"The AfD has not yet taken any position on conscription, but it is a nationalist party that would like to see the sanctions on Russia lifted and does not support any European-wide defense initiative."
Similar political movement toward the Right is evident in other European countries as well as in the US. As someone old enough to remember when it was different, I can't get over the irony of embracing the Right as the most promising political force against war.
The idea of global 'full spectrum dominance' was announced by a group of Republicans in a 1997 letter to Clinton, demanding he finish their Iraq War.
The letter was drafted by the husband of Biden's new deputy secretary at State.
Joe and Clinton's wife have been hawks all along, but neocons like Nuland running Dem foreign policy under Sleepy Joe is fairly new - though 'Fuck the EU' Nuland started as Cheney's foreign policy advisor in the year her husband's pals finally got their second Iraq war, and seems to have been running policy in Eastern Europe from then onward, under Clinton and her successors.
I loathe the upstart clown who succeeded Obama, but as I said to friends in 2016: "At least he's less likely than Killary to start WW3, except on a bad hair day."
I'm starting to feel the same way about the other cold warrior the Dem machine forced on Obama in 2008.
I think war is like everything else in our political system: party no longer matters, except to determine who gets paid off to implement the wishes of those really in charge.
IMO, the use of the term "right" or "far-right" is very misleading and quite incorrect as these political parties are essentially conservatives along the lines of what is known as Classical Conservatism--preservation of the past and longstanding family and religious-based values while constructively forging ahead by moderately modernizing the economy and society. The US political movement known as the Progressives grew out of that political philosophy and were primarily Republicans. They combined with what was known as the Social Gospel Movement and many became New Dealers and advocates for neutrality during the 1930s. The record shows they were very successful. Today's world would be vastly different were it not for WWs 1&2 whose affects still afflict today's world.
With great respect, as always, Stephen, I cannot easily understand how you can be so opposed to the Nuland Doctrine in Europe, but so seemingly aligned with it in the Middle East.
The neocons' Queen Victoria, responsible for so much suffering in both arenas from Clinton's State Dept in the 90s, through 8 Bush years, then 8 more under Clinton's wife, 4 under Trump, now 3 more under her greatest fan Sleepy Joe, despite her flexible party affiliation back home, has been very consistent in her to me odious PNAC aka CNAS foreign adventures.
Very seriously (and war is a very serious business) how or why do you diverge so much in different theatres?
I fully agree (where Vicky fully diasagrees) about the Postsoviet NATO programme in Eastern Europe, and I agree of course that America has security interests in MENA (diminishing as oil dependence decreases).
But stabilizing????
Very many in the region, from Libya to Afghanistan, from the Caucasus to the Horn, would like me disagree.
you are welcome to disagree, but in my opinion without the US Saudi Arabia, the UAE would fall to Iran, or to the Russians or both. That is not in our interest.
When did things get so insane? When did they stop understanding the basic warfighting 101 that you need vast amounts of ammo of all kinds? They are down to Lake City Ammo plant for all small arms ammo. a missel could stop all production. Madness.
Bravo Stephen. Such a pleasure to read realistic, fact based, military and strategic summaries and commentary.
Meanwhile Putin is playing seven-dimension chess. I haven't seen anything in the corporate media yet but today Putin convened some sort of press event that will surely shatter NATO into pieces. It seems Putin is proposing that territories relinquished to Ukraine under Stalin's orders after World War II, be returned to Poland Hungary and Romania. That would instigate huge internal pressures in these countries to take the bait (subject to agreements and conditions with Russia) pitting these nationalist revanchist interests against the most fervent and animated objections of Washington and NATO headquarters. This is gonna be a lot of fun.
Yeah I think it's safe to assume that any deal to hand over Galicia and the Lviv to Poland would come with strict terms and conditions; such as for example, that Poland/NATO would not construct any military bases in these oblasts. NATO, of course, would howl,and might even force Poland to choose between obtaining these Territories or remaining a member of NATO itself. Which is why Putin's proposal is so deliciously diabolical.
