Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
US is technically superior because they have been preparing for a while since the day they kicked out their old colonial masters, perhaps even during the day of Monroe Doctrine. Now it's their turn to conquer the world whether you like it or not. Very aggressive and will use all means to subdue their enemies even if it means mass destruction. US will not hesitate to use nuke to wipe out their enemies just to ensure they are in dominance. Be careful what you wish for because once the enemies are gone, the next target will be the lefties thinkers. That's the American ways.
Pissed early?
Pissed early?
Nope.
What alternative view(s) do you have?
Something a little more in line with reality?
Now it’s their turn to conquer the world whether you like it or not. Very aggressive and will use all means to subdue their enemies even if it means mass destruction. US will not hesitate to use nuke to wipe out their enemies just to ensure they are in dominance.
More water with it. If you seriously believe this codswallop could you start an 'America is the great Satan' thread about it and stop trolling this one.
Something a little more in line with reality?
The realist perspective below. (2 hour plus lecture and very interesting. There go your weekend gone!)
More water with it. If you seriously believe this codswallop could you start an ‘America is the great Satan’ thread about it and stop trolling this one.
I give you a reference to one of the world most renown International Relation expert.
The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer
Here you go. Learn something perhaps? But if you can offer alternative views that would be good.
I think he mentioned that there is only 75% of being able to explain all situations.
I'm off to bed soon, so not about to spend 2 hours on youtube. I may research the individual's credentials and give it a watch at some stage. Are you presenting this as evidence of the assertion you just made, that the US is about to conquer the world by nuking anyone who gets in their way?
Hahaha, I was wondering when Mearsheimer would appear. Its all over Kremlin agitprop outlets.
Bloke, if you want a short summary youll find one here.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/john-mearsheimer-on-putins-ambitions-after-nine-months-of-war
Lets face it, Chewk wont have watched the 2 hours either.
Thanks, I'll take a look.
I’m off to bed soon, so not about to spend 2 hours on youtube. I may research the individual’s credentials and give it a watch at some stage.
His credential is very good.
Are you presenting this as evidence of the assertion you just made, that the US is about to conquer the world by nuking anyone who gets in their way?
Nope, it is just a coincidence that we think "alike" (I don't have the credentials like most so can just talk) but he has the credential and status to make the points stick. Me just a bystander that think that something is fishy on both sides.
Hahaha, I was wondering when Mearsheimer would appear. Its all over Kremlin agitprop outlets.
Let's be fair the west would do the same if a Russia started criticising Russia.
Bloke, if you want a short summary youll find one here.
Just did a quick scan of the article. If only the interview had done his homework on what he said. Lousy interviewer 3rd rated.
Lets face it, Chewk wont have watched the 2 hours either.
I have watched it. It's fun.
p/s: if you watch the lecture, take note of the young researcher in yellow short "asking questions" but actually talking gibberish. He is not there to ask questions but to "attack" the person.
Anyone know about an alleged war crime, UA soldiers allegedly shooting Russian pow's?
I'm not going looking for a video!
Hahaha, I was wondering when Mearsheimer would appear.
Appears to be someone who is completely absorbed in his chosen subject, that being realism, political science and international relations.
I wonder if he knows much about bikes 😕 Which is possible, as the university he's a professor at has a Velo Club.
Yes. Russian soldiers surrender lying on the ground. The last one comes out of the building all guns blazing. The Ukrainians shoot everyone. Very upsetting but probably something that’s understandable given the circumstances. Not that it necessarily justifies what happened. War is shit.
Saw something claiming that a group of Russians were ostensibly surrendering, but that one or more of them then opened fire on the Ukrainians accepting the surrender - who then fired back. All sounds very dodgy, sounds like it needs an independent investigation.
Hahaha, I was wondering when Mearsheimer would appear.
Been linked to a few times way back in this thread and pretty resoundingly debunked too
Appears to be someone who is completely absorbed in his chosen subject, that being realism, political science and international relations.
Yes, very good at it too.
I wonder if he knows much about bikes 😕 Which is possible, as the university he’s a professor at has a Velo Club.
No idea. The man is brilliant at his work.
War is shit.
It is.
Been linked to a few times way back in this thread and pretty resoundingly debunked too
Yes, but do you prefer someone who is expert in his field or news from social media posting? TikTok anyone?
Nope, it is just a coincidence that we think alike but he has the credential and status to make the points stick. Me just a bystander that think that something is fishy on both sides.
