sommerset

Remember - america is not a country, it's a business.
If you can't make it - noone gonna do shit

Amazon monopolized china reselling industry

Can't - they practically monopolized china reshipment and white labeling In US.

Best u can do - check qlibaba, temu, AliExpress first and order from there

This is dumb. My wife won't stop using it.

• Just permanently switch to buying from AliExpress. Or at least check if item is available on temu, AliExpress and Alibaba first.

• Don't just delay and then buy delayed 5 days later.

• Send money to wfp party instead of Dems.

• have u ever forgotten to pay at Walmart?

• buy a gun while u can. It takes some fucking effort in blue states.

• go on Amazon - you can print a custom garden flag.
  Print Luigi and post it in your yard.

• start building a troll farm that can direct protest energy.

So explain it

Europe’s Plans

The EU summit in Brussels is taking place today. I’ve lost count of how many there have been in the past two weeks—this might be the fourth? Zelensky will also be attending. I assume this summit will be crucial for shaping the EU’s future policy on Ukraine.

If any major decisions are made—especially regarding funding the war not just with money but also with weapons to replace U.S. supplies—it will happen now. There’s no more time to delay; Trump has already halted deliveries, so if not now, then when? However, I expect things will end much the same way as before.

The problem is that Europe simply lacks the physical capacity to supply weapons to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Financial aid is one thing—money can still be found or printed—but weapons are another matter. For instance, a representative of the Bundeswehr has once again confirmed that Germany has exhausted its ability to send anything from its stockpiles to Ukraine.

But there are financial issues too. Ursula von der Leyen has presented her plan for rearming Europe, which has already been met with significant criticism in the Western press. Her plan includes:

Spending €800 billion on rearmament;

Creating a €150 billion credit fund for collective arms procurement;

Attracting private investment into the defense sector;

Offering incentives to countries that increase military spending.

However, this is merely a wishlist. Ursula is not a tactician but a strategist. The EU leadership doesn’t have—and won’t have—real money for this plan. The document itself states that the €800 billion should come from national governments, primarily by lifting borrowing restrictions. In other words, she is proposing that individual countries take on debt to rearm their militaries in exchange for vague incentives that will never truly offset the costs.

At the same time, it seems national governments are struggling to convince their voters that rearmament is genuinely necessary. The average European doesn’t believe that Putin—who has been fighting a single country, Ukraine, for three years without capturing a single regional capital and is now looking for a way to end the war—would suddenly turn around and attack NATO. Given the rising wave of nationalist sentiment in Europe, voters are focused on entirely different issues that contradict the idea of sharply increasing military spending.

As for real assistance, Politico reports that even the proposal to allocate €20 billion from EU funds is no longer being pursued due to opposition from Hungary. Anyone who thought Hungary was merely bargaining now has their answer—Orbán is seriously blocking military aid, unlike sanctions, which he has negotiated over before.

There is nothing stopping individual countries from pooling the same €20 billion without Hungary if they genuinely want to help Ukraine. But it’s clear that few are willing to do so. Those who do want to help already do—for example, Ireland recently announced a €100 million aid package, though it appears to be non-lethal aid, likely radar systems. But Ireland didn’t need Ursula or the EU to make that decision; if they want to help, they simply do. France, Italy, and similar countries could do the same, but they don’t.

That’s why I don’t see any reason to expect today’s summit to change anything. We’ll hear a lot of big words, see very little action, and once again, Zelensky will be pressured not to clash with Trump and to agree to his deals.

Europe’s Plans

The EU summit in Brussels is taking place today. I’ve lost count of how many there have been in the past two weeks—this might be the fourth? Zelensky will also be attending. I assume this summit will be crucial for shaping the EU’s future policy on Ukraine.

If any major decisions are made—especially regarding funding the war not just with money but also with weapons to replace U.S. supplies—it will happen now. There’s no more time to delay; Trump has already halted deliveries, so if not now, then when? However, I expect things will end much the same way as before.

The problem is that Europe simply lacks the physical capacity to supply weapons to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Financial aid is one thing—money can still be found or printed—but weapons are another matter. For instance, a representative of the Bundeswehr has once again confirmed that Germany has exhausted its ability to send anything from its stockpiles to Ukraine.

But there are financial issues too. Ursula von der Leyen has presented her plan for rearming Europe, which has already been met with significant criticism in the Western press. Her plan includes:

Spending €800 billion on rearmament;

Creating a €150 billion credit fund for collective arms procurement;

Attracting private investment into the defense sector;

Offering incentives to countries that increase military spending.

