Does "energized" imply increased threat of attack? From the country which failed to successfully invade Ukraine ... I don't get the logic behind that thinking.
The Americans are abandoning their post in the world, so the world is adjusting to get on without them. I think it’s probably a good thing long term that Europe grows to protect itself from Russian aggression without having to rely on the unreliable.
It's absolutely true that almost all of NATO was not doing their part and should have been. It's good that they're starting to. But the U.S. enjoyed and benefitted greatly from that command of soft power. The U.S. has now transitioned to being a transactional hegemon, which leads to the divestment of that power. This is dangerous for us all because Americans will either have to accept their lesser position in the world, or will double down on using violence and aggression to maintain their status. The latter is almost exclusively what we've been enduring over the past years.
Well, then it's time for the USA to pack it up from all bases in Europe and go back home, if it isn't a partnership there's no need to be loitering around for this long, no?
> At some point a partnership isn't a partnership if people don't participate.
Similarly, at some point people should wonder what else might come out of a partnership aside from raw spending dollars and whether there is value there, instead of simply parroting stupid domestic bumper stickers as if they have value or add insight.
What does America failing have to do with geriatric Russia not posing a threat to anyone? Do you believe America has been keeping the lid on some seal and protecting people?
Ukraine depends on weapons and ammunition shipments from the EU and US. Continued US support continues to be uncertain. The EU is set on continued support of Ukraine, but an attack on Finland or the Baltic countries might be a way to force EU countries to reroute many of these shipments to defending that new flank
The other angle is that Putin is in a precarious situation if he can't win in Ukraine. Too much has been invested, to many sacrifices made. And a lot of his political power depends on him looking strong. He could be looking for some way to find a quick victory somewhere else
I don't believe either of these are likely scenarios. But Putin is increasingly backed into the corner and has already proven that he will take risky bets on starting new wars. Every country bordering Russia is well-advised to make themselves look like a well-defended place where the Russian military would only be bogged down in another quagmire
Paris wouldn't be next for troops. Probably Latvia or somewhere like that. But Paris is very much a current thing for Russia trying to get Marcon out and Le Pen in. I'm curious how much of the recent riots have been fanned by Russian bots.
Depends in which language. Apparently in Russian it comes out like the borderlands but in Ukrainian it is one word meaning land or our land. In English it depends a bit if you consider it a country or some rebellious Russian border areas.
I assume that Russia invaded Ukraine with the intent to win the war within weeks or maybe a few months. It is a disaster for Russia. Even a full victory now would not be a outcome where one could expect that Russia would want to start direct war with NATO because they licked blood.
Welcome to the funny realm of European propaganda where Russia is simultaneously the biggest imaginable military threat possible to the world while also being a joke.
Pun not intended. I was thinking of the general ramping up of Russian military activity including indirect attacks on NATO countries like the Leipzig drones.
If you placed those mines just in case, would wildlife not trigger one from time to time? How long until they would be mostly gone? And how long do they survive in the wild until they become unreliable or dangerous to handle? How hard would it be to replace or remove them if no longer needed?
Depends on your mine. Some are now programed to explode after say three months to avoid the problem of them being a threat for a long time. A lot get laid just in time by drones rather than staying there for ages.
A certain percent will fail to detonate automatically, so the area will still be unsafe for decades (or longer). Same issue with cluster munitions and high intensity bombing.
Hopefully they are treating these as a quickly deployable defense of last resort and not deploying them in advance. Mines can be deployed by special artillery shells and drones, but generally they shouldn’t be, ever.
No point in deploying them in advance. Finland has proper winters and with the freezing/thawing cycle, the mines would end up god knows where. I myself once discovered an unexploded WWII aerial bomb that popped up out of nowhere one spring on a field that was in constant farming use.
I'm more interested in the economics here - is it realistic to produce a land mine for under 100 Euros if you include CapEx and your volume is 1 million units?
They have a lot of border with the newly energised Russia.
Does "energized" imply increased threat of attack? From the country which failed to successfully invade Ukraine ... I don't get the logic behind that thinking.
The Americans are abandoning their post in the world, so the world is adjusting to get on without them. I think it’s probably a good thing long term that Europe grows to protect itself from Russian aggression without having to rely on the unreliable.
Europe as a whole has also failed to hit NATO defense spending targets, for at least a decade. Look at this article from 2016. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/07/nato-spending-two-c...
At some point a partnership isn't a partnership if people don't participate.
