MicroB

50,000 in Ukraine, means 150,000 committed; 50,000 on rest, 50,000 in training. If these are fighting troops, you can probably double or triple the overall commitment in terms of the logistics train. But we might see something like the 1991 Gulf War; the Iraqi Army was, on paper, a well equipped and combat experienced fighting force, largely using Soviet tactics, modified in light of the war with Iran (which itself was largely an American trained and equipped military). We might see the Russian Army essentially collapse in the face of a well organised NATO combined arms advance. In reality, the Iraq squaddies were conscripts, not exactly motivated to fight the Infidel. Middle ranking Iraqi amry officers were of reasonable quality, but constantly overruled by a politically appointed general staff, which is rather similar to how Putin has surrounded himself with Generals more valued for their loyality than soldiering.

He was a Colonel in the KGB engaged in suppressing anti-Communist groups in East Germany. Hardly an example of noble soldiering. He's trained as a lawyer.

Well, you start saving money by laying off the troops., and reducing headcount I believe its pretty common for service to be ended with no severance pay. They can take all those Aazon van drivng, crop picking, toilet cleaning, gardening roles now available. The US will also need to find barrack accomodation for returned troops. Currently, under Forces Agreements, the host countries provide, fund and maintain accomodation. The American President has some experience of that, because his dad went from house builder to property developer when he built accomodation for war factory workers, as part of federal contractors; he was accused of being a war profiteer. If a large standing army is maintained, the federal government will likely need to expropriate land to set aside for expanded ranges, to compensate for the loss of overseas training facilities. Unless they seize land, there will be a cost to that in compensating land owners, You will miss that tax free American beer you can buy in Bangkok though.

The DoD basically get kit at a discount price. Development is funded by the DoD through programmes, and then they expect a discount, and manufacturers charge a premium to other buyers, who are generally fiends and allies, because only they get the export licences. This sudden enthusiasm for re-industrialisation is good news for European arms manufacturers (Babock, Thales, BAE, Rheinmettal (sp)). Bad news for US arms maker, who were an export success. Costs will likely rise in order to preserve corporate warchests (the defence industry doesn't exactly have a flat revenue profile, and contrary to many assumptions, companies are always trying to work out how they can get out of it, diversify. Its a real pain to go ask the government for permission everytime you send a salesman overseas or invite a customer over for a factory tour. Its a staggering statistic that 60% of Americans in Iraq weren't in uniform. They were contractors, keeping rapidly deployed systems running. What wouldn't surprise me is the Americans blocking the transfer of American made munitions purchased by Europe to Ukraine. I'd also expect tariffs to be employed for force Europe to buy weaponry. Then there is Starlink. Musk could shutdown Starlink access for Ukraine, but open it up for Russia. But, that will be the death knell for that company, because who would trust it. Its not the only space based internet service based provider in town. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/03/04/britain-france-plot-replace-musk-starlink-ukraine/

We do. A buffet is a place were you go to get salmonella and norovirus poisoning and infection. Warren Buffett is the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. Do learn to spell. The American President is certainly a failure in love

He's facilitating a Czechoslovakia-like dismemberment. In the run-up to the Munich Agreement, Germany had conducted a low level war against Czechoslovakia, using proxy forces, the Freikorps. In the interests of peace, the Western governments pressured the Czech government into ceding territory; the Sudentenland was a natural geographic barrier to invasion. Once it was gone, the country was ripe for take over. Once Hitler took over Czechoslovakia, he assured the world his territorial expansion was over. The British pressured the Germans make some announcement of friendship with Britain in order to strengthen Chamberlains position in Parliament. Instead, the Germans denounced him. The British and French were then rapidly rearming, expected to be complete by 1942. Hitler took that as a cue to invade Poland, and unify lost parts of Germany NATO studies have shown that there is only a narrow window to defend the Baltic states,. There is only a 24-36 hour window to reinforce the garrisons there, before its all over. Russia doesn't need a dominating force to take those countries. If they fall, NATO is not in a position to eject Russia. Its about defending Polish and now, Finnish territory. Some say there comparisons to Munich are overplayed. Chamberlain was a quiet man held in contempt by Hitler. Chamberlain thought he was good friends with Hitler, and could take him at his word. he wrote letters to his sister remarking that he believed Hitler, and felt Hitler trusted him The man was a fool. The American President is a bombastic personality. I suspect Putin despises him. Putin lives a relatively low key, frugal lifestyle, and rejects the ostentatious displays of wealth, even though his actual wealth is very very large. Te American President will be seen as crass, gauche, but also easily impressionable.