You made an outlandish and IMO unsupportable claim, when I questioned it, you linked to this fella. So if this isn't it, do you have any actual evidence to support your claim that the US is about to conquer the world by nuking anyone who gets in their way? You see I find that claim so ridiculous, that I feel disinclined to waste two hours of my life on a lecture you recommend. By someone who 'thinks alike' with you. Especially when by your own admission, it is not even relevant to the point you were trying to make. Do you see my dilemma?
Yes, but do you prefer someone who is expert in his field or news from social media posting? TikTok anyone?
Indeed.
Thanks for info guys.
The trouble is the UA have to be seen to be whiter than white which is obviously just not going to always happen for a thousand reasons.
I see the alleged incident has already been jumped on by "this is where your tax dollars go" Putin supporters in the US etc.
Yeah, war is shit.
Mesenheimer told us putin didn't wat to invade Ukraine, then after they did he said it would only be a limited war, then after 10 months and Russias (failed) attempt to take take kyiv in the North, odessa & kherson in the south & dnobasss in the east.... he says Russia definitely doesn't want to conquer the whole of Ukraine, he's happy with the 4 regions he's captured so far
He's expert at being wrong
an outlandish and IMO unsupportable claim
Possibly. but ask yourself What is the goal of every country, as shown throughout human history ?.
A. To work for the betterment of their own country, to make it the most powerful/influential in the world
B. To make a foreign country the most powerful/influential in the world.
I know its a silly example, but it's one thats been played out across the ages.
The UK is no longer a player*, but the US/Russia/China/etc etc sees themselves, and their policies and their system of government as the one everyone should adopt.Perhaps the first two rather than the last example who appears to be playing to both fields. A bit like selling picks and shovels to gold miners 😆
* But it was at one point, and if you disagreed with it, being a foreign country, then diplomacy was diminished and gunboat diplomacy applied.
If we(Human race in general) have been doing that since time began) why would anyone think that we still aren't. Its not all lovey dovey out there and each country looks to its own first. If the US is the most powerful nation currently on the planet, why is it that they feel the need to be. The answer is obviously that they want to be the one who's system of government, ideology etc is the one everyone else should adopt.
war is shit.
It might be shit, but it certainly seems to be addictive.
So if this isn’t it, do you have any actual evidence to support your claim that the US is about to conquer the world by nuking anyone who gets in their way?
Refer to the realist perspective from the lecture regarding liberal hegemony. If you wish you can also listen to his other lectures about liberal hegemony. I have provided an actual academic IR lecture reference there. That is a credible source.
You see I find that claim so ridiculous, that I feel disinclined to waste two hours of my life on a lecture you recommend.
You argument has no credibility by comparison to a proper lecture, most don't.
By someone who ‘thinks alike’ with you. Especially when by your own admission, it is not even relevant to the point you were trying to make. Do you see my dilemma?
I am just saying because it was a coincidence. Yes, I overstated my ability by comparing myself to the Prof. I am nothing compare to the expertise of the Prof in his field and he went to Westpoint then flew the jet in Vietnam you know.
Mesenheimer told us putin didn’t wat to invade Ukraine, then after they did he said it would only be a limited war, then after 10 months and Russian
s (failed) attempt to take take kyiv in the North, odessa & kherson in the south & dnobasss in the east…. he says Russia definitely doesn’t want to conquer the whole of Ukraine, he’s happy with the 4 regions he’s captured so far
Do you speak in the same language as Pro Mesenheimer? I know he is American. Go listen to what he said.
He’s expert at being wrong
You have no credibility or logic in your argument.
Here you go. Learn something perhaps?
Great. What did you learn?
But if you can offer alternative views that would be good.
You're inly interested in views if they avoid common consensus?
Here’s @IChotiner asking a question, and John Mearsheimer, a historian who expects to be taken seriously, answering it. https://t.co/cNWtDn6EiA pic.twitter.com/ZcWEtLBRUq
— Bill Grueskin (@BGrueskin) November 17, 2022
LOL! Social media as usual.
Great. What did you learn?
NATO expansion. What did youu learn?
You’re inly interested in views if they avoid common consensus?
No, I prefer a balance view.
Refer to the relist perspective from the lecture regarding liberal hegemony. If you wish you can also listen to his other lecture about liberal hegemony. I have provided an actual academic IR lecture reference there. That is a credible source.
Word salad.
I have provided an actual academic IR lecture reference there. That is a credible source.
"I've referred to an academic who has an opinion that I'm unwilling/unable to articulate, that in itself is a credible source".
Word salad.
Cabbage for you I am afraid, no meat.
“I’ve referred to an academic who has an opinion that I’m unwilling/unable to articulate, that in itself is a credible source”.
I am happy with Prof's interpretation. What is there to articulate beyond that if he is the expert? Are you saying you are an expert? What is your credibility?
I am happy with Prof’s interpretation. What is there to articulate beyond that if he is the expert? Are you saying you are an expert? What is your credibility
Anyone seems to be more of an expert than 'wrong about everything' mesenheimer
They guy looked stupid before the war, he now looks utterly ridiculous
I'm listening to the vid now. Chewkw, with the greatest of respect my credibility is an ability to understand the difference between subjective and objective based on the evidence that I read. I note that you turned adversarial when I challenged you on my perception of your understanding of what you've shared.
Right now I'm not too concerned about whether the US wants to rule the world, I just want to see Russia pushed back beyond Ukraine's internationally recognised borders, whatever that takes.
To have an understanding you cannot be biased one way or the other. You have to look at all points objectively.
If there is bias, then how can a rational outlook be achieved.
Just for once drop the single sided opinion and debate the opposite side.
So far I'm getting a narrative that Russian officials had behaved in a sincere and honourable way until they launched an invasion of Ukraine. I'm struggling to understand the relevance to "the Monroe Doctrine" at approx 30mins?
At 50:02 - "in all of Putin's public statements during the months leading up to the war, there is not a scintilla of evidence that he was contemplating conquering Ukraine and making it part of Russia".
Okay.
To have an understanding you cannot be biased one way or the other. You have to look at all points objectively.
If there is bias, then how can a rational outlook be achieved.
Just for once drop the single sided opinion and debate the opposite side.
Being objective has nothing to do with debating the opposite side. There are some very objective facts about this war. Russia started it because they wanted Ukraine to be subservient to Russia. Russia has conducted the war with horrific brutality and deliberately targeted civilians in an attempt to terrorize Ukraine into surrendering. The U.S. and NATO had no part in starting this war, nor have they engaged in combat operations. Those are objective facts. The counter-narrative that Russia and the Useful Idiots in the West have attempted to push is not based on objective facts, it's based on Russian disinformation. Being objective is not achieved by granting disinformation the same consideration as facts.
To have an understanding you cannot be biased one way or the other. You have to look at all points objectively.If there is bias, then how can a rational outlook be achieved.
Just for once drop the single sided opinion and debate the opposite side.
I cannot find any way to justify the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan.
I dont think what you are suggesting is possible unless you remove honest opinion from the discussion.
Even if you set that aside and go for "open debate" from a more academic approach to the subject. Noone has ever put anything credible in this thread that actually goes anyway to justifying Russias action.
Being pissy at losing influence isnt a good enough reason.
And the overwhelming weight if evidence for NATO expansion points at Russias foreign policy precedents, again, Ive never seen anything to suggest otherwise but if you can counter it crack on, Ill listen.
Just not to the other guy, as Id already absorbed that a couple of days ago reading a pro invasion Twitter account.
Mesenheimer told us putin didn’t wat to invade Ukraine, then after they did he said it would only be a limited war, then after 10 months and Russias (failed) attempt to take take kyiv in the North, odessa & kherson in the south & dnobasss in the east…. he says Russia definitely doesn’t want to conquer the whole of Ukraine, he’s happy with the 4 regions he’s captured so farHe’s expert at being wrong
That may be a little representative. His approach seems to be based more on waiting for clear evidence/taken statements as honest positions.
E.g. unless Person A states they want to undertake Action B, or they have undertaken Action B, then Person A does not want to undertake Action B until proven otherwise.
As a rule thats not an approach most people take, and there well be sound academic reasons for it, that serve a good purpose at high level academic discussion that doesn't translate well to general understanding, and often results in positions subsequently proven to be wrong. But im not sure its going to be anymore wrong that making logical leaps.
Thanks for info guys.The trouble is the UA have to be seen to be whiter than white which is obviously just not going to always happen for a thousand reasons.
I see the alleged incident has already been jumped on by “this is where your tax dollars go” Putin supporters in the US etc.
Yeah, war is shit.
Poopscoop, it appears to be at least one side committing perfidy, going by the description possibly both sides. The event does look to be triggered by an Russian soldier opening fire, but I cant see that justifying everyone else getting shot but im not viewing the content to find out.
