MrPiss

Excuse me but they are interoperable systems that work together to ensure that our warfighters crush the enemy. Except that they're not. From one of the first articles I could find:

https://euro-sd.com/2023/11/news/35076/case-for-more-ammo-interchange/

Defence producers in NATO and allied nations produce ammunition and weapon systems with reference to a number of NATO standards that, at least in principle, are intended to ensure technical interchangeability. However, irrespective of the fact that most NATO nations have ratified these standards, thus facilitating the technical side of interchangeability, national policies often put obstacles in place for the practical interchange and sharing of ammunition.

These bastards can't even make ammo the same. One of, I assume, the simplest things to design and supply for an army. If NATO really tries to put some boots on the ground in Ukraine I expect it to be a logistics nightmare. We already see that nightmare in Ukraines logistics actually.

They're both more of a Belgium, but go off.

If Israel does sign a ceasefire with Hamas and then attacks Hezbollah anyway then that's probably them testing the commitment of the entire axis of resistance. It's also a way for them to be like "we gave those [insert slurs] in Hamas a chance and they broke the ceasefire" while ignoring why they broke it. Fundamentally, if the axis of resistance is united then Israel is screwed.

This might be one of the only street renamings I've heard about that I respect. It's in honor of someone who can honestly deserve the title of hero. Most of the other ones I've heard about are reddit tier political owns like the current ones going around for Navalny.

"~~Ukarine~~ Armenia will join the EU after Turkey, which is never"

I updated a quote I vaguely remember hearing like 5 years ago. The EU hasn't added a country in almost 11 years and it's already struggling to maintain itself as nationalist governments like Hungary pursue their own interests within the bloc.

I still have that feeling that the empire is going to bring the uyghur genocide or maybe even the ukrainian genocide to the ICJ via like Estonia or something. I feel like they need something more concrete to use for isolating china and russia in the long run.

Now I'm wondering if there's another part of China that can be pumped up as oppressed. They've used Tibet, Hong Kong, and Xinjiang. I don't think those places can be fully reignited and China probably isn't going to attack reddit island unless the separatists do something stupid.

"Yeah make me the loudest and most annoying unarmed target that you can, thanks"

War crimes sidenote: it's always extremely fucking weird to me when liberals want me to cry over Dresden being firebombed as if it's morally equivalent to the holocaust with a small fraction of the deaths. Or when people play up the atrocities of soviet/socialist liberation of eastern europe like those weren't done on the most vile and wretched people who have ever lived. They should have faced justice within a more legal framework but I can understand the actions taken in that justifiable rage at the time.

Honestly I'm more concerned about the scale and tolerance of war crimes. For instance, are these acts being promoted and encouraged or do people face real disciplinary actions if they have done something wrong? According to what has been seen and described by the actual survivors, Hamas has been pretty decent and has not been a group of subhuman barbarians prowling around for women. While the Israelis have basically been live tweeting their own war crimes with glee.

A few things. Thanks for the compliment on the post, but I think the Bhadrakunar piece is focused on the reaffirmation of those threats and how they are being used in the context of the west trying to get to the next stage of "Doing Something". He was a diplomat from what I remember so it makes sense that that's what he focused on and not fully understanding the military realities.

I think after reviewing the article again and your reply I understand the way this is evolving if it follows what I outlined. The war would change from a NATO proxy war against Russia into a NATO "coalition" war against Russia. The verbiage might need some work but it seems like we're in the process of that real change where NATO as a block isn't fully at war with Russia and so there's that semantic game they can play where the US and countries like Spain and Turkey aren't fighting so it's not a full "NATO war" that provides an out while NATO forces die in Bakhmut 2 Estonian Boogaloo.

Again, it's hard to know how this evolves. I just want to see Germany lose another war.

https://archive.ph/WY1B2

I've been thinking about all of the articles about NATO troops possibly deploying in Ukraine and the whole will they won't they of it all. I think that this piece by Bhadrakumar got me to finally understand what NATO is planning. There will be bilateral troop deployments from some willing NATO countries and because they won't be in NATO territory they will not be able to trigger article five. I'm convinced that the Brandon regime will push for this in an absurd attempt to win reelection. Try to go full wartime president with it with non-US NATO troops fighting Russia. They will try flying close to the sun on this one.

I don't know what that looks like in practice exactly but I can see a rough shape. said that France will move after certain red lines are crossed. I could also see staggered announcements and entrance into the plan.

First, after Russia goes on the offensive, announce some ghoulish framework for helping Ukraine and how it will be conducted. Next, announce noncombat troop deployments as "advisors" and such from France and a few other countries. Then, after NATO troops die in combat (like they're supposed to), they can announce limited combat forces and work their way up the escalation ladder. This would be a slow buildup with countries entering the new "coalition of the willing" over a few months, but I can see it happening this way.

This could also all be bullshit to try to scare the Russians though. I think that I'm around 50-50 between the two options.

If we're talking about the larger system then a lot of the same stuff will be accomplished in the same time frame between the two of them policy wise. There will be important differences though.

Biden and the democrats are the party of the adults in the room. They are the proper custodians of empire and of sound imperial management. They will procedurally implement a slower but properly understood path to whatever modern fascism would look like.

Trump and the Republicans would be more openly and outwardly, viscous and petty. They would be more aggressive in setting up the systems that would accelerate internal decline like packing the courts and starving the government instead of letting it stagnate. The Trump white house was also a lot more factional than Bidens has been so we'll also get more entertaining court intrigue with their vain personalities. The news cycle will be dominated by whatever new Trump scandal there is for the week.

I'm of the opinion that when it comes to real, actual policy, that in any 10 year period it just averages out to what the capitalists want and how the deep state wants to execute it. The president is only so important.