


The situation is reminiscent of the western front in the first world war, when ruthless generals sacrificed tens of thousands of soldiers to gain a few kilometres of muddy ruins. Patriotic newspapers often hid the magnitude of such follies by printing maps that purported to show major advances. But the most important data in these maps was their scale. As the historian Toby Thacker noted, first world war newspapers often used a deliberately large scale “which made the ‘advances’ appear superficially impressive, but any astute reader could have seen that . . . they were insignificant. In many newspapers, the accurate geographical detail flatly contradicted the constant reporting of ‘gains’ and ‘advances’”. It is the same with the latest Russian advances.

For Ukraine it makes good military sense to make tactical retreats and preserve its strength and the lives of its soldiers, while letting the Russians bleed themselves to exhaustion by mounting costly attacks for insignificant gains. The truth is that Ukraine has managed to fight Russia to a standstill.

As the retired Australian Major General Mick Ryan wrote recently, it is as if more than three years after invading Iraq in 2003, the US had only managed to capture 20 per cent of the country while sustaining 1 million casualties in the process. Would anyone view this as an American victory?

At sea, the Ukrainian achievement has been equally impressive. On February 24, 2022, the Russian Black Sea Fleet had complete naval superiority, and it seemed that Ukraine had no means to counter it. One of the most famous incidents that day occurred on Snake Island. The flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the cruiser Moskva, sent a radio message to the small garrison, saying “I am a Russian warship. I suggest you lay down your arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed and unnecessary casualties”. In reply, the garrison sent the message “Russian warship, go fuck yourself”.

Though Snake Island was swiftly conquered by the Russians, at the end of June 2022 the Ukrainians recaptured the island. By then, the Moskva and numerous other Russian vessels were at the bottom of the Black Sea. By making innovative use of missiles and drones, the Ukrainians managed to neutralise Russia’s naval superiority, changed the very nature of naval warfare, and drove what remained of the Russian Black Sea Fleet to seek shelter in safe harbours far from the front.

In the air, too, Russia has failed. Whereas in its 12-day war against Iran in June 2025 Israel won control of the Iranian sky within about 36 hours without losing a single manned aircraft, Russia has so far failed to gain control of Ukraine’s sky. The Russian air force has sustained crippling losses — not least in the Ukrainian strike on Russia’s strategic bomber fleet in June.

Russia has reacted by relying on long-range missiles and drones to terrorise Ukrainian cities. Ukraine has refrained from replying in kind, and largely avoids hitting civilian targets in Russia, but Ukrainian drones have shown considerable ability to hit airfields and infrastructure, especially oil refineries, hundreds of kilometres within Russia.

The Ukrainians have achieved all this without any direct military intervention from outside. So far, the only third party that has intervened directly in the war is North Korea, which has sent more than 10,000 soldiers to fight for Russia. Nato countries have provided Ukraine with massive support in weapons and other resources, but no Nato troops have been formally involved in the actual fighting.

It should also be noted that prior to February 24, 2022 and for a long time afterwards, Nato countries refused to provide Ukraine with many types of more sophisticated heavy weapons and restricted the use of others. Some of these restrictions are still in force.

Consequently, in 2022 the Ukrainians won the victories at Kyiv, Kharkiv and Kherson with only limited weaponry. If they had been given full support from the beginning, they might well have won the war by late 2022 or the summer of 2023, before Russia could rebuild its army and war economy.


In 2025, the weakest link in Ukraine’s defences still lies in the minds of its western friends. As Russia has failed to gain air and naval superiority or to break through the Ukrainian defences on land, Russian strategy seeks to outflank the Ukrainian position by attacking the will of the Americans and Europeans.

By spreading propaganda that Russian victory is inevitable, the Russians hope the Americans and Europeans will lose heart, withdraw their support from Ukraine and force it to surrender. Succumbing to this propaganda will be a disaster not only for Ukraine, but for Nato countries that would lose much of their credibility, as well as their best defence against growing Russian threats.

As Russia continues to expand its military and its war economy, Europe is scrambling to re-arm, but in the meantime the biggest and most experienced fighting force standing between the Russian army and Warsaw, Berlin or Paris is the Ukrainian army. The Polish, German and French armies each have around 200,000 soldiers, most of whom have never seen combat. The Ukrainian army, in contrast, has approximately 1 million soldiers, most of whom are seasoned veterans.

After two weeks that have seen Russian jet incursions into Estonia and Russian drones over Poland and Romania (and perhaps also Denmark), Europeans should reflect on the fact that if Russia attacks Europe tomorrow, and the US chooses to stay out of the fight, Europe’s biggest military asset will be the Ukrainian army. The US military, too, has much to learn from Ukraine’s battlefield experience and cutting-edge weapons industry. Particularly in the field of drone warfare, Ukraine’s innovations and trove of data make it a world leader. This is probably part of the reason President Trump has lately become more supportive of Ukraine. He likes to back winners.


It is impossible to tell how the war will develop, since it depends on future decisions. But in one crucial respect, the Ukrainian victory is already decisive and irreversible. War is the continuation of politics by other means. War is not won by the side that conquers more land, destroys more cities, or kills more people. War is won by the side that achieves its political aims. And in Ukraine, it is already clear that Putin has failed to achieve his chief war aim — the destruction of the Ukrainian nation.

In many of his speeches and essays, Putin has argued that Ukraine was never a real nation. This, for example, was the main message of his lengthy essay titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”, which he published in July 2021. According to Putin, Ukraine was a fake entity, encouraged by foreign powers as a ploy to weaken Russia. Putin launched the war to prove to the world that the Ukrainian nation doesn’t exist, that Ukrainians are actually Russians, and that, given half a chance, the Ukrainians would joyfully be absorbed into Mother Russia.

Nobody knows how many more people will die because of Putin’s delusions and ambitions, but one thing that has been made abundantly clear to the entire world is that Ukraine is a very real nation, and that millions of Ukrainians are willing to fight tooth and nail to remain independent of Russia.

Nations aren’t made of clumps of earth or of drops of blood. They are made of stories, images and memories in people’s minds. No matter how the war unfolds in the coming months, the memory of the Russian invasion, of Russian atrocities and of Ukrainian sacrifices, will continue to sustain Ukrainian patriotism for generations to come.

Read the whole story
cherjr
9 days ago
reply
48.840867,2.324885
bogorad
14 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Why economists get Trumpism wrong - UnHerd

2 Shares

The great physicist Richard Feynman once wrote: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”

I can say safely that nobody understands the economic and political consequences of Donald Trump. I am not likening his policies to one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. But what the two have in common is radical unpredictability. In quantum mechanics, unpredictability arises at the time of measurement. Economists have the same problem with Trump. We cannot look at the current slew of economic data to see where this is going. If you are an anti-Trump economic evangelist, you are very likely to get things wrong, just as economists did with Brexit or Trump’s first term.

I expect that the US economy will probably be fine. Before you jump to the conclusion that I am a Trump supporter, I can assure you that I am not. Nor was I a Brexit supporter, though I was critical of the self-defeating arguments of the Remain campaign. I see similar dynamics at work in the US right now. Trump’s critics, both in the US and Europe, keep on underestimating him with predictions of imminent gloom.

They predicted that his tariffs would raise inflation. So far that has not happened. I don’t think it will. Some also predicted that the US stock market would soon crash. In fact, Europeans celebrated the collapse in the S&P 500 that followed the Liberation Day tariffs. They erroneously relied on the markets as a corrective mechanism to frustrate Trump’s tariffs. That did not happen. The markets recovered and never looked back. The overall level of tariffs today is at least as high as those announced by Trump on 2 April. They are bound to get higher still, now that he has slapped a 100% tariff on branded pharmaceutical products and a 50% tariff on Ikea furniture.

It does not look like the stock market will do us the favour of crashing during the Trump presidency. It is quite possible that the S&P 500 will rise from its current level of around 6,400 to 10,000. Market valuations could rise from the stratospheric to the mesospheric to the exospheric. Prices will crash eventually. But that might not happen until the next Democratic president.

The economic success I expect to see is that of a last hurrah of a declining power. It will be a hell of a party, with the fake glitter of a Mar-a-Lago ballroom: lights, music and attention-deflecting smoke and mirrors.

John Maynard Keynes once said all politicians were under the influence of long-defunct economists. We can safely say that Trump is not. The Left hates him, of course. But so does the old Right. Monetarists would have been aghast at his assault on the independence of the Federal Reserve. Virtually every school of conservative economic thought, from the ancient to modern, would have rejected his tariffs. Or his unfunded tax cuts. Or the stablecoins through which he wants to attract investment in the US debt markets. You can’t even caricature his policies as “businessman economics” either. Businesspeople tend to be fiscally conservative.

The reason I chose not to underestimate him is that his big tax cuts, extreme deregulation and tariffs will turn the US into a super-competitive economy at the expense of other Western countries. We Europeans still live in the technological Stone Age, but at least we used to have competitive industries. We are now being squeezed by the US and China both in innovation and competitiveness.