It's absolutely true that almost all of NATO was not doing their part and should have been. It's good that they're starting to. But the U.S. enjoyed and benefitted greatly from that command of soft power. The U.S. has now transitioned to being a transactional hegemon, which leads to the divestment of that power. This is dangerous for us all because Americans will either have to accept their lesser position in the world, or will double down on using violence and aggression to maintain their status. The latter is almost exclusively what we've been enduring over the past years.
Well, then it's time for the USA to pack it up from all bases in Europe and go back home, if it isn't a partnership there's no need to be loitering around for this long, no?
> At some point a partnership isn't a partnership if people don't participate.
Similarly, at some point people should wonder what else might come out of a partnership aside from raw spending dollars and whether there is value there, instead of simply parroting stupid domestic bumper stickers as if they have value or add insight.
What does America failing have to do with geriatric Russia not posing a threat to anyone? Do you believe America has been keeping the lid on some seal and protecting people?
> From the country which failed to successfully invade Ukraine
True, but that doesn't make the war itself any less significant.
Ukraine could well have been a different story without US support, and US support is no longer a given.
Ukraine depends on weapons and ammunition shipments from the EU and US. Continued US support continues to be uncertain. The EU is set on continued support of Ukraine, but an attack on Finland or the Baltic countries might be a way to force EU countries to reroute many of these shipments to defending that new flank
The other angle is that Putin is in a precarious situation if he can't win in Ukraine. Too much has been invested, to many sacrifices made. And a lot of his political power depends on him looking strong. He could be looking for some way to find a quick victory somewhere else
I don't believe either of these are likely scenarios. But Putin is increasingly backed into the corner and has already proven that he will take risky bets on starting new wars. Every country bordering Russia is well-advised to make themselves look like a well-defended place where the Russian military would only be bogged down in another quagmire
But EU/NATO leaders think that after The Ukraine, Paris is next.
Paris wouldn't be next for troops. Probably Latvia or somewhere like that. But Paris is very much a current thing for Russia trying to get Marcon out and Le Pen in. I'm curious how much of the recent riots have been fanned by Russian bots.
There is no “The” in Ukraine.
Disagree.
It may be politically incorrect to call "The Borderlands" "The Ukraine," but it's grammatically correct.
Depends in which language. Apparently in Russian it comes out like the borderlands but in Ukrainian it is one word meaning land or our land. In English it depends a bit if you consider it a country or some rebellious Russian border areas.
They’re aware of what they were saying. You don’t make a response about political correctness unless you’re trying to make a political statement.
It may be grammatically correct to say “You’re an ignorant twat with a whore for a mother.” But that doesn't make it an accceptable thing to say.
I hope you are right that there's no problem but Trump seems to be doing his best to help Russia win.
I assume that Russia invaded Ukraine with the intent to win the war within weeks or maybe a few months. It is a disaster for Russia. Even a full victory now would not be a outcome where one could expect that Russia would want to start direct war with NATO because they licked blood.
Trump is motivated by money, he's seen there's nothing left in The Ukraine for him.
Welcome to the funny realm of European propaganda where Russia is simultaneously the biggest imaginable military threat possible to the world while also being a joke.
A drunk violent guy with a shotgun is a joke but a threat nonetheless. Don't see a paradox here.
The paradox is that the Russian nuclear threat is ignored.
Play hybrid warfare, win a hybrid reputation.
energized, interesting choice of words considering their recent power plant losses. Was this a pun?
Pun not intended. I was thinking of the general ramping up of Russian military activity including indirect attacks on NATO countries like the Leipzig drones.
From previous articles about this, they won't be deployed now. They will be deployed if needed.
If you placed those mines just in case, would wildlife not trigger one from time to time? How long until they would be mostly gone? And how long do they survive in the wild until they become unreliable or dangerous to handle? How hard would it be to replace or remove them if no longer needed?
Depends on your mine. Some are now programed to explode after say three months to avoid the problem of them being a threat for a long time. A lot get laid just in time by drones rather than staying there for ages.
A certain percent will fail to detonate automatically, so the area will still be unsafe for decades (or longer). Same issue with cluster munitions and high intensity bombing.
Hopefully they are treating these as a quickly deployable defense of last resort and not deploying them in advance. Mines can be deployed by special artillery shells and drones, but generally they shouldn’t be, ever.
No point in deploying them in advance. Finland has proper winters and with the freezing/thawing cycle, the mines would end up god knows where. I myself once discovered an unexploded WWII aerial bomb that popped up out of nowhere one spring on a field that was in constant farming use.
I'm more interested in the economics here - is it realistic to produce a land mine for under 100 Euros if you include CapEx and your volume is 1 million units?
Are they also going to revive their concentration camps?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Karelian_concentration_ca...