Theres a description of perfidy in war here https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule65
Protocol I defines perfidy as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence”
All sounds very dodgy, sounds like it needs an independent investigation
This whole war needs independent investigation and it's pretty obvious which side will be found to be wrong for the vast majority of it.
Three men were convicted on Thursday of the shooting down of flight MH17 and the death of 298 people. RT is saying that it's a "political put-up job" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63637625
Igor Girkin aka Strelkov (shooter) is one of those found guilty, I think that he's in Ukraine after some of his opinions were aired too publicly. He won't have many options if he's about to be captured by Ukrainian forces
John Mearsheimer isn't the only one who thought that the invasion wouldn't happen. The EU didn't believe the evidence either...
"First, we did not believe that the war was coming. I have to recognise that here, in Brussels, the Americans were telling us “They will attack, they will attack”, and we were quite reluctant to believe it" Josep Borrell 10/10/2022
The speech is worth reading for other insights as well
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-ambassadors-annual-conference-2022-opening-speech-high-representative-josep-borrell_en
Appears to be someone who is completely absorbed in his chosen subject, that being realism, political science and international relations.
And has a book to sell...
That may be a little representative. His approach seems to be based more on waiting for clear evidence/taken statements as honest positions.
E.g. unless Person A states they want to undertake Action B, or they have undertaken Action B, then Person A does not want to undertake Action B until proven otherwise.
I saw that, I read up a bit about him. His views on dealing with the world as it is, rather than as we might wish it to be are interesting. I.e. making political and diplomatic decisions based on a practical, realistic view rather than a moral one. I can see how there is some merit in that in some circumstances, but I don't believe you can completely remove moral concerns from your external relationships. I can also see how taking that view could lead you to concluding that you should just let a powerful country invade it's weaker neighbours and that they just have to suck it up!
The bit about taking people's statements as honest positions just seems incredibly naive to me, especially in the world of politics and international relations and it doesn't really square (to my simple mind) with the realpolitik he is supposed be a proponent of. His comments on Hitler's intent/honesty linked above are ridiculous.
I'm sure he's a very clever chap, and his approach is one way of looking at the world which might be worth some consideration as an alternative view, but he's one among many 'experts' in the field of international relations who would strongly disagree with him. As said before, we are just randomers chewing the fat on an mtb forum, with no special insight. My international relationship CV is pretty thin TBH! But FWIW, in the case of Ukraine, I think he is completely wrong.
His views on dealing with the world as it is, rather than as we might wish it to be are interesting.
Yes, but it's academia. Like most political theories it just fall apart on first contact with the real world (ironically), like communism, anarchy, capitalism etc etc.
I cannot find any way to justify the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan.
They were monumentally stupid decisions. Utterly irrelevant whether supporting Ukraine in fighting Russian genocide is justified though.
I completely agree Thols, however didnt actually mention them because "I" think they're relevant.
I mentioned them in part to steer away from ome of the more common whattaboutery response.
Big boom boom flamey flamey at a StPetersburg gas pipeline it seems.
Crappy Russian build quality and maintenance or some deliberate act? 🤷♂️
Looks like gas to the uneducated me
https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1593952376817426434?s=20&t=bwheNmEU6jVdYoR9zgXhzA
Anyone know about an alleged war crime, UA soldiers allegedly shooting Russian pow’s?
Anything from the MSM on this? All I've managed to find so far are pro-Russian articles.
Anyone know about an alleged war crime, UA soldiers allegedly shooting Russian pow’s?
Yes, there are videos on social media about it. Some Russian soldiers surrendered, Ukrainian troops accepted their surrender, but then a Russian soldier fired on the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians returned fire.
There was a war crime, committed by the Russian who pretended he was going to surrender but then opened fire on the Ukrainian soldiers. Very clear case of a war crime. Committed by Russians.
There was a war crime, committed by the Russian who pretended he was going to surrender but then opened fire on the Ukrainian soldiers. Very clear case of a war crime. Committed by Russians.
I was wondering if that was the case.
The minute that Russian opened fired he condemned all of them to death. Very few soldiers in that position would take the chance it's a lone bod, it would be a fair assumption that it's a coordinated ambush (that's where my head would go); everyone wearing a Russian uniform would be treated as a threat and engaged if they moved.
I hope the fella who opened fire got dropped like the piece of shit he is.
