Slava Ukraini :fire:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/20/us-house-approves-61bn-aid-ukraine

Fuck the GOP (Gimps Of Putin)!

Argentina asks to join NATO as President Milei seeks a more prominent role for his nation
^{— AP · Apr 18, 2024}

Unexpected? (Maybe it can help with the Falkland debacle?)

Aid to Kiev to make US richer, Ukraine more bankrupt — Kremlin spokesman
^{— TASS · Apr 20, 2024}

The decision to provide aid to Ukraine was anticipated and predictable. This will make the United States of America far richer but will ruin Ukraine further, making more Ukrainians killed because of the Kiev regime. — Peskov

:D Same old crap. → crayons ←

The Russian spy network in Europe:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-spies-infiltrated-romania-disguised-230100892.html
https://apnews.com/article/poland-espinonage-ukraine-russia-zelenskyy-plot-a7e3f5944ba165dd30b271840ffa9f95
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68843541

All hypothetical imperatives
^{— Peter Neumann · ZEIT ONLINE · Apr 23, 2024}

The Chancellor spoke in Berlin on the 300th birthday of the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Olaf Scholz tried to counter the appropriation of Kant by Vladimir Putin.

Concerning Scholz's speech, I would highlight the following claim:
“We all want peace for our time. But peace at any price – that wouldn’t be any at all.”
(https://globalhappenings.com/politics/496848.html)
which is pretty much in line with what I repeatedly said:

people may not pursue peace, if that means WHATEVER peace. — neomac

, in line with

A peace may be so wretched as not to be ill exchanged for war. — Tacitus (56 — 120)

:up:

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-afds-krah-faces-probe-on-russia-china-payments/a-68912872
https://newrepublic.com/article/180630/russia-corruption-network-europe-buying-politicians-america

The KGB of Belarus announced the prevention of strikes by drones from Lithuania on Minsk
^{— TASS · Apr 25, 2024}
Belarus says it thwarted attack on capital by drones launched from Lithuania
^{— Emelia Sithole-Matarise · Reuters · Apr 25, 2024}

This I don't find plausible. Fairly serious allegation. Doesn't really make much sense. (If anything at all, wouldn't they make a move on Kaliningrad?)

Unexpected? (Maybe it can help with the Falkland debacle?) — jorndoe

:grin:

Yeah, the UK might remember the Argies from that one.

Of course he isn't talking about NATO membership, so the proposal isn't ludicrouse. There is already Columbia as one. Just for those who don't know what a "global partner" of NATO is, here's from NATO's own website:

NATO has a number of “partners across the globe” or “global partners”, which the Alliance cooperates with on an individual basis. NATO’s global partners include Afghanistan¹, Australia, Colombia, Iraq, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan. NATO’s engagement with global partners is taking on increasing importance in a complex security environment, where many of the challenges the Alliance faces are global and no longer bound by geography.

Which actually is hilarious that they still have a reference to Afghanistan (in 2024!) there with an asterisk 1, that then says the following:

The partnership with Afghanistan is currently suspended following North Atlantic Council decisions related to the security environment.

The "security environment" perhaps referring to the fact that Afghanistan is now an Emirate that made the US to withdraw and hence fought off also NATO. :snicker:

NATO Spending by Country 2024 (World Population Review)
Which Countries Meet NATO’s Spending Target? (Visual Capitalist)
Map shows how much Nato members spend on defence after UK’s £75,000,000,000 boost (Metro)

Some years ago, I think it was @BC asking why the heck Denmark needed a bunch of new upgraded F-16s anyway, something like that, a natural question at the time. Military expenditures (and conscription) had overall decreased over the years, but the (current) Kremlin's efforts changed that. The links above show what countries appear most concerned, by and large those in Russia's vicinity, or those seeking the opposite of being (re)enrolled under the Kremlin, or shedding the shackles of Russian dominance.


Russia vetoes a UN resolution calling for the prevention of a dangerous nuclear arms race in space
^{— Edith M Lederer · AP · Apr 24, 2024}

Hm

Lukashenka Says Dozens Of Russian Nukes Deployed in Belarus
^{— RFE/RL · Apr 25, 2024}

☢ ... I was still looking at the Belarusian allegations against Lithuania. Also:

Belarus reveals alleged plot to attack Minsk from EU
^{— RT · Apr 25, 2024}

Something's off here. But, either way, the allegations are serious enough to require substantiation.

