Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
If they won't come out for this sort of thing, then they never will
Much of the Republican Party have given up on democracy and are willing to countenance authoritarian measures in order to gain and or maintain power.
Sad times.
What do you think of the fact that Biden said the 2022 midterms' elections will probably be illegitimate?
Source?
Posted but here is his quote: ""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed," Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
And those around him quickly said "Er...did he say that?" and "Er...."
Sounds like you've got your own echo chamber going.
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
Cf the proposed expansion of the SCOTUS for partisan Dem advantage
Yes, but because it's the Democrats that are saying it, it's ok. If Trump had proposed the same thing when faced with the opposing situation, all on here would have been proclaiming the end of American democracy. Nothing like a bit of hypocrisy.....
Right now American party politics - Dems v Reps - resembles Iraq v Iran. One hopes they both lose
Libertarian party for POTUS 2024!!!!!!
Libertarians are just Republicans in terms of their wallet, Democrats in terms of their private life
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
If they won't come out for this sort of thing, then they never will
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
If they won't come out for this sort of thing, then they never will
Much of the Republican Party have given up on democracy and are willing to countenance authoritarian measures in order to gain and or maintain power.
Sad times.
What do you think of the fact that Biden said the 2022 midterms' elections will probably be illegitimate?
Source?
Posted but here is his quote: ""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed," Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
And those around him quickly said "Er...did he say that?" and "Er...."
Sounds like you've got your own echo chamber going.
"Members of his own party quickly pushed back against the suggestion.
Maryland Senator Ben Cardin said new Republican state voting laws were "very troublesome", but he added of Mr Biden's remarks: "I don't know if I'd use those terms."
"We might have a little difference of opinion on that one," West Virginia's Joe Manchin told CNN....."
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
I think that's a fair approximation of Macron's overall goal but the Ukraine crisis has shown Germany are in the foreign policy driving seat as well as the economic one. Germany has decreed no help for Ukraine from the EU and that's what's happened. What we're seeing is Macron's worst nightmare playing out, France standing by impotently as the US decides Europe's fate in a closed room with Russia and the UK making friends and allies all across the continent because it isn't bound by Germany's appeasement policies.
Macron's understanding and handling of foreign policy is an abject lesson in what not to do. He's managed to reduce French influence in their old colonies in Africa and managed to p1ss off multiple sides without ever managing to get his own vision of how the EU should operate even seriously considered. Very few friends, no influence - great job Macron.
Africa, alongside AUKUS, is his biggest failure, yes
But I’m not sure he had much choice in the matter. He’s occasionally been a bit clumsy and arrogant but in the end both are symptoms of secular French decline - in soft power as much as hard. France has punched above its weight in Africa for decades, relying on linguistic ties and metropolitan patronage - African leaders like to go shopping with their wives in Paris
But in the end China is now way more important, and the Anglo-Saxons more salient through the English language and residual USA power. Ditto the South Pacific
Hence the simultaneous French pivot to an even more Federal Europe (now, in good and bad ways for France, devoid of the UK). If France can somehow make the EU simply an extension of French sovereignty but with vastly greater economic prestige (by sheer size) then French grandeur and influence is restored
Trouble is it is 6D chess and surely impossible. The EU will not bend to the whims of Paris, it is no longer 1962
The problem with the French Run The EU thing is that Germany is no longer West Germany. It is larger than France in every way and wants what it wants.
The idea that you can demarcate foreign policy from economics seems untenable.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
I think that's a fair approximation of Macron's overall goal but the Ukraine crisis has shown Germany are in the foreign policy driving seat as well as the economic one. Germany has decreed no help for Ukraine from the EU and that's what's happened. What we're seeing is Macron's worst nightmare playing out, France standing by impotently as the US decides Europe's fate in a closed room with Russia and the UK making friends and allies all across the continent because it isn't bound by Germany's appeasement policies.
Macron's understanding and handling of foreign policy is an abject lesson in what not to do. He's managed to reduce French influence in their old colonies in Africa and managed to p1ss off multiple sides without ever managing to get his own vision of how the EU should operate even seriously considered. Very few friends, no influence - great job Macron.
Africa, alongside AUKUS, is his biggest failure, yes
But I’m not sure he had much choice in the matter. He’s occasionally been a bit clumsy and arrogant but in the end both are symptoms of secular French decline - in soft power as much as hard. France has punched above its weight in Africa for decades, relying on linguistic ties and metropolitan patronage - African leaders like to go shopping with their wives in Paris
But in the end China is now way more important, and the Anglo-Saxons more salient through the English language and residual USA power. Ditto the South Pacific
Hence the simultaneous French pivot to an even more Federal Europe (now, in good and bad ways for France, devoid of the UK). If France can somehow make the EU simply an extension of French sovereignty but with vastly greater economic prestige (by sheer size) then French grandeur and influence is restored
Trouble is it is 6D chess and surely impossible. The EU will not bend to the whims of Paris, it is no longer 1962
The problem with the French Run The EU thing is that Germany is no longer West Germany. It is larger than France in every way and wants what it wants.
The idea that you can demarcate foreign policy from economics seems untenable.
But Germany is still very reluctant to play a wider role. Meanwhile Macron has built French powerbases like the EU-Med group, stretching from Portugal to Cyprus, and is busy making France a key player in the East Meditteranean , too.
But without Germany, Holland, the Nordics and Eastern Europe on board (and they are not on board) then it is a non-starter. It is the PIIGs plus France minus Ireland. They don’t have any money
This is the paradox of Brexit for Macron. To make a viable EU military he needs British power and influence as well. Together they would have made a credible force, and the Brits might have brought the Dutch, Nordics alongside
Without Britain Macron has more room to manoeuvre and scheme but less basic power and credibility
He doesn't necessarily need to start with too much money to advance strategic interests, however. In the last couple of years he's sold a lot of ships and military equipment to countries in the mediterranean , formed formal and informal defence alliances in the eastern mediterranean, and simultaneously made France far better placed to gain from the hydrocarbons there in the future than other north european nations. He's achieving part of the kind of things that Britain did in Southern Europe and the Near East a century ago, largely unknown to the British political and media classes, in their transatlantic and now pacific bubble.
I’d say the French strategic retreats in Africa and the Pacific considerably outweigh all that
But, as I also said hours ago, he’s a canny operator. He’s playing the tricky hand of a prestigious but definitely 2nd division power rather well. Getting wins alongside inevitable defeats
I’d vote to give him a 2nd term if I were French. Certainly so, given the alternatives
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
I think that's a fair approximation of Macron's overall goal but the Ukraine crisis has shown Germany are in the foreign policy driving seat as well as the economic one. Germany has decreed no help for Ukraine from the EU and that's what's happened. What we're seeing is Macron's worst nightmare playing out, France standing by impotently as the US decides Europe's fate in a closed room with Russia and the UK making friends and allies all across the continent because it isn't bound by Germany's appeasement policies.
Macron's understanding and handling of foreign policy is an abject lesson in what not to do. He's managed to reduce French influence in their old colonies in Africa and managed to p1ss off multiple sides without ever managing to get his own vision of how the EU should operate even seriously considered. Very few friends, no influence - great job Macron.
Africa, alongside AUKUS, is his biggest failure, yes
But I’m not sure he had much choice in the matter. He’s occasionally been a bit clumsy and arrogant but in the end both are symptoms of secular French decline - in soft power as much as hard. France has punched above its weight in Africa for decades, relying on linguistic ties and metropolitan patronage - African leaders like to go shopping with their wives in Paris
But in the end China is now way more important, and the Anglo-Saxons more salient through the English language and residual USA power. Ditto the South Pacific
Hence the simultaneous French pivot to an even more Federal Europe (now, in good and bad ways for France, devoid of the UK). If France can somehow make the EU simply an extension of French sovereignty but with vastly greater economic prestige (by sheer size) then French grandeur and influence is restored
Trouble is it is 6D chess and surely impossible. The EU will not bend to the whims of Paris, it is no longer 1962
The problem with the French Run The EU thing is that Germany is no longer West Germany. It is larger than France in every way and wants what it wants.
The idea that you can demarcate foreign policy from economics seems untenable.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
I think that's a fair approximation of Macron's overall goal but the Ukraine crisis has shown Germany are in the foreign policy driving seat as well as the economic one. Germany has decreed no help for Ukraine from the EU and that's what's happened. What we're seeing is Macron's worst nightmare playing out, France standing by impotently as the US decides Europe's fate in a closed room with Russia and the UK making friends and allies all across the continent because it isn't bound by Germany's appeasement policies.
Macron's understanding and handling of foreign policy is an abject lesson in what not to do. He's managed to reduce French influence in their old colonies in Africa and managed to p1ss off multiple sides without ever managing to get his own vision of how the EU should operate even seriously considered. Very few friends, no influence - great job Macron.
Africa, alongside AUKUS, is his biggest failure, yes
But I’m not sure he had much choice in the matter. He’s occasionally been a bit clumsy and arrogant but in the end both are symptoms of secular French decline - in soft power as much as hard. France has punched above its weight in Africa for decades, relying on linguistic ties and metropolitan patronage - African leaders like to go shopping with their wives in Paris
But in the end China is now way more important, and the Anglo-Saxons more salient through the English language and residual USA power. Ditto the South Pacific
Hence the simultaneous French pivot to an even more Federal Europe (now, in good and bad ways for France, devoid of the UK). If France can somehow make the EU simply an extension of French sovereignty but with vastly greater economic prestige (by sheer size) then French grandeur and influence is restored
Trouble is it is 6D chess and surely impossible. The EU will not bend to the whims of Paris, it is no longer 1962
The problem with the French Run The EU thing is that Germany is no longer West Germany. It is larger than France in every way and wants what it wants.
The idea that you can demarcate foreign policy from economics seems untenable.
But Germany is still very reluctant to play a wider role. Meanwhile Macron has built French powerbases like the EU-Med group, stretching from Portugal to Cyprus, and is busy making France a key player in the East Meditteranean , too.
But without Germany, Holland, the Nordics and Eastern Europe on board (and they are not on board) then it is a non-starter. It is the PIIGs plus France minus Ireland. They don’t have any money
This is the paradox of Brexit for Macron. To make a viable EU military he needs British power and influence as well. Together they would have made a credible force, and the Brits might have brought the Dutch, Nordics alongside
Without Britain Macron has more room to manoeuvre and scheme but less basic power and credibility
He doesn't necessarily need to start with too much money to advance strategic interests, however. In the last couple of years he's sold a lot of ships and military equipment to countries in the mediterranean , formed formal and informal defence alliances in the eastern mediterranean, and simultaneously made France far better placed to gain from the hydrocarbons there in the future than other north european nations. He's achieving part of the kind of things that Britain did in Southern Europe and the Near East a century ago, largely unknown to the British political and media classes, in their transatlantic and now pacific bubble.
