Bironic

WTF? Seriously where do you get your news from? Or do you consume them while being high? I don’t even know where to start to rebuke this insanity… The EU doesn’t have an army. There‘s no proof whatsoever that France deploys troops to Ukraine, nor has Ukraine asked for that. Ukraine is not winning on the battlefield, due to lack of weapons, ammo and manpower. NATO is a defensive alliance. Odessa is not in Russian hands. Crimea and the Kerch bridge have been under attack since the start of the conflict. Why does China need to step in? How would they broker such a peace deal? According to your other posts, probably with a single phone call…\irony

That must have been a big part... and one fat, full worm...

Maybe the international extremist hotline? but then you would probably go directly to voicemail, since the guys operating it are busy at fucking up the world 24/7... #sarcasm The American revolution was (at least partially) violent and a war.. there's no need to fight a war or make a violent Anti-UN revolution... it can be reformed by peaceful means as well... The reason why Veto exists in the UNSC was because in the previous iteration, the League of Nation council, the countries that were part of a conflict did not have the right to vote and thus no Veto power and the only thing that achieved was that all the countries that had a ruling against them (Germany, Italy, Japan, USSR) simply left the League of Nations robbing it of its function as a forum where you can meet, discuss and negotiate peacefully with everyone. And leaving it with little to no international power, legitimacy or usefulness. If you would abolish the current veto power now, China and Russia would simply build their own Anti-UN (where they would have Veto power), which would basically end the UN as an international forum for peaceful negotiations and diplomacy. And no diplomacy is always worse and more risky than having diplomatic channels open even when a lot of conflicts are blocked because of the power of veto. The idea of reform of the UN is basically more levied towards making veto less powerful (there are multiple ideas in various directions that I won't explain in detail here since that would take up too much space) and not by completely abolishing it. Do I think that this is very likely to happen? No... but times change. Putin, Xi Jinping, Donald Trump etc. are all mortal men and there is the chance that they will be replaced by people that are more open to reform. When the UN was created Stalin was the head of the USSR, 40 years later it was Gorbachev... The opposite is also possible, that they will be replaced by even crazier people, but then we might edge towards your solution, meaning that we will see a WW3/violent revolution and however that ends the UN in it's current form will most likely not survive it. Agreed

He still values loyalty over competence. But he also tries to prevent any single member/faction in his regime from becoming powerful enough to be a threat to himself. So it will be interesting who will be rewarded and whose influence will be reduced. Prigozhins fall last year increased the power of the military, while the recent terror attack decreased the power of the FSB, otoh the guys who ran the re-election have to be rewarded somehow…

There’s also the possibility of reform of the UN. Not super likely at the moment but definitely on the table.

I have read some dubious reports that Italy has sent Storm Shadow(alongside SAMPT AA systems) to Ukraine, is that true? I couldn't find any reliable confirmation... Meanwhile Belgium has approved that 2 additional F 16 alongside 40 military personnel will be sent to Denmark until September to help train Ukrainian pilots. And they have fast tracked the delivery of their F-16 to Ukraine, originally declared to be not flight-worthy, then to be delivered in 2025, and now rescheduled to be delivered by the end of 2024. Big week also in Russia: Putin has been sworn in as President today. He will preside over the May 9th Victory Parade on Thursday and is expected to nominate (and Parliament will confirm) the new cabinet by the end of the week. There are major rumors about internal struggles for the best jobs...

I agree with you. The problem with that approach is that people who don't have real world experience have a much better chance to run for office and get elected. Across all western nations politicians are often a) relatives of other politicians or b) have a significantly higher income and wealth than the average population they are supposed to represent, or c) both. Thus limiting the "real world experience" they could possibly have. It's easy to run for office if your father is a wealthy lawyer, less so if he's a poor builder... The ancient Greeks considered political systems with elected offices as Oligarchies, and only considered those with offices chosen by lot as democracies. Obviously the ancient greek political systems were very different from our modern world, but still I do think they have a point.

I agree that having some life experience (also outside of politics etc.) is generally a good thing. Still my experience is that we underestimate the youth, especially the current youth seem to be more positively engaged with society in many ways than my own was. The fact that they are vastly underrepresented in basically all leadership positions, while the guys in those positions are mostly older (40-100) and/or male and still we are here we are with all our problems, the fact that we do have an aging population, makes me shift to the position that we should encourage participation of younger generations in the political sphere. As a side note one of the oldest written documents (I think in sumerian or akkadian, ca 4000 years old) says something along the lines: the youth of today is reprehensible and fucked up, our future is doomed... (I don't recall the actual words but you get the general gist). And yes there are also obviously young people that are trash, age is not a general sign of quality (l mean Trump and Bernie Sanders are basically the same age)

There were a number of things that made this I think: The rise of the evangelical right starting in 70s made it so that Republican presidents from Reagan onwards had to be as pro-israel as you can be to get the nomination or be elected in the GE. Funny thing is, that the Evangelicals want all Jews to be in the Holy land so that the Apocalypse can start and all the unrepenting jews (those that don't convert to christianity, aka all of them) die and go to hell. So their support for Israel is in fact anti-jewish... At the same time we saw a rise in Islamism in the whole Arab-muslim world. Pro Western Shah was replaced by Ayatollahs in 1979, the attack on the great mosque in 1979 ignited sunni-islamist movements, the civil war in Lebanon 1975-1990 saw the rise of Hizbullah, Iran-Syria-Hizbullah allied themselves against Israel and USA at least after the gulf wars were over, the first Intifada (1987-1991) saw the rise of Hamas, and the war in Afghanistan 1978-1996/2021 saw the rise of the Taliban and Al-qaeda, leading to 9/11 and the "war on terror". Since then I think we see this sort of unwafering US-Israel alliance... There was also a shift from largely centre-left governments in Israel between 1947 and 1979, towards more right wing governments after that, and since the 2000s a shift even further to the right, that made the alliance between Israel and the US-republicans and the centrist/conservative part of the democrats much easier, due to an overall more similar ideology. Finally the US dependence on middle eastern fossil fuels is now smaller than it was back in the day, due to things such as fracking, oil sands, more diverse fossil fuel suppliers, green energy etc. Making the various arab-muslim countries less valuable as allies...

According to Spiegel magazine (think of it as the german time magazine / economist) US State Department alleges that Russia uses chemical weapons such as PS (aka Nitrochloroform/chloropicrin) against Ukraine. This chemical was first used by the Russians in WWI and became widespread there (as Green cross in the Imperial German army f.e.) nowadays its also used as pesticide. It attacks the lungs. If true, this would be a serious breach of the Chemical weapons convention(which Russia is part of) and a war crime. Meanwhile Ukraine has announced that it would partially suspend its adherence to the European convention of human rights so that it can fully apply martial law in its territory. Ilia vituk the head of the SBU cybersecurity team has been dismissed by Zelensky, apparently because of suspicious financial activities of his wife and harassment of journalists. A russian national stabbed 2 ukrainian soldiers to death in Murnau am See in germany...

Some addendum to the above: Kazakh economy is almost entirely dependent on the export of the vast amount of natural resources, which made a few filthy rich but did not translate much into the greater population and their regime is extremely authoritarian. Shortly before the Russian invasion of Ukraine they called on Russia and their military alliance to crack down on widespread protests in Kazakhstan, that they couldn’t handle themselves anymore. The current and the former dictator seem also have moved away from each other. Together with the ethnic minorities in Kazakhstan, the relatively small and ill equipped/ trained military makes me somewhat doubtful if the Kazakhs would actually defend their own government like the Ukrainians did…

I wasn’t sure if it was true, only when I saw a relatively reliable German news source reporting it, Alongside some more partisan/dubious ones, I thought it might be true. But apparently not. Thanks for the clarification

The USA bought 81 old no longer flightworthy Soviet fighter jets like Su 24 and MiG 29 from Kazakhstan at 18000 dollars per jet. There are two probable uses for Ukraine: first these can be cannibalized for spare parts, second they can be used as decoys so that Russia targets them instead of actual flightworthy planes. It’s also noteworthy that Kazakhstan a country that is part of Various military and political alliances with Russia has agreed to sell them.

Maybe she should volunteer as Bidens VP instead of Trumps. Trump doesn’t have any dogs. While Biden has an especially aggressive one @Relic while I agree with you general statement, Afaik she refrained from eating the dog she put down didn’t she? Maybe that will be the next republican VP candidate: I put my dog down and ate it with some fava beans and a nice Chianti… take that you woke vegetarian animal Justice warriors South Dakota: where dogs go to die (I am joking)

Thank you very much for the link. I do wonder however, however how much of that growth is just some sort of rebound effect after years of crisis and austerity. Second how much of that growth is long term and sustainable? Tourism for example doesn’t really generate much high-income jobs nor does it need a highly educated workforce and its insane consumption of water (golf courses, swimming pools etc) is directly at odds with agriculture, nature and climate change. The latter of which already hits Southern Europe like a truck, and will continue to increase. If by the end of the century Stockholm has the same temperature as todays Athens most Swedes/humans will probably see that as a plus. The downside will be that Athens will have the temperature of todays Death Valley. Which is dead for a good reason.