China’s economic policies could not more different than Trump’s, but they share one important trait: they both ignore the advice of mainstream macroeconomics. President Xi Jinping is an old-fashioned mercantilist. He maximises exports and minimise imports. He does not care what this does to the rest of the world. China has not freed up its capital markets. The Chinese renminbi is locked in a semi-fixed exchange rate against the dollar. China unashamedly picks winners. Were we not told that government should never, ever do this? China’s central planners picked the electric car, the entire battery supply chain behind it, and solar panels. The problem with picking winners is not the act of picking. It is about what you pick. We Westerners should perhaps not pick winners. China did better.

Trump is picking fossil fuels. If your time horizon is four years, this is going to be fine. Cheap oil and gas fuel the fire of American entrepreneurialism. But China’s energy policy is much more sophisticated. They still burn coal, but they invest into renewable energies like nobody else. One of the water dams being planned will have a capacity as large as the entire energy consumption of countries such as Greece.

To use Trump’s own words: China has all the cards. It has more people; it has a work ethic that has been lost in the West; it has industrial supply chains; and it is willing to shift resources from one part to another in our economy with a ruthlessness that our democracies cannot replicate. I would rather live in Europe or the US than in China. But I am not optimistic about the long-term prospects of the West.

I have no doubt that Trump’s economics will fail in the end. It will not become the foundation of a new economic era; he will not match Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in influencing economic policy in the West for decades after they left the stage. They both failed before they succeeded. With Trump, it is more likely to be the other way round.

What I am sure of, however, that he will fail in his foreign policies even in the short run. The reason is a complete lack of interest in strategic alliances, and in strategic action in general. The only chance the democratic West has against the rise of China and its global partners-in-crime is as a well-managed team.

“The only chance the democratic West has against the rise of China and its global partners-in-crime is as a well-managed team.”

I am not just talking about his delusional announcements: that it would take him 24 hours to cut a peace in deal in Ukraine. Or his claim at the end of last week that we are about to have a peace deal in Gaza. He claims to have ended seven wars. He has not. Nor has he saved millions of lives. His “America First” agenda is by definition not one of foreign policy. His only foreign policy objective is to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump’s delusions are easy to dismiss, but they have will have serious effects. The first casualty of Trump’s foreign policy is Europe. Europe must be very careful about Trump’s latest policy u-turn on Ukraine. This looks like a setup to me. Don’t fall for the “Ukraine is winning” narrative that has recently popped up out of nowhere. Nothing substantive has changed on the ground. I think Trump is setting Europe up for failure by insisting that Ukraine can win the war, and that Europe should pay for it. If it fails, as I believe it will, he can blame Europe.

There is no way that Europe can make itself independent of Russian oil with the speed that Trump demands. He knows that, of course. Europe is financially too weak and politically too divided to be able to fund the Ukraine war on its own. This is still true if the EU commission ends up sequestering €200 billion in Russian reserve assets currently frozen in EU bank accounts. I concluded a long time ago that, because they all think in national terms, European political elites are incapable of strategic geopolitical thought. A Franco-German fighter project is on the rocks right now, because the two countries cannot agree on the work share. Pettiness has a habit of intruding all the time in European politics, even during emergencies.

Japan is as weak as Europe. It too has an outdated industrial base and a declining population. Under Trump, the West will fragment into a disparate collection of failed states. An inward-looking US will remain its most formidable power, but not a leader. The US will look like the Norma Desmond character from Sunset Boulevard, who thought that she was still big, and that it was the movies that got smaller.

Movie directors know about turning points — the peripeteia in classical Greek drama — where events shift, either in the positive or the negative direction. To his supporters, Trump may well the person who arrests the decline of civilisation. They will end up disappointed. So may his detractors who see his presidency as a phase of comic relief, a moment that will eventually pass before the final happy ending sets in.

My guess is that America will not be great at the end of the MAGA episode. But America will be OK, if not great, whereas Europe will be neither. What we would really need is a reboot, but we are afraid. There was a tradition in European intellectual thought that started with the acknowledgement that you don’t know. Scio nescio, Plato wrote. Feynman’s comment about quantum mechanics is in that spirit too. That state of mind is a precondition for success. You start at zero. It is where the Age of Enlightenment began. It is where China started too.

Trump is the very opposite of this. The real tragedy is that his detractors, are too.

Read the whole story
cherjr
9 days ago
reply
48.840867,2.324885
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories