sebastien1214

If Berlin is on the verge of bankruptcy, wouldn't it then perhaps be more reassuring if Hamburg went it alone, or is the equipment deficit even greater in Hamburg than in Berlin? (because the choice of a multi-city organization can still generate additional costs, due to the need to double the logistics, the possible question of building 2 Olympic villages, etc. etc. But there is no doubt that the Germans will certainly make the most economically sensible choice, given the fact that you are, ahem... allergic to public spending compared to the European average) Anyway, I think that no one expects emblematic settings from Germany, so no one would judge negatively if there are not many emblematic settings for German Games. (now, having already been to Munich, Berlin, Hamburg, and other German cities, if I had to judge exclusively on the emblematic scenery of the cities, I just hope we won't be in Munich)

I don't believe in civil war. It takes a lot of ingredients to form a context conducive to an evolution towards a civil war. And I don't think that at the moment, these ingredients are gathered in the United States, or will end up being gathered. Look, one of these ingredients is that a civil war opposes two (or more) camps that contest the current state as a form of legitimate political organization. Look at recent examples of civil war: if you take Syria, if we make a very basic diagram you had on one side the pro-Assad and on the other the anti-Assad, who opposed each other on the form and the legitimacy of the Syrian state* (dictatorship under Baathist regime). You take Bosnia, it was based on the refusal to continue under the Yugoslav state and the desire to have their own state. And there would be plenty of similar examples. Except that today, if I am not mistaken, in the United States, neither side contests the State as a legitimate form of political organization: - Obviously the Democrats do not contest that, no need to elaborate I think - But neither do the Republicans**. Their speech since January 6th was based on "the election was stolen from us"; but if they are so offended by the alleged fact that the election was falsely stolen from them, it is because for them the election is legitimate (otherwise why cry when you lose the election?), but the election is the "social contract" between the people and the State that legitimizes the latter. If you vote, you accept the legitimacy of the State. (conversely, look at the Maghreb countries such as Algeria, which has some semblance of elections but where we all know that there is no democratic competition; in the elections that followed the Hirak, there were in reality only 15-20% of voters. Here, we can say that a very significant part of the Algerian people, by their refusal to vote, contests the very legitimacy of the Algerian state; without going into civil war since of course this criterion alone is not enough) To return to the Olympic Games, so as not to stray too far from the subject: the only "risk" that I see possibly for 2028 would be a boycott of countries like we experienced in the 80s. But 2028 is in 3 and a half years, it's still a long way off, a lot of things can happen, and at this stage I think it would be very premature to make bets on "will there be will have a boycott movement in 2028". *(this is a very caricatured and partially erroneous diagram; there are not two camps in Syria, there are more, a vision closer to reality would be to say that there were the pro-Assad, the Syrian opposition and a 3rd element with the Kurds; but even this 3rd element based the legitimacy of its action in the war on the desire to experiment with a "new" form of State, which they call "Rojava", based in particular on the political concept of "democratic confederalism" first theorized by Öcalan) **(admittedly you could tell me that the Republicans still contest the American State in a certain way, since there is Musk who is a libertarian, etc etc. But ultimately the current contestation of the Republicans against the American State is essentially economic. It does not touch the foundations of what we could call the "social contract" which legitimizes the State, and precisely Republicans pose themselves as the supposed guarantors of this social contract to justify their extreme positions, just look at Musk who sells himself as an absolute defender of freedom of expression)

Berlin - Hamburg seems a bit more reassuring to me than the Rhine-Rhur concept. The concept of having several co-hosting cities can make sense for the case of Germany, Hamburg and Berlin are not that far apart (to compare with 2024, it is a bit longer than between Paris and Lille, but not by much, and it had not caused any problems). But I still have trouble seeing what Hamburg could bring that Berlin would not have, because at first glance one could be tempted to say "why would Munich be able to play it alone and not Berlin?". Munich would of course be a logical choice and would have all its chances for 2040 (it would be a big mistake if they try 2036 in my opinion), even if I would be a bit disappointed to try something again in Munich when the last German games were also held in Munich.