He had a proverbial gun pointed at his head. It was a shakedown for protection money. I haven't read anywhere the current American US President state exactly what would happen if American economic interests were threatened in Ukraine. Nothing will come out of the UXB-strewn ground for 10 years or more. For 10 years, the only American assets on hand will be the rented Caterpillars. No one is going to die on a proverbial hill for those. The Russian leader knows the Americans will never risk the lives of their troops over a building site.

He didn't. Unless at the time you were raging for deployment of the US military to the Black Sea to take on the Ruskies.. I don't think you were. You were probably applauding Putin at the time.

Watch Corporal Vance spit in the face of 636 British soldiers killed carrying out their NATO duties after President Bush invoked Article 5. If he ever has to represent the US American government at a British or French war memorial, I hope this is remembered. The weasel is back tracking claiming he wasn't referring to the British or the French, but he damn well knew that so far, Britain and France have pledged troops, and will make up the bulk of the reinforcement/peacekeeping/reassurance force likely to be deployed. The Geezer in the frock is of course the future Vice President giving the lecture on telly about war fighting capabilities based on his few months in Iraq ducking papercuts while getting birthday cake photo angles. This wasn't some 19 year old up to high jinks, but a 27 year old mature student, late to higher education, trying to ingratiate himself witn the kids by crossdressing.

Or read a transcript It goes tits up from 38:35 when a Polish journalist, who had earlier referenced the Russian occupation of Poland. Before then, I would say it was going along fairly amicably. Just before, Zelensky made a fairly passionate statement about why he thought the agreement, in itself, wasn't going to be enough to stop the war, but it was a good start, but that he understood how Europe had to prioritise their relationship with the United States, and how Russia will need to pay reparations. He mentioned about the $300bn Europe had of Russian assets that could be put towards "renovation" (rebuilding), but its not enough. Trump talked about the ocean between US and Europe. Zelensky referenced this, about Russian expansonism, about the Baltic states, and how this will be a threat to the US. Rubio and Vance go off on some strange tangent about Free Speech, and I think referencing the action the UK is taking against Apple. The President answered the question well rnough, and expressed some sympathy with Zelensky, about why he hated Putin. He finished and asked for "one more question". And then Vance interupted him; Vance had sat silent for most of the 35 minutes, except for his riff on free speech, with Rubio referencing the Munich speech (though didn't mention how Vance refused to meet the German government, but instead went and met the AfD Party). He wittered on about how actions were stronger than (Biden's) words, and then started going into diplomacy, which is all about words, so he got a bit confused in his Twitter argument played out in the Oval Office. A few days later, Zelensky figured out rather than trying to put together ripostes in his third language, he'll take the cue of Macron who speaks excellent English, but speaks often in French when he wants to. If Zelensky had responded to Vance in Ukrainian, most of that stupidity from the VP wouldn't have been seen as he struggled with his earpiece.

Exactly. Zelensky received a formal invite. He recounted the journey took 12 hours by train across Ukraine, followed by an 11 hour flight. The furore over a deal worth half a trillion dollars to the United States was not because he wore a Fruit of the Loom sweatshirt. Many commentator on this forum remark that the United States is effectively bankrupt, when speaking in support of the current American President's policies.

He had sveral siren suits made up, modeled on a bricklayers out, some in velvet, some even pinstripe. He used to like wearing them before the war, as bricklaying was a hobby of his. It was not military attire, but his attempt to show solidarity with ordinary people on the Home Front. He's also turn up in a dressing gown Meeting Stalin at the Kremlin in 1942 Churchill did wear his Siren suit when meeting the President in the Whitehouse. Cameras weren't allowed in. We know because the press photographers were out on the lawn, when Churchill came out to walk Rooselvelt's dog , Fala, accompanied by a naval aid, captured by Life magazine While he recognised the utiity of the suit to galvanize opinion during the Battle of Britain, he continued to wear them throughout the war and even kept wearing them after the war.