Britain’s bubble pretty much starts at the North Circular. I see no evidence of any thinking - strategic or tactical - from UK policymakers.
As Blair pointed out in his speech, Brexit has led to a profound period of national navel-gazing, as our influence has deteriorated.
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
If they won't come out for this sort of thing, then they never will
Much of the Republican Party have given up on democracy and are willing to countenance authoritarian measures in order to gain and or maintain power.
Sad times.
What do you think of the fact that Biden said the 2022 midterms' elections will probably be illegitimate?
Highly possible if he cannot get his reforms through?
Sorry, do you think they will be illegitimate if he doesn't get his reforms through? Unclear
Depends what stunts various Republicans get up to. Biden’s reforms aim to prevent such stunts.
It depends whether you think restricting voting booth in certain districts so that people have to queue longer than the election day to vote a legitimate thing.
Personally I don't think that is legitimate.
While we are on the subject, I want week long voting in General Elections rather than postal votes. Bring back Georgian style campaigns... I'll bring a barrel of gin....
On a very bleak note, here in Tallinn the general view is that a major Russian invasion of Ukraine is now inevitible. the majority of usable Russian forces are now deployed in offensive echelons around UA and there is no clear exit route. The army here is is on alert and the reserves can be called up at 24 hours notice (some already have been), the UK led Tapa battle group is also likely to be doubled in size in the course of the next few days. Meanwhile the Estonians have sent some Javelins to Ukraine, in the expectation that the Russian heavy armour will be leading the assault to create "Novarossiya". The security and foreign relations people think that Russia is making a last desparate throw, since Putin is failing on almost every measure, especially with COVID. The Russian death toll is over 350,000 and vaccine take up of the "Sputnik V" domestic vaccine, despite government propaganda, is well below the needed numbers. The emergence of LNG deals with Qatar and Trinidad is placing the whole question of Nordstream as a political weapon into doubt and poses a serious threat to an economy that has abjectly failed to diversify from extraction. It is Putin´s last throw of the dice and he is oblivious to the risk. A major incursion could bring Finland and Sweden into NATO and in any event there is a scramble to reinforce all of the eastern flank, in case of a Russian defeat that tempts Putin into a direct confrontation with NATO, which is assessed as "medium risk". The utter recklessness of the Moscovites is very scary, this is exactly how WWIII may start. If the Russian army gets bogged down, then the view here is that any aggressive act is possible. Meanwhile, even if Russian armour can take swathes of territory, entering cities like Khakiv or Poltava could lead to a bloodbath on both sides.
Most of my friends are grim faced and the government people are focusing on emergency planning. The rest of us are getting on with things as normally as we can, though I have been drawing up evacuation plans for some of our people in the event that the war spreads here, I myself will stay, in any event.
To be honest I´d far rather discuss Christopher Biggins, who as others have noted is a much underated talent.
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
Cf the proposed expansion of the SCOTUS for partisan Dem advantage
Yes, but because it's the Democrats that are saying it, it's ok. If Trump had proposed the same thing when faced with the opposing situation, all on here would have been proclaiming the end of American democracy. Nothing like a bit of hypocrisy.....
Right now American party politics - Dems v Reps - resembles Iraq v Iran. One hopes they both lose
Libertarian party for POTUS 2024!!!!!!
Will be interesting to see IF they again nominate a "left" Lib in concert with Republicans, as in 2020.
Though in US elections, Libertarian vote generally comes out of the hide of the GOP. And 2020 was not an exception.
Indeed, that year, as in 2016, the "other" vote for POTUS most places was highest in % terms on Republican turf.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
I think that's a fair approximation of Macron's overall goal but the Ukraine crisis has shown Germany are in the foreign policy driving seat as well as the economic one. Germany has decreed no help for Ukraine from the EU and that's what's happened. What we're seeing is Macron's worst nightmare playing out, France standing by impotently as the US decides Europe's fate in a closed room with Russia and the UK making friends and allies all across the continent because it isn't bound by Germany's appeasement policies.
Macron's understanding and handling of foreign policy is an abject lesson in what not to do. He's managed to reduce French influence in their old colonies in Africa and managed to p1ss off multiple sides without ever managing to get his own vision of how the EU should operate even seriously considered. Very few friends, no influence - great job Macron.
Africa, alongside AUKUS, is his biggest failure, yes
But I’m not sure he had much choice in the matter. He’s occasionally been a bit clumsy and arrogant but in the end both are symptoms of secular French decline - in soft power as much as hard. France has punched above its weight in Africa for decades, relying on linguistic ties and metropolitan patronage - African leaders like to go shopping with their wives in Paris
But in the end China is now way more important, and the Anglo-Saxons more salient through the English language and residual USA power. Ditto the South Pacific
Hence the simultaneous French pivot to an even more Federal Europe (now, in good and bad ways for France, devoid of the UK). If France can somehow make the EU simply an extension of French sovereignty but with vastly greater economic prestige (by sheer size) then French grandeur and influence is restored
Trouble is it is 6D chess and surely impossible. The EU will not bend to the whims of Paris, it is no longer 1962
The problem with the French Run The EU thing is that Germany is no longer West Germany. It is larger than France in every way and wants what it wants.
The idea that you can demarcate foreign policy from economics seems untenable.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
I think that's a fair approximation of Macron's overall goal but the Ukraine crisis has shown Germany are in the foreign policy driving seat as well as the economic one. Germany has decreed no help for Ukraine from the EU and that's what's happened. What we're seeing is Macron's worst nightmare playing out, France standing by impotently as the US decides Europe's fate in a closed room with Russia and the UK making friends and allies all across the continent because it isn't bound by Germany's appeasement policies.
Macron's understanding and handling of foreign policy is an abject lesson in what not to do. He's managed to reduce French influence in their old colonies in Africa and managed to p1ss off multiple sides without ever managing to get his own vision of how the EU should operate even seriously considered. Very few friends, no influence - great job Macron.
Africa, alongside AUKUS, is his biggest failure, yes
But I’m not sure he had much choice in the matter. He’s occasionally been a bit clumsy and arrogant but in the end both are symptoms of secular French decline - in soft power as much as hard. France has punched above its weight in Africa for decades, relying on linguistic ties and metropolitan patronage - African leaders like to go shopping with their wives in Paris
But in the end China is now way more important, and the Anglo-Saxons more salient through the English language and residual USA power. Ditto the South Pacific
Hence the simultaneous French pivot to an even more Federal Europe (now, in good and bad ways for France, devoid of the UK). If France can somehow make the EU simply an extension of French sovereignty but with vastly greater economic prestige (by sheer size) then French grandeur and influence is restored
Trouble is it is 6D chess and surely impossible. The EU will not bend to the whims of Paris, it is no longer 1962
The problem with the French Run The EU thing is that Germany is no longer West Germany. It is larger than France in every way and wants what it wants.
The idea that you can demarcate foreign policy from economics seems untenable.
But Germany is still very reluctant to play a wider role. Meanwhile Macron has built French powerbases like the EU-Med group, stretching from Portugal to Cyprus, and is busy making France a key player in the East Meditteranean , too.
But without Germany, Holland, the Nordics and Eastern Europe on board (and they are not on board) then it is a non-starter. It is the PIIGs plus France minus Ireland. They don’t have any money
This is the paradox of Brexit for Macron. To make a viable EU military he needs British power and influence as well. Together they would have made a credible force, and the Brits might have brought the Dutch, Nordics alongside
Without Britain Macron has more room to manoeuvre and scheme but less basic power and credibility
He doesn't necessarily need to start with too much money to advance strategic interests, however. In the last couple of years he's sold a lot of ships and military equipment to countries in the mediterranean , formed formal and informal defence alliances in the eastern mediterranean, and simultaneously made France far better placed to gain from the hydrocarbons there in the future than other north european nations. He's achieving part of the kind of things that Britain did in Southern Europe and the Near East a century ago, largely unknown to the British political and media classes, in their transatlantic and now pacific bubble.
I’d say the French strategic retreats in Africa and the Pacific considerably outweigh all that
But, as I also said hours ago, he’s a canny operator. He’s playing the tricky hand of a prestigious but definitely 2nd division power rather well. Getting wins alongside inevitable defeats
I’d vote to give him a 2nd term if I were French. Certainly so, given the alternatives
Your original post suggested French influence has retreated to post-colonial North Africa.
As others have pointed out, France have played a significant role in the Med, the Levant, and even the Pacific in recent years.
I agree I think with your broad conclusions (both about Macron, and the limits of French policy success) but do not underestimate what has been achieved.
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
So formenting attempted Putch is same thing as Biden's speech? Interesting argument!
Anyway, you say nothing about my point, which is that actual fact, let alone advocacy, of overt voter suppression by Republican lawmakers, is likely to be counter-productive to their side?
Which is why Dems from Uncle Joe on down are focusing on this issue, even when they do NOT have the votes now to actually pass federal voting-rights legislation, even to safeguard election from post-facto congressional nullification?
Note that in 1948, Harry Truman won a famous victory, in large measure for flaying the "do-nothing Congress" to mobilize Democratic base and persuade swing voters.
The "voter suppression" which means that Georgia has more before days voting than Democrat states such as New York and Delawere? Or, lo and behold, asks for some form of ID as if Black people don't own ID? Or do you mean the terrible but oh so terrible dastardly Republican plans to stop voters being given food and drink near the polling station (and, oh by the way, do you mind if we just look at your ballot paper to see which way you are voting).
It's a lazy sort of argument, which doesn't look at what the laws propose. Not only that, it's completely hypocritical when you have places like California that actively promotes ballot harvesting where (mainly) Democrat-aligned groups go round to people's doorsteps and collect their votes. Any chance the Republican votes might get lost in the post? If course not!
Again, you are sidestepping the question. Both Trump and now Biden are claiming that the election process is flawed. Ok, that is politics. But it is the sheer stunning hypocrisy of the Democrats that is the most astounding - a year ago, anyone questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election was a threat to democracy, now it's absolutely fine to raise questions over their legitimacy as long as you are a Democrat.
I’m trying to get my head around all this Islamophobia row now, but there are pieces missing I can only guess at. There could be a lot more to this. My gut feeling right now it’s out in the open it’s going need need the Party Leader quickly instigating a proper investigation, even without Ghani filling in a complaint form? We all agree on that?
The Labour Party got reams and reams how to attack if Conservative Party drags its heels, because they simply repeat everything the Conservatives threw at Labour about anti-semitism. You see what I mean how excruciating it might get, not specifically on Boris alone but the whole Conservative Party, if action isn’t taken swiftly?
