cult

Possibly worse actually. It's still a big scientific debate and there's plenty of scientists who are of the opinion that the disruption to seasonal weather patterns, the impacts on ecosystems, the increased ozone depletion, the effects on cloud formation pattterns, etc might end up outweighing the benefits of SAI

What's missing from this discussion:

Anthropogenic stratospheric aerosol injection would cool the planet, stop the melting of sea ice and land-based glaciers, slow sea level rise, and increase the terrestrial carbon sink, but produce regional drought, ozone depletion, less sunlight for solar power, and make skies less blue

There are plenty of other criticisms of SAI,[0] including the potential impacts on human health as well as smaller organisms that would be even more sensitive like insects and krill; the impacts on cloud formation patterns; disrupting seasonal weather patterns leading to widespread flooding or drought and more.

It's important to note that even the advocates of SAI pretty universally acknowledge it as a necessary evil (even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow we'd still have to take some measures like these to fight back against the runaway effects that have already begun). And those scientists that oppose it are generally of the opinion that the negative impacts would outweigh the positives. One thing both sides agree on though is that we definitely don't know enough still

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53595-3

I  Ii
II I_

Well for what it's worth, a more recent publication from that source you posted is this:

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/can-russia-continue-fight-long-war

However, Russia itself built many of its strategic and operational concepts around short war assumptions. Though it has demonstrated the ability to expend resources at scale so far, the question of whether Russia has all the underpinnings of a state capable of continuing to fight a long war deserves further examination

Russia probably benefits from having stockpiles capable of sustaining combat operations for several years, as well as the capacity to manufacture more at scale. Other capabilities such as tanks and armoured fighting vehicles will, however, need to be regenerated, given the levels of attrition Russia is taking. A key consideration here will be how Russia’s major manufacturers function in the absence of Western components – which, notably, they have failed to substitute in the last decade. After the post-2014 sanctions on defence exports, Russia was able to achieve effective substitution of Western goods in seven out of 127 categories of equipment identified as priorities for import substitution.

It concludes with

To be sure, Russia can cut corners – by excluding the need for refresher courses for militarily experienced individuals, for example. Moreover, its enormous stockpiles in areas like artillery shells mean its military machine will not grind to a halt any time soon. Its military will, however, undergo a progressive devolution in qualitative terms should this option be chosen. Alternatively, Russia could opt to replace lost capabilities with qualitatively comparable materiel and personnel for a second offensive – and will probably succeed in some categories. It will not, however, be able to replace the capacity it is shedding at scale. Given a pause, it can potentially generate enough combat capability to, in conjunction with its remaining pre-war capabilities, enable a subsequent offensive. Its ability to do this depends on whether the Russian system is given the breathing space to conserve existing resources, given its limited ability to replace human and material assets at scale.

So basically Russia needs a pause to be able to withstand this. But given that NATO funding doesn't seem to be slowing down any time soon, how much will that really help? The source you posted pointed out Lockheed Martin could easily go from it's current production of 2,100 missiles a year to 4,000 in a couple years

this is a terrible meme lol. Not even because it's politics or anything. Just... flat

It's from June...

But sure I'll check it out

I think it also shows that $100 billion in funding from NATO-aligned forces really is making a technological difference. For comparison, Russia's annual military budget is $48 billion.

Fuck the Black Hundred. They've been the bane of all revolutionaries in Russia since even before the 1905 revolution. They should be stamped out completely

Well I appreciate you being honest. Her approval ratings are over 86% so she's a wildly popular politician in the UK. Which is something that's really confused me so I'm glad to hear somewhat of an explanation about it

But it definitely seems like something that needs to be unlearned. She played an active role in the colonialism and specifically rebranding the colonization of Africa to make it more palatable for the 21st century and ensure it could continue.

I try not to get into the habit of telling other people what they need to unlearn, but now seems like a uniquely important time to elevate discussions about the inconvenient truth of Britain's continued colonialism

a Western news article

This isn't that though. It's a UN report that's the result of an investigation by Michelle Bachelet (former president of Chile and head of the Socialist Party of Chile). The only reason you're seeing articles saying "may have" instead of making up some N+1 million figure (N being the last time they pulled a random number out their ass) is because that's the language the report uses

The report is linked in the second paragraph:

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf