I am guessing that within a few months Mr Tinkov will literally be tinkedoff!
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
I am guessing that within a few months Mr Tinkov will literally be tinkedoff!
On top of all the war crimes, they are also committing copyright crimes.
This is the red line.
If that's true that those are really ready to be delivered and used, then Ukraine should under the announced policy be able to buy those directly from Rheinmetall and get them soon...
I'm surprised by this as I also thought they are stored, but not battle-ready at the moment. Guess this could become a kind of reality check for Scholz statement yesterday.
This is a bit of a strange argument.
You were going to get occupied regardless. Your options were either USA or USSR. I assume you'd agree that you got the better end of the deal getting the USA?
I'm pretty sure West Germany's formal occupation ended in 1954 and they entered into a new agreement with NATO then to host troops. Though if you tell me this was done under duress at the time, I'd take your word for it.
Are you trying to imply that if the Germans asked the USA to leave now, they wouldn't?
We got divided and occupied by both. Treating only West Germany as the real Germany and ignoring what happened to the East is a bit arrogant, but it happens in Germany too and it might be a reason why the divide still exists in most minds, so no worries if that's your view as well, it's a view you can get when dealing with most Germans.
While formal occupation ended in 1954 it took until the 2+4 treaty in 1990 to get full souvereignity again.
It was pretty clear that Germany would stop to exist if there would ever be a war between the US and the SU and their allies, no matter what we did. So it made a lot of sense to take part in creating the MAD to prevent WW3 from happening. But the thing is, Germany had also no choice because until 1990 the Allies were allowed to station troops in Germany, and they all did. NATO membership meant that the Bundeswehr could work together with the US and other troops, but had no influence on the existence of their bases in Germany.
Only since the 2+4 treaty they lost (or rather gave up) that right, and only since then Germany could ask the US to leave. But we likely won't do, as their presence puts a lot of money into the local economy around their bases.
I’m not sure whether this is an exaggeration, but Germany does seem to be being dragged kicking and screaming after Scholz’s initial big speech. Thread:
If this is all true it sounds like Germany should consider a new general election if there is a mechanism for that.
Who is that guy, and what makes him an expert?
I'm just weary of our use of twitter threads from random people as sources of information. If they're an analyst or some other kind of expert, sure.
We wouldn't need a new general election. SPD and CDU are almost equal in size and Greens and FDP choose to work with the SPD as the CDU was a shambles after the election, but in principle they were open for a coalition with the CDU as well. So those three parties could request a constructive vote of mistrust and replace Scholz with another chancellor (you can't get rid of a chancellor without having a new one), which would be a much faster process than what would be needed to get a new general election.
Surely most of the events listed in that thread would be reasonably easy to debunk if they're untrue?
It sounds like there's a way to get rid though. It almost sounds like what you would expect from a Le Pen in France. Again, if it's actually true of course.
Have you checked these claims, considering that it would be reasonably easy or do you just believe them, because its on twitter?
If you think, that Scholz sounds like Le Pen, you should probably reevaluate what kind of media you are following. Its unrealistic to get rid of Scholz without new elections. The constructive vote of no confidence initiated by the parliament (= needs an alternative majority) is currently very unlikely. Its possible, that the current coalition government is falling apart and Scholz himself tables a vote of confidence. If he'd lose it, there could be new elections. This was used in the past three times to force new elections. Considering that its not smooth sailing for the government this could happen at some point in the future, but its also unlikely.
No I'm at work. But the claims in the thread are of the type where someone in the comments would often link to something debunking it. And I've continually said "if it's true" about this.
I'm saying I think that's what a Russian friendly head of state in a Western friendly country would act like in a crisis like this. I.e. dragging their feet a lot and wasting time but not being able to go completely against the sentiment in the country. I'm not saying Scholz is a Le Pen on all policies at all.
Scholz is Russian friendly, or he knows that the economic damage turning off the gas and oil will do to Germany (and therefore the rest of Europe) will be so much worse than we'd like to think perhaps?
Last edited:
Or perhaps he acts in a very selfish way, as usually happens with Germans. If Americans and Poland and the English can help Ukraine win, then fine, Germany also helped sending those helmets. If the Russians win, then again fine, Germans can still get Russian gas and resume economic relations with Russia. Yes, it is true that Ukrainians die every day, but do Germans care? (Of course they do, they care and they send thoughts and prayers! )
the account that posted the info is garbage and debunking these claims would take considerable times, especially because he adds zero sources.
Due to its history, Germany adopted a cautious approach to everything related to the military. If you expect bold leadership from Germany in this regard, you'll be disappointed. Sometimes thats good and sometimes thats bad. Additionally the German military hardware capacities are limited. There have been recurring complains, that the capacities in tanks, aircraft and weapons aren't even sufficient to guarantee that the army can do its job. The Bundeswehr is already struggling to maintain the equipment necessary to train its troops. Realistically Germany would have a hard time to fulfill its obligation to NATO, if push comes to shove. Maybe its still the right thing to do to give Ukraine parts of its hardware, but thats not an easy decision to make and one that has potentially severe consequences. These two point explain why Germany is hesitant when it comes to exporting military equipment to Ukraine.
In regards to sanctions/energy imports: Germany is obviously concerned about the economic ramifications, if it would immediately stop to gas imports from Russia. It would have severe economic consequences for Germany, that nobody can accurately quantify and Germany isn't willing to absorb these costs. This is questionable and selfish, but framing this as "if Germany would close the tap, the war is going to end" is delusional and vastly overestimates the importance of Germany in this conflict. For the better and the the worse, Germany is not a key player and doesn't want to lead in situations like this. That can be irritating for other countries. Germany certainly got caught off guard by Russia starting a war of conquest. German governments assumed that Russia is a predictable actor and that mutual beneficial economic and political cooperation is to some extend possible. This turned out to be false and there have been many people warning Germany about it, but other positions weren't taken seriously. The government is now forced to change direction and this is not easy after following a different approach for the last 30 years.
