@nasus._.may: :)) #tocchien #lienminhtocchien

Nasus Máy

Open In TikTok:

Region: VN

Saturday 20 June 2026 14:55:40 GMT

74004

2897

93

771

Music

Download

No Watermark .mp4 (1.06MB) No Watermark(HD) .mp4 (1.44MB) Watermark .mp4 (0MB) Music .mp3

Comments

Hoàng Tập Edit :

lux

2026-06-21 02:48:15

358

jebdbsh :

2026-06-21 04:21:13

139

Dori :

My reaction everytime I see a video like this, even though I know what's going to happen:

2026-06-22 19:28:30

0

gusss :

apagou a luz

2026-06-21 18:04:17

38

lua :

deu nem tempo da lux pensar

2026-06-22 21:15:52

1

João Ouverney :

1024 stacks?

2026-06-22 14:11:28

3

WuiG :

Này thì lo chuyện bao đồng :)))

2026-06-21 02:55:51

35

Pocky Pentagram :

my duo just left me

2026-06-22 16:51:17

0

Đeng :

sao tui cũng 1k mà ko đau như v nhỉ

2026-06-21 08:33:07

1

Thanh Chương768 :

Lỗi game chắc luôn

2026-06-21 15:24:29

0

อ้วง~ :

Lux :

2026-06-21 12:12:42

0

Thắng Nè :

2026-06-21 03:35:09

4

brusa :

здравствуйте,я в а×уе, до свидания 🥲

2026-06-21 14:50:34

1

Hận đời dái to :

lux:

2026-06-21 00:40:25

2

RyuzenSejong :

Boong :))

2026-06-21 04:14:21

1

Nguyễn Đức 36 🇻🇳 🇹🇼 :

Ác quá trời ác 🤣🤣🤣

2026-06-21 03:29:00

1

Sơn Thanh :

nó easy vậy 😂

2026-06-21 00:10:27

1

em của quá khứ :

chinh phục nasus 1k q 13p

2026-06-21 00:29:18

1

Lizz :

2026-06-22 18:24:51

0

To see more videos from user @nasus._.may, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

" سياتِيك الذي ترجوهُ يوماً " #موعظة_دينية#نصائح_دينية #اجر_لي_ولكم quran#

Every time 😂😂😂#payday#fyp#Meme #MemeCut

Every time 😂😂😂#payday#fyp#Meme #MemeCut

Washington’s new sanctions on TPLF may accelerate conflict rather than prevent it. Here is my take. The United States has announced visa restrictions on selected TPLF leaders and their families, hoping to deter them from pushing Tigray back into war with the federal government. Will this sanction achieve its intended objective? I doubt it. In fact, I fear it may have the opposite effect. At this stage, the TPLF faces only two choices: fight or surrender. Externally, the federal government has steadily tightened the screws through budget cuts and severe restrictions on essential goods and services entering Tigray. Internally, the party is grappling with deep factional divisions and growing public frustration. Faced with these twin pressures, TPLF leaders seem to have concluded that war offers a better chance of political survival than capitulation. Their calculation is straightforward: a renewed conflict could restore internal discipline, rebuild cohesion, and rally a frustrated population around collective defense rather than socio-economic grievances. Will a US visa ban force them to reconsider? Unlikely. If anything, it may convince them that the diplomatic path has effectively closed, making the battlefield appear to be their only remaining option. The sanction itself is largely symbolic. Most of the targeted officials are already unable to travel freely outside Tigray, save for limited access to neighboring countries such as Eritrea and Sudan. For political actors who increasingly view their situation in existential terms, a travel restriction is hardly a meaningful deterrent. Some may argue that extending the sanction to family members increases pressure. Having observed, studied and campaigned against TPLF leaders for years, I am skeptical that concern for their children’s travel prospects will alter decisions they perceive as matters of political survival. There is also a broader problem. TPLF is not the only actor involved in the emerging confrontation. It has built relationships and understandings with other forces that view conflict with the federal government as increasingly likely. Unless those actors are similarly incentivized to step back from the brink, it would be extraordinarily risky for TPLF to de-escalate unilaterally. Doing so could leave it isolated and vulnerable against a far stronger federal state. Under such circumstances, the sanction offers little incentive short of outright surrender. More fundamentally, what guarantee is Washington offering in return? The US, the AU, and much of the international community were guarantors of the Pretoria Agreement, yet they largely walked away from enforcing its implementation when disputes emerged. Why should TPLF believe that diplomacy will protect its interests now? A small stick without any accompanying carrot is unlikely to inspire confidence, particularly when it comes from an administration whose positions are often perceived as shifting with changing realities on the ground. There is another glaring omission. The sanctions focus exclusively on TPLF leaders, yet the actual military deployment toward Tigray is being carried out by the federal government. Equally concerning is the increasingly belligerent rhetoric coming from senior military commanders and federal officials over the past several days. Their statements and saber-rattling suggest a level of preparedness and willingness to wage war that, at least for now, appears equal to if not greater than that of the TPLF side. If the objective is genuinely to prevent conflict, why is this aspect being ignored? Why is the pressure being applied only to one side while the other side’s military preparations and escalation signals escape scrutiny? For these reasons, I fear the sanctions may produce precisely the opposite outcome from what Washington intends: accelerating the path to war by convincing TPLF that diplomacy is exhausted, while simultaneously emboldening Abiy Ahmed’s government to act more aggressively.