What do we make of the “I wasn’t sure who I was talking to was actually in government or not” comment, from Ghani? You would know your whip and head whip wouldn’t you? Did Comments came from a top Spad, possibly Cummings?
Jav has called Ghani a friend, but he has still reiterated the “you want it looked into, complete the required form” line. Ambushing Boris in leadership debate Jav got a promise of Islamophobia report from the incoming leader, but has been quiet about alleged problem since. So how much of this did his friend share with Jav and when?
Expecting more from Jav any moment? Jav certainly wouldn’t have much time for the Cummings and goings as it were if he was involved.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
Modern technology integrated warfare.
The traditional Soviet deep battle plan had lots of technology in it - but was still about lots of conscripts and vast amounts of relatively crude weaponry. With a layer of hi-tech on top.
With the Gulf War in 1991, the Russian General Staff saw the way that the Americans achieved something that had eluded everyone else - completely mobile *armoured* (not just mechanised) columns striking across the map without regard to roads. Total integration of artillery and air power into the battle plan - to the point of the soldiers on the ground pointing a laser at something and saying "make that go away"... All this had existed before, but in nothing like the depth and breadth.
The Frunze Academy went into high gear about the need for a super integrated, super mobile, non-conscript force. They did analysis that suggested that if the Cold War had gone hot, that the Americans (and friends) would have hammered the Soviet Army....
Chechnya showed that the existing conscript army was good for generating casualties - the winning was done by the best trained troops with the best kit.
Putin finally found the money to get them some of this - which is why they love him.
Thanks for that - this is why I love this place, so much collective knowledge, an Encyclopaedia Politica Britannica if you will!
Are the German instructors considered to be special? There is always the difference between theory and theory with experience - as a certain German military instructor said “no plan survives first contact with the enemy” so are they a “gold standard” or just someone good who were prepared to do the deal rather than the really good people who wouldn’t think of training the Russians?
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
If they won't come out for this sort of thing, then they never will
Much of the Republican Party have given up on democracy and are willing to countenance authoritarian measures in order to gain and or maintain power.
Sad times.
What do you think of the fact that Biden said the 2022 midterms' elections will probably be illegitimate?
Source?
Posted but here is his quote: ""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed," Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
And those around him quickly said "Er...did he say that?" and "Er...."
Yes, absolutely hilarious. The logic mind gymnastics that were being performed to try and change the meaning of what he said were breathtaking.
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
Indeed. A little bit East of Berlin.
Maybe it was on here but there was a whole debate on here about that pic. Hitler couldn't ride a horse for a start and white armour would easily rust in the Middle Ages.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
Modern technology integrated warfare.
The traditional Soviet deep battle plan had lots of technology in it - but was still about lots of conscripts and vast amounts of relatively crude weaponry. With a layer of hi-tech on top.
With the Gulf War in 1991, the Russian General Staff saw the way that the Americans achieved something that had eluded everyone else - completely mobile *armoured* (not just mechanised) columns striking across the map without regard to roads. Total integration of artillery and air power into the battle plan - to the point of the soldiers on the ground pointing a laser at something and saying "make that go away"... All this had existed before, but in nothing like the depth and breadth.
The Frunze Academy went into high gear about the need for a super integrated, super mobile, non-conscript force. They did analysis that suggested that if the Cold War had gone hot, that the Americans (and friends) would have hammered the Soviet Army....
Chechnya showed that the existing conscript army was good for generating casualties - the winning was done by the best trained troops with the best kit.
Putin finally found the money to get them some of this - which is why they love him.
Thanks for that - this is why I love this place, so much collective knowledge, an Encyclopaedia Politica Britannica if you will!
Are the German instructors considered to be special? There is always the difference between theory and theory with experience - as a certain German military instructor said “no plan survives first contact with the enemy” so are they a “gold standard” or just someone good who were prepared to do the deal rather than the really good people who wouldn’t think of training the Russians?
It's also a question of who would sell the technology and the training.
This is high end NATO stuff. The Americans won't sell it, the French wouldn't. The British wouldn't. I don't think the Italians or Spanish would really have the same clout and probably wouldn't either.
So the Germans pitched themselves as the highest end NATO country who would do so.
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
If they won't come out for this sort of thing, then they never will
Much of the Republican Party have given up on democracy and are willing to countenance authoritarian measures in order to gain and or maintain power.
Sad times.
What do you think of the fact that Biden said the 2022 midterms' elections will probably be illegitimate?
Source?
Posted but here is his quote: ""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed," Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
And those around him quickly said "Er...did he say that?" and "Er...."
Sounds like you've got your own echo chamber going.
"Members of his own party quickly pushed back against the suggestion.
Maryland Senator Ben Cardin said new Republican state voting laws were "very troublesome", but he added of Mr Biden's remarks: "I don't know if I'd use those terms."
"We might have a little difference of opinion on that one," West Virginia's Joe Manchin told CNN....."
Man City are China, obvs. All the money, a relatively new superpower but with a long history Man U is the USA, still the richest, but oh dear, the management Russia is Chelsea. Nuff said Liverpool are Japan
The UK is Arsenal and France is Spurs
Italy is Aston Villa; Spain, Everton.
Newcastle are India
Germany is the tricky one. Maybe Germany are Spurs and France are Arsenal and the UK is, eek, Leeds
On a very bleak note, here in Tallinn the general view is that a major Russian invasion of Ukraine is now inevitible. the majority of usable Russian forces are now deployed in offensive echelons around UA and there is no clear exit route. The army here is is on alert and the reserves can be called up at 24 hours notice (some already have been), the UK led Tapa battle group is also likely to be doubled in size in the course of the next few days. Meanwhile the Estonians have sent some Javelins to Ukraine, in the expectation that the Russian heavy armour will be leading the assault to create "Novarossiya". The security and foreign relations people think that Russia is making a last desparate throw, since Putin is failing on almost every measure, especially with COVID. The Russian death toll is over 350,000 and vaccine take up of the "Sputnik V" domestic vaccine, despite government propaganda, is well below the needed numbers. The emergence of LNG deals with Qatar and Trinidad is placing the whole question of Nordstream as a political weapon into doubt and poses a serious threat to an economy that has abjectly failed to diversify from extraction. It is Putin´s last throw of the dice and he is oblivious to the risk. A major incursion could bring Finland and Sweden into NATO and in any event there is a scramble to reinforce all of the eastern flank, in case of a Russian defeat that tempts Putin into a direct confrontation with NATO, which is assessed as "medium risk". The utter recklessness of the Moscovites is very scary, this is exactly how WWIII may start. If the Russian army gets bogged down, then the view here is that any aggressive act is possible. Meanwhile, even if Russian armour can take swathes of territory, entering cities like Khakiv or Poltava could lead to a bloodbath on both sides.
Most of my friends are grim faced and the government people are focusing on emergency planning. The rest of us are getting on with things as normally as we can, though I have been drawing up evacuation plans for some of our people in the event that the war spreads here, I myself will stay, in any event.
To be honest I´d far rather discuss Christopher Biggins, who as others have noted is a much underated talent.
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
On a very bleak note, here in Tallinn the general view is that a major Russian invasion of Ukraine is now inevitible. the majority of usable Russian forces are now deployed in offensive echelons around UA and there is no clear exit route. The army here is is on alert and the reserves can be called up at 24 hours notice (some already have been), the UK led Tapa battle group is also likely to be doubled in size in the course of the next few days. Meanwhile the Estonians have sent some Javelins to Ukraine, in the expectation that the Russian heavy armour will be leading the assault to create "Novarossiya". The security and foreign relations people think that Russia is making a last desparate throw, since Putin is failing on almost every measure, especially with COVID. The Russian death toll is over 350,000 and vaccine take up of the "Sputnik V" domestic vaccine, despite government propaganda, is well below the needed numbers. The emergence of LNG deals with Qatar and Trinidad is placing the whole question of Nordstream as a political weapon into doubt and poses a serious threat to an economy that has abjectly failed to diversify from extraction. It is Putin´s last throw of the dice and he is oblivious to the risk. A major incursion could bring Finland and Sweden into NATO and in any event there is a scramble to reinforce all of the eastern flank, in case of a Russian defeat that tempts Putin into a direct confrontation with NATO, which is assessed as "medium risk". The utter recklessness of the Moscovites is very scary, this is exactly how WWIII may start. If the Russian army gets bogged down, then the view here is that any aggressive act is possible. Meanwhile, even if Russian armour can take swathes of territory, entering cities like Khakiv or Poltava could lead to a bloodbath on both sides.
Most of my friends are grim faced and the government people are focusing on emergency planning. The rest of us are getting on with things as normally as we can, though I have been drawing up evacuation plans for some of our people in the event that the war spreads here, I myself will stay, in any event.
To be honest I´d far rather discuss Christopher Biggins, who as others have noted is a much underated talent.
Good luck Cicero and thanks for the (bleak) update.
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
Indeed. A little bit East of Berlin.
Maybe it was on here but there was a whole debate on here about that pic. Hitler couldn't ride a horse for a start and white armour would easily rust in the Middle Ages.
I.... er.. started that.
Hitler hated horses.
White plate (steel armour polished like that) would indeed rust in about 1 second. So either you kept a squadron of squires up all night polishing it. Or you enamelled it, or painted it. This was one of the reason that solitary knights got called Black Knights - a hard black enamel was the lowest maintenance finish for your armour.
Since the squires were (generally) apprentice knights learning the business, anyone who liked white plate got a reputation as a wanker of a boss.
On a very bleak note, here in Tallinn the general view is that a major Russian invasion of Ukraine is now inevitible. the majority of usable Russian forces are now deployed in offensive echelons around UA and there is no clear exit route. The army here is is on alert and the reserves can be called up at 24 hours notice (some already have been), the UK led Tapa battle group is also likely to be doubled in size in the course of the next few days. Meanwhile the Estonians have sent some Javelins to Ukraine, in the expectation that the Russian heavy armour will be leading the assault to create "Novarossiya". The security and foreign relations people think that Russia is making a last desparate throw, since Putin is failing on almost every measure, especially with COVID. The Russian death toll is over 350,000 and vaccine take up of the "Sputnik V" domestic vaccine, despite government propaganda, is well below the needed numbers. The emergence of LNG deals with Qatar and Trinidad is placing the whole question of Nordstream as a political weapon into doubt and poses a serious threat to an economy that has abjectly failed to diversify from extraction. It is Putin´s last throw of the dice and he is oblivious to the risk. A major incursion could bring Finland and Sweden into NATO and in any event there is a scramble to reinforce all of the eastern flank, in case of a Russian defeat that tempts Putin into a direct confrontation with NATO, which is assessed as "medium risk". The utter recklessness of the Moscovites is very scary, this is exactly how WWIII may start. If the Russian army gets bogged down, then the view here is that any aggressive act is possible. Meanwhile, even if Russian armour can take swathes of territory, entering cities like Khakiv or Poltava could lead to a bloodbath on both sides.
Most of my friends are grim faced and the government people are focusing on emergency planning. The rest of us are getting on with things as normally as we can, though I have been drawing up evacuation plans for some of our people in the event that the war spreads here, I myself will stay, in any event.
To be honest I´d far rather discuss Christopher Biggins, who as others have noted is a much underated talent.
Thanks for posting this. Accounts like this are why we keep PBing.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
Indeed. A little bit East of Berlin.
Maybe it was on here but there was a whole debate on here about that pic. Hitler couldn't ride a horse for a start and white armour would easily rust in the Middle Ages.
I.... er.. started that.
Hitler hated horses.
White plate (steel armour polished like that) would indeed rust in about 1 second. So either you kept a squadron of squires up all night polishing it. Or you enamelled it, or painted it. This was one of the reason that solitary knights got called Black Knights - a hard black enamel was the lowest maintenance finish for your armour.
Since the squires were (generally) apprentice knights learning the business, anyone who liked white plate got a reputation as a wanker of a boss.
Hold the front page. Cameral s definitely my sort of place next time I am in town!
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Russia has also bought various players in the Uk Conservative Party (and perhaps others for all we know).
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
If they won't come out for this sort of thing, then they never will
Much of the Republican Party have given up on democracy and are willing to countenance authoritarian measures in order to gain and or maintain power.
Sad times.
What do you think of the fact that Biden said the 2022 midterms' elections will probably be illegitimate?
Source?
Posted but here is his quote: ""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed," Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
And those around him quickly said "Er...did he say that?" and "Er...."
Sounds like you've got your own echo chamber going.
"Members of his own party quickly pushed back against the suggestion.
Maryland Senator Ben Cardin said new Republican state voting laws were "very troublesome", but he added of Mr Biden's remarks: "I don't know if I'd use those terms."
"We might have a little difference of opinion on that one," West Virginia's Joe Manchin told CNN....."
Fair enough, though hardly denouncing POTUS for trying to upend democracy.
Would agree that use of word "illegitimate" in this context is best avoided, even though I agree with what Biden was conveying.
Precisely because it can and will be used as a club to beat him up with . . . while ignoring / disregarding / diverting from why he said it . . .
Come on SeaShanty, you are better than that. You know how his words would have been interpreted. The fact that Democrats, and Joe Biden's Press Secretary, are rowing back so quickly on the comments tell you what people would take from what he said.
Call me a Trumpist by all means but I have condemned his actions and his words in the past when I think he went too far (and, as for Jan 6, I still take the view it was a riot fuelled by irresponsible behaviour rather than a purposelly planned coup), Biden's wording is dangerous - he is setting the grounds for mass protests if the Republicans win Congress in 2022.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
Modern technology integrated warfare.
The traditional Soviet deep battle plan had lots of technology in it - but was still about lots of conscripts and vast amounts of relatively crude weaponry. With a layer of hi-tech on top.
With the Gulf War in 1991, the Russian General Staff saw the way that the Americans achieved something that had eluded everyone else - completely mobile *armoured* (not just mechanised) columns striking across the map without regard to roads. Total integration of artillery and air power into the battle plan - to the point of the soldiers on the ground pointing a laser at something and saying "make that go away"... All this had existed before, but in nothing like the depth and breadth.
The Frunze Academy went into high gear about the need for a super integrated, super mobile, non-conscript force. They did analysis that suggested that if the Cold War had gone hot, that the Americans (and friends) would have hammered the Soviet Army....
Chechnya showed that the existing conscript army was good for generating casualties - the winning was done by the best trained troops with the best kit.
Putin finally found the money to get them some of this - which is why they love him.
Thanks for that - this is why I love this place, so much collective knowledge, an Encyclopaedia Politica Britannica if you will!
Are the German instructors considered to be special? There is always the difference between theory and theory with experience - as a certain German military instructor said “no plan survives first contact with the enemy” so are they a “gold standard” or just someone good who were prepared to do the deal rather than the really good people who wouldn’t think of training the Russians?
It's also a question of who would sell the technology and the training.
This is high end NATO stuff. The Americans won't sell it, the French wouldn't. The British wouldn't. I don't think the Italians or Spanish would really have the same clout and probably wouldn't either.
So the Germans pitched themselves as the highest end NATO country who would do so.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Er, that’s bollocks. Rather quietly, the Germans have become one of the biggest arms exporters on the planet, much bigger than the UK
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Russia has also bought various players in the Uk Conservative Party (and perhaps others for all we know).
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
Indeed. A little bit East of Berlin.
Maybe it was on here but there was a whole debate on here about that pic. Hitler couldn't ride a horse for a start and white armour would easily rust in the Middle Ages.
I.... er.. started that.
Hitler hated horses.
White plate (steel armour polished like that) would indeed rust in about 1 second. So either you kept a squadron of squires up all night polishing it. Or you enamelled it, or painted it. This was one of the reason that solitary knights got called Black Knights - a hard black enamel was the lowest maintenance finish for your armour.
Since the squires were (generally) apprentice knights learning the business, anyone who liked white plate got a reputation as a wanker of a boss.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Russia has also bought various players in the Uk Conservative Party (and perhaps others for all we know).
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Is that true? I have heard various defence types rave about the latest version of the Leopard and that they are much more exportable because they are easier to upgrade than the Abrams.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Is that true? I have heard various defence types rave about the latest version of the Leopard and that they are much more exportable because they are easier to upgrade than the Abrams.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Er, that’s bollocks. Rather quietly, the Germans have become one of the biggest arms exporters on the planet, much bigger than the UK
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Russia has also bought various players in the Uk Conservative Party (and perhaps others for all we know).
And yet the UK is sending arms to Ukraine anyway.
And has been leading the anti-Putin agenda, steadily, pretty much since Putin came to power. Across multiple governments and political changes in other things.
Man City are China, obvs. All the money, a relatively new superpower but with a long history Man U is the USA, still the richest, but oh dear, the management Russia is Chelsea. Nuff said Liverpool are Japan
The UK is Arsenal and France is Spurs
Italy is Aston Villa; Spain, Everton.
Newcastle are India
Germany is the tricky one. Maybe Germany are Spurs and France are Arsenal and the UK is, eek, Leeds
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
So formenting attempted Putch is same thing as Biden's speech? Interesting argument!
Anyway, you say nothing about my point, which is that actual fact, let alone advocacy, of overt voter suppression by Republican lawmakers, is likely to be counter-productive to their side?
Which is why Dems from Uncle Joe on down are focusing on this issue, even when they do NOT have the votes now to actually pass federal voting-rights legislation, even to safeguard election from post-facto congressional nullification?
Note that in 1948, Harry Truman won a famous victory, in large measure for flaying the "do-nothing Congress" to mobilize Democratic base and persuade swing voters.
The "voter suppression" which means that Georgia has more before days voting than Democrat states such as New York and Delawere? Or, lo and behold, asks for some form of ID as if Black people don't own ID? Or do you mean the terrible but oh so terrible dastardly Republican plans to stop voters being given food and drink near the polling station (and, oh by the way, do you mind if we just look at your ballot paper to see which way you are voting).
It's a lazy sort of argument, which doesn't look at what the laws propose. Not only that, it's completely hypocritical when you have places like California that actively promotes ballot harvesting where (mainly) Democrat-aligned groups go round to people's doorsteps and collect their votes. Any chance the Republican votes might get lost in the post? If course not!
Again, you are sidestepping the question. Both Trump and now Biden are claiming that the election process is flawed. Ok, that is politics. But it is the sheer stunning hypocrisy of the Democrats that is the most astounding - a year ago, anyone questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election was a threat to democracy, now it's absolutely fine to raise questions over their legitimacy as long as you are a Democrat.
Interesting argument as you say.
Don't by that - or rather your - argument here.
But you do point out why it's important to disciple rhetoric. Though of course actions still speak louder.
And of course Trump made and continues to makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that ANY election he personally loses is ipso facto illegitimate. Thus justifying ANY and ALL actions, up to and including upholding the Constitution he swore to protect and preserve.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Er, that’s bollocks. Rather quietly, the Germans have become one of the biggest arms exporters on the planet, much bigger than the UK
I mean name one German arms supplier with more than $1bn in revenue. I can think of one. And they only barely clear the hurdle.
And what are they exporting?
The French make missiles, submarines, radar, ships, planes, etc.
What are the Germans exporting?
Dunno. But they’re doing a lot of it
‘German arms exports hit new record during Merkel's last days The former government approved almost €5 billion in warships and missile defense deals as it prepared to leave office. New Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who was then finance minister, has also received criticism.’
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
Cf the proposed expansion of the SCOTUS for partisan Dem advantage
Yes, but because it's the Democrats that are saying it, it's ok. If Trump had proposed the same thing when faced with the opposing situation, all on here would have been proclaiming the end of American democracy. Nothing like a bit of hypocrisy.....
Take your partisan blinkers off!
Obama was unable to install Garland on SCOTUS on the claim that it was the final year of his Presidency. Trump had no such fears with Coney Barrett.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
Modern technology integrated warfare.
The traditional Soviet deep battle plan had lots of technology in it - but was still about lots of conscripts and vast amounts of relatively crude weaponry. With a layer of hi-tech on top.
With the Gulf War in 1991, the Russian General Staff saw the way that the Americans achieved something that had eluded everyone else - completely mobile *armoured* (not just mechanised) columns striking across the map without regard to roads. Total integration of artillery and air power into the battle plan - to the point of the soldiers on the ground pointing a laser at something and saying "make that go away"... All this had existed before, but in nothing like the depth and breadth.
The Frunze Academy went into high gear about the need for a super integrated, super mobile, non-conscript force. They did analysis that suggested that if the Cold War had gone hot, that the Americans (and friends) would have hammered the Soviet Army....
Chechnya showed that the existing conscript army was good for generating casualties - the winning was done by the best trained troops with the best kit.
Putin finally found the money to get them some of this - which is why they love him.
Thanks for that - this is why I love this place, so much collective knowledge, an Encyclopaedia Politica Britannica if you will!
Are the German instructors considered to be special? There is always the difference between theory and theory with experience - as a certain German military instructor said “no plan survives first contact with the enemy” so are they a “gold standard” or just someone good who were prepared to do the deal rather than the really good people who wouldn’t think of training the Russians?
It's also a question of who would sell the technology and the training.
This is high end NATO stuff. The Americans won't sell it, the French wouldn't. The British wouldn't. I don't think the Italians or Spanish would really have the same clout and probably wouldn't either.
So the Germans pitched themselves as the highest end NATO country who would do so.
EDIT: one of the thing the gents at the Frunze Academy noted was the general training level in the American Army. Quite a few soldiers had only fired expensive, heavy weapons in simulators - but the quality of those simulators was such that they turned out to be experts in real life.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
It’s really just a confirmation of the Germans being slippery M-Fs. It makes me laugh how they are held up and worshipped by Guardianistas and we should be more like them but frankly they are shitbags who have benefitted from the protective umbrella of NATO after the shitshow they caused without having to pay for it and now just care about their own national interests and their businesses - we can’t possibly cut Russia out of SWIFT because German business etc……
Hopefully their military training is as good as their comedy and music.
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
If they won't come out for this sort of thing, then they never will
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
You are itching to get your Futhorcs out arn’t you?
Man City are China, obvs. All the money, a relatively new superpower but with a long history Man U is the USA, still the richest, but oh dear, the management Russia is Chelsea. Nuff said Liverpool are Japan
The UK is Arsenal and France is Spurs
Italy is Aston Villa; Spain, Everton.
Newcastle are India
Germany is the tricky one. Maybe Germany are Spurs and France are Arsenal and the UK is, eek, Leeds
What are you drinking now then?
I have followed my Pink Rabbits with red wine.
McGuigan Shiraz
It’s the only quaffable red plonk that isn’t £30+ a bottle
To my horror, I have discovered that decent wine in Sri Lanka costs even more than in Thailand
Still having a blissful time tho. I have discovered the best restaurant in Colombo is 2 minutes by Tuk-Tuk from my hotel and a brilliant lunch costs £12
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Russia has also bought various players in the Uk Conservative Party (and perhaps others for all we know).
And yet the UK is sending arms to Ukraine anyway.
And has been leading the anti-Putin agenda, steadily, pretty much since Putin came to power. Across multiple governments and political changes in other things.
While turning a blind eye to “Moscow-on-Thames”. Presumably as it’s a nice little money-maker.
Man City are China, obvs. All the money, a relatively new superpower but with a long history Man U is the USA, still the richest, but oh dear, the management Russia is Chelsea. Nuff said Liverpool are Japan
The UK is Arsenal and France is Spurs
Italy is Aston Villa; Spain, Everton.
Newcastle are India
Germany is the tricky one. Maybe Germany are Spurs and France are Arsenal and the UK is, eek, Leeds
What are you drinking now then?
I have followed my Pink Rabbits with red wine.
McGuigan Shiraz
It’s the only quaffable red plonk that isn’t £30+ a bottle
To my horror, I have discovered that decent wine in Sri Lanka costs even more than in Thailand
Still having a blissful time tho. I have discovered the best restaurant in Colombo is 2 minutes by Tuk-Tuk from my hotel and a brilliant lunch costs £12
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
Cf the proposed expansion of the SCOTUS for partisan Dem advantage
Yes, but because it's the Democrats that are saying it, it's ok. If Trump had proposed the same thing when faced with the opposing situation, all on here would have been proclaiming the end of American democracy. Nothing like a bit of hypocrisy.....
Take your partisan blinkers off!
Obama was unable to install Garland on SCOTUS on the claim that it was the final year of his Presidency. Trump had no such fears with Coney Barrett.
Blinkers are off - which is why I will criticise Trump and the Republicans when they do wrong. Some on here seem to think though that any behaviour is acceptable as long as it's a Democrat....
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
Nazis wore most fashionable uniforms of WW2, by a long short. With SS pioneering dressed-in-black look.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Er, that’s bollocks. Rather quietly, the Germans have become one of the biggest arms exporters on the planet, much bigger than the UK
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
So formenting attempted Putch is same thing as Biden's speech? Interesting argument!
Anyway, you say nothing about my point, which is that actual fact, let alone advocacy, of overt voter suppression by Republican lawmakers, is likely to be counter-productive to their side?
Which is why Dems from Uncle Joe on down are focusing on this issue, even when they do NOT have the votes now to actually pass federal voting-rights legislation, even to safeguard election from post-facto congressional nullification?
Note that in 1948, Harry Truman won a famous victory, in large measure for flaying the "do-nothing Congress" to mobilize Democratic base and persuade swing voters.
The "voter suppression" which means that Georgia has more before days voting than Democrat states such as New York and Delawere? Or, lo and behold, asks for some form of ID as if Black people don't own ID? Or do you mean the terrible but oh so terrible dastardly Republican plans to stop voters being given food and drink near the polling station (and, oh by the way, do you mind if we just look at your ballot paper to see which way you are voting).
It's a lazy sort of argument, which doesn't look at what the laws propose. Not only that, it's completely hypocritical when you have places like California that actively promotes ballot harvesting where (mainly) Democrat-aligned groups go round to people's doorsteps and collect their votes. Any chance the Republican votes might get lost in the post? If course not!
Again, you are sidestepping the question. Both Trump and now Biden are claiming that the election process is flawed. Ok, that is politics. But it is the sheer stunning hypocrisy of the Democrats that is the most astounding - a year ago, anyone questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election was a threat to democracy, now it's absolutely fine to raise questions over their legitimacy as long as you are a Democrat.
Interesting argument as you say.
Don't by that - or rather your - argument here.
But you do point out why it's important to disciple rhetoric. Though of course actions still speak louder.
And of course Trump made and continues to makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that ANY election he personally loses is ipso facto illegitimate. Thus justifying ANY and ALL actions, up to and including upholding the Constitution he swore to protect and preserve.
No argument is gonna whitewash that simple fact.
I think I have said plenty of times Trump's behaviour is wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right. The Democrats are going dangerously down the road of destroying democracy to protect democracy by claiming that the Constitution needs to be changed, extra Justices elected, election laws federalised etc because of the Republican "threat".
But, to be clear, do you think what Biden said was wrong?
PS this pretty much sums up my view of both sides' behaviour:
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
Cf the proposed expansion of the SCOTUS for partisan Dem advantage
Yes, but because it's the Democrats that are saying it, it's ok. If Trump had proposed the same thing when faced with the opposing situation, all on here would have been proclaiming the end of American democracy. Nothing like a bit of hypocrisy.....
Take your partisan blinkers off!
Obama was unable to install Garland on SCOTUS on the claim that it was the final year of his Presidency. Trump had no such fears with Coney Barrett.
Blinkers are off - which is why I will criticise Trump and the Republicans when they do wrong. Some on here seem to think though that any behaviour is acceptable as long as it's a Democrat....
Certainly does NOT include me.
Though I still fail to understand your calculus re: voting & elections in US, because I think there's a bug in your calculator, if not a bee in your bonnet.
'An increasing number of MPs now believe that even if Mr Johnson can survive the publication of the Gray report this week, the ripples these scandals have sent out will eventually put the PM under.'
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
So formenting attempted Putch is same thing as Biden's speech? Interesting argument!
Anyway, you say nothing about my point, which is that actual fact, let alone advocacy, of overt voter suppression by Republican lawmakers, is likely to be counter-productive to their side?
Which is why Dems from Uncle Joe on down are focusing on this issue, even when they do NOT have the votes now to actually pass federal voting-rights legislation, even to safeguard election from post-facto congressional nullification?
Note that in 1948, Harry Truman won a famous victory, in large measure for flaying the "do-nothing Congress" to mobilize Democratic base and persuade swing voters.
I also do not read the Biden quote the same way as Mr Ed. To me, it says that, if we do not get our reforms through, the prospect of malfeasance increases. That is not the same as saying the elections WILL be illegitimate
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
Nazis wore most fashionable uniforms of WW2, by a long short. With SS pioneering dressed-in-black look.
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
Cf the proposed expansion of the SCOTUS for partisan Dem advantage
Yes, but because it's the Democrats that are saying it, it's ok. If Trump had proposed the same thing when faced with the opposing situation, all on here would have been proclaiming the end of American democracy. Nothing like a bit of hypocrisy.....
Take your partisan blinkers off!
Obama was unable to install Garland on SCOTUS on the claim that it was the final year of his Presidency. Trump had no such fears with Coney Barrett.
Blinkers are off - which is why I will criticise Trump and the Republicans when they do wrong. Some on here seem to think though that any behaviour is acceptable as long as it's a Democrat....
You surprise me.
What is your take on 6th January 2020? I can't recall much criticism, but I may be wrong.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Er, that’s bollocks. Rather quietly, the Germans have become one of the biggest arms exporters on the planet, much bigger than the UK
I mean name one German arms supplier with more than $1bn in revenue. I can think of one. And they only barely clear the hurdle.
And what are they exporting?
The French make missiles, submarines, radar, ships, planes, etc.
What are the Germans exporting?
Dunno. But they’re doing a lot of it
‘German arms exports hit new record during Merkel's last days The former government approved almost €5 billion in warships and missile defense deals as it prepared to leave office. New Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who was then finance minister, has also received criticism.’
Those numbers are still well below UK numbers. Wikipedia says GBP11bn of arms exports in 2019, and the total to Saudi Arabia alone in the last few years is GBP4.7bn. Don't forget that BAE Systems does GBP20bn of revenues a year on its own. Cobham does GBP2bn. Rolls Royce (on the military side) does $4bn. Qinetiq is over a billion too.
'An increasing number of MPs now believe that even if Mr Johnson can survive the publication of the Gray report this week, the ripples these scandals have sent out will eventually put the PM under.'
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Er, that’s bollocks. Rather quietly, the Germans have become one of the biggest arms exporters on the planet, much bigger than the UK
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
So formenting attempted Putch is same thing as Biden's speech? Interesting argument!
Anyway, you say nothing about my point, which is that actual fact, let alone advocacy, of overt voter suppression by Republican lawmakers, is likely to be counter-productive to their side?
Which is why Dems from Uncle Joe on down are focusing on this issue, even when they do NOT have the votes now to actually pass federal voting-rights legislation, even to safeguard election from post-facto congressional nullification?
Note that in 1948, Harry Truman won a famous victory, in large measure for flaying the "do-nothing Congress" to mobilize Democratic base and persuade swing voters.
The "voter suppression" which means that Georgia has more before days voting than Democrat states such as New York and Delawere? Or, lo and behold, asks for some form of ID as if Black people don't own ID? Or do you mean the terrible but oh so terrible dastardly Republican plans to stop voters being given food and drink near the polling station (and, oh by the way, do you mind if we just look at your ballot paper to see which way you are voting).
It's a lazy sort of argument, which doesn't look at what the laws propose. Not only that, it's completely hypocritical when you have places like California that actively promotes ballot harvesting where (mainly) Democrat-aligned groups go round to people's doorsteps and collect their votes. Any chance the Republican votes might get lost in the post? If course not!
Again, you are sidestepping the question. Both Trump and now Biden are claiming that the election process is flawed. Ok, that is politics. But it is the sheer stunning hypocrisy of the Democrats that is the most astounding - a year ago, anyone questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election was a threat to democracy, now it's absolutely fine to raise questions over their legitimacy as long as you are a Democrat.
Interesting argument as you say.
Don't by that - or rather your - argument here.
But you do point out why it's important to disciple rhetoric. Though of course actions still speak louder.
And of course Trump made and continues to makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that ANY election he personally loses is ipso facto illegitimate. Thus justifying ANY and ALL actions, up to and including upholding the Constitution he swore to protect and preserve.
No argument is gonna whitewash that simple fact.
I think I have said plenty of times Trump's behaviour is wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right. The Democrats are going dangerously down the road of destroying democracy to protect democracy by claiming that the Constitution needs to be changed, extra Justices elected, election laws federalised etc because of the Republican "threat".
But, to be clear, do you think what Biden said was wrong?
PS this pretty much sums up my view of both sides' behaviour:
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
It’s a pedantic point, but you mean invading France, through Belgium?
When the Germans decided to go for it, speed and surprise was of the essence to them dealing with Western Front quickly. So where the British cabinet were arguing wether entente cordial meant we really had to join the German France war, by going through Belgium it invoked a Waterloo Treaty meaning we fight anyone not respecting Belgium neutrality? 🙂
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
Cf the proposed expansion of the SCOTUS for partisan Dem advantage
Yes, but because it's the Democrats that are saying it, it's ok. If Trump had proposed the same thing when faced with the opposing situation, all on here would have been proclaiming the end of American democracy. Nothing like a bit of hypocrisy.....
Take your partisan blinkers off!
Obama was unable to install Garland on SCOTUS on the claim that it was the final year of his Presidency. Trump had no such fears with Coney Barrett.
Blinkers are off - which is why I will criticise Trump and the Republicans when they do wrong. Some on here seem to think though that any behaviour is acceptable as long as it's a Democrat....
When have you ever criticised Trump or the Republicans?
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Er, that’s bollocks. Rather quietly, the Germans have become one of the biggest arms exporters on the planet, much bigger than the UK
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Is that true? I have heard various defence types rave about the latest version of the Leopard and that they are much more exportable because they are easier to upgrade than the Abrams.
The Leopard 2 is made by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann. They wouldn't even be in the top five UK arms makers by size - they are absolutely tiny - making little more than EUR1bn a year in revenues.
If you read the Wikipedia page on the Leopard 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2 - you will see basically one export order (from Hungary for 44 tanks) in the last decade.
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
So formenting attempted Putch is same thing as Biden's speech? Interesting argument!
Anyway, you say nothing about my point, which is that actual fact, let alone advocacy, of overt voter suppression by Republican lawmakers, is likely to be counter-productive to their side?
Which is why Dems from Uncle Joe on down are focusing on this issue, even when they do NOT have the votes now to actually pass federal voting-rights legislation, even to safeguard election from post-facto congressional nullification?
Note that in 1948, Harry Truman won a famous victory, in large measure for flaying the "do-nothing Congress" to mobilize Democratic base and persuade swing voters.
The "voter suppression" which means that Georgia has more before days voting than Democrat states such as New York and Delawere? Or, lo and behold, asks for some form of ID as if Black people don't own ID? Or do you mean the terrible but oh so terrible dastardly Republican plans to stop voters being given food and drink near the polling station (and, oh by the way, do you mind if we just look at your ballot paper to see which way you are voting).
It's a lazy sort of argument, which doesn't look at what the laws propose. Not only that, it's completely hypocritical when you have places like California that actively promotes ballot harvesting where (mainly) Democrat-aligned groups go round to people's doorsteps and collect their votes. Any chance the Republican votes might get lost in the post? If course not!
Again, you are sidestepping the question. Both Trump and now Biden are claiming that the election process is flawed. Ok, that is politics. But it is the sheer stunning hypocrisy of the Democrats that is the most astounding - a year ago, anyone questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election was a threat to democracy, now it's absolutely fine to raise questions over their legitimacy as long as you are a Democrat.
Interesting argument as you say.
Don't by that - or rather your - argument here.
But you do point out why it's important to disciple rhetoric. Though of course actions still speak louder.
And of course Trump made and continues to makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that ANY election he personally loses is ipso facto illegitimate. Thus justifying ANY and ALL actions, up to and including upholding the Constitution he swore to protect and preserve.
No argument is gonna whitewash that simple fact.
I think I have said plenty of times Trump's behaviour is wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right. The Democrats are going dangerously down the road of destroying democracy to protect democracy by claiming that the Constitution needs to be changed, extra Justices elected, election laws federalised etc because of the Republican "threat".
But, to be clear, do you think what Biden said was wrong?
PS this pretty much sums up my view of both sides' behaviour:
Personally do NOT support expansion of Supreme Court, though it is certain constitutional to do so, even without amendment.
Personally think argument that Dems are risking "destroying democracy to protect democracy" is BS.
Personally support amending Constitution to prevent post-facto legislative overturning of popular vote cast for presidential electors.
Personally think use of quotation marks re: Republican threat to election process is bit much after what transpired in January 2021, both within and immediately without the US Capitol.
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Er, that’s bollocks. Rather quietly, the Germans have become one of the biggest arms exporters on the planet, much bigger than the UK
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
Cf the proposed expansion of the SCOTUS for partisan Dem advantage
Yes, but because it's the Democrats that are saying it, it's ok. If Trump had proposed the same thing when faced with the opposing situation, all on here would have been proclaiming the end of American democracy. Nothing like a bit of hypocrisy.....
Take your partisan blinkers off!
Obama was unable to install Garland on SCOTUS on the claim that it was the final year of his Presidency. Trump had no such fears with Coney Barrett.
Blinkers are off - which is why I will criticise Trump and the Republicans when they do wrong. Some on here seem to think though that any behaviour is acceptable as long as it's a Democrat....
When have you ever criticised Trump or the Republicans?
MrEd felt that Trump should have conceded the election.
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
It’s a pedantic point, but you mean invading France, through Belgium?
When the Germans decided to go for it, speed and surprise was of the essence to them dealing with Western Front quickly. So where the British cabinet were arguing wether entente cordial meant we really had to join the German France war, by going through Belgium it invoked a Waterloo Treaty meaning we fight anyone not respecting Belgium neutrality? 🙂
They invaded Belgium to avoid the French defences....
The German excuse for Belgium was - if we hadn't violated Belgian sovereignty, someone one would.
Except that the French, both government and military were united in not even breathing hard on Belgian independence. This was because Belgium secured their left flank( they thought) for free. Plus the biggest thing they took from 1870 (apart from not starting the war) was maximising their allies. Invading Belgium would have put France in the wrong and they knew it.
The French plan was to take a German assault, on the Franco-German border, smash it and follow the retreating German army across the border, if possible....
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
Nazis wore most fashionable uniforms of WW2, by a long short. With SS pioneering dressed-in-black look.
Rule 7 of the Really Important Rules
7. Best dressed army loses.
Winners:
Though note that nattier uniforms of US Army, compared to British, helped (along with higher pay) t make GIs definitely winners on the UK home front!
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Er, that’s bollocks. Rather quietly, the Germans have become one of the biggest arms exporters on the planet, much bigger than the UK
"This month, Gantz announced a separate agreement to buy three further submarines from Thyssenkrupp in a 10 billion shekel (over three $3bn) deal."
Yes: I hadn't appreciated the extent to which the Germans export warships and submarines.
Yes, you’re just wrong on this one.
Happens to us all. PB is a constant education!
And on that positive note, ignoring impending world war, good night all from sultry Ceylon
Your chart - by the way - was also completely wrong. On no sensible numbers is Germany a bigger defence exporter than the UK.
‘Seven countries in Europe have made it into the top 10 list of the world's biggest exporters of major arms, while international arms transfers on a whole have continued to increase.
Russia, France and Germany are included in the top 5, which make up three-quarters of all the world's major arms exports.
The data was released on Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which was used to compare previous data sets with the period between 2014-18.’
Perception of the U.K. changing amongst Congressional staffers:
@apmassaro3 You gotta wonder if part of the excellence of the British response to Putin is driven by the need to demonstrate that Brexit has not slowed them down on foreign policy and possibly even get a leg up on the EU. If that is the case, this is a positive side effect of Brexit
Questioning is NOT same thing as declaring. Not hardly.
Republican zeal in pushing voter suppression, in order to propitiate & egg-on their base, is giving Democrats the means for energizing & mobilizing OUR base. And also, albeit lesser extent,k persuading swing voters to swing our direction next fall.
Personally think the backlash will be more potent that the lash, so to speak. Which is NOT the same as saying Democrats are gonna win overall, just that it will help us re: turnout.
He is hardly questioning though, he is stating his view as fact - he is saying that, if his reforms don't get passed, then the elections will be illegitimate. His exact words were:
""The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,"
Since he won't get his reforms passed, he has effectively said the mid-terms are illegitimate.
Nice try on the wording but we are seeing what has been clear for a while - namely the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to trying to keep hold of power, it is just the tactics are different.
So formenting attempted Putch is same thing as Biden's speech? Interesting argument!
Anyway, you say nothing about my point, which is that actual fact, let alone advocacy, of overt voter suppression by Republican lawmakers, is likely to be counter-productive to their side?
Which is why Dems from Uncle Joe on down are focusing on this issue, even when they do NOT have the votes now to actually pass federal voting-rights legislation, even to safeguard election from post-facto congressional nullification?
Note that in 1948, Harry Truman won a famous victory, in large measure for flaying the "do-nothing Congress" to mobilize Democratic base and persuade swing voters.
The "voter suppression" which means that Georgia has more before days voting than Democrat states such as New York and Delawere? Or, lo and behold, asks for some form of ID as if Black people don't own ID? Or do you mean the terrible but oh so terrible dastardly Republican plans to stop voters being given food and drink near the polling station (and, oh by the way, do you mind if we just look at your ballot paper to see which way you are voting).
It's a lazy sort of argument, which doesn't look at what the laws propose. Not only that, it's completely hypocritical when you have places like California that actively promotes ballot harvesting where (mainly) Democrat-aligned groups go round to people's doorsteps and collect their votes. Any chance the Republican votes might get lost in the post? If course not!
Again, you are sidestepping the question. Both Trump and now Biden are claiming that the election process is flawed. Ok, that is politics. But it is the sheer stunning hypocrisy of the Democrats that is the most astounding - a year ago, anyone questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election was a threat to democracy, now it's absolutely fine to raise questions over their legitimacy as long as you are a Democrat.
