Sure. And Yarosh and Beletsky are Ukrainian patriots. Yarosh somehow developed amnesia re the role of Mossad Delta and US Zionists in Maidan coup. BlackRock is calling!
It was meant to be sarcastic. But think about it, sarcasm or not, Macron really said exactly those words. I would have done it if not for cowardly Germans. Macron does not speak for France, he is not deGaulle. He is a clown, like Zelensky, an actor. Scholz weak as he is, unable to even ask who destroyed Nordstream, is the last barrier to a real war against Russia. Sad, and bad.
French forces can take Moscow, then the world. The mighty French military. The cheese eating surrender monkeys can do it. Johnny says so. All cheer for Johnny, the newest military analyst in his mummy's basement.
S-500 shield is already deployed. While it may be 90% effective, that means Putin must count on 10% of them getting through. The USA has 600 missiles, of which 400 are in silos, 200 by sea. France might have two dozen. Therefore the likely warhead penetration from France is only 1 or 2 getting through, assuming the launch vehicles have even been maintained.
Yes, the French had the greatest army in Europe until Napoleon entered Russia.Fortunately for France and the world, the Russians had mercy on Paris and did not burn it to the ground as they did later to Berlin. I'm certain the Russians are shitting themselves today at the thought of a French "intervention"..
In our "everybody gets a trophy" Western Education, History is a Comic Book Narrative.
Crazed Russia-hating junkies in DC and London want you to believe Russia destroyed Berlin, when a better argument can be made that Russia saved what was left of Berlin.
Where were you educated? The Red Army did not burn Berlin to the ground! Please do make sure of the facts before spewing your ignorance in front of us all ... and remember, opinions are NOT facts.
By the tone of your comment you're angry and in a state of emotional crisis over this. I understand that. Please be assured, however, that I recogniser my error and do apologise for upsetting you and anyone else who has been damaged by this horrid mistake - I got a bit carried away. Please do take a deep breath and relax.
Not really angry, or in crisis - I just think there are too many people spewing out lies about Russia, and trying to change the facts of history as regards WW2 (not to mention about Ukraine, Israel, USSR, etc). Obviously people who tell lies about history are either uneducated or unethical. I was assuming that you are uneducated rather than morally corrupt.
Goya, M. (2018) [2004]. Flesh and Steel During the Great War: The Transformation of the French Army and the Invention of Modern Warfare. Translated by Uffindell, A. (La chair et l'acier: l'armée française et l'invention de la guerre moderne (1914–1918) Éditions Tallandier, Paris ed.). Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 978-1-47388-696-4.
Echevarria II, Antulio J. (2000). After Clausewitz: German Military Thinkers before the Great War. Modern War Studies. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1071-6.
Ah, there were a few localized exceptions. The Bite and Hold strategy that is working so well for Russia right now was pioneered by the British at the Battle of Passchendaele in Belgium. The British high command, naturally, hated it because it didn't result in the big breakout attack they'd been massacring troops trying to achieve. (This is what happens when almost your entire high command are cavalry officers who detest infantry combat)
Exactly. Quality of French troops is probably very good, but look at the size! This is not a force which will make much difference. Europe is not built for big land wars, and that's a GOOD thing. We were supposed to have learned not to have big land wars in Europe, learned to limit arms by agreements, and learned to vigorously practice diplomacy, to avoid repeating the horrors of the period leading up to 1945. In that kind of environment, no one needs a big land army.
and then we gave a lot of power to the EU and with it we also stopped practicing diplomacy. Instead we adopted the old strategy to tell others what to do and what not to do as we, living in the garden, have the highest moral values that exist in humankind: hubris, hypocrisy, double standards
I would think the quality is good. But then I think of something that Col. MacGregor likes to point out: at the time of the Franco-Prussian War, the big huge and well-respected French Army suddenly got CRUSHED.
Why? They had spent a few generations "fighting" people who only had spears and such like. So the army ATROPHIED. A big dumb playground bully.
Kind of like the US military today. They have a hard time fighting guys in sandals. Imagine if they have to fight today's Russian army.
Are we actually sure today? Russia have thousands of modern super nukes, tens of thousands tac nukes, have working AD systems capable of intercepting ICBMS, and on other side we have ancient faulty Minutemen and no working AD at all.
I think you are being sarcastic as ww1 happened 3-4 generations before. In the meanwhile the western population after WW2 got used to wealth and luxury, preferring an office job instead, become a manager as the highest achievement (money, status). The population don't want to go back to the cold, the hunger, the pain, the suffering. And they definitely are not willing to dig trenches as that is part of being a soldier at the front as well.
I'm quite sure even now there is a team of Russian general staff members working on the equivalent of a map of France with their red pencils and circles of probability (very similar to a dot, these days). Counting devices required and launch lines from the North Sea.
They pause for chai periodically and that one fellow makes another quip about "dropping off a few in London." They laugh and chuckle that that's the job of the team next door.
Because it's embarrassing enough that Russia is taking out America's best air defence system with ease. So they're coping by saying Russia used hypersonic missiles to do so. When in reality Russia just used it's normal Iskander
Even Iraqi scuds were hypersonic way back in 1990. But there is a distinction between hypersonic (Mach 5 to Mach 10) such as the Iskander, and "high hypersonic" (Mach 10 to Mach 20), the latter being the category which describes the Kinzhal.
BTW, the air force spokesperson for Ukraine stated to Kyiv Post in December of 2023 the the Ukraine has been unable to shoot down a single Iskander under the headline "Russia’s Kh-22 – the Missile Ukraine Has Yet to Shoot Down".
There you have it. Official acknowledgement that Ukraine is unable to shoot down a single Iskander in over two years, but it can simultaneously blow away up six high hypersonic Kinzhals descending from nearly directly overhead, encased in a blazing plasma sheath, deploying multiple decoy flares in terminal phase.
It slows to about Mach 5 (3,700 mph+) at terminal phase due to atmospheric drag, at which point it deploys a series of decoy flares to compemnsate, although a Mach 5 target is not easy to hit. Furthermore, it's descent is very nearly dead vertical, which is problematic for the Patriot which has related limitations.
Ukrainian officials have published photos of missile wreckage including a nosecone but the photo in question is zoomed very tight, denying the the observer the ability to detect the shape of nose cone, but it does not appear to be a Kinzhal or Iskander which share a rather distinctive shaped nose cone when compared to any other known missile.
Consider that the US hypersonic missile program, the AGM-183 ARRW which supposed to reach a top speed of Mach 5 in flight, but the program failed and was cancelled a year ago this month after which the Pentagon announced it would be starting over with a competing vendor. Yet the Ukrainians are claiimng that the US has the ability to stop a missile traveling at Mach 5 in yermional phave while it is spitting out white hot flares with a system that manages a max. speed of Mach 3.5.
One other thing to note. In the green zone in Iraq which is defended by Patriots, roughly 50% of the presumably less advanced Iranian-made missiles are known to get through. Yet Ukraine would have us believe that they can shoot down six hypersonic missiles at a time with those very same defences. Magic!
The 9K720 Iskander (Russian: «Искандер»; NATO reporting name SS-26 Stone) is a mobile short-range ballistic missile system produced and deployed by the Russian military. They travel at a terminal hypersonic speed of 2100–2600 m/s (Mach 6–7) and can reach an altitude of 50 km as they range up to 500 km. The missile systems (Искандер-М) were intended to replace by 2020 the supposedly-obsolete OTR-21 Tochka systems in the Russian military.
Forgive me, but people are always fighting the last war. Germans wanted land and to a lesser extent, slaves, in order to fuel their vision for a utopian, thousand-year empire of scientific racism.
Russians already have all the land they could ever want, and all the people groups a DIE specialist could dream for, from which to build a glorious future--without communism, this time.
After the last war, the Soviet Union (distinct from Russia, by the way, which is also not the Red Army) annexed East Prussia was well as other bits of land to which it had historical claim. Despite the thankless irritation of the Poles, the Soviet Union did not re-annex all of Poland, nor did it annex Eastern Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria or parts of Austria. Which they could have. Which the Germans, and the French of past generations, would have.
After marching into Paris in 1814, the Russians... left. They didn't hang around France asking to be the target of insurrectionists. They went back to welcome their slavic brother Grand Duchy of Warsaw Poles in their freedom from German rule. (Insert ironic /sarc tag, here.)
The culmination of the world war will come via a combination of nuclear decapitation strikes and more limited border settlements. It will end because one or both side doesn't have electricity anymore and quickly won't be able to feed itself. It's annexation wave will take the form of the settlements of outstanding financial debts, and the resulting lands will be spun off into new countries once a sympathetic zone of influence can be assured.
French résistance concerning 0.4 % of the population, mainly communists. Vast majority was in full ''collabo'' mode or living below Lyon (zone libre for years), no occupation.
The whole Hollywood inspired French Resistance myth was promulgated in order to deflect any awareness of French cowardice and complicity - many French people welcomed Nazi ideas (and still do!)
Fighting back against the characterization of the French as surrender monkeys is ...too late. I know that they had no choice but to surrender in 1940. Call it bad generalship across the Army and Air Force, but it wasn't due to a lack of bravery. The Germans just plain won. Then there was Dien Bien Phu and Algeria. I point at leadership in both cases. The French have been ill-served by their political and military leaders for many years now. I see no sign of this changing.