I am not trying to convince you or anyone else, that Germany is doing the right thing, but it hopefully helps to understand their actions. Considering that someone posted a graphic about Germany's support of Ukraine, i add another graphic from the same think-tank, that shows a slightly different picture.
Last edited:
Not even Ukraine (really) cares about Russian gas. The pipelines through Ukraine are still operational. Ukraine could stop this, but they don't.
There are several important members of Scholz' party that are quite open friendly to Russia, most well known for sure Gerhard Schröder. Scholz himself however isn't known to have close ties to Russia.
But what Scholz is known for (a bit like Merkel also was) is being cautious, not committing to a cause, always keep plausible deniability if something goes wrong, never be responsible for big mistakes. It's what won him the election and made him chancellor, as the other candidates made mistakes, but it is quite logical that he never acts as a leader in the way a lot of people would like.
It's usually not even a bad thing to have a bureaucrat as leader of the government, who just works through the stuff that has to be done, but I think it's clear that he is simply the wrong choice during a war (maybe call him our Chamberlain, let's see if we need/get a Churchill, too).
There's German politicians perhaps, and then there's German people but to label one group let alone both as not caring is not really right. Plenty do care - so much so that there have been spontaneous fund raising events organised by non political lay types (in my town we raised near on 25k on one Sunday afternoon) plus plenty offering Ukranians accommodation. I have seen several Ukranian registered cars in my town and know that at least 25 are now living here.
Out of interest, does anyone know why we don't really hear of Spanish involvement in supplying arms etc? Ok it's not necessarily all equal in scale or type of support but the "big" European powers to my mind have always been UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and only the 4 former ones seem to have contributed or been talked about really. I know the Austrians for example are "neutral" because, well, let's not cast aspersions, but I'm interested to know what the Spanish people and government think of it all.
Figured we'd be hearing a lot more about how the sanctions are effecting Russians and their mentality towards this war. Sadly seems like the propaganda and military have culled any kind of open anti war sentiments, but what are people really thinking? Surely this is still a massive topic of conversation between friends and families.
From a quick google it looks like their coalition gov was split on sending lethal weapons so don't know if that caused issues, they have apparently sent some stuff though:
In Spain there is a coalition of Government, PSOE (socialists) and Podemos (extreme left).
The latter have ties to Venezuela, they are anti-NATO and nostalgic of Soviet Union. Already in March in the European Parliament they voted (along with Basque separatists) against expanding sanctions on Russia.
They ask for peace "following diplomatic channels."
In short, Pedro Sánchez, whose priority is to maintain the government, is caught by the balls. The Spanish aid supposedly arrived after a call from Borrell to put pressure on him.
The Spanish aid consists of some quite useful rocket launchers due to their low weight and a light machine gun called Cetme Ameli, highly criticized by the Spanish army itself.
Supposedly now Pedro Sánchez is going to travel to Ukraine, but I would say that merely for electoral interests. I would not be surprised by a Macron-style photo session or military clothing
BBC:
Not that the Russians have suffered severe casualties or anything, but ...
"Russia will classify data on the families of those killed in the war against Ukraine"
https://frontnews.eu/en/news/details/27879
"Russia will classify data on the families of those killed in the war against Ukraine"
https://frontnews.eu/en/news/details/27879
I imagine Ukraine stopping the flows of Russian gas to Europe would completely destroy goodwill and support.
Still seems a bit unclear, but it looks like Ukraine is about to get self-propelled howitzers and the necessary ammo and training from the Netherlands and Germany:
If they really get the PzH 2000 and a decent amount of smart ammo, this could really improve Ukrainian artillery capabilities.
So even if it might be another model (Oryx claimed it might only be the towed FH-70, not the PzH 2000), we slowly see an influx of 155mm artillery and therefore a shift to NATO standards. Can only be helpful, as it is much easier for NATO to supply the ammo for this, as the 152mm Soviet ammo isn't really produced in huge amounts in the West.
If they really get the PzH 2000 and a decent amount of smart ammo, this could really improve Ukrainian artillery capabilities.
So even if it might be another model (Oryx claimed it might only be the towed FH-70, not the PzH 2000), we slowly see an influx of 155mm artillery and therefore a shift to NATO standards. Can only be helpful, as it is much easier for NATO to supply the ammo for this, as the 152mm Soviet ammo isn't really produced in huge amounts in the West.
Weapons sent to ukraine will find their way back eventually, in the hands of people we don't want to have military grade weapons. Germany only has poland in between so that may be a reason they are hesitant to throw everything they have into the fog of war. Ukraine was already before the war one of the poorest, most crime ridden and corrupt countries in Europe.
What exactly is your point ? Don't help them and allow Putin to proceed with genocide ?
Yes. That's his point.
I'm not german or in control of any such decisions, am I? My point was the arms shipment shaming is pointless.
I don't think this fear exists so i don't think it influences any decisions. But you are right, what we have right now is a war between two corrupt oligarchies, the only essential difference is that one is an imperialistic genocidal aggressor while the other just defends itself.
Still there is no alternative if we want to prevent a genocide, but proliferation is likely to happen. For example we know that North Korea got the design for the Neptune ASM (first test shots were made in NK in 2014) that sank the Moskva.
Classy.
‘Killed in unclear circumstances…but here’s a pic of a bullet ridden car that he was in.’