Politics

[Wheels]

 

[PARA45]

I didn't know whether to laugh or not, I detest both.

 

[Wheels]

Thank you McCarthy!

MSN

 

[Nyati]

Multipurpose weapon- eh! The various Indo-Persian war axes with a spike are also commonly called zaghnal. War axe battlefield use across all regions/cultures has been largely and erroneously underreported in history with greater emphasis on the sword.

Most spiked zaghnals, aka crow beak axes, have an incurving point. My example posted is much less common with the recurving point. But, IMO, there is a very good reason for that recurve. Sink an incurving point into an opponent… then try to pull it out with the handle. The geometry is all wrong. The geometry of the recurved point would not hinder retrieval. Same reasoning as why the short shafted thrusting spears, like those of the Zulu, have no barbed or squared off rear profile on the spear head.

Probably because they were designed to fight warriors on horses, you sink the point, pull, he is dismounted, and dispatched.

 

[B0MBOY]

Probably because they were designed to fight warriors on horses, you sink the point, pull, he is dismounted, and dispatched.

It’s also handy for hooking your opponent’s weapon to make openings.

 

[Red Leg]

Very interesting article on the history of communication between Russia and the US about the Ukraine question, through a recent leak of confidential cables and correspondence from within the US government.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

If it talks like a bear, it walks like a bear, poking its behind might get you the reaction of a bear.

I have no doubt that there is a lot of truth to this article - even coming from an anonymous writer from Zero Hedge (there is no Tyler Durden). I obviously fall solidly in the Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates camp with respect to Russian ambitions regardless of supposed provocations by the West.

The uncomfortable fact for both Russia and its apologists is that Ukraine has been an independent nation for 30 years. Whatever the historical context as a subject people, it is now a nation free of Russian domination (or Polish, or Hungarian, or German, or Mongol). I am convinced the idea of a democratic capitalist society on Russia's border is far more frightening to the stability of the Putin dictatorship than some fanciful military threat posed by NATO. I am certain, that had Russia been successful in its bid to seize the whole country in February, the writers at Zero Hedge and many of the handwringers in the State Department next would be pointing to Poland's sporadic history as a free an independent state.

Russia has no one to blame for this current catastrophe but itself, and its leader's ambition to turn back the clock of history. As I have noted here before, Russia is no longer either the Soviet Union or the Tsarest Empire of Catherine the Great. It is a remnant Eurasian empire with a population of 140 million and a GDP the size of Texas. Like the US promulgating a Monroe doctrine with no means to enforce it through most of the 19th century, Russia no longer has the means to enforce its strategic vision upon the rest of Europe.

Yes Russia has nuclear weapons. So does North Korea. Does anyone pay any serious attention to Kim Jong-un's disarmament demands with regard to South Korea or Japan? Of course not. Nor can we. Give into nuclear blackmail once, and we can be sure it will be used again and again.

The truly humorous thing about Putin's decision to attempt to take Ukraine by force of arms is that he has created a far greater NATO footprint on his borders than would have ever existed had he not acted. NATO forces in Finland will be in walking distance of Winter Palace thanks to his strategic leadership.

Most importantly, we should not forget that the Ukrainian people are voting daily with their lives for their right to self determination. Zelensky has emerged as a remarkable leader capable of marshaling the support of most of Europe and the US in his people's defiance of the Russian dictator. Except among some on either extreme of the West's political spectrum, strong multi-party support stands with the Ukrainian desire to remain independent.

Finally, with respect to China. What could have emboldened Chinese military ambitions more with respect to Taiwan than a militarily triumphant strategic partner? What analyst believes Russia's abject failure in its strategic ambitions somehow encourages China? A Chinese invasion would require an assault across 100 miles of open water into the teeth of the same sort of weapons that are so effective against Russia's armed forces. I am certain the Chinese correlation of forces analysis for a successful attack on Taiwan has changed dramatically over the last several months.

If it talks like a jackal in a bear's disguise, it walks like a jackal in a bear's disguise, then it shouldn't be surprised when its intended victim pokes back.

 

[Red Leg]

A very positive development from my side of the aisle with respect to US and NATO support of Ukraine.

McCaul, Rogers Urge Admin and Allies to Swiftly Send Ukraine Weapons Needed to Win - Committee on Foreign Affairs

Washington, D.C.– House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL) released the following statement urging the administration and our allies to transfer to Ukraine urgently critical weapon systems they need to defeat...

foreignaffairs.house.gov

 

[CoElkHunter]

I have no doubt that there is a lot of truth to this article - even coming from an anonymous writer from Zero Hedge (there is no Tyler Durden). I obviously fall solidly in the Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates camp with respect to Russian ambitions regardless of supposed provocations by the West.

