It is not clear yet what happened in Crimea-
Can we not pay for a plane trip to the motherland ?
Just to compare the investment the Americans alone put into this kinda thing...
And six of the others back the US, and likely a seventh.
As for Russia's military prowess so far....
Even their most ardent supporter must be wondering WTF?? at this stage.
According to the Russians, Ukraine is attempting another offensive in the northern part of occupied Kherson.
They need to get this right. It's been a failure in Kherson for a few weeks now. Something is not going well for them.
Well after all is said and done, what did they expect? Thats the Mafia way.....in it for Life.
Interesting though what does Germany spend all that cash on Remember most of there kit is badly need of was it upgrading or repair ?
Indeed defending yourself is not against NATO or OSCE principles, however membership requires conflicts to be settled by "peaceful means" in order to join. The Study on Enlargement clearly states that a candidate state "must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles", it further holds that "the resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance".
To join NATO the state must meet all the political, legal and military obligations and commitments of the Study, that is the requirement for joining and so is a rule. It is the collectively accepted published requirement for membership of NATO which was issued by NATO on foot of the 1994 Brussels Declaration. Similar is also stated in the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP).
And when you think about it it makes perfect sense, why admit a country when there is a dispute which could end up dragging all of NATO into that dispute?
Great question because I was wondering the same just earlier. For the amount they spend on military they have a pretty small armed forces with limited equipment and we do hear that it's in urgent need of modernization.
Putting aside the cost of wages and admin you'd associate with a first world country, they supposedly spend 50bn a year on military. But their standing forces are very small and comparable to nations with much, much smaller expenditure.
I'd love to hear an in-depth analysis.
Well putting my thinking cap on could be simply German efficiency. Any spending on weapons armored vehicles. You know for police, Security services all that like ?
Kadyrov needs to be a bit more careful about what he wishes for.....he could well get it!!!
Not at all. If it wasn't for the yanks making the iron curtain go up in our way, we'd all have been going to the Moscow Gaeltacht back in our school holidays.
Having to read his way through Peig would have put manners on the Putster.
@xxxxxxl regarding your query about the Germans colossal defence spending for very little outcome
I think it's covered in this video but TLDR the German's have run down their public sector defence administration and outsourced it to 'consultants' so needless to say they're spending a fortune on private consultancy fees.
Everytime they want to purchase a new tank or artillery system they need to bring in these outside 'consultants' to generate mountains of paperwork.
The end result is that they get lots of reports, white papers and defence reviews but very little in the way of military hardware.
Certainly seems to the be case that Ukraine is taking very heavy causalities just based off the failed assaults on the likes of Pisky. As is also evident with that one piece from the New York Times.
Though it should not be that surprising given Ukraine is coming against some very well prepared defences with some very hardened + experienced troops. The DPR Somalia Battalion, some very battle hardened remnants of VDV and a number of other elite Russian units have been stationed to defend that area with their lives.
Either Ukraine would need a lot more bodies at the city or get much more in the way of western aid.
The Ukrainian assault on Kherson is a great parallel to Russian forces constant push to try and Capture Bakhmut.
lol prepared defenses that they run away from when they see the Ukrainians. Fake news. 🤪
The only battle hardened troops they have is in the 800m dash.
Well all i can say.
Read the quotes from the horses mouth
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/24/world/europe/ukraine-south-kherson-russia.html
I understand why a lot people have their perception shaped entirely by the large successes Ukraine are getting across Kharkiv and now Lyman. But you would be a bit foolish to not acknowledge that certain fronts are well fortified.
The Russian don't necessarily have the option for an easy retreat from Kherson City either as it is a key objective for Putin- to the Point where the advice from Generals to retreat were rejected. With the elimination of the antonovsky bridge and the reliance on barges it means that any form of retreat would be incredibly difficult to say the very least.
Paywalled. And TBH the Ukrainians are savvy at the old news propaganda. Saying they were attacking somewhere taking large casualties then attacked in the south and routed the russians.
We don't all have a NT times account to read the link. But obviously if there's massive casualties in the Kherson counter offensive, there would be many (non-paywalled) news sites that have it? It still appears to have a news blackout so it's very hard to get any details about it.
I can't read the article you posted, but at the start of the Kharkiv counteroffensive, it looked like deliberate disinformation came out about a failed Kherson counteroffensive as a ruse to then steamroll Kharkiv.
I had an interesting discussion with a Japanese person who was a child in WW2, and later taught physics at a US university. She would vehemently contradict you on that. I tried to argue the US should have demonstrated a bomb just out to sea from Tokyo. To my great surprise, she rejected the idea and insisted the bombings were very necessary and nothing less than the two bombings would have enabled the hawks to be overruled and secured a surrender.
The fact that Japan did not in fact surrender after the Hiroshima bomb, negates most of what you allege, and confirms her assessment.
will pick up on this though it's off topic. It ties in how they reformed Japan. We have to remember the top brass would bleed to every last man. And Japanese honor would not allow them to ignore orders on an individual level. Surrender on a national level was the only way And was a huge shame on Japan and the Individual. That lead to some soul searching on how it got to that point. Why they still had laws against troops outside Japan think that was changed resent enough though due to China.
Yes, but in the past those who supported isolationism did so because they thought it was the best choice the the US. The likes of Carlson are much more likely to be touting isolation because they're either directly on Putin's payroll, or they're a shill for someone who is.
James Holland's "The War in the West" gives excellent background on how Roosevelt codded and coaxed the US into WW2, and with a Germany First policy to boot. He also gives background on some of the personalities involved in turning to US from very little military production to the west's arsenal. Roosevelt seems to have had a knack for picking people who knew how to make thigs happen, and quick.
Highly recommended.
The Ukrainians think they don't know how to dig and are using these 1943 sea mines to excavate with.
could have been a booby trap try to lure tanks and armor onto it and detonate it. Guy arming it may have been drunk and vaporized.
There was some bullsh!t spewed about the BOMB in the last few pages There was no idealistic test bombing. Harry Truman mulled hard and long about using it.
He knew about what type of weapon it actually was. He took the decision with a heavy heart.
The Russians were on a land swipe into Mongolia. They would not have invaded the Northern Island until 1946. Contrary to some posts here the US would have had another BOMB available in mid/ late September, two in November and accelerating after that.
There use of the BOMB was based on the loss of American GI's with Japanese civilian's losses being a secondary concern.
However the Iwo Jima and Okinawa invasion's had taught the US that just like Hitler the Japanese Military command had no value on civilian life.
The high command was looking for a negotiated solution that would have left the Military in control of the country
Yes. You've mentioned her before. I didn't agree then and I don't now. I'd probably have an interesting discussion with her on the topic but we would be coming from very different angles on the matter.
As for Japan not surrendering after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, one must remember that the space of time between the two bombings was a matter of merely 3 days. That was hardly enough time to process clearly what exactly had occurred when the first bomb fell.
In any case the fact of matter is that the Suzuki government was looking for a way out, under the instructions of the Emperor himself. They knew that the war was over. The dropping of the bombs and the declaration of war by Russia (a country Japan had hoped would put out peace feelers to the US) just solidified the issue.
Russian?.? ... You mean German right ?
I concur with the comment but it more about control
Remember the refugee crisis which effects housing and health in ireland was Russian driven where they were active
US did far less and was more restrained in there activities
No
If the Japan-atomic bomb discussion is going to continue could you guys open a new thread for it? It's interesting but very off topic
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eedacf599b4135dfd56d6fdbddcbd867.svg)