Thanks for your clarification. I interpreted your post, apparently wrongly so, as some sort of wider, nefarious conspiration in behind and between the various actors (basically your illuminati/deep state etc. groups that are working from behind the curtains). Yes the US has some power to do what you say. But they have some limits, there are groups they can't influence or can't at the moment. Biden is a post Vietnam debacle politician and he is probably also a cautious person by nature, so he will almost exclusively search a diplomatic solution and everyone knows that and can thus leverage that fact to their advantage (which is what people as varied as Putin or Netanyahu do). There is no strategic ambiguity with Biden, he speaks softly but left the big stick at home. Second the US has pivoted to Asia-Pacific, something done by Obama and further emphasized by both (!!!) Trump and Biden. The disastrous and unpopular experience the US had in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Lebanon, makes them extremely reluctant to commit to that region anymore. Further this is an election year and the current congress and thus by extension the current government are basically lame ducks (both Putin and Bibi bank on the fact that in January they might deal with a much more friendly government). The US is not going to risk doing anything major prior to the election, because whatever they do it might give their opponents an advantage. All of that together amounts to the US basically saying fuck you Netanyahu diplomatically, but not following up on that with substance. They have managed to get the Israeli to do the bare minimum such as allowing some humanitarian aid to Gaza etc. but not much more. Which is still better then what a Trump or Bush administration would have done, but I can understand that people expect more.

I don’t agree with @The Anti-Targ because I interpret his line of thought as conspirational. But There are certainly people who want to continue and possibly escalate this conflict for as long as possible. Netanyahu and his ilk know that the Israeli will vote them out of power as soon as the war is over, thus continuing and escalating it so that he can claim that he’s Israel sole savior makes sense. Irans Regime has so many internal problems and unrest that galvanizing their supporters by having a front against a common enemy like Israel makes a lot of sense. Hamas wants to break the rapprochement of Israel and various Arab states so more dead Palestinian civilians are good, since the Arab street will be incensed by that. Hizbollah has a precarious situation in Libanon and so does Assad in Syria, the Houthi’s in Yemen and Iraqs government is also far from stable, again unifying against a common enemy such as Israel makes sense. Russia finally profits if the eyes of the west turn to the MENA region because of its war in Ukraine, and possibly because isis might want to reconsider targeting Russia instead targeting the west since we’re helping Israel more than Russia does…

On one hand it’s crazy to see „ancient“ tech at the same time as the most modern technology, otoh it makes sense to use things such as machine guns against drones. Machine guns are cheap, reliable and perfectly capable at shooting down targets that are unarmored, fly at comparable low speeds and are not too far away…

Spain is apparently willing to give Ukraine some Patriot missiles, not the launchers & systems, alongside other stuff like Leopard 2, IFVs, machine guns etc… one of their Patriot systems is currently located in Turkey on the border to Syria to defend against threats from there…Spain does have an ongoing conflict with Morocco about Ceuta, Melilla and some islands off the Moroccan coast, unlike Greece these territories are not covered by NATO Treaty, so they can’t call in Article 5 in case of an attack. The risk of Morocco launching airstrikes against them is rather minimal though IMHO, especially since people are dying in Ukraine… Greece seems to be under a lot pressure by western leaders since they both have S-300 and Patriot systems, so far they haven’t budged. Poland is another interesting case: they have 2 Patriot batteries located at the Ukrainian border to protect the border regions and logistical hubs from (accidental) attacks inside Poland (has happened before, resulting in the death of 2 polish citizens). Ukraine had asked if they can have one of those 2 systems and place it on their side of the border so it would cover both Poland and Ukraine. The Polish government has declined so far. Turkey has some S-400 systems placed in storage due to the US pressure, maybe they can be convinced to hand them over to Ukraine in exchange for Patriots or something else that Erdogan desires…

I don't really think that's a realistic option. Too many forms of static defense (Minefields, Trenches, Dragons teeth) combined with mass artillery, drones, manpads and air attacks...

A discussion what NATO/the west could or should have done will probably fill an entire book by now… Nato has struggled to even ramp up production of their own weapon systems (105, 120, 155 mm etc). IMHO it doesn’t make much sense to build extra new facilities that produce eastern systems since all western nations (including Ukraine) are/ have phasing them out or didn’t have them in the first place. (respectively in case of Ukraine they are also being destroyed by Russia). And from a long term logistical standpoint it makes no sense to have both nato standard weaponry and Soviet standard weaponry alongside each other. So building new or upgraded facilities only works if you have a long term commitment to this, money much better spent on producing and delivering western weapons to Ukraine ( or buying old eastern stocks around the world as a stopgap solution) I am not. There’s no end in sight in this war. Little hope of winning or return home as a winner. Little hope of surviving if you’re a frontline soldier. And even if you survive to the end of the war, what will be left of Ukraine? Ruins, mines, unexploded ammo, destruction everywhere and a very uncertain future with Russia probably hell bent on its revanchist policy and a very reluctant NATO & EU. Add to the fact that Ukrainian birthrates have dwindled since 1990, while male mortality has increased leaving lots of families with just one male member ( and thus unwilling to sacrifice him). The salary is also comparably bad and training and equipment, while miles better than in Russia isn’t top notch either. The euphoria early in the war when both the prospect of victory as well as the threat of total defeat were much greater is gone after a relentless grind of more than two years, in which many soldiers didn’t really get much leave time or rotation either. The divisions within Ukrainian society are also starting to show up again… it’s easy for people in the safe west to say there should be more Ukrainians willing to fight, we aren’t the ones that are dying for us the war is something we occasionally watch on tv…and when it comes to hardware and tech, the west has been reluctant or unwilling to provide them, it was/is often too little, too late…

I just read an article about an apparently recent survey amongst 1000 Australians done by the NGO whiteribbon. I couldn’t find the survey online but it comes from a reliable media source. It showed certain astonishing facts at least among the people participating in the survey, such as 44% of 18-34 year old males don’t believe that sexual acts without consent should be considered rape. Women and older men have significantly different options apparently. The article goes on to say that certain things such as male only schools and societies with more males than females make violence against women more abundant. Is this discussed in Australia?

Apparently Ukraine is running out of ammo for their mainly eastern bloc MBT fleet, especially the 125mm caliber. I doubt that the US can do all that much about that (unless they replace their MBTs with abrams). The Czechs/Estonians might be able to find some countries that are willing to sell though… Timur Ivanov one of the 12 (sic!!!) Deputy ministers of defense has been arrested by the FSB and is charged with corruption. Ivanov was mainly responsible for military properties, buildings, infrastructure and medical facilities. He lived a lavish lifestyle way above his salary as deputy minister and was accused of corruption by Navalny as well. He was appointed to his post by Shoigu. there are different rumors why he’s been arrested, some say because of the decade old FSB-military feud (especially after the recent FSB debacle against Isis-k), others point out that Ivanov and the military have overreached in replacing and absorbing all of Prighozins assets (he was super rich after all) others think it has to do that Putin and a new government will be sworn in in 2 weeks so there might be some reshuffling and someone has to take a fall/blame.