NATO has been obsolete ever since the Warsaw Pact collapsed in 1990. Just put that dog down and let the Western European countries pay for their own defense.
The judgement on French equipment seems unfair. The Ukrainian gov has actually announced they plan to order a few dozen Caesar howitzers. While it is possible that these canons are experiencing wear out if used intensively, there is absolutely no reason to suspect they are not particularly effective.
.
But for Caesar like AMX-10, the issue is not the equipment, but the way it is used. France relies on highly mobile and lightly armoured equipment, because that fits its military doctrine, in which movement is key. Remember that France is a determined nuclear power, and thus the French military is not planning a defensive, position war to protect its territory: anyone attempting to invade France would face nuclear response. Thus, the French military is focused on shorter operations involving movement and rapid decision. That's why its equipment are lighter, and this comes with several advantages: they're fast; they're light on support requirement, particularly fuel requirements; they can move fast after striking so as to escape the enemy's response. Of all Western self-propelled howitzers, the Caesar is the one that sets up the fastest, and that folds back the fastest as well, as to guarantee you'll have moved away even before the enemy's been hit. But if your doctrine does not involve moving after shooting, then you're using it wrong.
.
How do Ukrainians use these materials? They want howitzers to remain hidden in bushes and woods, or under dirt fortifications. They are fighting the way they know how to, not the way the equipment provided to them is meant to be used. Don't blame the AMX-10 for being light, blame the commanders who mistook it for an MBT and who were unable to design tactics that could make it useful. A light reconnaissance tank is not meant to be sent against fortified lines.
On the picture provided in the article, the AMX-10 seems unscathed! It was not destroyed, it was abandoned. This is a sign that it was being misused in the first place.
I am going solely on how the equipment performed in Ukraine --according to Ukrainian operators and not advertising. As for France's doctrine, I don't think France can rely on tactical nuclear weapons for its security. Russia has them too.
France does not operate tactical nukes, although the ASPM-A nuclear cruise missile can be set to lower yields. In French doctrine, you let another nuclear power you're very serious by firing one single missile meant to explode as an EMP in the athmosphere. That's the last warning.
After that, it's nuclear for real. Which means that if your opponent decides to respond to the last warning in any other way than to step back, he'll be choosing the nuclear destruction of life as we know it. No nuclear "little bombs" to bet on survival.
Excellent analysis of NATO's militaries, loaded with lots of stubbornly fun facts.
NATO was established to prevent Soviet expansion into Western Europe. It arguably succeeded in that mission in 1989, and and lost the reason for its continued existence then and there.
Since then, it has been used in offensive operations for the benefit of the US Empire and mostly American corporate profits. It doesn't do the American people any good, or the Europeans either.
And that is the critical point to understand about the French military. France does not need any nod from the US nor any activation code to go nuclear. And all of France's neighbours are allies. So France does not need to plan for a long conventional war.
It would be better for US commenters to remember that being a NATO member does not in any way imply planning for a US-decided war serving US interest. What being a NATO member is about, is to pledge mutual defense, with the means you have to protect yourself, according to your own defense planning serving your own strategic interests. France's self-protection is primarily insured by sovereign nuclear deterrence, and thus France has no reason to keep thousands of tanks and shells by the hundreds of millions. If you seek a country that needs to have big conventional depth to insure its own safety, go to Poland.
The problem now, is that the US government would like European allies to be prepared to fight a war decided in the US in the sole interest of the US, and is willing to blame European countries for not being prepared for that. This kind of thinking is the shortest path to seeing historical allies wave away their Art.5 obligations...
Not exactly right on NATO Article 5 (assuming it operates as a collective defense arrangement). It means that if NATO members vote to support a military response they are obliged to come to the aid of the impacted state or states. It is not just about protecting your own territory. I am certainly familiar with the various French positions vis a vis NATO, starting with De Gaulle, but if France actually accepted a vote on Article 5 it would have a bigger obligation than its self protection. Beyond that, basing defense solely on nuclear weapons is irresponsible in my opinion. Furthermore, France basically relies on the Force de Frappe, Force de Dissuasion, which is supposed to counter a threatened nuclear attack on France. So it is in my mind a strategic doctrine and a deterrent (from the use of nuclear weapons) and not an expansion of tactical defenses to nuclear responses.
There's no vote on art. 5. A country who feels that it's under attack can activate art. 5 by requiring assistance from its allies. So far, this happened only once with the US in September 2001. France was then the first country to offer assistance, even though by then it was not in NATO's integrated military command.
France's conventional forces are considered fit to support the nuclear deterrence posture, which involves a last warning use of an EMP before nuclear war. It is not reserved to the case of a nuclear attack on France, as it is instead meant to be use in any case of an attack on France's "vital interest".
.
My point on Art. 5 is that the more NATO looks like a private military force meant to serve the arbitrary interest of a single patron nation, the less NATO members will be willing to fulfill their obligations. Especially when the said arbitrary interest makes other NATO members less secure and brings war back on the European continent, while NATO members did not recognize any threat to their own safety. If it is felt that an attack on a NATO member proceeds from years of provocative policies towards the attacker, many NATO members may step back from their obligations and tell the agent provocateur to deal with the responsibilities of their policies on their own.
Make no mistake: this is already the majority position of citizens in many important European NATO members. It is a very real matter that the US would ignore at its own peril.
The unreadiness of these militaries simply reflects the reality that no one remotely threatens these countries
Yet...
Western Europe is a fat, lazy US protectorate. I wish we would pull out and defend our own southern border.
"The AfD has not yet taken any position on conscription, but it is a nationalist party that would like to see the sanctions on Russia lifted and does not support any European-wide defense initiative."
Similar political movement toward the Right is evident in other European countries as well as in the US. As someone old enough to remember when it was different, I can't get over the irony of embracing the Right as the most promising political force against war.
I remember when neocons were Republican.
So you are under 24? Most of our major military adventures of the 20th century started under Democrats.
The idea of global 'full spectrum dominance' was announced by a group of Republicans in a 1997 letter to Clinton, demanding he finish their Iraq War.
The letter was drafted by the husband of Biden's new deputy secretary at State.
Joe and Clinton's wife have been hawks all along, but neocons like Nuland running Dem foreign policy under Sleepy Joe is fairly new - though 'Fuck the EU' Nuland started as Cheney's foreign policy advisor in the year her husband's pals finally got their second Iraq war, and seems to have been running policy in Eastern Europe from then onward, under Clinton and her successors.
I loathe the upstart clown who succeeded Obama, but as I said to friends in 2016: "At least he's less likely than Killary to start WW3, except on a bad hair day."
I'm starting to feel the same way about the other cold warrior the Dem machine forced on Obama in 2008.
I think war is like everything else in our political system: party no longer matters, except to determine who gets paid off to implement the wishes of those really in charge.
Labeling anyone who wants peace as "the Right" doesn't make it so.
IMO, the use of the term "right" or "far-right" is very misleading and quite incorrect as these political parties are essentially conservatives along the lines of what is known as Classical Conservatism--preservation of the past and longstanding family and religious-based values while constructively forging ahead by moderately modernizing the economy and society. The US political movement known as the Progressives grew out of that political philosophy and were primarily Republicans. They combined with what was known as the Social Gospel Movement and many became New Dealers and advocates for neutrality during the 1930s. The record shows they were very successful. Today's world would be vastly different were it not for WWs 1&2 whose affects still afflict today's world.
With great respect, as always, Stephen, I cannot easily understand how you can be so opposed to the Nuland Doctrine in Europe, but so seemingly aligned with it in the Middle East.
The neocons' Queen Victoria, responsible for so much suffering in both arenas from Clinton's State Dept in the 90s, through 8 Bush years, then 8 more under Clinton's wife, 4 under Trump, now 3 more under her greatest fan Sleepy Joe, despite her flexible party affiliation back home, has been very consistent in her to me odious PNAC aka CNAS foreign adventures.
Very seriously (and war is a very serious business) how or why do you diverge so much in different theatres?
