JAG

The nature of war fighting, defence and offence has changed dramatically since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the withdrawal of the Soviet Military from Eastern Europe and the fall of the "puppet" communist regimes in Eastern Europe. Then (1960s, 70s and 80s) we thought,. and were prepared to fight, in terms of massed armies ranged across Europe, from the Alps to the Baltic. Largely armoured, you had the NATO corps, each of up to 4 divisions , German, US, Belgian, British, Dutch and German again. The second wave was a massive airlift of American troops from the continental USA , practiced in various degrees in the big NATO exercises - which almost always included a "Reforger" component from the USA. The armies were manned, with the exception of the British and latterly the US, largely by conscription. The opposition, Group of Soviet Forces Germany was deployed similarly, albeit in a more offensive posture, backed up by their Warsaw Pact allies and second wars drawn on mobilisation from the Soviet Union. The whole business has changed. Formations are smaller, more agile and far better equipped, the brigade has replaced the Division and Corps as the fighting formation. Brigades are far more practiced, trained and expect to fight alongside brigades from other nationalities; in fact multinational brigades are common. Conscription is much less of a feature. Equipment commonality is much greater, communications, command and control more effective and faster; artillery and anti tank guided weapons are far more effective, particularly in defence, and the development of drones both for surveillance and delivery of munitions has opened up a whole new dimension. All this, training and equipment, has become much more expensive of course, but you now have a vastly different battlefield, to that which NATO was created to fight on. There is a need to spend more, there will always be a need to spend more, however the core reliance upon the US for reinforcement in manpower and weaponry is much reduced - "Reforger" has not been played for decades, and US withdrawal from or prevarication over NATO will have less impact than it would have done in the days of the Cold War. Europe would lose the US nuclear umbrella, but the UK and French strategic deterrence would remain. My point is, NATO has changed, Europe has changed, militaries have changed. US withdrawal will be a great blow, but not as fatal as it would have been to "the old order". New countries are emerging as drivers within NATO, in particular Poland and the Scandinavians. The current regime in the USA has cast significant doubt as to wether they could actually be trusted to follow the core rule of the alliance, article 5 of the treaty, an attack on one is an attack on all. NATO and Europe will have, are having, to learn to live without the USA.

The devil is in one particular detail: is it to be under the control and oversight of congress, or the executive branch? Maybe there should be an independent head of the fund, there is a chap called Elon Musk who is eminently suitable, alternatively there are members of the Trump family who are well versed in handling large sums of other people's money! Incidentally, given the massive debt which the USA faces, why the plan to channel huge amounts of money into such a fund?

That is the intention - the longer they can spin it out, the more time to re-establish themselves as the power in Gaza, and gain worldwide support as such. The longer the ceasefire "holds" the harder it will be for Israel to end it - Israel has domestic as well as international politics to contend with. Once Hamas are back in control, a couple of years to sort themselves out and bingo, round two!

I don't think it needs explaining.

It is you that are suggesting (wrongly as it happens) that I am claiming any moral high ground or "allusions of superiority".

I make no claim to the moral high ground. I was merely offering an opinion - sauce, geese and ganders and so forth.

1) don't presume to tell me what I can think or post. 2) on second thoughts, as a single white male living in Cambodia you may be qualified to ruminate on prices...

No duplicity in what I said, @Yagoda said it, and has reiterated it several others; you however perhaps demonstrate some considerable duplicity in suggesting that he said no such thing!

All you can do is turn to abuse!

Read @Yagoda's reaction to my comment. I would say it leaves no doubt whatsoever that he was referring to Danielle Sassoon.

You really are a piece of work, remarking about a particularly offensive slur you made about a woman ( and yes I do defend her against it) does not make me in any way a supporter of the trans agenda, and especially of your twisted and bizarrely hate filled interpretation of it.

A remarkable, and revealing suggestion, especially as Danielle Sassoon is rather an attractive young lady! The suggestion that she is a whore says far more about you than it ever does about her.

I should imagine NATO have been on the case for a while - at least since those boxes of files were found in Donald's sea side khazi!

Or perhaps, as the law is reported as being intended for refugees from Ukraine, it was interpreted by the judge somewhat,umh, flexibly? Says the poster formerly known as "herfiehandbag", don't worry, it's all above board!

Hell no, "Uncle Sucker" is the name of his favourite bar!

Mind you there is also a JCR news agents and a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Vauxhall, also a few steps from MI6 headquarters. These are the same few scum who bob to the surface in the Neo Nazi cesspool every time someone throws a rock into it.