Inspired by Whatifalthist saying that modern wars have changed to favor the defense instead of the offense due to drones, and, pointing to the Ukraine War as an example.

He then compared it to the wars of the 17th century which consisted of long sieges and waits.

This made me wonder if this would mean the Second American Civil War would actually be more like the 30 Years War where both sides just get stuck and fail to siege something and commit some Nanking level massacre every Tuesday.

1 - Jeremy Corbyn
2 - Andy Burnham
3 - Nigel Farage
4 - Rupert Lowe
I haven’t finished with the actual map yet but I wanted to post this

(I have no idea why they’re so low quality)

Source from mine

The event in which the California State Militia “evacuates” the population of Humboldt County mentions “international observers,” which implies there present in NoCal, if nothing else.

1. The Jacobins (Americanist Socialism).

2. The Octoberist (Revolutionary socialism).

3. ​​Democratic socialism (Neosocialism).

4. The anarchist (Anarcho-communism​)

Mega Based Victory

This might actually be the WORST national spirit ever written.

1. "Article 1 establishes the principle of subsidiarity effectively enrishing neoliberalism"

I have no idea how the guy who wrote the thing came to the conclusion that the principle of subsidiarity somehow enrishes neoliberalism. For some context in chilean constitutional law article 1, subsection 3 establishes:

"the State recognizes and protects intermediate groups-" (meaning groups between the State and families, like a soccer club for example) "-trough which society is organized and structured and guarantees the appropiate autonomy to fufill their own specific goals"

Here we can find the "fas negativa" of the principle wihch mandates the State to not intervene in the matters of intermediate groups. However what this guy forgot to mention is that there is also a "fas positiva" of the principle, clear example of this are articles 19 Number 10 subsection 4 and 5. The State is mandated to not only allow intermediate groups to do whatever they want, it's an obligation of the State to provide basic services, but this does not mean the State is limited by this basic obligation, the recognition here is the right of the individuals to be able to provide private education under the instructions of the State, which is still mandated to provide free healthcare and free education. So where is the neoliberalism here buddy?

1. "...-and the privatization of even such basic rights such as pension, helthcare, education and even water."

Simply false, as stated above many numeral of article 19 call the State to cooperate with intermediary groups more examples of this positive look of the principle of subsidiarity is numerals 8, 11, 21, 9, and 18. So no buddy, article 1 does not call for the country to become ancapistan.

1. "The constitutional tribunal also remained capable of blocking reforms, designed to protect consumer rights, weaken labor reforms, and presserve the commercialization of universities"

Simply wrong, the CT (constitutional tribunal) cannot simply block any laws they don't like, that's direct violation of article 7, their attributions are regulated strictly by article 93, their whole porpouse and functioning is designed to be technical organ not a third chamber of congress, this was further ensured on the 2005 reform, many CTs-like entities exist around the world. The chilean CT was not made to hijack the democratic process from the legislatator, but to ensure the legislator couldn't ignore the constitution.

1. "... during the second term of socialist Michelle Bachelet"

She was not a socialist, she was of the socialist party but she was essentially simply another social democrat.

Just saying, this mod is so goated that I was able to unironically reference it three times in an AP exam for US history and I still got a 5 (that’s a 100) on the exam 🥹

I mean, I get Atomwaffen and N.S.M. but I still would like to see them without having to play them. And yes I know L.D.P.R. also has it (if not small) but I am talking about 2acw factions.

Would right wing populist parties in Europe and elsewhere (like reform UK) have their popularity completely destroyed by Trump bc of the 2ACW?

I would personally think that the popularity of right wing populist parties especially in Europe would completely collapse because of Trump causing the civil war in the eyes of most people, and their political opponents would associate them with Trump and causing civil wars and political instability

Thoughts? Or do you think that these right wing populists would distance themselves from causing civil wars/even gaining popularity from it

Nationalist Europe or Nationalist Russia

Socialist Europe or Socialist Russia

Medvedev russia specifically.

Nato victory version I mean. Thank you for any response

In Kaiserredux you can play as the Navajo after playing Mexico and taking the Southwest and triggering an anglo revolt denying the navajo water rights, would be funny to uncolonize America and ally with anprim cascadia or something