Never said that. I already mentioned that armoured assaults were/are unsuccessful because of a variety of reasons: Trenches, Minefields, Dargon teeths, manpads, spotting drones, airstrikes, suicide drones, artillery strikes guided by drones etc. Have you actually looked at certain "tanks/armoured vehicles/ground vehicles" that are being used in Ukraine for exactly that purpose? What do you think are the gepard tanks and all the other the other vehicle mounted short range anti air weapons used for!!! to shoot down Tu 95, Tu 160 and Tu 22m? (A hint all these airplanes have weaponry way out of range of those systems) Obviously those require combined arms use. Nobody ever advocated for using only mbt or only artillery or only drones!!! And how can an infantry man fire them (You can't fire a machine cannon of a gepard tank while holding it, not even if you're arnold schwarzenegger) ? How can he fire those things on the move? How can he move at a speed that is fast enough that he will be out of the immediate zone of impact of the incoming air strike/artillery strike? how can he survive that strike if it hits slightly off target because you have moved away in time in a vehicle? second hint: By being in an armoured vehicle (aka tank). How can a bunker move(its a sitting duck, i grant you it offers more protection than even the best tank, but nothing that a moab can't penetrate)? how is he able to fire both in the air and towards the ground(i suppose you can build anti air and antiground bunkers next to each other) Simply wrong. Kamov ka 52 and Mil mi 28 outrange all currently used manpads. So the only way to shoot them downvia manpad is a) the helicopter pilot makes a mistake and flies into range or b) you have somehow managed to breach the line of contact and closed in onto the helicopter. The only thing that regularly shoots down those two are medium to long range vehicle mounted anti air missiles(can be launched both from ground in form of patriots or from the air in form of amraams or sidewinders). I hope this is a joke?! it reminds me of the asterix and the britons were genius military mastermind Julius caesar sets all battles at 5 pm when the britons are having their tea so they are easily defeated. If your able to fight at low visibility, night, dusk, dawn, fog etc. and if your able to see your enemy and kill him because of a heat signature and he can't do that to you. That is a strategic advantage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its also one of the reasons why western/ukraine had an advantage their IR/Night vision systems both on tanks and infantry are more numerous and better. a lot of ukrainian attacks happened at night for exactly that reason. Seriously? you think that german U 212 uses salt water to cool the batteries and fuel cells? And you think those make more heat than diesel engines or nuclear steam turbines(the older versions of submarine engines) so that such a desperate measure is needed? God I hope you're not an engineer. On a second read i think you meant that saltwater cools the whole body of the submarine... which isn't really necessary since a battery isn't that hot... Obviously i am talking about future technology(not space lasers in case you want to make that argument again). I am talking about future armoured vehicles ffs. For your info solid state batteries are scheduled to arrive serial production this year. Natrium batteries within the next six years. that will be long before the next gen of armoured vehicles is available. The prius is an example of a hybrid engine. which is a stopgap between an engine that runs only electric which will be the long term future and a fossil fuel combustin engine that uses things such as gearboxes and loads of lubricants and rotating parts.

Are you being disingenous on purpose? Read my post!! Second I am not talking about armour only!!!! I am talking about destroying drones before they can a) suicide onto you or drop a grenade b) call in an artillery or air strike and give away your exact location (no matter if you're on foot or in a vehicle)!!! Current anti air systems (patriot s 300 etc) are designed to shoot down high value (manned) targets that are large/fast/stealthy/etc. at a long range, so it makes no sense to shoot down cheap ass slow short range drones with them. What we will see is a combination of those systems (such as the Patriot) since they arre still good in their role and newer systems that are directed against drones and other slower, smaller and cheaper unmanned air vehicles: this includes things such as anti aircraft machine guns, anti aircraft machine cannons, unguided splintering rockets, Jammers, Lasers/DEWs, shotguns, radars and optical sensors made so that they can spot smaller air vehicles more easily. All of that will be mounted on a moving/armored vehicle (aka "tank"), to provide cover for your infantry and your other ground based vehicles such as artillery etc. I am talking about tech that is already under way, already in use in both military and civilian sectors and tech that is being developed and has almost or already reached industrial serial production (such as natrium or solid state batteries). Fuel cells are used in submarines and a number of civilian vehicles of various purposes and so are batteries and hybrid engines(remember the toyota prius?). I am not talking about jewish space lasers, light sabres and photon torpedoes! even though I agree with you that those would be real game changers! Second heat signatures are extremely important in modern warfare since they massively improve your night fight/low visibility fight capabilities and most of the short range/cheaper missiles such as Stinger or Javelin use heat to home in onto targets. No it wasn't! Again read my post! You said helicopters were not used because cheap infantry with manpads can shoot them down. What I said, which is how and why they are used/not used, is that they can not be shot down by manpads because they have higher range than manpads or anti air tanks such as the gepards, but they have no way of defending themselves against long range Air to air weaponry that ukraine lacks but Russia has (in form of fighter jets etc.) and secondly that helicoptes need terrain to have an advantage which again as i said doesnt really exist in Ukraine. In a more general sense what are things that are comparable to (air) drones? Birds, Bats, Insects, pterosaurs, Orell the eagle, hot air balloons, slow but very maneuverable early single piston engine airplanes (talking 1903-1950 ca., minus the expensive pilot obviously) they are cheap, small, slow, maneuverable and occur in swarms and see you from above and might dive onto you for a kill. How do we/did we kill those things? Machine guns, Machine cannons, Shotguns, unguided rockets, radars, other birds(falconry & melisandre ;)), other cheap piston engine planes.