I hate the Froggie scum as much as any self-respecting Englishman must, but sad to say you're generally right.
The French had the bad luck to surrender in America's 'Moment of Global Empire Glory', when Hollywood froze all of time, and whitewashed away the history before that. If they were just "surrender monkies", the Brutish Empire would have wiped them away easily.
God! I just defended FRANCE!! :pukes:
Now I have to go wash my mouth out with covid-medicine.
Macron army has 3 days ammo in stock, can provide big max: 12.000 men according to multiple retired generals (free to say the truth, droit de réserve over). Good luck. Macron is only playing an election war against RN (national front) he says anybody voting against his party 'renaissance' is a Putinist, pro Hitler, Munich 1938 etc etc..RN Le Pen is pro ukrops, pro EU, pro nato etc..fake opposition, same for the extreme left of Mélenchon (a bit against nato but not too much). RN is ahead in studies (sondages) at 32 %, Macron candidate very weak at 18% even with 24/7 msm propaganda. All cia and mossad agents are on msm daily, very strange they are almost all jews...(Ménard, Haddad, Tenzer, Zemmour, Marion mossad le pen maréchal, BHL, Glucksmann (socialists), Kouchner etc..only E Todd is trying to explain them they are crazy it is too late, ''occident'' is finished.
WW1 was absolute insanity. Lambs to the slaughter. France lost 1,150,000 soldiers, one of the reasons it depended on the Maginot Line was because it had so few men left of military age when WW2 came.
(Despite surrendering in WW2 in many places the French fought hard and bravely and put the Germans in real difficulty. "The figures speak for themselves. Of the 3,000 tanks the Germans deployed, 1,800 were put out of action. Of 3,500 planes they lost 1,600. In a month of fighting they lost 50,000 dead and more than 160,000 wounded. It was a genuine combat."
The French also capably covered the British retreat to Dunkirk with the result that far more men were successfully evacuated than had been feared. In addition, there was also tough fighting against the Italians in the Alps, while on the Maginot Line only a handful of forts had capitulated by the armistice in mid-June.
But the greatest injustice - for many - is not the failure to commemorate these minor victories, but the slur over the years on the courage of individual French soldiers and airmen").The French fought for weeks, even after Dunkirk.
If you want know how fast a country surrenders try Denmark, Belgium or the Netherlands, all just a few hours. If it wasn’t for the French keeping the British busy, the American insurgents would never have won.
And people forget that in WW1 countries like Serbia, Romania and the Ottoman empire lost an incredible amount of soldiers, civilians as well.
Servia lost 16 to 27.8 percent of its population. The Ottoman empire 13 to15 percent.
"The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was about 40 million: estimates range from around 15 to 22 million deaths[1] and about 23 million wounded military personnel, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history.
The total number of deaths includes from 9 to 11 million military personnel. The civilian death toll was about 6 to 13 million.[1][2] The Triple Entente (also known as the Allies) lost about 6 million military personnel while the Central Powers lost about 4 million. At least 2 million died from diseases and 6 million went missing, presumed dead.
This article (below) lists the casualties of the belligerent powers based on official published sources. About two-thirds of military deaths in World War I were in battle, unlike the conflicts that took place in the 19th century when the majority of deaths were due to disease.
Nevertheless, disease, including the 1918 flu pandemic and deaths while held as prisoners of war, still caused about one third of total military deaths for all belligerents." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
Foolish of Bush the Younger to start an unpopular war when both France and Germany were facing elections. Jusdt AFTER the elections, and they'd have been in.
Still, with Saddams' 10,000 nooklia and chermicle missiles aiming at the West with only 30mins flight/warning time, they had no time to waste. ;)
Define "won". France surely had enough troops left to form fully manned SS division and fascist regime in the country. So, did they "lost" or just surrendered?
They were unable to defend the remainder of France after the northern armies either surrendered or withdrew to England. The numbers left were insufficient for the task and the front lengthened as a result of Belgian defeat and surrender. Also, there were morale issues after the defeats of the first month. It's really not that difficult to understand. The leadership did a foolhardy thing in splitting the armies too widely across the front in an attempt to shield Belgium and part of the Netherlands. Hubris, the kind we see today a lot in Western circles.
It should be obvious by now that John is the same troll who posts under a variety of names on MoA and says whatever tomfool thing comes to mind, making up his facts as he goes along, saying whatever will get a rise out of the people here.
I know about resistance to the French, just like they had in the Sahel until ejection, but further south
In the north it is true that there is no longer any resistance, nor in France nor in the EU, to the warmongering of their ruling classes, and even less in the US
But this war gives hope that at least the RF resistance will crack up both NATO and the EU and allow for popular resistance to work
Risible. The French cannot even resist the invasion of their own country by hundreds of thousands of Africans. The only thing they can do is to encourage the invaders to carry on going north, into England.
As the FFL lounges on the beaches of Odessa, complaining about the quality of the croissants, made with cheap Ukrainian wheat and butter, whilst washing them down with a cheaper local red.....
The Brits may have to sell one of their two aircraft carriers because they haven't the crews to man a second one: report. Anyone looking for a pre-loved aircraft carrier? Needs a drive shaft and some fire restoration.
Along with their friends from Britain, Canada, US, Italy, Australia, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Poland, Serbia, Romania and Japan in 1918. That being France's 2nd failed attempt to take on the Red Army.
Are you serious? The French military, just like most other EU nations is a paper tiger which could sustain combat operations for more than a few days before running out of ammunition for artillery and other heavy weaponry. Plus the French have no stomach for casualties.
I think very few nations or people have a "stomach for casualties" when they/we do not see the war as necessary. When our own country and friends and family are in danger, we will have the stomach necessary - but to have our people dismembered and killed because our corporate or political elites command it? No, only the desperate and the deluded will fight or support such a war.
A perfect illustration of the paradox the west is stuck in – how to move essential goods/materials from one declared enemy, China, while avoiding transit via the other declared enemies the west has made
A direct result of the USUK war against Ansar Allah, in turn a direct result of the EUUSUK war on Gaza, via the Israel proxy
Something the Europeans and their allies wished to avoid at all costs – but this is the price to pay of waging war on everyone
The only solution is to declare full scale war on China & to cease trade with everyone
Another paradox is that fighting wars by proxy is guaranteed to fail
The paradoxes the west finds itself stuck with will strangle it’s economy, politics, and society
« Logistics providers including Switzerland’s Kuehne & Nagel and Denmark’s Maersk said they had been avoiding using rail routes through Russia following Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Monthly volumes on the route fell after the invasion and still represent less than the amount carried by a single large modern container ship.
RZD, which owns Russia’s vast rail network and operates most trains, is owned by the Russian state and has long been seen as closely connected to the Kremlin. The UK government described Oleg Belozyorov, the company’s chief executive, as having “close ties to Putin” when it imposed sanctions on him in April 2022.
Related –
Russia China rail freight and investment increase
« Russia to bolster famed eastern railways link as China trade booms »
« Vladimir Putin outlined plans to boost annual shipping capacity on Russia’s two longest railroads, the Trans-Siberian and Baikal-Amur Mainline, to 210 million tons by 2030, in an address to the Federal Assembly on Feb. 29 ahead of next week’s presidential election. The rail lines handled about 150.5 million tons of goods in 2023, according to the Kommersant newspaper. »
« Russia has already spent billions of dollars to nearly double the capacity of the rail lines to an expected 180 million tons this year from 97.8 million tons in 2013. Yet, current demand is twice as high as the track can handle, state-run Rossiyskaya Gazeta said in February, citing government data. »
« So again, while the threat of secondary sanctions is causing Russia and other countries to recalibrate, it will not change the overall trend. Far from strengthening US power, these will likely speed up the US decline as they provide encouragement for other countries to reduce their economic dependence on the US. The West is caught in the paradox where the more it tries to isolate Russia, the more lucrative it is to be an intermediary country.
And the more ridiculous and heavy-handed the West’s demands to choose a side become. If we go back to the example of Kazakhstan, imagine how absurd it must be to have US Secretary of State Antony Blinken or French President Emmanual Macron show up asking the country situated to essentially destroy its economy in order to help Washington and Europe isolate or contain Russia. (And the conversation and outcome will likely be much the same, with China in Russia’s place, as the US turns its attention to Beijing.)
On the other hand, the Russian approach has not pressured countries to choose sides and accepts ‘neutral’ stances on the war.
The folly of the West’s strategy seems to be dawning on an increasing number of Western analysts. Here is Alexander Libman, professor of Russian and East European politics at Freie Universität Berlin, who is representative of the trend. He bemoans the inability of the West to isolate Russia for its “unprovoked aggression”, but admits that isolation is impossible:
India and China import commodities from Russia precisely because Western sanctions force Russia to sell these commodities at a discount; Türkiye, the UAE and the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union benefit a lot from the rerouting of trade flows between EU and Russia through their territory. For Chinese companies (e.g., automakers), the exit of Western firms from Russia, along with Western sanctions, became an excellent (and historically unique) tool to acquire new markets: Russia is now the largest importer of Chinese cars in the world.