Washington’s new sanctions on TPLF may accelerate conflict rather than prevent it. Here is my take. The United States has announced visa restrictions on selected TPLF leaders and their families, hoping to deter them from pushing Tigray back into war with the federal government. Will this sanction achieve its intended objective? I doubt it. In fact, I fear it may have the opposite effect. At this stage, the TPLF faces only two choices: fight or surrender. Externally, the federal government has steadily tightened the screws through budget cuts and severe restrictions on essential goods and services entering Tigray. Internally, the party is grappling with deep factional divisions and growing public frustration. Faced with these twin pressures, TPLF leaders seem to have concluded that war offers a better chance of political survival than capitulation. Their calculation is straightforward: a renewed conflict could restore internal discipline, rebuild cohesion, and rally a frustrated population around collective defense rather than socio-economic grievances. Will a US visa ban force them to reconsider? Unlikely. If anything, it may convince them that the diplomatic path has effectively closed, making the battlefield appear to be their only remaining option. The sanction itself is largely symbolic. Most of the targeted officials are already unable to travel freely outside Tigray, save for limited access to neighboring countries such as Eritrea and Sudan. For political actors who increasingly view their situation in existential terms, a travel restriction is hardly a meaningful deterrent. Some may argue that extending the sanction to family members increases pressure. Having observed, studied and campaigned against TPLF leaders for years, I am skeptical that concern for their children’s travel prospects will alter decisions they perceive as matters of political survival. There is also a broader problem. TPLF is not the only actor involved in the emerging confrontation. It has built relationships and understandings with other forces that view conflict with the federal government as increasingly likely. Unless those actors are similarly incentivized to step back from the brink, it would be extraordinarily risky for TPLF to de-escalate unilaterally. Doing so could leave it isolated and vulnerable against a far stronger federal state. Under such circumstances, the sanction offers little incentive short of outright surrender. More fundamentally, what guarantee is Washington offering in return? The US, the AU, and much of the international community were guarantors of the Pretoria Agreement, yet they largely walked away from enforcing its implementation when disputes emerged. Why should TPLF believe that diplomacy will protect its interests now? A small stick without any accompanying carrot is unlikely to inspire confidence, particularly when it comes from an administration whose positions are often perceived as shifting with changing realities on the ground. There is another glaring omission. The sanctions focus exclusively on TPLF leaders, yet the actual military deployment toward Tigray is being carried out by the federal government. Equally concerning is the increasingly belligerent rhetoric coming from senior military commanders and federal officials over the past several days. Their statements and saber-rattling suggest a level of preparedness and willingness to wage war that, at least for now, appears equal to if not greater than that of the TPLF side. If the objective is genuinely to prevent conflict, why is this aspect being ignored? Why is the pressure being applied only to one side while the other side’s military preparations and escalation signals escape scrutiny? For these reasons, I fear the sanctions may produce precisely the opposite outcome from what Washington intends: accelerating the path to war by convincing TPLF that diplomacy is exhausted, while simultaneously emboldening Abiy Ahmed’s government to act more aggressively.

#mediumship #intuition #readings #444 #soulmates

#mediumship #intuition #readings #444 #soulmates

#Vlog

About

Robot
API

Legal

Privacy Policy