The US has a stabilizing role in the ME and clear security interests. In Ukraine we imposed ourselves on a local problem and made a mess.
I fully agree (where Vicky fully diasagrees) about the Postsoviet NATO programme in Eastern Europe, and I agree of course that America has security interests in MENA (diminishing as oil dependence decreases).
But stabilizing????
Very many in the region, from Libya to Afghanistan, from the Caucasus to the Horn, would like me disagree.
And I think most future historians will too.
you are welcome to disagree, but in my opinion without the US Saudi Arabia, the UAE would fall to Iran, or to the Russians or both. That is not in our interest.
Stabilizing? No, it's a meandering failure.
Decline... and fall?
All empires end, sooner or later, one way or another.
When did things get so insane? When did they stop understanding the basic warfighting 101 that you need vast amounts of ammo of all kinds? They are down to Lake City Ammo plant for all small arms ammo. a missel could stop all production. Madness.
Those in charge don't think in terms of nations. They don't care who wins, as long as they get to move product.
Bravo Stephen. Such a pleasure to read realistic, fact based, military and strategic summaries and commentary.
Meanwhile Putin is playing seven-dimension chess. I haven't seen anything in the corporate media yet but today Putin convened some sort of press event that will surely shatter NATO into pieces. It seems Putin is proposing that territories relinquished to Ukraine under Stalin's orders after World War II, be returned to Poland Hungary and Romania. That would instigate huge internal pressures in these countries to take the bait (subject to agreements and conditions with Russia) pitting these nationalist revanchist interests against the most fervent and animated objections of Washington and NATO headquarters. This is gonna be a lot of fun.
https://locals.com/feed/5024436
Can't wait to see Stephen's commentary on Putin's gambit.
I need to learn more about it. Of course, it is also a gamble because they are all NATO members, something Putin does not like.
Yeah I think it's safe to assume that any deal to hand over Galicia and the Lviv to Poland would come with strict terms and conditions; such as for example, that Poland/NATO would not construct any military bases in these oblasts. NATO, of course, would howl,and might even force Poland to choose between obtaining these Territories or remaining a member of NATO itself. Which is why Putin's proposal is so deliciously diabolical.
Watch the movie Hatred/Volyn in Polish before making any predictions about territory swapping in Galicia, or uttering Slava Ukraini for that matter.
Russia, wisely, wants no part of Galicia. Unloading it would be a net plus with them
NATO has been obsolete ever since the Warsaw Pact collapsed in 1990. Just put that dog down and let the Western European countries pay for their own defense.
The judgement on French equipment seems unfair. The Ukrainian gov has actually announced they plan to order a few dozen Caesar howitzers. While it is possible that these canons are experiencing wear out if used intensively, there is absolutely no reason to suspect they are not particularly effective.
.
But for Caesar like AMX-10, the issue is not the equipment, but the way it is used. France relies on highly mobile and lightly armoured equipment, because that fits its military doctrine, in which movement is key. Remember that France is a determined nuclear power, and thus the French military is not planning a defensive, position war to protect its territory: anyone attempting to invade France would face nuclear response. Thus, the French military is focused on shorter operations involving movement and rapid decision. That's why its equipment are lighter, and this comes with several advantages: they're fast; they're light on support requirement, particularly fuel requirements; they can move fast after striking so as to escape the enemy's response. Of all Western self-propelled howitzers, the Caesar is the one that sets up the fastest, and that folds back the fastest as well, as to guarantee you'll have moved away even before the enemy's been hit. But if your doctrine does not involve moving after shooting, then you're using it wrong.
.
How do Ukrainians use these materials? They want howitzers to remain hidden in bushes and woods, or under dirt fortifications. They are fighting the way they know how to, not the way the equipment provided to them is meant to be used. Don't blame the AMX-10 for being light, blame the commanders who mistook it for an MBT and who were unable to design tactics that could make it useful. A light reconnaissance tank is not meant to be sent against fortified lines.
On the picture provided in the article, the AMX-10 seems unscathed! It was not destroyed, it was abandoned. This is a sign that it was being misused in the first place.
