Europe at War

[Todd]

I've read estimations that Russia has depleted 70% of its missile stocks.

That is the first part of an analysis by investigative journalist Christo Grozev.  The second part is that Russia can produce more missiles independently.  It would be intriguing to see assessments of intelligence agencies.  Coming to any positive or hopeful conclusions based on this factoid is unwise.

Russia is smart to use Ukrainians to kill other Ukrainians, even if they are now past proper combat age.  That is what the US is doing as well. 

[drogulus]

     The Canadian howitzers are wondrous things, with GPS guided shells and very long range. If this is supposed to be an artillery battle they will be just the thing for counter-battery fire. Go Raytheon!

     

     

     

[Todd]

Everyone Is Starting to Admit Something Frightening About Ukraine

The conflict has become a proxy war between NATO and Russia, with more risks for everyone involved.

[Que]

Things are still not going well for Putin:



Ukrainian govt sources speak of "colossal" Russian losses, while admitting Ukranian losses have been "heavy".

[Que]

That is the first part of an analysis by investigative journalist Christo Grozev.  The second part is that Russia can produce more missiles independently.  It would be intriguing to see assessments of intelligence agencies.  Coming to any positive or hopeful conclusions based on this factoid is unwise.

Bellingcat is rather reliable source. Anyway, we'll know pretty soon whether Russia will run out of misilles.
As to your 2nd comment. Firstly, this notion of "independent production" is contested by reported reliance on the import of crucial high tech parts, now impossible because of western sanctions. Secondly, the production of precision guided misilles is a complicated and laborious process. It's not like you can produce these "on the go". Both sides have the same problem: they need military hardware now, not in 6 months.

Russia is smart to use Ukrainians to kill other Ukrainians, even if they are now past proper combat age.  That is what the US is doing as well.

No comment...

[Todd]

Bellingcat is rather reliable source. Anyway, we'll know pretty soon whether Russia will run out of misilles.
As to your 2nd comment. Firstly, this notion of "independent production" is contested by reported reliance on the import of crucial high tech parts, now impossible because of western sanctions. Secondly, the production of precision guided misilles is a complicated and laborious process. It's not like you can produce these "on the go". Both sides have the same problem: they need military hardware now, not in 6 months

There is only one source for what you originally posted, and that source states that Russia can produce the missiles independently.  Best to not cherry pick one of two main components of a story.  That can give way to wishful thinking. 

[Florestan]

Todd, here's a question for you, if I may:

Are you of the opinion  that, if in 1991 NATO decided to dissolve or never to accept any new member, Russia would have developed internally along democratic, liberal lines and its foreign policy would have been, if not peaceful, then much less aggressive?

If you choose to answer, thank you. If you choose not to answer, no problem.

[Todd]

Are you of the opinion  that, if in 1991 NATO decided to dissolve or never to accept any new member, Russia would have developed internally along democratic, liberal lines and its foreign policy would have been, if not peaceful, then much less aggressive?

This question is detached from reality.

[Florestan]

This question is detached from reality.

As I said, no problem.

[Gurn Blanston]

This question is detached from reality.

True,  but it would be interesting to hear what those who are unhappy with the decisions which created the current reality think the situation would be now if they had their way 30 years ago. 🤔

🤠😎

[steve ridgway]

True,  but it would be interesting to hear what those who are unhappy with the decisions which created the current reality think the situation would be now if they had their way 30 years ago. 🤔

🤠😎

I think Britain and Germany should have agreed to carve the world up between them before 1914. Russia would now be part of the German Empire and America back in the British.

[Todd]

As I said, no problem.

The main issue is with the first part of the question.  It cannot be answered as asked. 

I think Britain and Germany should have agreed to carve the world up between them before 1914. Russia would now be part of the German Empire and America back in the British.

The UK owed the US too much money at the end of the war to do that.

[Florestan]

it would be interesting to hear what those who are unhappy with the decisions which created the current reality think the situation would be now if they had their way 30 years ago.

That was precisely the gist of my question.

[Florestan]

The main issue is with the first part of the question.  It cannot be answered as asked. 

Ah, now I see what you mean. Well, English is not my native tongue so its grammar often gets the better of me. Here, I reformulate:

Had NATO decided in 1991 to dissolve or never to accept any new member, would Russia have been developing internally along democratic, liberal lines and its foreign policy would have been, if not peaceful, then much less aggressive?

There, I hope this can be answered.

[steve ridgway]

The UK owed the US too much money at the end of the war to do that.

I said before 1914.

[Todd]

I said before 1914.

My bad.  The UK was too dependent on the US via the House of Morgan at that point to do that.  Also, at that point the US Navy was too large for the globe spanning Royal Navy to dispatch easily.  And the Treaty of Washington meant that the US and UK were buddy-buddy by that point.  Surely the British would not violate the letter or the spirit of a treaty . . .

[steve ridgway]

Fair enough Todd, you know more about it than I. My feeling is primarily that it was a great shame for Britain and Germany to trash each other like that.

[Todd]

My feeling is primarily that it was a great shame for Britain and Germany to trash each other like that.

The great shame was the Treaty of Versailles.  It took Americans to show Europeans how to deal with a defeated Germany. 

[Florestan]

Immediately after the German attack on Belgium, the German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg called the treaty guaranteeing Belgium's neutrality 'a scrap of paper'.

Godwin's Law? Hardly. It was 1914, not the 1930s.

[Florestan]

The great shame was the Treaty of Versailles.

Agreed.

It took Americans to show Europeans how to deal with a defeated Germany.

Correction: it took Americans to show the French how to deal with a defeated Germany.

May I respectfully remind you that during WWI most European grievances were against Austria-Hungary and Russia rather than Germany,