Yes, there are videos on social media about it. Some Russian soldiers surrendered, Ukrainian troops accepted their surrender, but then a Russian soldier fired on the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians returned fire.
Got a link, cant find a vid of that.
No vids, but heres a couple of opinions on it
https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1593705944365633537?t=Al3kGT_GdbrlJbZq0xTg1w&s=19
https://twitter.com/polidemitolog/status/1593942960986529792?t=3lWTKpWxGZE5pDLX61USHQ&s=19
PaulJawin/status/1593538372588429317?t=EpRYq1fHk6VVHPhVrYC6sA&s=19
Link broken on purpose, but the recording stops after a few shots fired.
Its that thread which cites Perfidy as the war crime and links to the source I posted up thread.
Surely it's the ultimate deeply sad example of this classic linear relationship:
https://twitter.com/rogerskaer/status/1576025818182332416?s=61&t=QkEjM_vP2AADQRzjHFopsg
Slow motion.
/blockquote>
A link to a 55 sec video with Cyrillic captions and no clue to what it's about? Based on recent activity on here, I won't be clicking that without a little context TVM!
Sorry. Its the footage Thols was referring to earlier about the alleged war crime shooting of X number of surrendering Russian troops.
OK thanks 👍 I do think you need to warn people about the content when you post stuff like that.
Well nothing is actually seen beyond surrendering blokes in green uniforms,
Fair enough, I've not watched it, but that extra into is helpful in deciding whether or not I will 👍
Dressed in a different uniform to the surrendered? Makes one think it’s a regular/Wagner mercenary. Take out the Ukrainians then shoot those that surrendered.
What ?. Take out at least 4 Ukrainian soldiers including one in prone position with an lmg aiming directly at him.. I know the Wagner lot are insane, but chances of survival would be nil.
All due respect to Chewkw, I like that his appeal to authority fallacy almost literally included the words "here is an appeal to authority fallacy"
I'm going to suggest that we move on from an uncorroborated video that plays well into the Russian narrative and look at the context of the Russian lamentation.
Earlier this week the UN released an interim report into the treatment of PoWs.
Russia isn't allowing access to PoWs, which is an immediate warning sign, while Ukraine allowed investigators private interviews.
The UN note that while abuses have occurred on both sides, Ukraine has launched several investigations to investigate accountability. Russia hasn't evidenced any investigations
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-briefing-notes/2022/11/ukraine-russia-prisoners-war
It's clear that we wouldn't be discussing this if Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine further.
We weren't there, we don't know what happened and most of us don't understand the situation, the influence of PTSD, etc. The proper place for airing this isn't here
Apparently Swedish speed cameras have been disappearing and turning up in Russian Orlan drones. Also old games consoles are being snapped up, for use in guided missile manufacture. Organised crime is then used to smuggle it back to Russia via Belarus. Cunning stunts! 😵💫
As thols stated Russian guy comitted the war crime
https://twitter.com/ChrisKimberley/status/1594088022093762561?t=xhjNu33_8R-A_TSRgpJ1fg&s=19
As thols stated Russian guy comitted the war crime
AIUI, an uncorroborated video of a Russian guy (who) comitted the a war crime.
That doesn't exclude other war crimes and we can trust Ukraine to investigate them all, wherever they occur, appropriately. Best left at that for me 🙂
Well it does happen and to be completely honest its understandable. People have seen friends die in some cases horribly, so vengeance being the order of the day, either spontaneous or under instruction from weak officers.
But it happens, it will happen and its likely to continue happening, on both sides. Look at WW2. Russia seemed to have a policy of killing prisoners, but the Allies also committed atrocities themselves. The general consensus being that it's war and in war bad things happen.
So I think we should accept that fact that both sides are capable, and not scratch about looking for ways of denial.
What the real problem is is how that will affect the general idea of taking prisoners and keeping them safe. We could see the Russian side now offer no quarter and move towards a policy of surrender and you're good as dead. This is not the type of escalation anyone wants, and ending up in a tit for tat situation is going to impede efforts to bring this to the negotiation table.
A very pro western article here.
I do not know much about either CEPA or the author Thimothy Ash (beyond he thinks Brexit isnt a good thing.
www.cepa.org/article/its-costing-peanuts-for-the-us-to-defeat-russia/
Its viewing western support through a fairly selfish lense, more an investment than an ethical or ideological obligation.