The uncomfortable fact for both Russia and its apologists is that Ukraine has been an independent nation for 30 years. Whatever the historical context as a subject people, it is now a nation free of Russian domination (or Polish, or Hungarian, or German, or Mongol). I am convinced the idea of a democratic capitalist society on Russia's border is far more frightening to the stability of the Putin dictatorship than some fanciful military threat posed by NATO. I am certain, that had Russia been successful in its bid to seize the whole country in February, the writers at Zero Hedge and many of the handwringers in the State Department next would be pointing to Poland's sporadic history as a free an independent state.

Russia has no one to blame for this current catastrophe but itself, and its leader's ambition to turn back the clock of history. As I have noted here before, Russia is no longer either the Soviet Union or the Tsarest Empire of Catherine the Great. It is a remnant Eurasian empire with a population of 140 million and a GDP the size of Texas. Like the US promulgating a Monroe doctrine with no means to enforce it through most of the 19th century, Russia no longer has the means to enforce its strategic vision upon the rest of Europe.

Yes Russia has nuclear weapons. So does North Korea. Does anyone pay any serious attention to Kim Jong-un's disarmament demands with regard to South Korea or Japan? Of course not. Nor can we. Give into nuclear blackmail once, and we can be sure it will be used again and again.

The truly humorous thing about Putin's decision to attempt to take Ukraine by force of arms is that he has created a far greater NATO footprint on his borders than would have ever existed had he not acted. NATO forces in Finland will be in walking distance of Winter Palace thanks to his strategic leadership.

Most importantly, we should not forget that the Ukrainian people are voting daily with their lives for their right to self determination. Zelensky has emerged as a remarkable leader capable of marshaling the support of most of Europe and the US in his people's defiance of the Russian dictator. Except among some on either extreme of the West's political spectrum, strong multi-party support stands with the Ukrainian desire to remain independent.

Finally, with respect to China. What could have emboldened Chinese military ambitions more with respect to Taiwan than a militarily triumphant strategic partner? What analyst believes Russia's abject failure in its strategic ambitions somehow encourages China? A Chinese invasion would require an assault across 100 miles of open water into the teeth of the same sort of weapons that are so effective against Russia's armed forces. I am certain the Chinese correlation of forces analysis for a successful attack on Taiwan has changed dramatically over the last several months.

If it talks like a jackal in a bear's disguise, it walks like a jackal in a bear's disguise, then it shouldn't be surprised when its intended victim pokes back.

I agree with most everything you've stated here, but I still believe there's better than a 50/50 chance China invades Taiwan before the end of Brandon's term in office. I don't see where the LARGE numbers of "game changing" defensive hardware has been provided to Taiwan at this point. I believe China has its eyes on the 92% of the world's high end chips manufactured in Taiwan, especially since the US has now banned them from being transferred to China from here. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[LivingTheDream]

there is no Tyler Durden

Sir. I agree with you most of the time, but to say this is beyond the pale. We are all Tyler Durden.

 

[Red Leg]

Sir. I agree with you most of the time, but to say this is beyond the pale. We are all Tyler Durden.

Not me. I am the Narrator.

 

[VertigoBE]

Not me. I am the Narrator.

The Narratir was actually the character suffering from delusions of being Tyler Durden I believe


Thanks for the reply on the article, I agree with most of it even though it is not what the article is about. The article is merely claiming that the West knew very well, after repeated warnings from Russia, that continued involvement in pushing NATO boundaries towards Russia, with the two main pain points of Georgia and Ukraine would at some point provoke a reaction from Russia. The West still put these warnings aside and continued to push.

I’m in no way apologising for Russia, it is still awful what they are doing, but as I said in February of last year, a lot of this could have been prevented had there been a less hawkish stance towards Russia in the past 20 years.

Meanwhile the US now risks losing their status of reserve currency of the world, oil being traded in dollars and many other things, by having pushed Russia and China closer.

How I wish the rapprochement between the US/West and Russia as described in Tom Clancy’s the Bear and the Dragon would have become a reality. The real danger is still China in my opinion.

 

[observe]

...you can have the liberal and political media in your pocket,,,
..but you can't wish away facts!

 

[Red Leg]

The Narratir was actually the character suffering from delusions of being Tyler Durden I believe


Thanks for the reply on the article, I agree with most of it even though it is not what the article is about. The article is merely claiming that the West knew very well, after repeated warnings from Russia, that continued involvement in pushing NATO boundaries towards Russia, with the two main pain points of Georgia and Ukraine would at some point provoke a reaction from Russia. The West still put these warnings aside and continued to push.

I’m in no way apologising for Russia, it is still awful what they are doing, but as I said in February of last year, a lot of this could have been prevented had there been a less hawkish stance towards Russia in the past 20 years.

Meanwhile the US now risks losing their status of reserve currency of the world, oil being traded in dollars and many other things, by having pushed Russia and China closer.

How I wish the rapprochement between the US/West and Russia as described in Tom Clancy’s the Bear and the Dragon would have become a reality. The real danger is still China in my opinion.

Yes, I know. It is why I thought it would be a humorous retort.

Preventing this from happening would have required three things.

First, Europe and the US would have had to collude with Russia to deny the Ukrainian people their desire to be a part of European community of nations. Being an EU member and thriving democratic alternative "Russia" to the dictatorship in Moscow would have been just as intolerable as NATO membership. Whatever one's belief in real politic, this would have been a morally reprehensible position for the West to take.

Second, Obama (and by extension Biden) should never have turned a blind eye to Russia's annexation of Crimea and military involvement in the Donbas. The former could indeed have been treated as a correction to an internal Soviet geographic alignment in exchange for a UN directed plebiscite in the East. Instead the West was largely silent, which could only embolden Putin in his calculations.

Third, conclude Putin had no territorial ambitions with respect to Ukraine. To believe that would require one to dismiss all sense of reality. The military objectives at the start of the war were the clearest indicator of the original intent.

So with respect to my first response, I do not see a way that the West could have resolved this in a way that would have satisfied Moscow. I believe had we moved quicker and more decisively to effectively arm Ukraine, we may have deterred Putin. Though, the Kremlin's total failure to understand the scale and determination of Ukrainian resistance coupled with over confidence in Russian military reforms would have likely overridden any such caution.

Finally, I also believe that Russia counted on its nuclear arsenal to prevent the West from intervening in any meaningful way. Assuming this doesn't end in a nuclear exchange, I suspect the military and international relations savants will argue the actual utility of nuclear weapons for a long time to come.

So yes, I read article, and largely dismissed it.

 

[bowjijohn]

The world took a dangerous turn today

Germany finally got off the fence

Not on the side of NATO

I suspect this makes a war in Europe more likely and a global war closer to reality

Germany’s failure to grow up makes it more likely that the US gets dragged further into the Russian conflict

A green light for China

 

[bowjijohn]

It’s rather sad watching Loyd Austin doing a tap dance, trying to pretend that Germany hasn’t shafted the lot of us

 

[Red Leg]

I am borrowing this expression from a Finnish diplomate during the 80's in describing his country's foreign policy, but it is very apropos. Germany is attempting to bow East without mooning the West. Very disappointing.

 

[bowjijohn]

I am borrowing this expression from a Finnish diplomate during the 80's in describing his country, but Germany is attempting to bow East without mooning the West. Very disappointing.

What a great expression

VERY apt

 

[Red Leg]

Germany snubs Ukraine’s tank request

Dashing Kyiv’s hopes of a breakthrough, Berlin said it was still considering the request for tanks to help an expected spring offensive.

www.politico.eu

 

[Major Bonkers]

From 'The Daily Telegraph' (but behind a paywall):

Britain is sending the Ukrainians the wrong tanks​

Jordan has recently retired its fleet of around 400 British Challenger 1 tanks, enough to supply Ukraine with the entire fleet it needs

ROBERT CLARK16 January 2023 • 7:00pm

The Government has said that it will supply the Ukrainian armed forces with British main battle tanks in the form of the mighty Challenger 2. The logic is compelling: we have spare tanks and Ukraine needs armour for the upcoming spring offensive, when the biting Eastern European winter gives way to more favourable fighting conditions. What is less compelling, however, is the argument that we should give Kyiv Challenger 2.
The first problem is one of simple numbers. The Army currently fields 227 Challenger 2s, divided between three regiments, a training school, and platforms used as reserves or for parts. Ukraine’s defence minister, meanwhile, believes the country needs around 300 tanks. It does not take a mathematician to note that 227 is substantially less than 300, particularly given that nobody really wants to hand over Britain’s front-line units. Instead, the Government intends to give 14 of the 79 platforms due to be mothballed as part of the Challenger 3 upgrade entering service in 2027. A lot is riding on other countries giving tanks, too.
This brings us to the second problem: just because the tanks are mothballed, it doesn’t mean we won’t need them. Most of the existing Challenger 2 platforms will be required for maintenance throughout Challenger 3’s lifespan. The new elements of the Challenger 3 design are mainly in the turret and main gun; this gives a real advantage in maintenance, as most of the rest can be cannibalised from old Challenger 2 platforms when parts need replacing. It would be possible to circumvent this issue by purchasing our new fleet off the shelf, but that takes us to the third problem: the upgrade to Challenger 3 is set to cost £800 million. Buying new platforms would increase the cost significantly.