Certainly, the threat of new sanctions makes some companies from these countries to rethink their engagement with Russia; however, others will then come to take their place, attracted by even more lucrative economic opportunities. This does not mean that this “shadow integration” of Russia into the global world is in any way efficient or superior to how the Russian economy worked before the war. The costs of arbitrage are substantial – meaning that imports to Russia are getting more expensive (or are of lower quality) and Russian exports are sold at a lower price. However, the new model works. …
There are limits to the effectiveness of even the most severe secondary sanctions the West could impose against those willing to trade with Russia. At the very least, these limits are determined by the monitoring capacity not only of the West, but of national governments. In the worst case, Russia’s shadow integration into the world economy could trigger the emergence of alternative payment systems and trade routes that are entirely outside Western control – this would be a substantial blow to Western statecraft in the long run. »
"This does not mean that this “shadow integration” of Russia into the global world is in any way efficient or superior to how the Russian economy worked before the war. The costs of arbitrage are substantial – meaning that imports to Russia are getting more expensive (or are of lower quality) and Russian exports are sold at a lower price. However, the new model works. …"
That is a perfect explanation of why it is so stupid to claim that Russia had plans to invade Ukraine all along. All they ever wanted was integration into the West - not shadow integration but in the full light of day. They knew that the US and its allies were waiting for a chance to try to sanction them to death so that they could regain control, and that an invasion would give the West that pretext. They also knew that narrative control and the short memory span of the US/EU population are sufficient for the latter to believe that the invasion was "unprovoked." But they finally reached the point where they realized that international law and real diplomacy mean nothing to the US, and that it was time to burn bridges and turn to the rest of the world.
The escalation rhetoric from a few Euro states is massively dangerous - for NATO and the EU. It will likely accelerate the already present centrifugal forces within both alliances and will force more reluctant members (by far the majority) to distance themselves and possibly break away. There is no doubt that informed people within Europe know the brutality with which Russia would dismember and expeditionary force that was sent into Ukraine and seeing it live on TV/Twitter would slacken the war appetite of all but the most insanely belligerent on the Continent.
The great irony is that NATOs own actions are increasing the multipolarity even within Europe.
It should actually be a reminder to us all: be careful with any action to counter your fears as these actions may bring the exact result you are afraid of. But then again: stupidity of humankind is infinite and we see examples everyday.
I needed a new carpet in my bedroom and so 2 guys came along to physically(!) lay the carpet. Afterwards we had coffee and we discussed some of the turbulence in the world. These 2 guys turned out to have more common sense than any politician in our (dutch) government.
It is easy to dig into Russia rich history and find times when they were invaded by Poles, Swedes, French, British and the Germans, and the Russians paranoia will be proved to a rational fear as in "just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you".
I keep getting surprised by the stupidity of European leaders, still, even though I should know better!
Americans think that Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were wars on their soil. Americans believe that the best defense is a strong offense - so they attack anyone anywhere that they think are too weak to be a threat.
Getting pissed off at Americans is an exercise in futility, they are too stupid to even acknowledge you exist. You had better to just laugh and shake your head as you walk away - they can not be saved because they do not even realize that they need saving!
It looks like NATO wishes to 'go out with a BANG' instead of 'going out with a Whimper.'
That said, it is doubtful that such measures can be meaningfully pursued given the Populist Revolts rapidly escalating across the Continent (a la the Farmers & others joining in). The People in Europe will not tolerate this Farce escalating to the next step, so the French chihuahua can bark as he wishes... but it is unlikely that he will be able to pursue such a thing given Domestic Politics.
Who on earth denies there is a climate? Such stupid terms are a sign of avoiding thinking and demanding that everybody begs the question in exactly the same way as the speaker.
Similarly, nobody denies that climates change. (You are not helping your case, having to be dragged by tiny steps towards elucidating whatever position you think everybody should adopt because you have.)
Again, begging the question. I'm not going to get side-tracked here into teasing out your position, whatever it is, by question after question. My point is that you don't seem to feel the need to present a case and argue FOR it, as is your duty if you want people to make major sacrifices to fit in with your policies. Your strategy is to assume that all reasonable people already agree with whatever you have decided is best for the rest of us, and to use disparaging terms to describe any resisters that are demanding you prove your case before imposing drastic preventative action, so as to imply that they have to prove their position while you do not.
My point was not to prove you wrong, but to point out the illegitimate attempt to reverse the burden of proof. I have adequately done that, and do not intend to be drawn into a detailed discussion of the substance, as it is not my centre of interest. I will just say that I started off as fairly sympathetic to climate alarmism myself, but when I put a bit of time into looking at the controversy, I found that question-begging, censorship, institutional capture and outright lying were the main strategies of the alarmists, while the skeptics engaged in what looked like good-faith, rational scientific arguments. Having looked at the quality of the arguments for serious climate alarmism, and seen mainly cherry-picking of evidence and suppression of countervailing evidence and argument, I found myself moving any human effects on the climate to near the bottom of my list of worries.
That may be. But the majority of the protesting farmers are understandably upset that they're being singled out and given impractical mandates by elites and bureaucrats who have never farmed in their lives. They're also getting run out of business by rising costs in fertilizer, fuel and transport.
Many respected scientists also doubt that current climate changes are caused by human activity. I would be more inclined to "believe in" human caused "climate change" if that belief were not being pushed by big government, big business, big academia, and being used to further enrich and empower the already wealthy and powerful.
That said, doesn't anyone wonder about how much "climate change" resembles a religion? One either believes in it, or one is a heretic!
The climate has always changed in the whole of the Earth's history, so why would it be any different now? For every argument anyone will give trying to blame humans for the climate. There's at least 2 scientifically proven reasons the Sun's cycles are the main driver of Earth's climate. Then secondly impacts upon the Earth causing natural disasters which correct themselves after periods of time. No one is denying we need to clean our act up. But causing pollution is a completely different subject to Earth's climate changing. As for using carbon dioxide as the bogey man is another massive argument altogether.
Humans have been pumping excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and that is heated the planet atmosphere up by 1.3°C since the industrial revolution. And as a result, extreme weather events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, storms, heatwaves and droughts have all increased.
Carbon dioxide is the gas of life. Without it there would be no life on earth. At least one of the earth's major extinction events happened because carbon dioxide fell to less than 150ppm which is the minimum need to sustain plant life.
13,000 years ago the Earth was so hot that the African monsoons extended as far north as the coast of Libya. The Sahara was a verdant grassland and the rains sustained a lake in the center larger than all of the North American Great Lakes combined. 5000 years ago planetary orbit and axial shifts, plus solar dimming, led to cooling that ended the rains over only a few hundred years.
1500 years ago the planet was warm enough to grow grapes in Greenland and it's referred to as the "Roman Climate Optimum" by historians who still like permanent ice caps on poles. Then it got stupid cold (again) and just about ended the Danish colonies.
So. What do you and your anthropomorphic warming fellow travelers have against Greenlanders who have suffered glaciation for so many centuries? Or Africans that you want them to starve? --It's more of the same racism and very, very tiresome.
Nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere and oxygen makes up 21% of the atmosphere. 0.9% is argon, and the remaining 0.1% is composed of various other chemicals such as carbon dioxide and methane.
Did you see that? 0.1% of various other chemicals such as carbon dioxide. I think it's actual composition is circa 0.04%, and cutting it to say 0.02% would actually end life on earth. Get a grip of the science, dude, and stop pissing your pants over a non-problem. CO2 is plant food, and a little bit more is actually greening the planet.
The other day I watched Dmitry Orlov in an interview with Nima and he mentioned if I remember correctly that actually the universe is heating up including the core of the planet. Not sure what to think of this and if that indeed is happening. Dmitry doesn't seem to be an ignorant or stupid person.
The universe in aggregate is most assuredly not warming. That would violate the law of entropy and call into question foundational principles of physics. However, it's possible he was saying that the local solar system could warming if, for instance, we're entering a higher energy solar cycle. If I recall, there's been some talk of increased solar output but I don't know the science well enough to have an opinion.
Yeah, had to recall from memory. But I posted mostly to get some more information from commenters like you. Thank you for that.
One thing we know for sure is that the sun will get bigger overtime and eventually the earth will become inhabitable. But we are talking about millions of years then.
List information sources and I'll perform my own due diligence. Make unsupported claims? Or cite quote by "an impressive name" without the information required to access original source/verify context? Be ignored.
"The universe is warming". Yeah, dude, let's talk about what the concept of entropy means.
To use the classic example, why would Al Gore buy a beachfront mansion if he believed oceans would rise? Why would Bill Gates, Oprah and the Zuck buy up Hawaiian land if they truly believed tides would swallow them?
Either they are lying to you (ding ding ding) or they are monstrously stupid. Neither case presents a good reason to listen to them. So which is it, are they stupid or lying?
