Russia - General Discussion.

swerve

Super Moderator
You are correct, I should have phrased that as Divest portions of the 100,000. Moving combat units out and retaining support units.
My main point is that if the European forces were unified and structured to defend Europe on their own, the U.S. would step down its combat and garrison forces in favor of a logistical aspect as a partner state.
I don't think many of the 100,000 are in combat units, & they may be here largely because it puts them closer to places they may be wanted, & not only in Europe.
 

SolarisKenzo

Active Member
A good amount of US forces in Europe arent Combat ready.
Several thousands are deployed as administrative personnel in various NATO structures ( Brussels, Ramstein, Naples, Livorno, Rota...), another good part Is made of logistical units and maintenance teams.
The actual size of combat-ready US forces on European soil is only a fraction of the Total personnel.
 

SolarisKenzo

Active Member
I'd like to share a very important meeting hosted by the EU Commission in Italy, that saw the participation of many European and italian militaries and politicians.
The point of the discussion was " EU common defense ".
Many guests spoke, but the last speech was made by the Italian defense minister, Crosetto.

I'll translate and do a brief recap of his 15 minutes long speech.
" The world changed after the 24th of february. Our world changed.
Europeans understood that they are dwarfs in a world of Giants.
We either unite, even at the cost of loosing part of our National Powers, or we accept the fact that we will loose.
We will be ruled by other countries, big enough to count something in the world.
I met today the french defense minister.
We didnt talk about small bilateral programs. We didnt talk about the usual decades long European project.
We talked about something that hopefully in the next months or years will change the world.
We are starting to work on something that our enemies dont think Its possible, on something that hopefully will change everything.
You cant start this in 27. But you can in 4. Then 5. Then 6.
And, as more are ready, they will hopefully join too.
Its difficult, very difficult. Chances that It Will happen are smaller than the chances that It will not.
But Its crucial, vital, that we try as hard as we can.
Because the alternative, is the end of Europe."

Of course Its a speech, but It gives an idea of how things are changing in Europe.
EU was fragmented for decades.
We cant expect It to unite in 11 months.
But something, hopefully, Is happening in " the west".
Link:
Video Is of course in italian.
 

SolarisKenzo

Active Member
I think it’s pretty basic. Uncontrolled non European immigration is destabilizing and ultimately becomes a security issue. If the EU wants to make a concerted effort at defense they would need to create a unified force to protect the interests of the EU. To defend against domestic unrest a strict border control and immigration policy is essential. Similar problem to that which the US faces.
There Is literally a discussion about the EU border and coast Guard, Frontex...that has Its own standing corp, vehicles, ships and planes.
Its the first EU Agency with an Armed corp Independent by member states ( americans would call It a Federal Agency? ).
It has, however, nothing to do with defense, which Is still nation-based.

 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
.


IMF revised prediction on 2023 for bit up beat Global growth. With China and India (and much emerging economies) provide most of the growth. However Euro Zone (except UK) and Russia also predict for slight rebound on positive territories.

This means even IMF shown the decoupling between Collective West (especially Euro Zone) and Russia happen more smoothly then previously expected for all sides. This also shown the adjustment from other parts of the World whether being call COVID effect rebound, Market Switching, Production Chain diversification also happen better then expected.

I put in here before on my posts, links to several market prediction on Euro decoupling on Russian Hydrocarbon. Talk on Western politicians and media pundits that it will crippled Russian economy, basically are not agreed by Market. Because Hydrocarbon is finite energy sources, and there will be continue demand on that.

Market Switching for energy demand will happen, Euro Zone will find other suppliers, and Russia will find other buyers. Some Western companies will continue diversify their Production Chain away from China, thus increase growth the some emerging markets. However it is also not mean the end of China Production value chain ecosystem.

This is why I said before on my previous posts, market will make their own adjustment. Politicians that think their agenda can dictate market mechanism, will pay later on on their folly.

Don't get me wrong, it is not means Global Economy already coming back from negative consequences. Global market still fragile, but they also making their own adjustment. Russian economy is not clear of the wood yet, but so does Collective West especially Euro Zone.

All this prediction from IMF (and I believe those big banks market players), that adjustment coming faster then previously predicted. Thus fragility still ahead.


Add:
A member implied me before on other thread whether there are media sources that I trust more from the West. The answer is not particular media ( especially mainstream media) per say. However more on sources coming from market analysts and players, rather then Political agenda and their 'so call' Think Tank pundits.

Trust more on market mechanism, rather then Politicians agenda. Politicians may try to dictate market, but market through out time already shown they are doing things on their own later on. Thus market will see on more realistic balance view.
 
Last edited:

seaspear

Well-Known Member
There has often been discussion here on Ukraine's desire to join N.A.T.O certainly Russia's military actions and the threats from its government do not appear to recognise Ukraine's right to this self-determination , and even argued that Ukraine does not have this right or that this a provocation from the U.S or N.A.T.O , basically though Ukraine's legal right to self-determination is covered under International Law
Self determination (international law) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
How Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Violates International Law | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)
Certainly according to this article Russia's pretexts for the invasion of Ukraine do not meet stipulated requirements of acting in self defence as per article 51
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal under international law: suggesting it's not is dangerous (theconversation.com)
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think it’s pretty basic. Uncontrolled non European immigration is destabilizing and ultimately becomes a security issue. If the EU wants to make a concerted effort at defense they would need to create a unified force to protect the interests of the EU. To defend against domestic unrest a strict border control and immigration policy is essential. Similar problem to that which the US faces.
It has nothing to do with the current discussion, nor defence. It's a political issue and politics do not go down well here. Don't try to dissemble.
 

SolarisKenzo

Active Member
The EU announced two important decisions:
A new platform within EEAS to scan and counter foreign disinformation
A new regulation about political advertising, to tackle foreign and internal misuse of social medias ads.

The EUCO ( EU council ) will also have an extraordinary 2-days meeting in the next days.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The EU announced two important decisions:
A new platform within EEAS to scan and counter foreign disinformation
A new regulation about political advertising, to tackle foreign and internal misuse of social medias ads.

The EUCO ( EU council ) will also have an extraordinary 2-days meeting in the next days.
I get very suspicious about anyone claiming to fight "misuse" of social media advertising. The nature of social media advertising and the data harvesting that goes with it is terrifying. There is an argument to be made that the manner in which social media advertising is run by big tech platforms is itself the misuse. Internet censorship is already on the rise. Adding an ideological dimension on top of what's already there doesn't seem helpful.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
"History does not repeat itself but it rhymes".

A well written and very interesting thread on Finland's experiences during WW2: (1) Janne M. Korhonen (@[email protected]) on Twitter / Twitter

I think this thread explains nicely why NATO is so important to small countries like Finland, Norway, and the Baltics. Perhaps it also explains why so many in the Baltics, Poland, Finland, etc. are so eager to support Ukraine. They understand better than most what's at stake, both for Ukraine but also for other small democracies.

... and a follow up thread from the same author: (1) Janne M. Korhonen (@[email protected]) on Twitter / Twitter
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I get very suspicious about anyone claiming to fight "misuse" of social media advertising. The nature of social media advertising and the data harvesting that goes with it is terrifying. There is an argument to be made that the manner in which social media advertising is run by big tech platforms is itself the misuse. Internet censorship is already on the rise. Adding an ideological dimension on top of what's already there doesn't seem helpful.
"Adding an ideological dimension ..." The ideological dimension has been present right from when Putin gained power. His war against Ukraine, NATO, and the west has had an ideological bent right from when he first conceived of the idea. Politics are ideological regardless of the political bent. Don't forget that von Clausewitz stated that war is politics by another means. He is correct in that.
 

SolarisKenzo

Active Member
I get very suspicious about anyone claiming to fight "misuse" of social media advertising. The nature of social media advertising and the data harvesting that goes with it is terrifying. There is an argument to be made that the manner in which social media advertising is run by big tech platforms is itself the misuse. Internet censorship is already on the rise. Adding an ideological dimension on top of what's already there doesn't seem helpful.
Without going into the " right or wrong matter", which is as you correctly said, extremely complicated especially within social medias, the problem is real.
European politics is constantly disturbed by foreign disinformation and the amount of propaganda shared by Russians, Chinese or even US-related bots and agencies is huge.

For the EU, that since the COVID pandemics has been trying to take a step ahead in creating some sort of federation ( and, apart from the defence and foreign policy area, EU is closer to a federation than to a confederation ) this is a big problem.
Other powers have been supporting nationalists and anti-europeists parties for many years, slowing down everything.

These two could be seen as anti-freedom measures, since they are basically imposing some sort of censorship on political ads and social-media freedom of speech.
Well, they probably are.
And I get suspicious too, but it's also a fact that continental Europeans arent as sensible as British or Americans in their " freedom of speech matters ".
European governments, and the Russian one is not really an exception, have always wanted to control information and intervene in social life.
That fact that now the EU is directly going to take care of these, could certainly be concerning... But could also be a positive things, from a certain point of view.
Let's see
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
"Adding an ideological dimension ..." The ideological dimension has been present right from when Putin gained power. His war against Ukraine, NATO, and the west has had an ideological bent right from when he first conceived of the idea. Politics are ideological regardless of the political bent. Don't forget that von Clausewitz stated that war is politics by another means. He is correct in that.
The fight against disinformation is won through education and good information. Not through censorship. I don't know if I need to point out that taking from Putin's playbook in terms of censorship isn't a good idea.

I'll add that Putin generally doesn't have an ideological dimension. Putin & Co. have been trying to come up with an ideology for practically the past 20 years, but have failed. Religion isn't going to do the trick though they have tried. Appealing to vague senses of socialist nostalgia didn't work. Pushing some sort of re-envisioned pan-slavism isn't working either. And of course "die for Putin's off-shore bank accounts" isn't particularly appealing. Note what happened when the mobilization was declared. People fled en-masse. More people fled the possibility of mobilization then the number of people actually called up. And these are often the more educated middle-class.

Without going into the " right or wrong matter", which is as you correctly said, extremely complicated especially within social medias, the problem is real.
European politics is constantly disturbed by foreign disinformation and the amount of propaganda shared by Russians, Chinese or even US-related bots and agencies is huge.

For the EU, that since the COVID pandemics has been trying to take a step ahead in creating some sort of federation ( and, apart from the defence and foreign policy area, EU is closer to a federation than to a confederation ) this is a big problem.
Other powers have been supporting nationalists and anti-europeists parties for many years, slowing down everything.

These two could be seen as anti-freedom measures, since they are basically imposing some sort of censorship on political ads and social-media freedom of speech.
Well, they probably are.
And I get suspicious too, but it's also a fact that continental Europeans arent as sensible as British or Americans in their " freedom of speech matters ".
European governments, and the Russian one is not really an exception, have always wanted to control information and intervene in social life.
That fact that now the EU is directly going to take care of these, could certainly be concerning... But could also be a positive things, from a certain point of view.
Let's see
The first amendment is probably my favorite part of the US Constitution. I'll leave it at that.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The fight against disinformation is won through education and good information. Not through censorship. I don't know if I need to point out that taking from Putin's playbook in terms of censorship isn't a good idea.
I don't think you can win the fight against disinformation purely through education and good information and I think that disinformation will always be with us, but the balance can be swung against disinformation with education and good information and openness and high levels of integrity by those in authority . I agree that censor ship is not a good idea as it can easily become a tool that becomes miss used by the authorities for their own purposes as happens in a lot of countries now even if it originally started with the best intentions. There is simply in my view no easy answer to this problem and it will be an ongoing problem.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Quite deviance statement from BrahMos Aerospace CEO, and he's Indian. I put this on the perspective on Collective West effort to crippled Russian MIC export market. This kind of 'deviance' shown Russian MIC export market will not 'bow' down easily on West demand. Especially the long term traditional Russian MIC market.

New export market or smaller Russian MIC export market, perhaps more easily give disincentive by collective west to stay away on Russian MIC. Even that will not be easily done. Sourcing from Russia as alternative from West, in many non western countries is part of sign 'independence' policies. Sometimes that they can shown to their constituency that they are not dictate by any big boys.

Just like Russian Hydrocarbons, which will always found new market (by being close from Western market), Russian MIC will also going to find export market. Some market will stay away from Russian MIC but not their long term traditional ones. Simply not just matter of politics, but also because dependency of their existing inventories.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The fight against disinformation is won through education and good information. Not through censorship. I don't know if I need to point out that taking from Putin's playbook in terms of censorship isn't a good idea.

I'll add that Putin generally doesn't have an ideological dimension. Putin & Co. have been trying to come up with an ideology for practically the past 20 years, but have failed. Religion isn't going to do the trick though they have tried. Appealing to vague senses of socialist nostalgia didn't work. Pushing some sort of re-envisioned pan-slavism isn't working either. And of course "die for Putin's off-shore bank accounts" isn't particularly appealing. Note what happened when the mobilization was declared. People fled en-masse. More people fled the possibility of mobilization then the number of people actually called up. And these are often the more educated middle-class.
But Putin and his cohorts do have an ideology, the ideology of a mafia organisation or criminal gang. It may not a political or religious ideology, but it is an ideology nonetheless. After all, to quote Tom Clancy, war is robbery writ large.
 
Top