However, this is merely a wishlist. Ursula is not a tactician but a strategist. The EU leadership doesn’t have—and won’t have—real money for this plan. The document itself states that the €800 billion should come from national governments, primarily by lifting borrowing restrictions. In other words, she is proposing that individual countries take on debt to rearm their militaries in exchange for vague incentives that will never truly offset the costs.

At the same time, it seems national governments are struggling to convince their voters that rearmament is genuinely necessary. The average European doesn’t believe that Putin—who has been fighting a single country, Ukraine, for three years without capturing a single regional capital and is now looking for a way to end the war—would suddenly turn around and attack NATO. Given the rising wave of nationalist sentiment in Europe, voters are focused on entirely different issues that contradict the idea of sharply increasing military spending.

As for real assistance, Politico reports that even the proposal to allocate €20 billion from EU funds is no longer being pursued due to opposition from Hungary. Anyone who thought Hungary was merely bargaining now has their answer—Orbán is seriously blocking military aid, unlike sanctions, which he has negotiated over before.

There is nothing stopping individual countries from pooling the same €20 billion without Hungary if they genuinely want to help Ukraine. But it’s clear that few are willing to do so. Those who do want to help already do—for example, Ireland recently announced a €100 million aid package, though it appears to be non-lethal aid, likely radar systems. But Ireland didn’t need Ursula or the EU to make that decision; if they want to help, they simply do. France, Italy, and similar countries could do the same, but they don’t.

That’s why I don’t see any reason to expect today’s summit to change anything. We’ll hear a lot of big words, see very little action, and once again, Zelensky will be pressured not to clash with Trump and to agree to his deals.

Just going to post some analytics here. To put things in oerspective

Real Leverage

Trump cannot exert economic pressure on Ukraine, and halting military supplies does not have an immediate effect. However, in my opinion, his most significant leverage is political. This factor could play a key role in forcing Ukraine into a peace agreement.

It’s important for understanding the context of why the U.S. needs this. For those who don’t want to read the full post, I’ll briefly summarize: The U.S. needs to contain China, which means preventing a China-Russia alliance. However, the U.S. lacks the financial resources, and due to this, Trump wants to scale back historical support for Europe.

Trump's declared foreign policy goals extend far beyond Ukraine. His aim is to restructure the entire global order and dismantle the foundational principles established during the Yalta Conference, which are now completely outdated.

Accordingly, a warming of U.S.-Russia relations is a completely natural and logical process from the standpoint of U.S. interests. And this should happen independently of Ukraine. However, as long as the war continues, Trump wants to link these processes together—essentially trading concessions and a war freeze in exchange for lifting sanctions and resetting relations. But this is not a strict prerequisite.

This is directly evident from Trump's rhetoric—he does not tie improved relations to specific actions from Russia, such as admitting guilt or paying reparations. On the contrary, Reuters has already reported that Trump has instructed the State Department and the Treasury to prepare a list of sanctions that could be lifted soon. While this likely won’t involve anything major at first, certain individuals could see sanctions removed. However, this in itself is an important signal: Ukraine is being separated from U.S.-Russia relations. For now, Trump does not want to make concessions in advance while negotiations are ongoing.

Yet, if the deal collapses due to Ukraine, then U.S.-Russia relations will develop without considering Ukraine at all, solely based on American interests. It seems that this mechanism was already set in motion after a White House dispute—CNN reports that preparations for a Putin-Trump meeting have been accelerated. Additionally, a second round of talks in Saudi Arabia is expected soon, where the focus is likely to be more on U.S.-Russia economic cooperation rather than Ukraine.

Any real steps in this direction will effectively lead to the EU lifting its own sanctions. Even now, secondary sanctions are more problematic than the primary ones. Countries like Turkey were willing to bypass restrictions, but Biden tightened the screws. Trump, however, doesn't even need to formally lift sanctions—he can just turn a blind eye to violations by third countries.

At the same time, if the U.S. officially lifts sanctions, Europe will have little choice but to follow suit. Many companies left the Russian market voluntarily, as a gesture of goodwill, without being legally required to do so. As a result, they could begin returning once their governments give a quiet green light—publicly condemning the move, but privately claiming they can't interfere because private companies are free to act in a democracy and capitalist system.

Right now, the only hope for hawks in Ukraine and the EU is to prolong the war, expecting that Russia will collapse under economic pressure, forcing Putin to negotiate from a position of weakness. However, if sanctions are lifted, this already uncertain scenario will become highly unlikely, making further war pointless for Ukraine. This would force Kyiv to either accept a far worse peace deal than what’s currently on the table or continue fighting alone, without any realistic hope of achieving what could be called a victory.

If china is about to kill you economy, who gives a damn about Russia?b

And u clearly have no historical knowledge of that conflict.