Based on Biden's State of the Union speech my take is entirely different; the US and NATO are doubling down. Biden started his speech by saying he won't back down, Putin is evil, and NATO is stronger than ever, and he wouldn't have said it if he wasn't going to get his $60 billion for the Ukraine. He also "guaranteed" Russia wouldn't stop with with just invading the Ukraine. On Tucker's interview, Putin noted that he had no reason to attack Poland, unless they attacked Russia. Southfront recently noted St. Petersburg was being attacked by drones from the Baltic counties, recently NATO members. NATO is headquartered in the US. You can't stop NATO by hitting back at the terrorists from the Baltics. Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg are security sensitive areas because of their location, and Russia has a new army there just in case. With Biden's war mongering speech and all the white robed acolytes cheering, I just don't see the US quitting this war.
Joe can’t quit the war before November, he has to keep up the rhetoric and insist we are Winning! because the only other option is to admit defeat and that all the money and killing were for nothing. He’s had chances to back away from this disaster, and true to who he is, he’s doubled down mindlessly every time.
The problem is that Ukraine may not be able to hold out to November. Well, that and the fact that hundreds of thousands more human beings will be shot down and buried in the mud before then, all to satisfy his ego.
Trump won't be allowed to leave Ukraine. The screams of "Putin puppet" would be deafening, and Trump is nothing if not weak, stupid, and easily manipulated.
They’ve been lying with this Putin’s Puppet bullshit since 2016. Trump resisted war with Russia in his first term. By the time he is sworn in for his second term, Ukraine will be aka Greater Russia.
Trump also cucked out twice trying to leave Syria and twice he knuckled under to pressure and attacked that country. And we all remember how "Russian bounties" were used to prevent an Afghan withdrawal.
England has two crippled aircraft carriers, and would not be able to deploy a full infantry brigade at current force levels. France has four brigades total. Sweden has one. Germany is at Weimar levels. All of Europe’s armies combined would lose a fight against the New York Jets football team.
Well, Nuland has gone (for the moment) until she comes up with some other place to meddle with. I pity the American people with hardly any healthcare/not enough housing/old people sleeping on the streets, now the US will warmonger in China!
When will the US get the idea that they need to look after their own people?
Well as Molyneux said, it's their own people who are the prime targets when going to war with others, it's their own people they rip off taxes on and stuff their pockets from sold useless weapons. Now Europe as well, through the NATO military sale channel. They care nothing about others including their own cattle.
I think that Putin is not very enthusiastic about Odessa and Kiev because the more of Ukraine outside the east Russia absorbs, the more wellfare cases and banderites Russia will have to deal with.
Whatever NATO redlines are, they are more a short to mid run operational concern than some absolute strategic constraint for Russia.
Poland and Britain have always worn their cold hearts on their sleeves, but I have long suspected that France, Germany and most of Northern Europe are warmongering fools simply hiding behind NATO and the U.S. They love a free ride. Who doesn’t? For the price of a few tanks and a bit of ammo, they get to subdue Russia. That was the plan. The greedy warmongers could not wait to Balkanize Russia. Plus Europe is energy needy, and these so-called leaders are breaking out into cold sweats. This should have been resolved by now in their favor. Europe’s history is war, war and more war for centuries. George Washington warned us to stay away from foreign entanglements for good reason. Too bad we did not listen.
France’s problem is that if they fully mobilize their army, that gets them up to four brigades. UK would not be able to field an Infantry division. Sweden, vaunted new NATO member, has a Swedish Brigade (and the Swedish Bikini team, although they are older than you remember them being).
The wars won’t end until we run out of victims to conscript into fighting them. Europe is rapidly running out.
Don’t people fuck anymore? I know it’s depressing what with the mass slaughter and genocide and everything. But Europe needs your babies, the next war is only a heartbeat away!!!
Sadly major changes or cleansing requires major death and destruction. Look at the horror and pure Satanism hidden and at display in occupied Palestine. Recently saw an interview of a Palestinian criminologist, Dr Nadera on Makdisi Street YT channel. It's unbelievably insane what goes on there. And Israeli regime is the explicit unmasked version of NATO elites.
I checked in the dictionary: https://www.wordnik.com/words/absolve Absolve means to make innocent. Nonculpable. Blameless. The purifying fire of WW3 will make everyone innocent? o.O
Presumably you just tripped over your tongue. Happens.
The only effective equalizer there is: WW3 and nuclear winter in the aftermath. Doesn't matter if you are dead poor or filthy rich, you are not going to make it.
Your mummy wants her computer back Johnny.
There is truth in what you say.
Watch this.https://youtu.be/-4jVVtKpv_Y
https://youtu.be/sg7Jy2OjPY4
Sure. And Yarosh and Beletsky are Ukrainian patriots. Yarosh somehow developed amnesia re the role of Mossad Delta and US Zionists in Maidan coup. BlackRock is calling!
Blackrock, the epitome of the American/Israeli Empire of skimming.
Too bad the "investment" in Military Budgets was skimmed, along with the core of the country.
You show all the intellect to be a failure at checkers. Try not to play Political Chess with the belligerent USA/NATO crowd.
France would have done it had it not been blocked by cowardly Germans
Now Germans are cowardly? Why because they don't want another war!
It was meant to be sarcastic. But think about it, sarcasm or not, Macron really said exactly those words. I would have done it if not for cowardly Germans. Macron does not speak for France, he is not deGaulle. He is a clown, like Zelensky, an actor. Scholz weak as he is, unable to even ask who destroyed Nordstream, is the last barrier to a real war against Russia. Sad, and bad.
French forces can take Moscow, then the world. The mighty French military. The cheese eating surrender monkeys can do it. Johnny says so. All cheer for Johnny, the newest military analyst in his mummy's basement.
Your (unknown) father's sperm were duds.
Most dribbled down mother's leg.
Yes....yes....you are Zelenski. After reading most of your stuff on this thread, it's dry humor.
You, having the common decency of letting Le Grande Armie repeating the glorious vacation at Borodino.
How many of them function?
S-500 shield is already deployed. While it may be 90% effective, that means Putin must count on 10% of them getting through. The USA has 600 missiles, of which 400 are in silos, 200 by sea. France might have two dozen. Therefore the likely warhead penetration from France is only 1 or 2 getting through, assuming the launch vehicles have even been maintained.
Every day a new troll arrives, each one more illiterate, and less intelligent than the last.
Not sending the best or brightest
1. Every European Capital has Russian Nukes, ready and able to go, targeted at them.
2. If the U.S. sends Nukes at Russia, then the entire U.S. Mainland, heavy to the Eastern Seaboard, will glow.
Do you think anyone is going to even get close to sending Nukes to Russia without killing their own country?
Back to the woodshed with you.
Considering that Ukraine still has aviation, Russian AD is not performing as advertised.
facts you moron not wild claims
what adverts you been watching
How do they get to Russian cities?
So now now we're playing nuclear Russian roulette with Russian cities and hoping that the missiles malfunction?
Troll gringo troll go home
They don’t have to function, so long as their enemies believe that they do.
The question is whether Macron is ready to have France wiped off the map. Amd Russia doesn't even need to use nukes.
Yes, the French had the greatest army in Europe until Napoleon entered Russia.Fortunately for France and the world, the Russians had mercy on Paris and did not burn it to the ground as they did later to Berlin. I'm certain the Russians are shitting themselves today at the thought of a French "intervention"..
The Russians burned Berlin to the ground? WTF is wrong with you?
By the time the Red Army got there the place was already rubble, courtesy of the RAF and the USAF.
pant
In our "everybody gets a trophy" Western Education, History is a Comic Book Narrative.
Crazed Russia-hating junkies in DC and London want you to believe Russia destroyed Berlin, when a better argument can be made that Russia saved what was left of Berlin.
Where were you educated? The Red Army did not burn Berlin to the ground! Please do make sure of the facts before spewing your ignorance in front of us all ... and remember, opinions are NOT facts.
By the tone of your comment you're angry and in a state of emotional crisis over this. I understand that. Please be assured, however, that I recogniser my error and do apologise for upsetting you and anyone else who has been damaged by this horrid mistake - I got a bit carried away. Please do take a deep breath and relax.
Not really angry, or in crisis - I just think there are too many people spewing out lies about Russia, and trying to change the facts of history as regards WW2 (not to mention about Ukraine, Israel, USSR, etc). Obviously people who tell lies about history are either uneducated or unethical. I was assuming that you are uneducated rather than morally corrupt.
😂
"France fought well in ww1"
For certain values of "throw enough Frenchmen at the Huns, and they'll go away"...
Sure....
NO-ONE fought well in that war, until they got over the "courage beats bullets" idiocy.
Goya, M. (2018) [2004]. Flesh and Steel During the Great War: The Transformation of the French Army and the Invention of Modern Warfare. Translated by Uffindell, A. (La chair et l'acier: l'armée française et l'invention de la guerre moderne (1914–1918) Éditions Tallandier, Paris ed.). Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 978-1-47388-696-4.
Echevarria II, Antulio J. (2000). After Clausewitz: German Military Thinkers before the Great War. Modern War Studies. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1071-6.
That's two myths.
Ah, there were a few localized exceptions. The Bite and Hold strategy that is working so well for Russia right now was pioneered by the British at the Battle of Passchendaele in Belgium. The British high command, naturally, hated it because it didn't result in the big breakout attack they'd been massacring troops trying to achieve. (This is what happens when almost your entire high command are cavalry officers who detest infantry combat)
French Resistance!
Sorry to destroy your bubble, but current French army is pale shadow of its Cold War self.
Exactly. Quality of French troops is probably very good, but look at the size! This is not a force which will make much difference. Europe is not built for big land wars, and that's a GOOD thing. We were supposed to have learned not to have big land wars in Europe, learned to limit arms by agreements, and learned to vigorously practice diplomacy, to avoid repeating the horrors of the period leading up to 1945. In that kind of environment, no one needs a big land army.
and then we gave a lot of power to the EU and with it we also stopped practicing diplomacy. Instead we adopted the old strategy to tell others what to do and what not to do as we, living in the garden, have the highest moral values that exist in humankind: hubris, hypocrisy, double standards
It will be the end of us. History is full of examples of this kind of approach. It never ends well.
I would think the quality is good. But then I think of something that Col. MacGregor likes to point out: at the time of the Franco-Prussian War, the big huge and well-respected French Army suddenly got CRUSHED.
Why? They had spent a few generations "fighting" people who only had spears and such like. So the army ATROPHIED. A big dumb playground bully.
Kind of like the US military today. They have a hard time fighting guys in sandals. Imagine if they have to fight today's Russian army.
And who in NATO is in any way in a better state?
And even back then, according to declassified Soviet estimates, French divisions were the least potent of the NATO divisions.
France = USA’s Little Sock Puppet lol
I can smell a troll miles away.
I hope you're not holding your breath, it's gunna be a looong wait....
No one will win a war between NATO and RU. It will be the end of us.
Unless the USA decides at the last minute that nuclear Kinzhals hitting the U.S. Mainland can be avoided by cutting off the European Cancer.
British and French Nukes won't even get their peckers out. And the U.S. controls the rest of NATO nukes.
Are we actually sure today? Russia have thousands of modern super nukes, tens of thousands tac nukes, have working AD systems capable of intercepting ICBMS, and on other side we have ancient faulty Minutemen and no working AD at all.
You didn't advocate anything because you didn't offer any arguments.
You are reaching back over 100 years for a positive example, you realize that dont you ?
LOL
I think you are being sarcastic as ww1 happened 3-4 generations before. In the meanwhile the western population after WW2 got used to wealth and luxury, preferring an office job instead, become a manager as the highest achievement (money, status). The population don't want to go back to the cold, the hunger, the pain, the suffering. And they definitely are not willing to dig trenches as that is part of being a soldier at the front as well.
You are a champion…a true thoroughbred
It's not the French Army that gives cause for concern but the air force, considering that Ukraine still has aviation.
And don't kid yourselves, if that French force gets chopped up, they won't just go home but demand more and bigger.
I'm quite sure even now there is a team of Russian general staff members working on the equivalent of a map of France with their red pencils and circles of probability (very similar to a dot, these days). Counting devices required and launch lines from the North Sea.
They pause for chai periodically and that one fellow makes another quip about "dropping off a few in London." They laugh and chuckle that that's the job of the team next door.
There is a hell of a lot f contingency planning going on these days, I'm sure.
France could launch a few baguettes with smelly Limburger cheese at invading Russian troops, then throw their arms up in the air and surrender.
You're right, such a collection of white flags on the field could blind Russian jet pilots, causing them to miss the glide bomb targets.
Why did that forbes article say Iskander is hypersonic?
Because it's embarrassing enough that Russia is taking out America's best air defence system with ease. So they're coping by saying Russia used hypersonic missiles to do so. When in reality Russia just used it's normal Iskander
Even Iraqi scuds were hypersonic way back in 1990. But there is a distinction between hypersonic (Mach 5 to Mach 10) such as the Iskander, and "high hypersonic" (Mach 10 to Mach 20), the latter being the category which describes the Kinzhal.
BTW, the air force spokesperson for Ukraine stated to Kyiv Post in December of 2023 the the Ukraine has been unable to shoot down a single Iskander under the headline "Russia’s Kh-22 – the Missile Ukraine Has Yet to Shoot Down".
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/26102
There you have it. Official acknowledgement that Ukraine is unable to shoot down a single Iskander in over two years, but it can simultaneously blow away up six high hypersonic Kinzhals descending from nearly directly overhead, encased in a blazing plasma sheath, deploying multiple decoy flares in terminal phase.
And aliens ate my Buick.
Thank you!
Sorry to hear of your loss!
In the 70's I learned to drive in a 58 Buick, the wonderful thing was made of steel, it could have gone through a brick wall without a scratch.
Thanks. With luck they got indigestion :)
The Khinzals slows down considerably a minute or so before the strike because of the plasma shield.
It slows to about Mach 5 (3,700 mph+) at terminal phase due to atmospheric drag, at which point it deploys a series of decoy flares to compemnsate, although a Mach 5 target is not easy to hit. Furthermore, it's descent is very nearly dead vertical, which is problematic for the Patriot which has related limitations.
Ukrainian officials have published photos of missile wreckage including a nosecone but the photo in question is zoomed very tight, denying the the observer the ability to detect the shape of nose cone, but it does not appear to be a Kinzhal or Iskander which share a rather distinctive shaped nose cone when compared to any other known missile.
Consider that the US hypersonic missile program, the AGM-183 ARRW which supposed to reach a top speed of Mach 5 in flight, but the program failed and was cancelled a year ago this month after which the Pentagon announced it would be starting over with a competing vendor. Yet the Ukrainians are claiimng that the US has the ability to stop a missile traveling at Mach 5 in yermional phave while it is spitting out white hot flares with a system that manages a max. speed of Mach 3.5.
One other thing to note. In the green zone in Iraq which is defended by Patriots, roughly 50% of the presumably less advanced Iranian-made missiles are known to get through. Yet Ukraine would have us believe that they can shoot down six hypersonic missiles at a time with those very same defences. Magic!
The 9K720 Iskander (Russian: «Искандер»; NATO reporting name SS-26 Stone) is a mobile short-range ballistic missile system produced and deployed by the Russian military. They travel at a terminal hypersonic speed of 2100–2600 m/s (Mach 6–7) and can reach an altitude of 50 km as they range up to 500 km. The missile systems (Искандер-М) were intended to replace by 2020 the supposedly-obsolete OTR-21 Tochka systems in the Russian military.
5000 mph
Does anyone know the velocity profile or the total flight time to get to the Patriot, using say a distance on the ground of 100-200km?
Roughly, terminal velocity 5000MPH / 60 = 83.333 miles in one minute, 1.3833 miles a second.
200km = 120 miles, so less than a minute and a half?
Not sure what "terminal velocity" is, max speed? Or max speed on the downward portion of the curve.
The latter.
Hyperbolic
METAL!
🤣 ❤
Simplicius. Without the French resistance in WW2 where would we be?
I am thinking that maybe some wars are won not by big 'bully' braggarts but by people thinking in different ways.
The Us goes in (without thinking) guns blazing..........Chinese take their time and look at the big picture perhaps Russia too?
Is it possible that N. Korea or the Chinese would aid Russia?
Forgive me, but people are always fighting the last war. Germans wanted land and to a lesser extent, slaves, in order to fuel their vision for a utopian, thousand-year empire of scientific racism.
Russians already have all the land they could ever want, and all the people groups a DIE specialist could dream for, from which to build a glorious future--without communism, this time.
After the last war, the Soviet Union (distinct from Russia, by the way, which is also not the Red Army) annexed East Prussia was well as other bits of land to which it had historical claim. Despite the thankless irritation of the Poles, the Soviet Union did not re-annex all of Poland, nor did it annex Eastern Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria or parts of Austria. Which they could have. Which the Germans, and the French of past generations, would have.
After marching into Paris in 1814, the Russians... left. They didn't hang around France asking to be the target of insurrectionists. They went back to welcome their slavic brother Grand Duchy of Warsaw Poles in their freedom from German rule. (Insert ironic /sarc tag, here.)
The culmination of the world war will come via a combination of nuclear decapitation strikes and more limited border settlements. It will end because one or both side doesn't have electricity anymore and quickly won't be able to feed itself. It's annexation wave will take the form of the settlements of outstanding financial debts, and the resulting lands will be spun off into new countries once a sympathetic zone of influence can be assured.
French résistance concerning 0.4 % of the population, mainly communists. Vast majority was in full ''collabo'' mode or living below Lyon (zone libre for years), no occupation.
The whole Hollywood inspired French Resistance myth was promulgated in order to deflect any awareness of French cowardice and complicity - many French people welcomed Nazi ideas (and still do!)
Fighting back against the characterization of the French as surrender monkeys is ...too late. I know that they had no choice but to surrender in 1940. Call it bad generalship across the Army and Air Force, but it wasn't due to a lack of bravery. The Germans just plain won. Then there was Dien Bien Phu and Algeria. I point at leadership in both cases. The French have been ill-served by their political and military leaders for many years now. I see no sign of this changing.
I hate the Froggie scum as much as any self-respecting Englishman must, but sad to say you're generally right.
The French had the bad luck to surrender in America's 'Moment of Global Empire Glory', when Hollywood froze all of time, and whitewashed away the history before that. If they were just "surrender monkies", the Brutish Empire would have wiped them away easily.
God! I just defended FRANCE!! :pukes:
Now I have to go wash my mouth out with covid-medicine.
Macron army has 3 days ammo in stock, can provide big max: 12.000 men according to multiple retired generals (free to say the truth, droit de réserve over). Good luck. Macron is only playing an election war against RN (national front) he says anybody voting against his party 'renaissance' is a Putinist, pro Hitler, Munich 1938 etc etc..RN Le Pen is pro ukrops, pro EU, pro nato etc..fake opposition, same for the extreme left of Mélenchon (a bit against nato but not too much). RN is ahead in studies (sondages) at 32 %, Macron candidate very weak at 18% even with 24/7 msm propaganda. All cia and mossad agents are on msm daily, very strange they are almost all jews...(Ménard, Haddad, Tenzer, Zemmour, Marion mossad le pen maréchal, BHL, Glucksmann (socialists), Kouchner etc..only E Todd is trying to explain them they are crazy it is too late, ''occident'' is finished.
Before you go, consider this:
WW1 was absolute insanity. Lambs to the slaughter. France lost 1,150,000 soldiers, one of the reasons it depended on the Maginot Line was because it had so few men left of military age when WW2 came.
(Despite surrendering in WW2 in many places the French fought hard and bravely and put the Germans in real difficulty. "The figures speak for themselves. Of the 3,000 tanks the Germans deployed, 1,800 were put out of action. Of 3,500 planes they lost 1,600. In a month of fighting they lost 50,000 dead and more than 160,000 wounded. It was a genuine combat."
The French also capably covered the British retreat to Dunkirk with the result that far more men were successfully evacuated than had been feared. In addition, there was also tough fighting against the Italians in the Alps, while on the Maginot Line only a handful of forts had capitulated by the armistice in mid-June.
But the greatest injustice - for many - is not the failure to commemorate these minor victories, but the slur over the years on the courage of individual French soldiers and airmen").The French fought for weeks, even after Dunkirk.
If you want know how fast a country surrenders try Denmark, Belgium or the Netherlands, all just a few hours. If it wasn’t for the French keeping the British busy, the American insurgents would never have won.
This link give insight into the French in WW2 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32956736
And people forget that in WW1 countries like Serbia, Romania and the Ottoman empire lost an incredible amount of soldiers, civilians as well.
Servia lost 16 to 27.8 percent of its population. The Ottoman empire 13 to15 percent.
"The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was about 40 million: estimates range from around 15 to 22 million deaths[1] and about 23 million wounded military personnel, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history.
The total number of deaths includes from 9 to 11 million military personnel. The civilian death toll was about 6 to 13 million.[1][2] The Triple Entente (also known as the Allies) lost about 6 million military personnel while the Central Powers lost about 4 million. At least 2 million died from diseases and 6 million went missing, presumed dead.
This article (below) lists the casualties of the belligerent powers based on official published sources. About two-thirds of military deaths in World War I were in battle, unlike the conflicts that took place in the 19th century when the majority of deaths were due to disease.
Nevertheless, disease, including the 1918 flu pandemic and deaths while held as prisoners of war, still caused about one third of total military deaths for all belligerents." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
They really got that rep in the states when they refused to got to Iraq. Those heady days of “freedom fries”.
Lol.
Foolish of Bush the Younger to start an unpopular war when both France and Germany were facing elections. Jusdt AFTER the elections, and they'd have been in.
Still, with Saddams' 10,000 nooklia and chermicle missiles aiming at the West with only 30mins flight/warning time, they had no time to waste. ;)
[Murderous F'ing Bastards]
Define "won". France surely had enough troops left to form fully manned SS division and fascist regime in the country. So, did they "lost" or just surrendered?
They were unable to defend the remainder of France after the northern armies either surrendered or withdrew to England. The numbers left were insufficient for the task and the front lengthened as a result of Belgian defeat and surrender. Also, there were morale issues after the defeats of the first month. It's really not that difficult to understand. The leadership did a foolhardy thing in splitting the armies too widely across the front in an attempt to shield Belgium and part of the Netherlands. Hubris, the kind we see today a lot in Western circles.
The French resistance didn't really begin to organize until after the NAZIs started exporting French slaves to Germany.
It should be obvious by now that John is the same troll who posts under a variety of names on MoA and says whatever tomfool thing comes to mind, making up his facts as he goes along, saying whatever will get a rise out of the people here.
Even as you write the Russians are shaking in their boots with peur
Just like the Sahel countries were so afraid of the fantastic french they had to kick them out
Do you know anything about the French Resistance.
Not every country goes in with guns blazing! Since you have never had a war in the oh so brave US I wonder how you people would behave.
People can't even get away from their TeeVees and go on strike or try to 'rein in' their government!
I know about resistance to the French, just like they had in the Sahel until ejection, but further south
In the north it is true that there is no longer any resistance, nor in France nor in the EU, to the warmongering of their ruling classes, and even less in the US
But this war gives hope that at least the RF resistance will crack up both NATO and the EU and allow for popular resistance to work
Risible. The French cannot even resist the invasion of their own country by hundreds of thousands of Africans. The only thing they can do is to encourage the invaders to carry on going north, into England.
Why should we resist allowing people from (Algeria and Morocco) mainly. France used them.
Why are so many people from S. America going to America? Because the US used and abused them in the name of Democracy.
I absolutely abhor this immigration shit that most countries are using for their own political ends.
French Resistance is pure fantasy made up in Hollywood. It seems you've been watching the telly way too much as well.
Didn’t some tiny African country kick the French Fry French to the curb? lol
Mali, BF, Gabon, Niger, and CAR. And their stooges in Senegal and Cote d'Ivoire aren't doing so well.
not Gabon
Didn't Afghanistan chuck the US out?
The whatabout defense is a sure sign of desperation
As the FFL lounges on the beaches of Odessa, complaining about the quality of the croissants, made with cheap Ukrainian wheat and butter, whilst washing them down with a cheaper local red.....
Russia should be fearful of French military power?
fixed it
no
yes
The French wouldn't last more than a few days. Ditto, the Brits Germans or Poles.
Please do try to keep up.
US would only last a month.
Less than that.
The Brits may have to sell one of their two aircraft carriers because they haven't the crews to man a second one: report. Anyone looking for a pre-loved aircraft carrier? Needs a drive shaft and some fire restoration.
Such a shame Substack doesn't sport a "hilarious" reaction/emoji...
😂
Im French and I can’t stifle a laugh to put it mildly
😂
Yankee-poodle came to town
surrounded by his cronies
He held a white flag in his hand
and said "My name's Macron-i"
Such an awesome comment Gilbert!
Any particular reason why? you know, just to flesh out your point
The cheese, it's all about the cheese.
Hon hon hon j'ai surrendre
How'd it go the last time France was in Russia....
Along with their friends from Britain, Canada, US, Italy, Australia, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Poland, Serbia, Romania and Japan in 1918. That being France's 2nd failed attempt to take on the Red Army.
Yes, they might piss themselves laughing.
Are you serious? The French military, just like most other EU nations is a paper tiger which could sustain combat operations for more than a few days before running out of ammunition for artillery and other heavy weaponry. Plus the French have no stomach for casualties.
I think very few nations or people have a "stomach for casualties" when they/we do not see the war as necessary. When our own country and friends and family are in danger, we will have the stomach necessary - but to have our people dismembered and killed because our corporate or political elites command it? No, only the desperate and the deluded will fight or support such a war.
11 March 2023 FT Russia Rail and War on Everyone
‘Russia Rail boosted by demands to move good to Europe’
https://archive.ph/hmNlA
RR Traffic up 36%
A perfect illustration of the paradox the west is stuck in – how to move essential goods/materials from one declared enemy, China, while avoiding transit via the other declared enemies the west has made
A direct result of the USUK war against Ansar Allah, in turn a direct result of the EUUSUK war on Gaza, via the Israel proxy
Something the Europeans and their allies wished to avoid at all costs – but this is the price to pay of waging war on everyone
The only solution is to declare full scale war on China & to cease trade with everyone
Another paradox is that fighting wars by proxy is guaranteed to fail
The paradoxes the west finds itself stuck with will strangle it’s economy, politics, and society
« Logistics providers including Switzerland’s Kuehne & Nagel and Denmark’s Maersk said they had been avoiding using rail routes through Russia following Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Monthly volumes on the route fell after the invasion and still represent less than the amount carried by a single large modern container ship.
RZD, which owns Russia’s vast rail network and operates most trains, is owned by the Russian state and has long been seen as closely connected to the Kremlin. The UK government described Oleg Belozyorov, the company’s chief executive, as having “close ties to Putin” when it imposed sanctions on him in April 2022.
Related –
Russia China rail freight and investment increase
« Russia to bolster famed eastern railways link as China trade booms »
https://archive.ph/EAvEZ/again?url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-07/russia-to-bolster-famed-eastern-railroads-as-china-trade-booms
« Vladimir Putin outlined plans to boost annual shipping capacity on Russia’s two longest railroads, the Trans-Siberian and Baikal-Amur Mainline, to 210 million tons by 2030, in an address to the Federal Assembly on Feb. 29 ahead of next week’s presidential election. The rail lines handled about 150.5 million tons of goods in 2023, according to the Kommersant newspaper. »
« Russia has already spent billions of dollars to nearly double the capacity of the rail lines to an expected 180 million tons this year from 97.8 million tons in 2013. Yet, current demand is twice as high as the track can handle, state-run Rossiyskaya Gazeta said in February, citing government data. »
More on the paradox of western sanctions on RF
Conor Gallagher Naked Capitalism
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/03/from-isolation-to-containment-washingtons-economic-war-against-russia-gets-a-rebrand.html
« So again, while the threat of secondary sanctions is causing Russia and other countries to recalibrate, it will not change the overall trend. Far from strengthening US power, these will likely speed up the US decline as they provide encouragement for other countries to reduce their economic dependence on the US. The West is caught in the paradox where the more it tries to isolate Russia, the more lucrative it is to be an intermediary country.
And the more ridiculous and heavy-handed the West’s demands to choose a side become. If we go back to the example of Kazakhstan, imagine how absurd it must be to have US Secretary of State Antony Blinken or French President Emmanual Macron show up asking the country situated to essentially destroy its economy in order to help Washington and Europe isolate or contain Russia. (And the conversation and outcome will likely be much the same, with China in Russia’s place, as the US turns its attention to Beijing.)
On the other hand, the Russian approach has not pressured countries to choose sides and accepts ‘neutral’ stances on the war.
The folly of the West’s strategy seems to be dawning on an increasing number of Western analysts. Here is Alexander Libman, professor of Russian and East European politics at Freie Universität Berlin, who is representative of the trend. He bemoans the inability of the West to isolate Russia for its “unprovoked aggression”, but admits that isolation is impossible:
India and China import commodities from Russia precisely because Western sanctions force Russia to sell these commodities at a discount; Türkiye, the UAE and the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union benefit a lot from the rerouting of trade flows between EU and Russia through their territory. For Chinese companies (e.g., automakers), the exit of Western firms from Russia, along with Western sanctions, became an excellent (and historically unique) tool to acquire new markets: Russia is now the largest importer of Chinese cars in the world.
Certainly, the threat of new sanctions makes some companies from these countries to rethink their engagement with Russia; however, others will then come to take their place, attracted by even more lucrative economic opportunities. This does not mean that this “shadow integration” of Russia into the global world is in any way efficient or superior to how the Russian economy worked before the war. The costs of arbitrage are substantial – meaning that imports to Russia are getting more expensive (or are of lower quality) and Russian exports are sold at a lower price. However, the new model works. …
There are limits to the effectiveness of even the most severe secondary sanctions the West could impose against those willing to trade with Russia. At the very least, these limits are determined by the monitoring capacity not only of the West, but of national governments. In the worst case, Russia’s shadow integration into the world economy could trigger the emergence of alternative payment systems and trade routes that are entirely outside Western control – this would be a substantial blow to Western statecraft in the long run. »
"This does not mean that this “shadow integration” of Russia into the global world is in any way efficient or superior to how the Russian economy worked before the war. The costs of arbitrage are substantial – meaning that imports to Russia are getting more expensive (or are of lower quality) and Russian exports are sold at a lower price. However, the new model works. …"
That is a perfect explanation of why it is so stupid to claim that Russia had plans to invade Ukraine all along. All they ever wanted was integration into the West - not shadow integration but in the full light of day. They knew that the US and its allies were waiting for a chance to try to sanction them to death so that they could regain control, and that an invasion would give the West that pretext. They also knew that narrative control and the short memory span of the US/EU population are sufficient for the latter to believe that the invasion was "unprovoked." But they finally reached the point where they realized that international law and real diplomacy mean nothing to the US, and that it was time to burn bridges and turn to the rest of the world.
Don Quichote Manolo Macronista Zionista Globulista et Cabalista going to Moscou, all of France yes except himself!
The French President Is Forgetting France Is Nothing But a USA Sock Puppet…
I heard Macron keeps on crying because Russia keeps on blasting his sacred cow elite Foreign Legion into smithereens.
His tears are for the French Franc....
The escalation rhetoric from a few Euro states is massively dangerous - for NATO and the EU. It will likely accelerate the already present centrifugal forces within both alliances and will force more reluctant members (by far the majority) to distance themselves and possibly break away. There is no doubt that informed people within Europe know the brutality with which Russia would dismember and expeditionary force that was sent into Ukraine and seeing it live on TV/Twitter would slacken the war appetite of all but the most insanely belligerent on the Continent.
The great irony is that NATOs own actions are increasing the multipolarity even within Europe.
It should actually be a reminder to us all: be careful with any action to counter your fears as these actions may bring the exact result you are afraid of. But then again: stupidity of humankind is infinite and we see examples everyday.
I needed a new carpet in my bedroom and so 2 guys came along to physically(!) lay the carpet. Afterwards we had coffee and we discussed some of the turbulence in the world. These 2 guys turned out to have more common sense than any politician in our (dutch) government.
NATO is talking up the final destruction of Europe. Too blind to see the original Neutrality option for Ukraine was their best move.
Now, millions of dead Europeans and destroyed cities somehow seems compelling for these desk jockeys.
It is easy to dig into Russia rich history and find times when they were invaded by Poles, Swedes, French, British and the Germans, and the Russians paranoia will be proved to a rational fear as in "just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you".
I keep getting surprised by the stupidity of European leaders, still, even though I should know better!
I keep getting pissed off with Americans who have never had war on their land denigrating others who have.
Ukraine war started by whom?
Stupidity of European leaders! Take a look at the USA who have started wars all over the world..China Next?
Americans think that Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were wars on their soil. Americans believe that the best defense is a strong offense - so they attack anyone anywhere that they think are too weak to be a threat.
Getting pissed off at Americans is an exercise in futility, they are too stupid to even acknowledge you exist. You had better to just laugh and shake your head as you walk away - they can not be saved because they do not even realize that they need saving!
It looks like NATO wishes to 'go out with a BANG' instead of 'going out with a Whimper.'
That said, it is doubtful that such measures can be meaningfully pursued given the Populist Revolts rapidly escalating across the Continent (a la the Farmers & others joining in). The People in Europe will not tolerate this Farce escalating to the next step, so the French chihuahua can bark as he wishes... but it is unlikely that he will be able to pursue such a thing given Domestic Politics.
If you wish to Read & Listen to more of My commentary, here is my Main Stack:
https://thefallofthewest.substack.com?r=5jj6h
& Here is my Stack on American History (from the Primary Sources):
https://theannalsofamerica.substack.com?r=5jj6h
Thank You Again to Everyone!
Many of these farmers are however, climate deniers
Who on earth denies there is a climate? Such stupid terms are a sign of avoiding thinking and demanding that everybody begs the question in exactly the same way as the speaker.
I mean climate change deniers.
Similarly, nobody denies that climates change. (You are not helping your case, having to be dragged by tiny steps towards elucidating whatever position you think everybody should adopt because you have.)
I’m talking about the fact that many of the farmers doing the protests denied that humans are causing the current climate crisis.
They are correct. There is no climate crisis.
"the current climate crisis".
Again, begging the question. I'm not going to get side-tracked here into teasing out your position, whatever it is, by question after question. My point is that you don't seem to feel the need to present a case and argue FOR it, as is your duty if you want people to make major sacrifices to fit in with your policies. Your strategy is to assume that all reasonable people already agree with whatever you have decided is best for the rest of us, and to use disparaging terms to describe any resisters that are demanding you prove your case before imposing drastic preventative action, so as to imply that they have to prove their position while you do not.
My point was not to prove you wrong, but to point out the illegitimate attempt to reverse the burden of proof. I have adequately done that, and do not intend to be drawn into a detailed discussion of the substance, as it is not my centre of interest. I will just say that I started off as fairly sympathetic to climate alarmism myself, but when I put a bit of time into looking at the controversy, I found that question-begging, censorship, institutional capture and outright lying were the main strategies of the alarmists, while the skeptics engaged in what looked like good-faith, rational scientific arguments. Having looked at the quality of the arguments for serious climate alarmism, and seen mainly cherry-picking of evidence and suppression of countervailing evidence and argument, I found myself moving any human effects on the climate to near the bottom of my list of worries.
That may be. But the majority of the protesting farmers are understandably upset that they're being singled out and given impractical mandates by elites and bureaucrats who have never farmed in their lives. They're also getting run out of business by rising costs in fertilizer, fuel and transport.
Many respected scientists also doubt that current climate changes are caused by human activity. I would be more inclined to "believe in" human caused "climate change" if that belief were not being pushed by big government, big business, big academia, and being used to further enrich and empower the already wealthy and powerful.
That said, doesn't anyone wonder about how much "climate change" resembles a religion? One either believes in it, or one is a heretic!
The climate has always changed in the whole of the Earth's history, so why would it be any different now? For every argument anyone will give trying to blame humans for the climate. There's at least 2 scientifically proven reasons the Sun's cycles are the main driver of Earth's climate. Then secondly impacts upon the Earth causing natural disasters which correct themselves after periods of time. No one is denying we need to clean our act up. But causing pollution is a completely different subject to Earth's climate changing. As for using carbon dioxide as the bogey man is another massive argument altogether.