Think you are the one telling fibs.

Why the silver spoon? A metaphor? Normal people dip the KFC in the gravy, and a wood spork for the coleslaw/beans side Plus a pile of salt and pepper sachets, not fancy shakers. And who takes a knife and fork to the KFC?

A boilersuit wasn't a military uniform, it was a military style uniform. You don't know what Zelensky's daily attire is. You only know what he wears to the office from the publicity photos. When Churchill traveled to Washington in 1942, his attire was a mix of the so-called Siren Suit and a Naval Peacoat, devoid of badges and rank. Why does the American President continuously try and pretend to be a baseball player wearing a cheap hat? After he stepped out of the Oval Office, he reached right away to pop on tha $4.99 plus tax hat. And if wearing slovenly dress at a formal meeting between heads of state, why does the President seem enamoured with appearing like a double glazing salesman in a cheap suit? An undone jacket while inspecting the guard is the height of insult. King Charles shows how to wear a suit. Rental tux. LOL Savile Row wool versus Sears polyester Terrible shoulder pads, befitting of a Bangkok tailor with Gerald Ratner cufflinks After 78 years, he still can't tie a knot properly Gah, navy jacket, black trousers. Or maybe it doesn't really matter how terrible his suits are or that he apparently can't dress himself.

No, but if you are looking to hook up with her brother for a date or more, perhaps you should go on Grindr. You might have some success there finding true love.

MicroB(iologist), 30 years with threat list agents and more. How's life in Coventry? Must be a change from Stamford Bridge. I'm surprised at your response. Its ok, it takes all types to make the world go around, even people from within your community. But sorry, I don't want to have sex with you.

The United Nations is a forum for all countries, not just the "free world". The 50 founding members (after the big 4) first had to declare war on the Axis powers. De facto, the United Nations was an alternative term for the Allied Powers.

This is the reality. Article 5 doesn't compel any action, just a consideration for action. There has already been preparation put in place for non-cooperation. The US might withold its contribution to the Cost share arrangements for civil budget, military budget and NATO Security Investment Programme, which is currently 15.8%, the same as Germany. https://www.nato.int/cps/uk/natohq/topics_67655.htm?selectedLocale=en This will have some impact on the ability of NATO to react to a sudden attack, for instance, a major terrorist attack in New York or Washington. It will impact airborne early warning systems. I think there is a direct impact on the NATO shared units, such as CBRNe response. In other words, NATO will be slower to respond to a chemical, nuclear, biological or radiological attack.

And the American President will use that to whine that Europe "owes me" in tariff talks.

Vance was present in the same spot for the meetings with Macron and Starmer. He didn't say a word to Macron. He tried it on with Starmer, who didn't bite. And then he interupted his boss who had just finished a question and wanted to move on to another. The American President was responding to a, presumably, Ukrainian journalist, who asked about neutrality. The President gave a response, colourful, and in his style, but it was ok, and then said "next question please", and then brought up some unrelated point. Was he trying to make the Presidentlook bad?

Russian military vehicles

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/03/02/ukraine-russia-war-us-trump-battlefield-reports-pokrovsk/ Some successes for Ukraine. General Mykhailo Drapatyi has an impressive CV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykhailo_Drapatyi

In that clip you posted, he is only referencing that the EU look at the seized Russian assets, a point Macron alluded to last week, without comment from you. You chose not to post Macron's comment. Curious that, and curous why you are misrepresenting an interview with a crudely selected clip. Where and when was the interview performed, so we can view interview. Don't say you don't know, because if that was the case, you might be posting AI nonsense, and I assume everyone here does the correct verifications to avoid that. I have no more problem with Europe spending Russian assets any more than Ukraine paying protection money in the form of mineral rights. Its not like Russia will ever see any of that money ever again. The US routinely dips into seized Iranian assets to provide compensation as and when it sees fit. The UK and US governments still control assets of Nazi Germany.

