"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (13 Viewers)

[Denniss]

Read the whole post first to understand the intention behind it.

NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 (@noelreports@mstdn.social)

Attached: 1 image Checkmate.

mstdn.social

 

[buffnut453]

BREAKING: BBC is reporting that the US is to restore military aid and intelligence support to Ukraine with immediate effect. Really, REALLY hope that's true!

Ukraine has promised to enter into a ceasefire agreement that's being sponsored by the US...now Rubio is taking that agreement to the Russians. I think we all know what their answer will be.

US to immediately restore intelligence sharing and 'security assistance' to Ukraine

Ukraine also says it is ready to accept a US proposal for a 30-day ceasefire with Russia, after talks in Saudi Arabia.

www.bbc.com

 

[EwenS]

So many posts and videos i don't know if this story has been posted. Nate Vance, first cousin to the VP, has been fighting for the Ukrainian Army

JD Vance's cousin criticises him for 'belittling' Zelensky

Nate Vance spent three years volunteering with the Ukrainian military after Russia's full-scale invasion.

www.bbc.co.uk

Meet JD Vance's cousin - who fought for Ukraine - BBC Sounds

The US Vice President played a big part in the Oval Office bust up with President Zelensky

www.bbc.co.uk

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1iaBpU8FnlU

 

[Dimlee]

Some speculations statistics again.
Losses on both sides, by different estimates.

Just to note that the Economist in this case used Ukrainian figures from the UAlosses source whose data in 2024 didn't match numbers from other NGOs involved in the war data collection. Mentioned 55,000 MIA included civilians, most probably. Total list of missed persons, military and civilian, was around 69,000 in November 2024.

How do Ukrainian soldier fatalities compare with Russia’s?

Russia is losing more troops than its opponent. That makes it a strange time for America to force an unequal peace on Ukraine

www.economist.com

In case of the paywall:

https://archive.vn/hqlhQ

 

[Dimlee]

So many posts and videos i don't know if this story has been posted. Nate Vance, first cousin to the VP, has been fighting for the Ukrainian Army

JD Vance's cousin criticises him for 'belittling' Zelensky

Nate Vance spent three years volunteering with the Ukrainian military after Russia's full-scale invasion.

www.bbc.co.uk

Meet JD Vance's cousin - who fought for Ukraine - BBC Sounds

The US Vice President played a big part in the Oval Office bust up with President Zelensky

www.bbc.co.uk

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1iaBpU8FnlU

Good man. Such stories help to restore the confidence.

 

[fubar57]

Not sure what to think.... Ukraine agrees to 30-day ceasefire with Russia after talks with U.S. | CBC News

 

[Glider]

I think that this could be as good as Ukraine could get in the current circumstances. They get their support back which must be critical.
If Russia don't agree then Trump will be humiliated as his 'friendship' with Putin will be shown to be worth nothing. That isn't likely to go well for Russia.
If Russia does agree then Ukraine get the chance to strengthen their supplies, defences etc. Russia will also try to do the same but they have greater distances to travel and have less available equipment of lower quality to push into the front lines.

I expect to see a push to destroy bridges and other communication choke points before any ceasefire.

 

[Warspite63]

Same story, from the Beeb: Ukraine-Russia latest: Ukraine ready to accept 30-day ceasefire, as US resumes military assistance

 

[MiTasol]

I hope this really is the beginning of peace for Ukraine but I am less than confident that it is given Putin and others history.

It is important to remember that the United States created the title Defender of the free world in the 40's to describe itself and guaranteed it would protect Ukraine from Russia when Ukraine gave up all its nuclear nuclear weapons.

It is also important to remember that the US created NATO to protect Europe from Russian aggression and for 80 years promised "we have your back" but the current administration is wilfully and knowingly crawling in to bed with the worst Russian dictator since Stalin and equally wilfully and knowingly stabbing all other NATO members in the back.

This current war is not the first time that America has failed to keep its promise to Ukraine, and, unfortunately, many worldwide believe it is not the last.

In 2014 America did nothing although Senator John McCain and a few others did their very best to get America to take action but, because it was not their individual homes being attacked, and/or they could not see a buck in it for themselves, the rest of the American senators in congressman didn't give a proverbial.

In 2022 same story. At no time did America do anything that could've decisively ended the current conflict. Admittedly in the first few days of the war nobody expected it would last more than a week but three months in America should have honoured it's commitment. That promise to Ukraine to defend it from Russian aggression. It took a very short time to demonstrate that the Russian military is a paper tiger and decisive action by all of NATO could have forced the end of Russian occupation soon after. Instead the US held back help and weapons and refused to let other NATO members supply anything containing US materials or tech.

Therefore, IF this current piece initiative fails, I think it is time that those countries directly affected by Russia's current and future aggression take action and form a new, for want of a better term, free world alliance consisting of all countries that are NATO members except Canada and the US, and naturally it would include Ukraine.

The current US administration has clearly rejected the titles of the voice of the free world and defenders of the free world so the free world now needs a new leader. I would nominate President Zelensky but unfortunately he has too much on his plate at this time. The leaders of, alphabetically, Britain, France, Germany and Poland all spring to mind as true leaders.

All countries whose sole input to the conflict has been to supply weapons should be excluded from this alliance as they are not in anyway directly threatened by Russia.

This list includes Australia, Canada, China, North Korea and the United States. These countries should have nothing to do with negotiating the peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine as they are not threatened by Putin or by Ukraine.

This new free world alliance might well invite other countries that are directly affected by the transient and mercurial whims of the current administration of nation who has promised to help them for many years but, from the evidence of Ukraine and public statements is more likely to, or has already decided to, abandon them.

These nations of course include Gaza, Mexico, Panama, South Korea and Taiwan.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Most of that is above my paygrade, but who in Europe commands respect such that his influence crosses borders and unifies a continent? Starmer is struggling to sell himself to the British polity, the Germans have to deal with 20% support for AfD (which is anti-intervention), and does Macron have enough sway to pull it off?

The West looks, to me, largely leaderless. Our European members, feel free to correct my American perceptions to my open ears.

 

[Frog]

Most of that is above my paygrade, but who in Europe commands respect such that his influence crosses borders and unifies a continent? Starmer is struggling to sell himself to the British polity, the Germans have to deal with 20% support for AfD (which is anti-intervention), and does Macron have enough sway to pull it off?

The West looks, to me, largely leaderless. Our European members, feel free to correct my American perceptions to my open ears.

Agree.
Macron has accustomed us with contradictory position without shame, Janus like.
His posture about rearmarment is mainly bogus.
In the relevant industrial circles, nobody is aware of raising the production.
It is not that the theorical capacities are not there (Great Britain and France spend about 2/3 of armamenr R&D in Europe). It is another task to develop long range production.
By instance, the Rafale production rate is presently 4 a month.

 

[buffnut453]

Most of that is above my paygrade, but who in Europe commands respect such that his influence crosses borders and unifies a continent? Starmer is struggling to sell himself to the British polity, the Germans have to deal with 20% support for AfD (which is anti-intervention), and does Macron have enough sway to pull it off?

The West looks, to me, largely leaderless. Our European members, feel free to correct my American perceptions to my open ears.

It rather depends on what topic(s) you're trying to lead on. If it's Europe's political position in the global hierarchy, arguably that's the EU's problem and structures, however imperfect, are already in place...although better integration of the UK is clearly necessary (Brejoin perhaps?). Establishment of a "European Army" is a rather different proposition.

Since there is no European Army, the EU would have to adopt decision powers to establish and provide political control of any such forces. That will likely take time as, I'm sure, some nations (e.g. Hungary) will likely want to retain veto power over the use of military force. There's also a question of how any European Army contributes both to individual national defence, collective European defence, and integrates with NATO structures. It's a complex issue at the political level.

Step down a notch and things become a little clearer. Any European Army MUST be divorced from and yet interoperable with NATO. Frankly, there are only 2 European nations, the UK and France, that have the operational experience and military structures to conduct expeditionary-style operations. Both are also nuclear powers which adds to them being the top of the heap. I believe any European Army command structure will likely have to rely on Anglo-French capabilities and their ability to work together (no small ask...but doable). For example, the UK has a long-established Permanent Joint Headquarters and a forward-deployable Joint Force Headquarters capability for directing operations. Is it big enough to support a wider European role? No...but it's a solid foundation. Both the UK and France have expeditionary capabilities, including aircraft carriers. The bigger challenge is that France has been in-and-out of NATO for decades, sometimes playing nicely with the NATO Allies and sometimes going its own way. That schizophrenic approach will almost certainly complicate force integration.

Starmer's proposed Coalition of the Willing may be a first stepping-stone towards implementing the necessary structures and decision processes to ultimately become a true European Army...which will be ironic given that the UK isn't part of the EU. That said, the threat picture is driving closer ties in all of Europe right now so any lingering post-Brexit brouhahahs, at least related to security and defence, will almost certainly be overtaken by the realpolitik of the current situation.

 

[Frog]

It rather depends on what topic(s) you're trying to lead on. If it's Europe's political position in the global hierarchy, arguably that's the EU's problem and structures, however imperfect, are already in place...although better integration of the UK is clearly necessary (Brejoin perhaps?). Establishment of a "European Army" is a rather different proposition.

Since there is no European Army, the EU would have to adopt decision powers to establish and provide political control of any such forces. That will likely take time as, I'm sure, some nations (e.g. Hungary) will likely want to retain veto power over the use of military force. There's also a question of how any European Army contributes both to individual national defence, collective European defence, and integrates with NATO structures. It's a complex issue at the political level.