I am going solely on how the equipment performed in Ukraine --according to Ukrainian operators and not advertising. As for France's doctrine, I don't think France can rely on tactical nuclear weapons for its security. Russia has them too.
France does not operate tactical nukes, although the ASPM-A nuclear cruise missile can be set to lower yields. In French doctrine, you let another nuclear power you're very serious by firing one single missile meant to explode as an EMP in the athmosphere. That's the last warning.
After that, it's nuclear for real. Which means that if your opponent decides to respond to the last warning in any other way than to step back, he'll be choosing the nuclear destruction of life as we know it. No nuclear "little bombs" to bet on survival.
Excellent analysis of NATO's militaries, loaded with lots of stubbornly fun facts.
NATO was established to prevent Soviet expansion into Western Europe. It arguably succeeded in that mission in 1989, and and lost the reason for its continued existence then and there.
Since then, it has been used in offensive operations for the benefit of the US Empire and mostly American corporate profits. It doesn't do the American people any good, or the Europeans either.
Time to scrap NATO.
Col. McGregor said his sources say the French only have about 3 days supply of ammo.
Other reports would agree with that estimate (of course depending on how the French engage their forces)
The bottom line is that the decision to use nukes would come much faster.
And that is the critical point to understand about the French military. France does not need any nod from the US nor any activation code to go nuclear. And all of France's neighbours are allies. So France does not need to plan for a long conventional war.
It would be better for US commenters to remember that being a NATO member does not in any way imply planning for a US-decided war serving US interest. What being a NATO member is about, is to pledge mutual defense, with the means you have to protect yourself, according to your own defense planning serving your own strategic interests. France's self-protection is primarily insured by sovereign nuclear deterrence, and thus France has no reason to keep thousands of tanks and shells by the hundreds of millions. If you seek a country that needs to have big conventional depth to insure its own safety, go to Poland.
The problem now, is that the US government would like European allies to be prepared to fight a war decided in the US in the sole interest of the US, and is willing to blame European countries for not being prepared for that. This kind of thinking is the shortest path to seeing historical allies wave away their Art.5 obligations...
Not exactly right on NATO Article 5 (assuming it operates as a collective defense arrangement). It means that if NATO members vote to support a military response they are obliged to come to the aid of the impacted state or states. It is not just about protecting your own territory. I am certainly familiar with the various French positions vis a vis NATO, starting with De Gaulle, but if France actually accepted a vote on Article 5 it would have a bigger obligation than its self protection. Beyond that, basing defense solely on nuclear weapons is irresponsible in my opinion. Furthermore, France basically relies on the Force de Frappe, Force de Dissuasion, which is supposed to counter a threatened nuclear attack on France. So it is in my mind a strategic doctrine and a deterrent (from the use of nuclear weapons) and not an expansion of tactical defenses to nuclear responses.
There's no vote on art. 5. A country who feels that it's under attack can activate art. 5 by requiring assistance from its allies. So far, this happened only once with the US in September 2001. France was then the first country to offer assistance, even though by then it was not in NATO's integrated military command.
France's conventional forces are considered fit to support the nuclear deterrence posture, which involves a last warning use of an EMP before nuclear war. It is not reserved to the case of a nuclear attack on France, as it is instead meant to be use in any case of an attack on France's "vital interest".
.
My point on Art. 5 is that the more NATO looks like a private military force meant to serve the arbitrary interest of a single patron nation, the less NATO members will be willing to fulfill their obligations. Especially when the said arbitrary interest makes other NATO members less secure and brings war back on the European continent, while NATO members did not recognize any threat to their own safety. If it is felt that an attack on a NATO member proceeds from years of provocative policies towards the attacker, many NATO members may step back from their obligations and tell the agent provocateur to deal with the responsibilities of their policies on their own.
Make no mistake: this is already the majority position of citizens in many important European NATO members. It is a very real matter that the US would ignore at its own peril.
They are making people get vaccinated in the military now??
If you are talking about Covid, the answer is no.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3264323/dod-rescinds-covid-19-vaccination-mandate/