Interesting argument as you say.
Don't by that - or rather your - argument here.
But you do point out why it's important to disciple rhetoric. Though of course actions still speak louder.
And of course Trump made and continues to makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that ANY election he personally loses is ipso facto illegitimate. Thus justifying ANY and ALL actions, up to and including upholding the Constitution he swore to protect and preserve.
No argument is gonna whitewash that simple fact.
I think I have said plenty of times Trump's behaviour is wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right. The Democrats are going dangerously down the road of destroying democracy to protect democracy by claiming that the Constitution needs to be changed, extra Justices elected, election laws federalised etc because of the Republican "threat".
But, to be clear, do you think what Biden said was wrong?
PS this pretty much sums up my view of both sides' behaviour:
Personally do NOT support expansion of Supreme Court, though it is certain constitutional to do so, even without amendment.
Personally think argument that Dems are risking "destroying democracy to protect democracy" is BS.
Personally support amending Constitution to prevent post-facto legislative overturning of popular vote cast for presidential electors.
Personally think use of quotation marks re: Republican threat to election process is bit much after what transpired in January 2021, both within and immediately without the US Capitol.
As someone who would, but for Trump and subsequent GOP transformation, be a natural centre right supporter of the GOP, I would say that the biggest constitutional threat the Dems pose is through trying to go too big on Biden's domestic agenda to the extent that they open the door to the true threat to American democracy, a big mid-term victory for a Trump-obsequious GOP, opening the door to the return for an emboldened and educated Trump.
To this extent, I think Manchin and Sinema, while now reviled by much of the Dem party, have done the country a huge favour.
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
Nazis wore most fashionable uniforms of WW2, by a long short. With SS pioneering dressed-in-black look.
Rule 7 of the Really Important Rules
7. Best dressed army loses.
Winners:
Though note that nattier uniforms of US Army, compared to British, helped (along with higher pay) t make GIs definitely winners on the UK home front!
Minus ten points though because the white v black GI’s used to have gun fights and shoot outs over here.
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
American Twitter is full of reps and dems trying to outdo each other in ‘no American must die for Kiev’ rhetoric. Putin has a free hand
Ukraine has over 200,000 troops and over 1 million reserves and they know their country better than the Russians, a big help, especially in winter.
They can put up a strong defence. We should just continue to send them supplies only, not troops, troops should be reserved to protect Nato nations only
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
It’s a pedantic point, but you mean invading France, through Belgium?
When the Germans decided to go for it, speed and surprise was of the essence to them dealing with Western Front quickly. So where the British cabinet were arguing wether entente cordial meant we really had to join the German France war, by going through Belgium it invoked a Waterloo Treaty meaning we fight anyone not respecting Belgium neutrality? 🙂
They invaded Belgium to avoid the French defences....
The German excuse for Belgium was - if we hadn't violated Belgian sovereignty, someone one would.
Except that the French, both government and military were united in not even breathing hard on Belgian independence. This was because Belgium secured their left flank( they thought) for free. Plus the biggest thing they took from 1870 (apart from not starting the war) was maximising their allies. Invading Belgium would have put France in the wrong and they knew it.
The French plan was to take a German assault, on the Franco-German border, smash it and follow the retreating German army across the border, if possible....
“ if we hadn't violated Belgian sovereignty, someone one would. “.
The Boris Johnson Government learnt from these guys! 🙂
I have just taken a pain killer and off to bed. A good night sleep and I will be out of this funk. But with the coming week, I will leave you with this thought…
What makes Nato braindead? There's hardly anything new about military alliances throughout history. Rest assured if we don't wish to form such alliances some of our 'rivals' will. Does the alliance need to be re-thought? Probably. It's in its eighth decade after all. The main issue is that the US is doing the heavy lifting of European security. There is no sensible reason why this should be. The other problem is the 'attack on one is an attack on all' of article 5. Obviously Greece and Turkey aren't the best of friends and are we saying we would immediately jump to support Mr Erdogan in any military adventure he might wish to embark upon? So it could be reinvented in a looser format but I'm wary of those who simply wish to dismantle it.
Europe could take complete responsibility for its security with its own common defence partnership instead. I would hope that common interests in liberty, democracy, the rule of law and self determination would see a natural alliance form with North America that would look something like... Nato.
But maybe that is not what Macron wants? Perhaps he sees a world of competing power blocks like the US, China, India, Russia and Europe is simply another actor in such a world. Alliances are for nothing more than leveraging one's interests or playing other superpowers off against each other. Getting the English speakers out of European security, marginalising the views of East Europeans and restoring the 'brain' as it were of European security around a Franco-German axis. Perhaps such an alliance would be less concerned about Russian incursions in Ukraine or Belarus, they might even be prepared to appease Russia in the Baltics rather than defend 'interests' that are more costly than they are worth. It's an alternative view of European security. But not the only plausible one and give the current divisions in attitude to Ukraine it isn't clear that the new 'central powers' in Paris and Berlin would prevail.
I reckon that’s exactly what Macron is aiming for. A reduced Core Federal Europe with a totally coherent political identity and centralised foreign and defence policy. Theoretically the centre would be Brussels but in reality it would be Paris in charge of guns and diplomats but with Berlin doing the economic stuff, of necessity. And it would be French speaking.
It is also well-nigh impossible to achieve, even Berlin and Paris disagree on too much. But that is Macron’s aim. A mainland core EU run by the French and acting as a sort-of equal to the Anglo-Saxons and the Chinese, with the Russians floating about weirdly and the Indians on the rise
You can’t fault his ambition. And even if he fails, he will probably win more power for Paris and France
And which, by the way, isn't that far away from Ms Le Pen's vision for the EU.
The problem with that vision is that the Germans, while trying not to get into Big Power politics, in fact have done so. Quite a bit.
1) Russia invades Ukraine. 2) Germany goes forward with a contract to equip and train the Russian Army. 3) Russia threatens Ukraine again. 4) Germany says that areas sales to Ukraine are impossible.
Now, the Germans will say, it's not like that, governments have changed etc etc. But the fact remains that they have made military choices. And military interventions.
I don’t quite understand something about this German training of the Russian army and maybe one of the PB Brains Trust Military Division can explain:
Why would the Russians choose Germans to train them?
I get that there have been certain periods of history where the German military were quite useful, some of us might have heard about it but, with all due respect to the German military and no respect to my lack of knowledge, what in the name of god do the current German military know about modern warfare?
If it’s their previous genius that’s being tapped then surely cheaper to buy books or watch the history channel. Otherwise what is it they are advising? They have very little experience of war in the last 70 odd years, their afghan adventures were reportedly 9-5 five days a week.
What have the Russians gained from German training that they wouldn’t have got more benefit from if they had paid many other nations who’ve actually been at war recently?
Do the Germans have some incredibly organised war system that works today “war-sprung durch technic” perhaps?
Maybe I’m being ignorant or chauvinistic but I can’t see what the hell the German military could teach the Russians that they already didn’t know first hand from Chechnya for example.
Thanks in advance for enlightenment.
The German army is pretty rubbish - one of things that rightly incensed Trump was the discovery that the Germans had only nine working Leopord 2 tanks for a NATO exercise (which required five times that number)... and one would hope that the Germans would have plenty of tanks in reserve.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues: Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
Er, that’s bollocks. Rather quietly, the Germans have become one of the biggest arms exporters on the planet, much bigger than the UK
"This month, Gantz announced a separate agreement to buy three further submarines from Thyssenkrupp in a 10 billion shekel (over three $3bn) deal."
Yes: I hadn't appreciated the extent to which the Germans export warships and submarines.
Yes, you’re just wrong on this one.
Happens to us all. PB is a constant education!
And on that positive note, ignoring impending world war, good night all from sultry Ceylon
Your chart - by the way - was also completely wrong. On no sensible numbers is Germany a bigger defence exporter than the UK.
‘Seven countries in Europe have made it into the top 10 list of the world's biggest exporters of major arms, while international arms transfers on a whole have continued to increase.
Russia, France and Germany are included in the top 5, which make up three-quarters of all the world's major arms exports.
The data was released on Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which was used to compare previous data sets with the period between 2014-18.’
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
Nazis wore most fashionable uniforms of WW2, by a long short. With SS pioneering dressed-in-black look.
Rule 7 of the Really Important Rules
7. Best dressed army loses.
Winners:
Though note that nattier uniforms of US Army, compared to British, helped (along with higher pay) t make GIs definitely winners on the UK home front!
Airforce uniforms were the coolest:
1. Luftwaffe 2. USAAF 3. RAF
U-Boot uniforms also not bad but could get quite stinky I imagine.
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
Nazis wore most fashionable uniforms of WW2, by a long short. With SS pioneering dressed-in-black look.
Rule 7 of the Really Important Rules
7. Best dressed army loses.
Winners:
Though note that nattier uniforms of US Army, compared to British, helped (along with higher pay) t make GIs definitely winners on the UK home front!
Airforce uniforms were the coolest:
1. Luftwaffe 2. USAAF 3. RAF
U-Boot uniforms also not bad but could get quite stinky I imagine.
Quite a lot of U-Boat crews were dressed in slightly re-worked UK battle dress from Dunkirk!
@tonylgardner As bad as Brexit has been, I fully admit that a significant upside is that the UK can act swiftly in foreign Affairs including Ukraine rather than being dragged into endless EU waffle. No doubt this has been Noticed in Washington.
Comments
Maryland Senator Ben Cardin said new Republican state voting laws were "very troublesome", but he added of Mr Biden's remarks: "I don't know if I'd use those terms."
"We might have a little difference of opinion on that one," West Virginia's Joe Manchin told CNN....."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60063594
I paraphrased. So sue me....
But, as I also said hours ago, he’s a canny operator. He’s playing the tricky hand of a prestigious but definitely 2nd division power rather well. Getting wins alongside inevitable defeats
I’d vote to give him a 2nd term if I were French. Certainly so, given the alternatives
As Blair pointed out in his speech, Brexit has led to a profound period of national navel-gazing, as our influence has deteriorated.
Personally I don't think that is legitimate.
While we are on the subject, I want week long voting in General Elections rather than postal votes. Bring back Georgian style campaigns... I'll bring a barrel of gin....
Most of my friends are grim faced and the government people are focusing on emergency planning. The rest of us are getting on with things as normally as we can, though I have been drawing up evacuation plans for some of our people in the event that the war spreads here, I myself will stay, in any event.
To be honest I´d far rather discuss Christopher Biggins, who as others have noted is a much underated talent.
Though in US elections, Libertarian vote generally comes out of the hide of the GOP. And 2020 was not an exception.
