Romain Sergeant

@haroldmaze @CapHornier_ @ponpon_fox Ce que je veux est impertinent. Dans un système par répartition, votre pension dépend des recettes des cotisations sociales. La solidarité intergénérationnelle est bidirectionnelle: pyramide des âges déséquilibrée et recettes moindres baissent mécaniquement votre pension.

@romainsergeant @CapHornier_ @ponpon_fox Donc en fait tu veux baisser ma future retraite que je prendrai à 67 ans sans augmenter mon salaire tout en recrutant des nouveaux profs ? Bon courage.

Les intellectuels des questions militaires et stratégiques nous expliquent désormais qu’il faut désormais sacrifier le progrès social. On sera donc pauvres, mal soignés et exploités alors que les russes, les chinois et les américains seront… oh wait ?

@ponpon_fox @haroldmaze @CapHornier_ Est-ce que tous les retraités payent un loyer ? Attention à ne pas confondre petite retraite et petit patrimoine. Je ne dis pas que la baisse des retraites est désirable, mais c’est une conséquence assez inévitable au vu de la destruction de demande qui nous attend.

@romainsergeant @haroldmaze @CapHornier_ Admettons. Et comment feront ces futurs retraités aux moyens modestes pour payer leur loyer sachant que nos générations n’arrivent pas à devenir propriétaires ?

@haroldmaze @CapHornier_ @ponpon_fox Je vois pas le rapport.

@romainsergeant @CapHornier_ @ponpon_fox Vous allez augmenter mon salaire ????

@haroldmaze @CapHornier_ @ponpon_fox L’effort viendra déjà des retraites qui devront baisser.

@CapHornier_ @ponpon_fox Que suggèrez vous ? Ma retraite complète c’est déjà 67 ans , mon salaire de prof en réel a baissé , je veux bien faire des efforts si ils sont justement répartis.

@zippy_hopeful @DrJStrategy Granted, Europeans have dumb energy policies. But objectively the energy shock to come will mostly be due to the retard sitting in the WH. It’s not like we could escape our geography/geology.

@DrJStrategy Fantastic summary of the alternative to the endless ranting on this subject that pollutes my X feed. The Europeans fail to realize that every step they take down this path makes the box they are in smaller.

Food for thought. Trump, Hormuz and the End of the Free Ride For half a century, Western strategists have known that the Strait of Hormuz is the acute point where energy, sea power and political will intersect. That knowledge is not in dispute. What is new in this war with Iran is that the United States, under Donald Trump, has chosen not to rush to “solve” the problem. In Hegelian terms, he is refusing an easy synthesis in order to force the underlying contradiction to the surface. The old thesis was simple: the US guarantees open sea lanes in the Gulf, and everyone else structures their economies and politics around that free insurance. Europe and the UK embraced ambitious green policies, ran down hard‑power capabilities and lectured Washington on multilateral virtue, secure in the assumption that American carriers would always appear off Hormuz. The political class behaved as if the American security guarantee were a law of nature, not a contingent choice. Their conduct today is closer to Chamberlain than Churchill: temporising, issuing statements, hoping the storm will pass without a fundamental reordering of their responsibilities. Trump’s antithesis is to withhold the automatic guarantee at the moment of maximum stress. Militarily, the US can break Iran’s residual ability to contest the Strait; that is not the binding constraint. The point is to delay that act. By allowing a closure or semi‑closure to bite, Trump ensures that the immediate pain is concentrated in exactly the jurisdictions that have most conspicuously free‑ridden on US power: the EU and the UK. Their industries, consumers and energy‑transition assumptions are exposed. In that context, his reported blunt message to European and British leaders, you need the oil out of the Strait more than we do; why don’t you go and take it? Is not a throwaway line. It is the verbalisation of the antithesis. It openly reverses the traditional presumption that America will carry the burden while its allies emote from the sidelines. In this dialectic, the prize is not simply the reopening of a chokepoint. The prize is a reordered system in which the United States effectively arbitrages and controls the global flow of oil. A world in which US‑aligned production in the Americas plus a discretionary capability to secure,or not secure, Hormuz places Washington at the centre of the hydrocarbon chessboard. For that strategic end, a rapid restoration of the old status quo would be counterproductive. A quick, surgical “fix” of Hormuz would short‑circuit the dialectic. If Trump rapidly crushed Iran’s remaining coastal capabilities, swept the mines and escorted tankers back through the Strait, Europe and the UK would heave a sigh of relief and return to business as usual: underfunded militaries, maximalist green posturing and performative disdain for US power, all underwritten by that same power. The contradiction between their dependence and their posture would remain latent. By declining to supply the synthesis on demand, and by explicitly telling London and Brussels to “go and take it” themselves, Trump forces a reckoning. European and British leaders must confront the fact that their energy systems, their industrial bases and their geopolitical sermons all rest on an American hard‑power foundation they neither finance nor politically respect. The longer the contradiction is allowed to unfold, the stronger the eventual synthesis can be: a new order in which access to secure flows, Hormuz, Venezuela and beyond, is explicitly conditional on real contributions, not assumed as a right. In that sense, the delay in “taking” the Strait, and the challenge issued to US allies to do it themselves, is not indecision. It is the negative moment Hegel insisted was necessary for history to move. Only by withholding the old guarantee, and by saying so out loud to those who depended on it, can Trump hope to end the free ride.