^{I'm vaguely reminded of the weird Havana syndrome thing. Some investigators pointed at Russian operations, yet official statements from intelligence agencies explicitly said they couldn't support that hypothesis. The allegation is serious, requiring proportional/relevant substantiation, which wasn't available, hence no such allegation. :up:}

The Belarusian allegations require substantiation, and, if that doesn't materialize, then another explanation of the allegations. I've been unable to find anything anyway.

At the time it seemed reasonable to wonder why Denmark needed upgraded F-16s. Given an aggressive Russia, it makes more sense.

Some years ago it seemed like Ukraine could not withstand a sustained Russian attack. It's not clear whether--over the long run--they can, without a significant and reliable increase in military assistance. How likely that is... The EU and NATO are not unitary bodies, but are made up of individual countries with varying perspectives on all sorts of topics. How long the EU, NATO, and the US can maintain unity isn't entirely clear.

, without aid, Ukraine would eventually get rolled over by Russia.
Conversely, if supporters went by "give them what they want if they stay democratic (and reasonable)" (just an amendable example), then the invaders would likely eventually get pushed out.
Somewhere in between, who knows?
In (and between) democracies, decisions like that aren't particularly typical, decisions aren't dictated by one/few, there are many voices, which is an advantage for autocracies here.

I have not fact-checked this, but offer it as is:– sneer, dismiss, disprove, approve, or something else; personally, I cried, but I am a milk and water liberal pantywaist.

https://www.youtube.com/live/S2-Wu6JQzp4?si=-E7NVXRgeHW-6ryg

Best to listen to someone who’s been right for the last 30 years.

I guess this has been abandoned.

Geneva Conventions » Protocol I » Article 1 - General principles and scope of application:

• 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for this Protocol in all circumstances.
• 2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.
• 3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to those Conventions.
• 4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Geneva Conventions » Protocol I » Article 52 - General protection of civilian objects:

• 1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
• 2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
• 3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

Geneva Conventions » Protocol I » Article 57 - Precautions in attack:

• 1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.
• 2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
  
  • (a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
    
    • (i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
    • (ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
    • (iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
  • (b) an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
  • (c) effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.
• 3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.
• 4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects.
• 5. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

After all, prior violation can be used as an excuse, civilian targets can be declared military targets, the words can be made to override the intent, ...

Some years ago it seemed like Ukraine could not withstand a sustained Russian attack. It's not clear whether--over the long run--they can, without a significant and reliable increase in military assistance. How likely that is... The EU and NATO are not unitary bodies, but are made up of individual countries with varying perspectives on all sorts of topics. How long the EU, NATO, and the US can maintain unity isn't entirely clear. — BC

When it comes to the EU, one simply has to understand that the bickering is simply structural when you have so many sovereign states trying to form a consensus. In short, the EU always looks as if it would collapse. It still doesn't.

I wouldn't quite put it past Lukashenko and friends to stage a fake attack on Belarus by, say, Lithuania or Latvia. Possibly (or likely) coordinated by the Kremlin circle, in such a case.
If it was believed by many to be an attack initiated by Lithuania or Latvia (perhaps sufficiently well-staged with accompanying propaganda), and Belarus mounted a counterattack, then what would NATO's role be?

10-minute interview with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya ...
Everybody opposing the regime automatically declared extremist: Exiled Belarusian opposition leader
^{— Mercedes Stephenson · Global News · Apr 28, 2024}



Russia will sink Britain under nuclear tide with Satan 2 missiles if NATO intervenes in Ukraine, vows top Putin stooge
^{— Sayan Bose, Will Stewart · The Irish Sun · Apr 29, 2024}

If NATO countries send their troops into Ukraine in order to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, then the very moment about which Putin once said, ‘Why do we need the world, if there is no Russia in it?’ would come. Then everything [all types of missile] would be launched by us, in every direction - Sarmats, Yars, and Avangards. — Kiselyov

Without any such troop having set foot in Russia, or any such country having attacked Russia?