There are also real risks to operational security if British tanks fall into Russian hands. Each Challenger 2 is equipped with Dorchester armour – a classified build no other nation has access to – in addition to sensitive digitalised communications and sighting systems. Unless these systems are replaced, a difficult task, should a British tank be captured, classified British information intended for use in Challenger 3 would be in enemy hands. This is a threat too grave to bear.
This complexity – the initial retrofitting, the training of Ukrainian tank crews, finding routes for maintenance and sustenance – makes it difficult to view the export of the Challenger 2 as viable, even for the resourceful and battle-hardened Ukrainians. Instead, we should look to a smarter option. The Kingdom of Jordan has recently retired its fleet of around 400 British Challenger 1 tanks. This is enough to supply Ukraine with the entire fleet it needs, and the essential spares for battlefield maintenance, without compromising sensitive technologies. It would also be inordinately cheaper for the UK to buy them on behalf of Kyiv.
But the main benefit, again, is quantity, which retains a quality all its own. Realistically, any gift of Challenger 2s is likely to be too piecemeal to supply Ukraine with the support it really needs. But 400 British made Challenger 1s – long obsolete from British stocks and of no national security concern – would provide Ukraine with a ready-made tank division for the all-important spring offensive.

---

Robert Clark is the director of defence and security at Civitas. Prior to this he served in the British Army

 

[BSO Dave]

I do not dismiss your desire to "purge Washington of fossils and grifters." I simply asked you how you propose to do that in the real world.

As I acknowledged, it's a big undertaking that would require a red wave of real conservatives committed to the America-first agenda to get elected into office. That unfortunately didn't occur. Had that happened to any significant extent, I do believe that you would have seen a purge of some, if not all of reptiles. At least enough to offer a constant challenge if not removal of the Mitch McConnell's and Kevin McCarthy's of the party.

I believe there are great many more in the mainstream republican party riding the fence who would gladly take a more defiant role against the incumbent leadership in both Houses if they observed enough effective opposition to the status quo. But, as I'm sure you would acknowledge, they are reluctant to do so out of self-preservation. You have to be willing to chop the heads off the snakes, but the snakes are the one's controlling the bulk of the campaign funding. So, yeah, it's a monumental task but so was defeating the British army in 1783. Yet, the reality is as you suggest in that these are sadly different men and different times, which is unfortunate because I fear the multiple crises we face as nation are nearly of the same importance.

You will forgive me if I find it a bit humorous you have now added partisanship to the list. You may recall, I strongly believe working with rather than against those with whom we agree 80% of time is essential if we wish to make any progress.

Partisanship was the wrong word to use implying across the isle partisanship which I believe is borderline treasonous considering the current platform of today's democratic caucus. I was referring to "partisanship" within the factions of the republican party with the RINOS reluctant or refusing to work with Freedom Caucus members on policy.

I think wisely, others think unwisely, our founders provided us a constitution and republican form of government to ensure no single political faction can exercise the sort of house cleaning by one political faction you envision.

I agree that it was a wisely designed, and I revere the U.S. Constitution to be as near to perfect of a document in self-governance as any ever written throughout history, but it is not completely perfect. I'm not sure if the founders considered the possibility of one party gaining control of 2 or even all 3 branches of our government which is enough to impose a significant amount of political will.

When that occurs as it has for the last two years, I would argue that sort of house cleaning is absolutely possible, and exactly what the democrats did in purging republicans off of any meaningful positions with that control. Thankfully, the Constitution has a reset capability installed every 2, 4, and 6 years respectively to correct that sort of one-party control should it occur.. The only problem with this is that I don't believe the founders ever envisioned an electorate willing to vote against its own best interests by reinstating the same people responsible for the failed policy in the first place. They gave the posterity a lot more credit than they deserve. Smart folks back then just assumed we would collectively grow smarter.. How disappointed they all must be to see how we've perverted with the framework they gave us.

Fine. Let's not do it any longer. As I said, feel free to have the last word.

I don't need or want the last word... Please feel free to comment or reply. If not, I guess there is an ignore button you can use? Not sure how that works exactly? There's nobody on here who I feel the need to ignore or hide from.. My best always!