US spending of 5.6% of its defense budget to destroy nearly half of Russia’s conventional military capability seems like an absolutely incredible investment. If we divide out the US defense budget to the threats it faces, Russia would perhaps be of the order of $100bn-150bn in spend-to-threat. So spending just $40bn a year, erodes a threat value of $100-150bn, a two-to-three time return.
Meanwhile, replacing destroyed kit, and keeping up with the new arms race that it has now triggered with the West will surely end up bankrupting the Russian economy; especially an economy subject to aggressive Western sanctions. How can Russia possibly hope to win an arms race when the combined GDP of the West is $40 trillion, and its defense spending amounting to 2% of GDP totals well in excess of $1 trillion when the disproportionate US defense contribution is considered? Russia’s total GDP is only $1.8 trillion.
Anyone have any critique on this?
Also old games consoles are being snapped up, for use in guided missile manufacture.
At least they'll be able to hear them coming:
Anyone have any critique on this?
TLDR: European NATO partners will either have to buy US kit or drop out of the international export market, while developing an internal EU-market, so increasing US international market-share
NATO countries can catch up with the 2% defence spend. Germany added €100bn to its spending in February but has only been able to send one IRIS-T to Ukraine. The others intended for Ukraine are still being built because their industry simply doesn't have the capacity
The 2% spend is for defence, not for donating, so a proportion of what's needed for Germany's defence will head to Ukraine. Germany still needs to produce systems for its own defence with a lead-time some way down the road
The less well-known NATO figure is that 20% of the defence spend must go on "major equipment", which includes R&D. I'd suggest that IRIS-T would be a good example of this and a double-whammy because the production line is working for Ukrainian supply. In the short-term Germany will either need to switch general defence exports off (4.5% of the world major arms trade) or buy elsewhere. The US (39% of the world major arms trade) and France (11% of the world major arms trade) are the obvious candidates for increased sales because France is nearer to the NATO 2% than Germany and has the capacity to export.
What is less clear is where the defence industry strengths lie in different countries, but this is where NATO and EU standardisation applies. Germany produces good armoured vehicles but has an ageing air force, France has a strong aircraft industry, etc.
The article doesn't consider alternatives to the US arms market. Turkey, India, Iran and China, amongst others, imported Russian arms but will now be developing their own industries and vying for the export market. What's less clear is how big their foray into the major arms trade will be.
Russia's influence on other continents is sizeable, e.g. the Central African Republic, Burkina Faso and Mali https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cq23pdgvrqwt/mali , which is thought to have the largest gold deposits in Africa. It also has uranium, copper, iron ore, zinc, manganese, bauxite, lead, lithium, bitumen, diamonds and other stones, etc. There's a lot to trade for the means to rebuild, or a lot of space for China to become the major partner with Russia
1st hand account from the Maidan. A story already told but seeing as theres still plenty who like to remove the possibility of a choice being made by the Ukrainian people its worth a share.
https://twitter.com/TheStanislawski/status/1594735328866230273?t=R5_fR2wA6iDlw517r3m-TQ&s=19
A rare moment of honesty and national awareness from a Russian mil-blogger. Hopefully the scales will fall off a few more Ruski eyes and they will see their country for what it has become.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1594779525791027220?s=20&t=xH86SWVtFAsjIzvC-S-QBQ
1st hand account from the Maidan.
I've read a fair bit about the Maidan revolution, but that's a great account, thanks for posting 👍
Interesting articke from Politico about Poland expanding its capabilities, less so for the green things with pointy things, but the nature of their relationship with the EU. To a degree reads a bit like theyre a bit indifferent to/annoyed by some parts of the EU, but that is completely overwhelmed by their views on Russia. Which all considering is understandable.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-military-superpower-poland-army/amp/
Cheers for taking the time to respond @Timba
I chose the easy bit...
The defence of Europe has "suddenly" come into focus. Not only are people looking at budgets and materiel, but also the lessons learned from Russia's logistics problems. Poor roads, bridges and a general lack of infrastructure the further east you go https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ukraine-crisis-europe-defence
Infrastructure issues work both ways, of course
Interesting articke from Politico about Poland
Bottom line is that Europe has become too comfortable and too slow to react. The critical path for modern major arms production is long and tortuous and the Ukraine has shown us that NATO training, logistics, a 4WD with NLAWS and a £500 drone can be very effective.
Europe will have to engage more, listen to its allies and be careful about who it gets into bed with
The Poland/S.Korea-thing has been on the go for a while. Their Krab self-propelled gun that they supplied to Ukraine is a British AS90 NATO-standard turret on a Korean chassis