Humans have been pumping excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and that is heated the planet atmosphere up by 1.3°C since the industrial revolution. And as a result, extreme weather events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, storms, heatwaves and droughts have all increased.
Stop swallowing propaganda it’s cherry picked “science” so you willingly cheer on the big human cull. It’s the final penny,let it drop.
Carbon dioxide is the gas of life. Without it there would be no life on earth. At least one of the earth's major extinction events happened because carbon dioxide fell to less than 150ppm which is the minimum need to sustain plant life.
13,000 years ago the Earth was so hot that the African monsoons extended as far north as the coast of Libya. The Sahara was a verdant grassland and the rains sustained a lake in the center larger than all of the North American Great Lakes combined. 5000 years ago planetary orbit and axial shifts, plus solar dimming, led to cooling that ended the rains over only a few hundred years.
1500 years ago the planet was warm enough to grow grapes in Greenland and it's referred to as the "Roman Climate Optimum" by historians who still like permanent ice caps on poles. Then it got stupid cold (again) and just about ended the Danish colonies.
So. What do you and your anthropomorphic warming fellow travelers have against Greenlanders who have suffered glaciation for so many centuries? Or Africans that you want them to starve? --It's more of the same racism and very, very tiresome.
Nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere and oxygen makes up 21% of the atmosphere. 0.9% is argon, and the remaining 0.1% is composed of various other chemicals such as carbon dioxide and methane.
Did you see that? 0.1% of various other chemicals such as carbon dioxide. I think it's actual composition is circa 0.04%, and cutting it to say 0.02% would actually end life on earth. Get a grip of the science, dude, and stop pissing your pants over a non-problem. CO2 is plant food, and a little bit more is actually greening the planet.
Canadian News:
Climate Change/Global Warming. Usual connection of events without objectivity of cause and effect.
Next News Story: Extreme low temperatures this winter cause $180 million in Insurance Claims.
Pass the Hookah.
The other day I watched Dmitry Orlov in an interview with Nima and he mentioned if I remember correctly that actually the universe is heating up including the core of the planet. Not sure what to think of this and if that indeed is happening. Dmitry doesn't seem to be an ignorant or stupid person.
Never heard it before, so it’s probably BS
What, you setting yourself up as some sort of capillary tube through which all sensible information must flow? Arrogance and hubris, all in one.
The universe in aggregate is most assuredly not warming. That would violate the law of entropy and call into question foundational principles of physics. However, it's possible he was saying that the local solar system could warming if, for instance, we're entering a higher energy solar cycle. If I recall, there's been some talk of increased solar output but I don't know the science well enough to have an opinion.
Yeah, had to recall from memory. But I posted mostly to get some more information from commenters like you. Thank you for that.
One thing we know for sure is that the sun will get bigger overtime and eventually the earth will become inhabitable. But we are talking about millions of years then.
So? Are they not entitled to their own opinions?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts-
Well, in this case, even the facts are subject to some dispute.
List information sources and I'll perform my own due diligence. Make unsupported claims? Or cite quote by "an impressive name" without the information required to access original source/verify context? Be ignored.
"The universe is warming". Yeah, dude, let's talk about what the concept of entropy means.
You appear to be arguing with points I didn't make.
To use the classic example, why would Al Gore buy a beachfront mansion if he believed oceans would rise? Why would Bill Gates, Oprah and the Zuck buy up Hawaiian land if they truly believed tides would swallow them?
Either they are lying to you (ding ding ding) or they are monstrously stupid. Neither case presents a good reason to listen to them. So which is it, are they stupid or lying?
Why don't you let me know when Al Gore, Bill Gates et al close all their lithium mines and stop using personal jet planes.
Based on Biden's State of the Union speech my take is entirely different; the US and NATO are doubling down. Biden started his speech by saying he won't back down, Putin is evil, and NATO is stronger than ever, and he wouldn't have said it if he wasn't going to get his $60 billion for the Ukraine. He also "guaranteed" Russia wouldn't stop with with just invading the Ukraine. On Tucker's interview, Putin noted that he had no reason to attack Poland, unless they attacked Russia. Southfront recently noted St. Petersburg was being attacked by drones from the Baltic counties, recently NATO members. NATO is headquartered in the US. You can't stop NATO by hitting back at the terrorists from the Baltics. Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg are security sensitive areas because of their location, and Russia has a new army there just in case. With Biden's war mongering speech and all the white robed acolytes cheering, I just don't see the US quitting this war.
Joe can’t quit the war before November, he has to keep up the rhetoric and insist we are Winning! because the only other option is to admit defeat and that all the money and killing were for nothing. He’s had chances to back away from this disaster, and true to who he is, he’s doubled down mindlessly every time.
The problem is that Ukraine may not be able to hold out to November. Well, that and the fact that hundreds of thousands more human beings will be shot down and buried in the mud before then, all to satisfy his ego.
Trump won't be allowed to leave Ukraine. The screams of "Putin puppet" would be deafening, and Trump is nothing if not weak, stupid, and easily manipulated.
They’ve been lying with this Putin’s Puppet bullshit since 2016. Trump resisted war with Russia in his first term. By the time he is sworn in for his second term, Ukraine will be aka Greater Russia.
Trump also cucked out twice trying to leave Syria and twice he knuckled under to pressure and attacked that country. And we all remember how "Russian bounties" were used to prevent an Afghan withdrawal.
Anyway, the war on Russia is a fait accompli now.
England has two crippled aircraft carriers, and would not be able to deploy a full infantry brigade at current force levels. France has four brigades total. Sweden has one. Germany is at Weimar levels. All of Europe’s armies combined would lose a fight against the New York Jets football team.
Well, Nuland has gone (for the moment) until she comes up with some other place to meddle with. I pity the American people with hardly any healthcare/not enough housing/old people sleeping on the streets, now the US will warmonger in China!
When will the US get the idea that they need to look after their own people?
The U.S, government, as presently constituted, HATES their own people.
Well as Molyneux said, it's their own people who are the prime targets when going to war with others, it's their own people they rip off taxes on and stuff their pockets from sold useless weapons. Now Europe as well, through the NATO military sale channel. They care nothing about others including their own cattle.
Possibly you are right but at least people are doing something!
No worries. Putin got that message that Odessa and Black Sea belongs to NATO so he won't cross that red line. He knows when NATO means NO.
LOL
When you take the AT from them??😉
Surely you have some sources in Russian or NATO high command to say so, yes?
If you actually knew what was going on you’d know It’s NATO shaking in it’s boots!
Most likely it’s gonna be The Orange Baboon Trump who’s the USA’s next president and he in no fan of NATO! lol
I think that Putin is not very enthusiastic about Odessa and Kiev because the more of Ukraine outside the east Russia absorbs, the more wellfare cases and banderites Russia will have to deal with.
Whatever NATO redlines are, they are more a short to mid run operational concern than some absolute strategic constraint for Russia.
Read Scott Ritter today.
So a guy was inspired by Liz Truss? Weak.
She's so hot *sizzle*
Poland and Britain have always worn their cold hearts on their sleeves, but I have long suspected that France, Germany and most of Northern Europe are warmongering fools simply hiding behind NATO and the U.S. They love a free ride. Who doesn’t? For the price of a few tanks and a bit of ammo, they get to subdue Russia. That was the plan. The greedy warmongers could not wait to Balkanize Russia. Plus Europe is energy needy, and these so-called leaders are breaking out into cold sweats. This should have been resolved by now in their favor. Europe’s history is war, war and more war for centuries. George Washington warned us to stay away from foreign entanglements for good reason. Too bad we did not listen.
We're ruled by over-credentialed ivy league morons who cannot stop themselves from meddling in the lives of Americans and foreign nations.
They're smarter and better than us and the world needs to shape itself to fit their beliefs.
According to them, anyways. In reality, they're losing their grip so they're pulling all the emergency levers to clamp down.
France’s problem is that if they fully mobilize their army, that gets them up to four brigades. UK would not be able to field an Infantry division. Sweden, vaunted new NATO member, has a Swedish Brigade (and the Swedish Bikini team, although they are older than you remember them being).
The wars won’t end until we run out of victims to conscript into fighting them. Europe is rapidly running out.
Don’t people fuck anymore? I know it’s depressing what with the mass slaughter and genocide and everything. But Europe needs your babies, the next war is only a heartbeat away!!!
Wellcome WW III! The purifying fire will absolve everyone!
Sadly major changes or cleansing requires major death and destruction. Look at the horror and pure Satanism hidden and at display in occupied Palestine. Recently saw an interview of a Palestinian criminologist, Dr Nadera on Makdisi Street YT channel. It's unbelievably insane what goes on there. And Israeli regime is the explicit unmasked version of NATO elites.
*Absolve* everyone? As in "make nonculpable" (blameless)? Wuuuuuuuut? o.O
Theology is not your strong point I suspect!
I checked in the dictionary: https://www.wordnik.com/words/absolve Absolve means to make innocent. Nonculpable. Blameless. The purifying fire of WW3 will make everyone innocent? o.O
Presumably you just tripped over your tongue. Happens.
Not a fan of Dante's Inferno, are you?
The only effective equalizer there is: WW3 and nuclear winter in the aftermath. Doesn't matter if you are dead poor or filthy rich, you are not going to make it.