Step down a notch and things become a little clearer. Any European Army MUST be divorced from and yet interoperable with NATO. Frankly, there are only 2 European nations, the UK and France, that have the operational experience and military structures to conduct expeditionary-style operations. Both are also nuclear powers which adds to them being the top of the heap. I believe any European Army command structure will likely have to rely on Anglo-French capabilities and their ability to work together (no small ask...but doable). For example, the UK has a long-established Permanent Joint Headquarters and a forward-deployable Joint Force Headquarters capability for directing operations. Is it big enough to support a wider European role? No...but it's a solid foundation. Both the UK and France have expeditionary capabilities, including aircraft carriers. The bigger challenge is that France has been in-and-out of NATO for decades, sometimes playing nicely with the NATO Allies and sometimes going its own way. That schizophrenic approach will almost certainly complicate force integration.

Starmer's proposed Coalition of the Willing may be a first stepping-stone towards implementing the necessary structures and decision processes to ultimately become a true European Army...which will be ironic given that the UK isn't part of the EU. That said, the threat picture is driving closer ties in all of Europe right now so any lingering post-Brexit brouhahahs, at least related to security and defence, will almost certainly be overtaken by the realpolitik of the current situation.

France was always a NATO member but had quit the integrated command between 1966 and 2009.

 

[buffnut453]

France was always a NATO member but had quit the integrated command between 1966 and 2009.

True, although France's nuclear forces remain outside the NATO Nuclear Plans Group so there's still a feeling of "partially in, partially out." Then there's the collaborative aircraft programs where France has been an original member, only to quit the program and build its own competing airframe. For good or ill, France still has a reputation of looking far more to its own interests than to collective collaboration. This includes France urging other NATO members to spend more on defense when France, itself, only barely clears the NATO 2% of GDP threshold. I think there's a need to replace words with actions (and money) to build trust and accelerate the growth of European-centric defense.

I truly would LOVE to see Europe stand up and be counted, with demonstrable, home-grown military capabilities...and I'd LOVE to see France being a strong partner in those endeavors. Unfortunately, I fear politics will get in the way and it'll be more of the same, with increasing risk that Europe essentially becomes irrelevant because it can't get its act together.

 

[special ed]

You said, "France still has a reputation ... to it's own interests... France urging other NATO members to spend more on defense..."
Sounds familiar to the US present accusations.

 

[buffnut453]

You said, "France still has a reputation ... to it's own interests... France urging other NATO members to spend more on defense..."
Sounds familiar to the US present accusations.

Every nation, in Europe and elsewhere, is looking to its own interests. I think some are more brazen than others. The problem for Europe is that it MUST start working together more closely. I'm far from convinced that current EU structures, as a parallel political apparatus to each nation's democratic processes, are the right mechanism for managing defense issues, particularly regarding employment of force. There isn't time to begin the diplomatic dance that characterizes European relationships but, unfortunately, there's no obvious alternative approach.

 

[Ascent]

Speaking as an ex RAF serviceman I'd like to see a European 'Army', and I would have happily served in one. I do think that there a mass of practical hurdles to overcome though, not to mention political ones.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The captain of the Solong cargo ship arrested after a collision with a tanker in the North Sea is a Russian national, the ship's owner has confirmed.

Humberside Police said the 59-year-old man remained in custody after being arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter on Tuesday.

The Portuguese-flagged Solong and the US-registered tanker Stena Immaculate crashed off the East Yorkshire coast at about 10:00 GMT on Monday.

A missing crew member from the cargo ship is presumed dead after a search and rescue operation was called off late on Monday.

Humberside Police said it had begun a criminal investigation into the cause of the collision and was working with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

Arrested captain of Solong ship is Russian national, owners say

The captain of the Solong cargo ship was arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.

www.bbc.com

 

[Denniss]

A typical stereotype would imply an abuse of Vodka. Sadly one crewmember was lost due to his behaviour.

 

[rochie]

The captain of the Solong cargo ship arrested after a collision with a tanker in the North Sea is a Russian national, the ship's owner has confirmed.

Humberside Police said the 59-year-old man remained in custody after being arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter on Tuesday.

The Portuguese-flagged Solong and the US-registered tanker Stena Immaculate crashed off the East Yorkshire coast at about 10:00 GMT on Monday.

A missing crew member from the cargo ship is presumed dead after a search and rescue operation was called off late on Monday.

Humberside Police said it had begun a criminal investigation into the cause of the collision and was working with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

Arrested captain of Solong ship is Russian national, owners say

The captain of the Solong cargo ship was arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.

www.bbc.com

View attachment 821041

Let's hope it was just negligence and not something more sinister !