It’s actually a combination of both at this point. There’s definitely a strong fascist sentiment within the society coupled with imperialistic nostalgia of the past at the same time. Putin has at this point a strong enough grip on the power and repression apparatus to really not give too much feck about the uprising of the democratic movements. He has financial resources to sustain and increase the level of brutality if needed by keeping security body happy.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
This would be the publicly announced support.
The US, France and the UK would (I assume as they have the three biggest militaries) be providing a lot of covert weapons, equipment and intelligence to the Ukrainians.
The website has been hacked.
Relief.
Pentagon: Ukraine has gotten additional aircraft and aircraft parts to increase their fleet size:
Some positive news.
Last edited:
The BBC reports:
"More now on what's been promised by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, following his video call with President Biden and others earlier.
Johnson was among the Western leaders who pledged to send more artillery to Ukraine.
Specifically, he said he planned to equip Kyiv with anti-ship missiles - including by mounting British Brimstone rockets to vehicles.
Reuters reports that Brimstones have previously been used by UK forces in Libya and Syria, and are typically launched from fast jet aircraft. They're used against fast-moving land and sea targets."
"More now on what's been promised by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, following his video call with President Biden and others earlier.
Johnson was among the Western leaders who pledged to send more artillery to Ukraine.
Specifically, he said he planned to equip Kyiv with anti-ship missiles - including by mounting British Brimstone rockets to vehicles.
Reuters reports that Brimstones have previously been used by UK forces in Libya and Syria, and are typically launched from fast jet aircraft. They're used against fast-moving land and sea targets."
Some little points I like to add for perspective:
- the lack of heavy weapon transfers is a disaster that has been 20 years in the making (at least), as the Bundeswehr was massively neglected. It's equipment is in a sorry state, and giving away substantial amounts of it would be a big problem for our national security. It's the result of an army tasked to keep peace around the world and a pacifist society that doesn't want to think about it. It's a fault of German leadership indeed, but not only of the current one.
- SPD (Scholz party, the social democrats) and AfD (right wing) seem to be the only parties hesitant on going all in. Even Scholz coalition partners, the Greens and the liberal FDP are calling Scholz out for it (and lots of the public do so as well). So I guess this war shows us some unexpected frontlines in German politics.
- While it is slow it is at least something that he promised a carte blanche for Ukrainian orders directly in German factories. The only problem about this is that building heavy stuff just takes too long.
What "big problem for our national security"??? Who the feck is going to attack Germany in the next 10 years? Is this a joke? American bases protect Germany, American bases protected Germany in the past 70 years and that's why Germany is rich today, there are no "national security" issues for Germany thanks to the Americans.
If Germany cannot deliver the materiel, then that makes it all the more imperative for the US, UK and France to do so.
Whatever the UK can provide it should provide, including training. In a perverse way, since out PM is using the Ukrainian war as an excuse not to resign, I suspect he will do whatever he can to support the Ukrainian armed forces.
Whatever the UK can provide it should provide, including training. In a perverse way, since out PM is using the Ukrainian war as an excuse not to resign, I suspect he will do whatever he can to support the Ukrainian armed forces.
Essentially all heavy equipment is either used in international missions, needed for training or is not fully operational. I don't think that for example @Rajma in Lithuania would be very happy if the Bundeswehr has to withdraw from the NATO enhanced forward presence mission, because we give our tanks to Ukraine.
It's terrible that we have to think about such choices, and it makes us look both weak and stupid (rightfully so), but if I had to decide between throwing a NATO and EU member under the bus, or some random country we have no close ties or formal alliances to, I would always chose to stay faithful to our allies.
And by the way, saying that the US protected Germany for 70 years is just false, until 1990 there was no peace treaty after WW2 and those were essentially occupation forces willing to sacrifice Germany as a battle ground to be destroyed in WW3. This isn't exactly protection, and after the threat of the SU vanished the US weren't needed as protectors, they just stayed, used Germany as a logistics base and that's it.
Russia Has Lost a Quarter of its Combat Effectiveness in Ukraine: Pentagon:
"... This is across all functions,” the official said, “It’s infantry, its artillery, it’s aviation – both fixed and rotary – it’s ballistic missiles [and] cruise missiles ..."
https://www.usnews.com/news/world-r...-its-combat-effectiveness-in-ukraine-pentagon
"... This is across all functions,” the official said, “It’s infantry, its artillery, it’s aviation – both fixed and rotary – it’s ballistic missiles [and] cruise missiles ..."
https://www.usnews.com/news/world-r...-its-combat-effectiveness-in-ukraine-pentagon
I really enjoyed that read. The development of languages really is a fun bit of history.
Once again, I highly recommend this YouTube channel for the latest news and (mostly daily) updated campaign maps from a guy who knows what he's talking about:
Germany seems fine to sell their Marders to Greece though…
The BBC reports:
"Sanctioned Russian tycoon condemns 'insane' war
A Russian tycoon has blasted Moscow's "massacre" in Ukraine and called on the West to end the "insane war", in a profanity-laced Instagram post.
"I don't see a SINGLE beneficiary of this insane war! Innocent people and soldiers are dying," wrote Oleg Tinkov, 54, in Russian.
According to him, "90%" of his fellow Russians are also against this war. The remaining 10% "are morons" he said.
Tinkov, one of Russia's most well-known entrepreneurs, founded Tinkoff Bank in 2006.
On Instagram he added: "Waking up with a hangover, the generals realised that they have a shit army.
"And how will the army be good, if everything else in the country is shit and mired in nepotism, sycophancy and servility?"
Before Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, Tinkov's wealth had been estimated at more than $4.4bn (£3.4bn).
But he has since lost his billionaire status as shares in his bank have plummeted, Forbes reported last month.
In a statement, Tinkoff Bank said it would not comment on the "private opinion" of its founder, saying he no longer makes decisions for the brand."
"Sanctioned Russian tycoon condemns 'insane' war
A Russian tycoon has blasted Moscow's "massacre" in Ukraine and called on the West to end the "insane war", in a profanity-laced Instagram post.
"I don't see a SINGLE beneficiary of this insane war! Innocent people and soldiers are dying," wrote Oleg Tinkov, 54, in Russian.
According to him, "90%" of his fellow Russians are also against this war. The remaining 10% "are morons" he said.
Tinkov, one of Russia's most well-known entrepreneurs, founded Tinkoff Bank in 2006.
On Instagram he added: "Waking up with a hangover, the generals realised that they have a shit army.
"And how will the army be good, if everything else in the country is shit and mired in nepotism, sycophancy and servility?"
Before Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, Tinkov's wealth had been estimated at more than $4.4bn (£3.4bn).
But he has since lost his billionaire status as shares in his bank have plummeted, Forbes reported last month.
In a statement, Tinkoff Bank said it would not comment on the "private opinion" of its founder, saying he no longer makes decisions for the brand."
I am guessing that within a few months Mr Tinkov will literally be tinkedoff!
On top of all the war crimes, they are also committing copyright crimes.
This is the red line.
If that's true that those are really ready to be delivered and used, then Ukraine should under the announced policy be able to buy those directly from Rheinmetall and get them soon...
I'm surprised by this as I also thought they are stored, but not battle-ready at the moment. Guess this could become a kind of reality check for Scholz statement yesterday.
This is a bit of a strange argument.
You were going to get occupied regardless. Your options were either USA or USSR. I assume you'd agree that you got the better end of the deal getting the USA?
I'm pretty sure West Germany's formal occupation ended in 1954 and they entered into a new agreement with NATO then to host troops. Though if you tell me this was done under duress at the time, I'd take your word for it.
Are you trying to imply that if the Germans asked the USA to leave now, they wouldn't?
We got divided and occupied by both. Treating only West Germany as the real Germany and ignoring what happened to the East is a bit arrogant, but it happens in Germany too and it might be a reason why the divide still exists in most minds, so no worries if that's your view as well, it's a view you can get when dealing with most Germans.
While formal occupation ended in 1954 it took until the 2+4 treaty in 1990 to get full souvereignity again.
It was pretty clear that Germany would stop to exist if there would ever be a war between the US and the SU and their allies, no matter what we did. So it made a lot of sense to take part in creating the MAD to prevent WW3 from happening. But the thing is, Germany had also no choice because until 1990 the Allies were allowed to station troops in Germany, and they all did. NATO membership meant that the Bundeswehr could work together with the US and other troops, but had no influence on the existence of their bases in Germany.
Only since the 2+4 treaty they lost (or rather gave up) that right, and only since then Germany could ask the US to leave. But we likely won't do, as their presence puts a lot of money into the local economy around their bases.
I’m not sure whether this is an exaggeration, but Germany does seem to be being dragged kicking and screaming after Scholz’s initial big speech. Thread:
If this is all true it sounds like Germany should consider a new general election if there is a mechanism for that.
Who is that guy, and what makes him an expert?
I'm just weary of our use of twitter threads from random people as sources of information. If they're an analyst or some other kind of expert, sure.
We wouldn't need a new general election. SPD and CDU are almost equal in size and Greens and FDP choose to work with the SPD as the CDU was a shambles after the election, but in principle they were open for a coalition with the CDU as well. So those three parties could request a constructive vote of mistrust and replace Scholz with another chancellor (you can't get rid of a chancellor without having a new one), which would be a much faster process than what would be needed to get a new general election.
Surely most of the events listed in that thread would be reasonably easy to debunk if they're untrue?
It sounds like there's a way to get rid though. It almost sounds like what you would expect from a Le Pen in France. Again, if it's actually true of course.
Have you checked these claims, considering that it would be reasonably easy or do you just believe them, because its on twitter?
If you think, that Scholz sounds like Le Pen, you should probably reevaluate what kind of media you are following. Its unrealistic to get rid of Scholz without new elections. The constructive vote of no confidence initiated by the parliament (= needs an alternative majority) is currently very unlikely. Its possible, that the current coalition government is falling apart and Scholz himself tables a vote of confidence. If he'd lose it, there could be new elections. This was used in the past three times to force new elections. Considering that its not smooth sailing for the government this could happen at some point in the future, but its also unlikely.
No I'm at work. But the claims in the thread are of the type where someone in the comments would often link to something debunking it. And I've continually said "if it's true" about this.
I'm saying I think that's what a Russian friendly head of state in a Western friendly country would act like in a crisis like this. I.e. dragging their feet a lot and wasting time but not being able to go completely against the sentiment in the country. I'm not saying Scholz is a Le Pen on all policies at all.
Scholz is Russian friendly, or he knows that the economic damage turning off the gas and oil will do to Germany (and therefore the rest of Europe) will be so much worse than we'd like to think perhaps?
Last edited:
Or perhaps he acts in a very selfish way, as usually happens with Germans. If Americans and Poland and the English can help Ukraine win, then fine, Germany also helped sending those helmets. If the Russians win, then again fine, Germans can still get Russian gas and resume economic relations with Russia. Yes, it is true that Ukrainians die every day, but do Germans care? (Of course they do, they care and they send thoughts and prayers! )
the account that posted the info is garbage and debunking these claims would take considerable times, especially because he adds zero sources.
Due to its history, Germany adopted a cautious approach to everything related to the military. If you expect bold leadership from Germany in this regard, you'll be disappointed. Sometimes thats good and sometimes thats bad. Additionally the German military hardware capacities are limited. There have been recurring complains, that the capacities in tanks, aircraft and weapons aren't even sufficient to guarantee that the army can do its job. The Bundeswehr is already struggling to maintain the equipment necessary to train its troops. Realistically Germany would have a hard time to fulfill its obligation to NATO, if push comes to shove. Maybe its still the right thing to do to give Ukraine parts of its hardware, but thats not an easy decision to make and one that has potentially severe consequences. These two point explain why Germany is hesitant when it comes to exporting military equipment to Ukraine.
In regards to sanctions/energy imports: Germany is obviously concerned about the economic ramifications, if it would immediately stop to gas imports from Russia. It would have severe economic consequences for Germany, that nobody can accurately quantify and Germany isn't willing to absorb these costs. This is questionable and selfish, but framing this as "if Germany would close the tap, the war is going to end" is delusional and vastly overestimates the importance of Germany in this conflict. For the better and the the worse, Germany is not a key player and doesn't want to lead in situations like this. That can be irritating for other countries. Germany certainly got caught off guard by Russia starting a war of conquest. German governments assumed that Russia is a predictable actor and that mutual beneficial economic and political cooperation is to some extend possible. This turned out to be false and there have been many people warning Germany about it, but other positions weren't taken seriously. The government is now forced to change direction and this is not easy after following a different approach for the last 30 years.
I am not trying to convince you or anyone else, that Germany is doing the right thing, but it hopefully helps to understand their actions. Considering that someone posted a graphic about Germany's support of Ukraine, i add another graphic from the same think-tank, that shows a slightly different picture.
Last edited:
Not even Ukraine (really) cares about Russian gas. The pipelines through Ukraine are still operational. Ukraine could stop this, but they don't.
There are several important members of Scholz' party that are quite open friendly to Russia, most well known for sure Gerhard Schröder. Scholz himself however isn't known to have close ties to Russia.
But what Scholz is known for (a bit like Merkel also was) is being cautious, not committing to a cause, always keep plausible deniability if something goes wrong, never be responsible for big mistakes. It's what won him the election and made him chancellor, as the other candidates made mistakes, but it is quite logical that he never acts as a leader in the way a lot of people would like.
It's usually not even a bad thing to have a bureaucrat as leader of the government, who just works through the stuff that has to be done, but I think it's clear that he is simply the wrong choice during a war (maybe call him our Chamberlain, let's see if we need/get a Churchill, too).