So, since Trump thinks that there is no problem moving 2 million people who live on their land, I imagine that it no longer poses any technical problem to move the million Israeli settlers who illegally occupy the occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories?

Well it's true that as the debates in the Brisbane 2032 forum seem to be rare, it can be a shock the first time we are confronted with it

If these 300 protesters regularly renew their actions and end up making a permanent occupation of the land (this is in any case what I would do in their situation if I were opposed to the project - look at the "Zone to Defend" English Wikipedia page), it means that their work was good from the beginning. We only judge at the end of the show, not at the beginning of the first act.

It’s more than that, it’s an way of life

And I also said that what counts is never the first manifestation but what follows... ; it is therefore very premature and useless to draw any conclusion or fixed opinion as you do.

Well, all this is worrying. Not in the sense of "will the deadlines be met?", I'm not too worried about that, in reality on the issue of infrastructure there are already studies underway (a few articles in the local press talk about it from time to time); to tell the truth, if there is a slight risk on the deadlines, it would be especially with regard to marketing, the search for sponsors in particular. No, on the other hand, what worries me is that the political game seems to prevail over common sense which would like the OCOG to be managed "by athletes, for athletes", like 2024 finally. Fourcade was obviously the perfect candidate, because of the incarnation he represents, and that could also have facilitated the search for sponsors. We will see who will be elected at the head of the OCOG, after all maybe we will have a good surprise. But if it is Vincent Jay, it will be a very bad sign; he is an employee of the AURA region, so literally a puppet of Wauquiez, who is a poor politician (we will have to monitor the expenses related to the business meals of the OCOG 2030, you never know...) so you shouldn't expect miracles with him. And a little "good news" to end this post: the 2025 budget will be adopted by the French parliament, the same budget which provides for the first financial guarantee from the French State (up to €500M).

I have no doubt that they thought about this issue before announcing their plans, and that they did the feasibility studies. It reminds me of the discussions on this forum a few months before the Paris opening ceremony based on "but the Trocadéro is too small" "but they won't be able to land the boats" etc etc. For the rest, since BWS will be organizing the 453rd Olympic ceremony in its history (approximate figure), it will therefore be disappointing - a standardized and marketed product without the slightest emotion - and consequently I expect absolutely nothing from the 2026 ceremonies.

I admit that I haven't followed what's happening in Brisbane at all (sorry, maybe I'm the only one, but the untimely spam of 1-2 messages per day that look like Wikipedia articles discourages me a bit from reading the topics); but 300 people for a demonstration seems a little small to me, indeed. I mean, it's quite easy to gather, you just have to ask people already active in pro-environmental movements, residents' groups, etc., and you can easily gather hundreds of people for a first mobilization. (but, ahem, maybe these are less developed things in Australia?) However, I would refrain from making any judgment on these mobilizations. What counts is never the first mobilization, it's only what happens afterwards. If, for example, this same group meets every Friday, if this core of 300 people continues to mobilize for weeks, then it will already be much more significant because it means that there are people here who are sufficiently motivated against this project to do as much as possible to fight against the project, and potentially move on to other stages of mobilization (such as occupying the land with camps), and then this "small number" of 300 people can really have an impact. (I have years of experience in all kinds of mobilizations and protests, I know what I'm talking about)

Ultimately, the US of the 2020s is exactly like Russia in the 90s; we just replaced the country, and the oil & gas oligarchs became the tech billionaires. The problem is, we know how it ended in Russia.

Of course. I wasn't trying to say the opposite.

So, the United States, Canada and Mexico getting into a trade war; it would be really funny and ironic if those three countries ended up working together for a major event next year.

I think it has nothing to do with it, the LA 2028 handover was already a mini-Superbowl before Trump arrived.