Indeed, that year, as in 2016, the "other" vote for POTUS most places was highest in % terms on Republican turf.
As others have pointed out, France have played a significant role in the Med, the Levant, and even the Pacific in recent years.
I agree I think with your broad conclusions (both about Macron, and the limits of French policy success) but do not underestimate what has been achieved.
It's a lazy sort of argument, which doesn't look at what the laws propose. Not only that, it's completely hypocritical when you have places like California that actively promotes ballot harvesting where (mainly) Democrat-aligned groups go round to people's doorsteps and collect their votes. Any chance the Republican votes might get lost in the post? If course not!
Again, you are sidestepping the question. Both Trump and now Biden are claiming that the election process is flawed. Ok, that is politics. But it is the sheer stunning hypocrisy of the Democrats that is the most astounding - a year ago, anyone questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election was a threat to democracy, now it's absolutely fine to raise questions over their legitimacy as long as you are a Democrat.
Interesting argument as you say.
The Labour Party got reams and reams how to attack if Conservative Party drags its heels, because they simply repeat everything the Conservatives threw at Labour about anti-semitism. You see what I mean how excruciating it might get, not specifically on Boris alone but the whole Conservative Party, if action isn’t taken swiftly?
What do we make of the “I wasn’t sure who I was talking to was actually in government or not” comment, from Ghani? You would know your whip and head whip wouldn’t you? Did Comments came from a top Spad, possibly Cummings?
Jav has called Ghani a friend, but he has still reiterated the “you want it looked into, complete the required form” line. Ambushing Boris in leadership debate Jav got a promise of Islamophobia report from the incoming leader, but has been quiet about alleged problem since. So how much of this did his friend share with Jav and when?
Expecting more from Jav any moment? Jav certainly wouldn’t have much time for the Cummings and goings as it were if he was involved.
Are the German instructors considered to be special? There is always the difference between theory and theory with experience - as a certain German military instructor said “no plan survives first contact with the enemy” so are they a “gold standard” or just someone good who were prepared to do the deal rather than the really good people who wouldn’t think of training the Russians?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic_Order#Against_Poland
On the subject of Gdansk, the best Old Fashioneds are served here - https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g274725-d11627558-Reviews-Craft_Cocktails-Gdansk_Pomerania_Province_Northern_Poland.html
Maybe it was on here but there was a whole debate on here about that pic. Hitler couldn't ride a horse for a start and white armour would easily rust in the Middle Ages.
This is high end NATO stuff. The Americans won't sell it, the French wouldn't. The British wouldn't. I don't think the Italians or Spanish would really have the same clout and probably wouldn't either.
So the Germans pitched themselves as the highest end NATO country who would do so.
Would agree that use of word "illegitimate" in this context is best avoided, even though I agree with what Biden was conveying.
Precisely because it can and will be used as a club to beat him up with . . . while ignoring / disregarding / diverting from why he said it . . .
Man City are China, obvs. All the money, a relatively new superpower but with a long history
Man U is the USA, still the richest, but oh dear, the management
Russia is Chelsea. Nuff said
Liverpool are Japan
The UK is Arsenal and France is Spurs
Italy is Aston Villa; Spain, Everton.
Newcastle are India
Germany is the tricky one. Maybe Germany are Spurs and France are Arsenal and the UK is, eek, Leeds
Vladimir Putin - should be doing Porridge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOeFhSzoTuc
Hitler hated horses.
White plate (steel armour polished like that) would indeed rust in about 1 second. So either you kept a squadron of squires up all night polishing it. Or you enamelled it, or painted it. This was one of the reason that solitary knights got called Black Knights - a hard black enamel was the lowest maintenance finish for your armour.
Since the squires were (generally) apprentice knights learning the business, anyone who liked white plate got a reputation as a wanker of a boss.
Accounts like this are why we keep PBing.
The German defence industry is also pretty weak, certainly compared to France or the UK. Other than their share in the (basically French) EADS/Airbus, I can't think think of a single German defence firm with more than a billion dollars in revenue: except maybe Krauss-Maffei Wegmann? I mean there must be some subsystem suppliers, but the reality is that the major European arms manufacturers are French (Thales, Dassault, Airbus), Swedish (Saab), and Italian (Leonardo). Oh yeah - and BAE Systems and Rolls Royce in the UK.
So, I'm not sure there's a whole German-Russian military angle.
What there is two major issues:
Firstly, the Germans have allowed the Russians to have an enormous amount of political influence. The former German Chancellor, Schroeder, was basically bought by via being on the board of Nordstream.
Secondly, the Germans buy natural gas on long-term contracts from the Russians for a good price. (Although, one would note, the Russians don't have that many alternative buyers, so it's not like they're doing this solely to gain political power in Germany.)
is Gdańsk what they call the Polish riviera?
Call me a Trumpist by all means but I have condemned his actions and his words in the past when I think he went too far (and, as for Jan 6, I still take the view it was a riot fuelled by irresponsible behaviour rather than a purposelly planned coup), Biden's wording is dangerous - he is setting the grounds for mass protests if the Republicans win Congress in 2022.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267131/market-share-of-the-leadings-exporters-of-conventional-weapons/
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips.
Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
But which firms are doing the exporting?
I mean name one German arms supplier with more than $1bn in revenue. I can think of one. And they only barely clear the hurdle.
And what are they exporting?
The French make missiles, submarines, radar, ships, planes, etc.
What are the Germans exporting?
I have followed my Pink Rabbits with red wine.
But you do point out why it's important to disciple rhetoric. Though of course actions still speak louder.
And of course Trump made and continues to makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that ANY election he personally loses is ipso facto illegitimate. Thus justifying ANY and ALL actions, up to and including upholding the Constitution he swore to protect and preserve.
No argument is gonna whitewash that simple fact.
‘German arms exports hit new record during Merkel's last days
The former government approved almost €5 billion in warships and missile defense deals as it prepared to leave office. New Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who was then finance minister, has also received criticism.’
https://www.dw.com/en/german-arms-exports-hit-new-record-during-merkels-last-days/a-60256034
Obama was unable to install Garland on SCOTUS on the claim that it was the final year of his Presidency. Trump had no such fears with Coney Barrett.
EDIT: one of the thing the gents at the Frunze Academy noted was the general training level in the American Army. Quite a few soldiers had only fired expensive, heavy weapons in simulators - but the quality of those simulators was such that they turned out to be experts in real life.
Hopefully their military training is as good as their comedy and music.
According to this, German arms exports were EUR9bn, a new record in 2021
https://www.dw.com/en/german-arms-exports-hit-new-record-during-merkels-last-days/a-60256034
Which was mostly ships and missile defence systems.
It’s the only quaffable red plonk that isn’t £30+ a bottle
To my horror, I have discovered that decent wine in Sri Lanka costs even more than in Thailand
Still having a blissful time tho. I have discovered the best restaurant in Colombo is 2 minutes by Tuk-Tuk from my hotel and a brilliant lunch costs £12
The Germans are not the only hypocrites here.
So I'm not sure where Statista gets its numbers from.
You got many day trips planned?
"This month, Gantz announced a separate agreement to buy three further submarines from Thyssenkrupp in a 10 billion shekel (over three $3bn) deal."
But, to be clear, do you think what Biden said was wrong?
PS this pretty much sums up my view of both sides' behaviour:
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/
Though I still fail to understand your calculus re: voting & elections in US, because I think there's a bug in your calculator, if not a bee in your bonnet.
Analysis from Sky's @RobPowellNews 👇 https://trib.al/eRRYtCj
7. Best dressed army loses.
Winners:
What is your take on 6th January 2020? I can't recall much criticism, but I may be wrong.
IF Gray condemns Boris, even with measure of faint praise, will be final nail in his coffin?
When the Germans decided to go for it, speed and surprise was of the essence to them dealing with Western Front quickly. So where the British cabinet were arguing wether entente cordial meant we really had to join the German France war, by going through Belgium it invoked a Waterloo Treaty meaning we fight anyone not respecting Belgium neutrality? 🙂
Happens to us all. PB is a constant education!
And on that positive note, ignoring impending world war, good night all from sultry Ceylon
If you read the Wikipedia page on the Leopard 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2 - you will see basically one export order (from Hungary for 44 tanks) in the last decade.
Personally think argument that Dems are risking "destroying democracy to protect democracy" is BS.
Personally support amending Constitution to prevent post-facto legislative overturning of popular vote cast for presidential electors.
Personally think use of quotation marks re: Republican threat to election process is bit much after what transpired in January 2021, both within and immediately without the US Capitol.
The German excuse for Belgium was - if we hadn't violated Belgian sovereignty, someone one would.
Except that the French, both government and military were united in not even breathing hard on Belgian independence. This was because Belgium secured their left flank( they thought) for free. Plus the biggest thing they took from 1870 (apart from not starting the war) was maximising their allies. Invading Belgium would have put France in the wrong and they knew it.
The French plan was to take a German assault, on the Franco-German border, smash it and follow the retreating German army across the border, if possible....
Russia, France and Germany are included in the top 5, which make up three-quarters of all the world's major arms exports.
The data was released on Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which was used to compare previous data sets with the period between 2014-18.’
We’re 6th
https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/11/seven-european-countries-make-the-top-10-of-world-s-major-arms-exporters
An alternative view. Germany still ahead
https://www.cnbctv18.com/india/global-arms-industry-a-deep-dive-into-the-worlds-largest-importers--exporters-of-arms-8668281.htm
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
Perception of the U.K. changing amongst Congressional staffers:
@apmassaro3
You gotta wonder if part of the excellence of the British response to Putin is driven by the need to demonstrate that Brexit has not slowed them down on foreign policy and possibly even get a leg up on the EU. If that is the case, this is a positive side effect of Brexit
To this extent, I think Manchin and Sinema, while now reviled by much of the Dem party, have done the country a huge favour.
They can put up a strong defence. We should just continue to send them supplies only, not troops, troops should be reserved to protect Nato nations only
The Boris Johnson Government learnt from these guys! 🙂
I have just taken a pain killer and off to bed. A good night sleep and I will be out of this funk. But with the coming week, I will leave you with this thought…
But even two minutes of work will tell you its completely wrong. Germany themselves say that they had record defence/arms exports of EUR9bn in 2020.
BAE Systems alone had sales of 2.5x that.
1. Luftwaffe
2. USAAF
3. RAF
U-Boot uniforms also not bad but could get quite stinky I imagine.
@tonylgardner
As bad as Brexit has been, I fully admit that a significant upside is that the UK can act swiftly in foreign Affairs including Ukraine rather than being dragged into endless EU waffle. No doubt this has been Noticed in Washington.
https://twitter.com/tonylgardner/status/1485365692505415684