Look how much I learned on Duolingo in 2025! How did you do? #Duolingo365

Bravo @GabLattanzio

@yarotrof They haven’t fought a peer war in long time though. But same goes for America.

Interesting choice of words by Vance to describe the proposed UK and French force for Ukraine as “20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30-40 years.” Some 700 UK service members were killed while fighting to help the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, and France has fought in Afghanistan and then the Sahel.

@BillotSyl Si il y avait un déficit, alors le régime des retraites serait déséquilibré. Hors grâce aux contributions d’équilibre, le régime des retraites est équilibré. Il n’y a donc pas de déficit. 🤓

C'est une présentation frauduleuse. Par déf, l'Etat ne verse pas de cotisations à la Sécu pour la retraite des fonctionnaires, mais des "contributions d'équilibre" (cotisations imputées en compta nat). C'est absurde de dire que ces contributions bouchent un "déficit" de 45 Md€

🗳️ #Législatives2024 l Vote par internet Déjà 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣.0️⃣0️⃣0️⃣ votants en ligne en 2️⃣4️⃣ heures! ⚠️Il vous reste - de24 H pour voter⏰ Si vous n'avez pas reçu votre courriel de confirmation après avoir voté en ligne, suivez les recommandations de notre FAQ. 👉 swll.to/TJ6df

Quite happy with this hand-in-hand piece with @Ashley_J_Kirk where we have analyzed the surface of Ukraine occupied by Russia since the war began, one year ago this week.

Sans énergie abondante, difficile d'avoir des retraités. C'est l'abondance énergétique qui nous a permis de faire travailler des machines pour nous libérer des tâches de base, se nourrir, se loger, et avoir du temps pour la santé, les services, les loisirs, la paresse...

Andor Is The Best Star Wars Ever Made thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a…

A map of every European City

@elonmusk @LindseyGrahamSC Nope.

@LindseyGrahamSC Assuming you believe that the will of the people matters, we should, in any given conflict region, support the will of those who live there. Most of Ukraine unequivocally wants to be part of Ukraine, but some eastern portions have Russian majorities and prefer Russia.

With all due respect to Elon Musk - and I do respect him - I would suggest he needs to understand the facts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Nucléaire : 4 g de CO2 par kWh – {Sciences²} lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2022… via @Huetsylvestre Une étude ACV des émissions de gaz à effet de serre des centrales nucléaires française dont le résultat s'oppose fortement à l'opinion publique majoritaire.

Government: Keep The Lights On - Sign the Petition! chng.it/XBSdXbJV via @Change

Quand les conclusions d'une étude ne vous plaisent pas, le plus simple reste encore d'attaquer l'intégrité des auteurs de l'étude... Ca ne contribue pas à la qualité du débat, mais c'est facile à faire.

@MCanzerini Jaloux !