Its terrible, engineered by an unholy alliance for the Hard Right and Far Left (or Far Right and Hard Left). Ultimately, a lot of the events of today originate in the Crash of 2008, and how governments responded to that (I'm not sure they could have responded in any other way). Did people in 1938 look back at 1918 (and the details), if they knew what was going to happen in 1939. It really shows what a huge deal the 1914-18 war was; not in terms of numbers or the battlefields, but what disruptive change it caused to a whole continent, and world, that's still being felt 120+ years later. There are moments in history that you can't tell are truely great without the passage of time. The fall of the USSR was such a moment, but I think interpreted wrongly, because the effects wasn't just a terrible economic calamity to the Soviet people (balanced by profound improvements in personal liberty, but liberty doesn't pay the bills), but the effects on Western nations. And no, that's not about NATO, but something more profound. But we carried on as if it was a case of winners/losers, generating tremendous hubris. I understand George Bush (sr) talked about a New World Order; he had lived a long life, seen the growth of Nazism, the Cold War, so he could only be optimistic about the future, especially as he wasn't really going to experience it. Some thought 2008 was a shake to the capitalist order, but somehow it survived it. The ripose was always socialist versus capitalist, without considering emergence of new orders, but ones which do not come from people, but from individuals. So the age of the oligarchs. There are men in Russia who are fabulously rich, but they didn't get there through clever capitalism. Elon Musk is allegedly (on paper) the richest man in the world. I still don't know how he got to that position. There aren't that many Tesla cars about. SpaceX is still largely a services company, with most of its income I think outsourced government contracts. He was brought up in a household that believed in Technocracy, and he has said that one day, he would like Mars to have a Tehnocratic government. Broadly that means having experts in charge of a coutry, which sounds fine. We want people with strong military experience to run defence. We want people with strong economic skills to run a treasury and so forth. The Technocracy movement sprung up in the 1930s; it believed that in such a system, elections were not necessary, or that the role of democracy could be minimised. Ok, so that kinds of like going from the purist Greek idea of democracy, where everyone had a say, and a vote, on every single law, which meant nothing got done, to what we have now, representative democracy, where we vote for representatives, and lend them our vote. Musk's grandfather was Canadian, and physician who got into this fairly niche brand of politics. He was briefly arrested in WW2 as it was thought he wasn't sufficiently onboard with the idea of fighting the Nazis (code for suspicion he supported Germany). Postwar, he rebranded the Technocracy Movement the Social Credit Party, and was generally unsuccessful at that. Generally, I raise red flags when a doctor gets into politics or religion, because with it comes the Messianic complex. In 1948, he liked what he saw was happening in South Africa, with the race seperation laws, and felt only these could save "Western Christian Civilisation" and took his family, with Elon's baby mum, to South Africa. Are we entering a post-capitalist world, where the power of the people and the shareholder is eroded as companies go private. and all that comes with that. The 47th President isn't part of that; he's a symptom. He's a product of the old order, and I suspect doesn't understand the new emerging order. I would include the bumbling British governments since 2016, who are also products of the old order, and they are not sure what is happening. Which started with Brexit. Its wrong to interpret events as some sort of return to "common sense", traditional values, the way we used to do things etc. We look back, and post WW2, the trend for most societies was more socially liberal, but conservative economically. The latter has weakened, and not because of left wing politics of old; nationalism is long dead, as the state is now too weak. I'm talking about what was called voodoo economics. Billionaires created overnight because of an app no one has heard of. Oil for illiterate Bedu powered it; Musk's purchase of Twitter was financed by Saudi princes who have never worked a day in their lives. And by 2008, people were buying houses beyond their means to support an unrealistic lifestyle. There are parallels with the USSR in the late 60s, in the so-called people's paradises. The cities looked genuinely advanced, with impressive structures and impressive propaganda. But it was all a smokescreen. They couldn't afford any of that. And it seems, neither could we. The US government is waking up to the fact that its not really that powerful anymore, like the European governments now realise. Its a return of the Robber Barons. But the US companies are not really American anymore; their profits are made in the US, but their factories and workforce are elesewhere. Traditional American companies make most of their money in the US. Emerging US tech companies make most of their money elsewhere or everywhere.