[TrumpCard]

https://mobile.twitter.com/WorldAffairsP...7942401033

Has anyone seen more detail on this allegation of half a million forced deportations?  Is this even right to an order of magnitude, or are virtually all the refugees in Russian territory actually ethnic Russians from the Donbas who prefer to evacuate to Russia than to Poland?  I’ve seen a couple of articles now that attempt to compare this to what happened in the Baltics during WWII. Is that a credible comparison?  If so, then we’re potentially looking at a LOT more devastation to the Ukrainian people than is even being reported in most of the news stories.

[TrumpCard]

https://mobile.twitter.com/WorldAffairsP...7942401033

Has anyone seen more detail on this allegation of half a million forced deportations?  Is this even right to an order of magnitude, or are virtually all the refugees in Russian territory actually ethnic Russians from the Donbas who prefer to evacuate to Russia than to Poland?  I’ve seen a couple of articles now that attempt to compare this to what happened in the Baltics during WWII. Is that a credible comparison?  If so, then we’re potentially looking at a LOT more devastation to the Ukrainian people than is even being reported in most of the news stories.

[bl82]

Read in combination, here you have a very concerning combination:

Ukraine claims Mariupol citizens forcibly deported to Far East region of Russia:
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/rus...2c96218d7b

Ukrainian intelligence: Russia plans to conscript Ukrainian civilians from occupied regions:
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/rus...aea4176d04

[bl82]

Read in combination, here you have a very concerning combination:

Ukraine claims Mariupol citizens forcibly deported to Far East region of Russia:
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/rus...2c96218d7b

Ukrainian intelligence: Russia plans to conscript Ukrainian civilians from occupied regions:
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/rus...aea4176d04

[M T]

Read in combination, here you have a very concerning combination:

Ukraine claims Mariupol citizens forcibly deported to Far East region of Russia:
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/rus...2c96218d7b

Ukrainian intelligence: Russia plans to conscript Ukrainian civilians from occupied regions:
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/rus...aea4176d04

What is the situation for the Red Cross with these two combatants?

[M T]

Read in combination, here you have a very concerning combination:

Ukraine claims Mariupol citizens forcibly deported to Far East region of Russia:
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/rus...2c96218d7b

Ukrainian intelligence: Russia plans to conscript Ukrainian civilians from occupied regions:
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/rus...aea4176d04

What is the situation for the Red Cross with these two combatants?

[Goose]

Make it four. Bush the first was in that category IMHO. I exclude Trump only because I don't think he had an opinion on Intelligence collection and undoubtedly thought our relations with Russia were "perfect". Intelligence collection is not mutually exclusive of better relations. It often fosters it, as we find out our opponent isn't 10 feet tall and actually has no plan to invade our country.

your statement seems to be a very generous read given Trump's distaste for the intelligence community overall.  may be true on the collection but almost certainly wrong on the analytic part of intel.

Sorry, my post wasn't clear. The last two sentences were not intended to relate to Trump. They were oriented to the idea that a reset to better relations as sought and desired by the previous four presidents did not preclude a commitment to significant intelligence collection at the same time. The fact they all elected (some more than others) to not make such a commitment was IMHO regrettable. Trump would think it unnecessary since relations were "perfect".

[Goose]

Make it four. Bush the first was in that category IMHO. I exclude Trump only because I don't think he had an opinion on Intelligence collection and undoubtedly thought our relations with Russia were "perfect". Intelligence collection is not mutually exclusive of better relations. It often fosters it, as we find out our opponent isn't 10 feet tall and actually has no plan to invade our country.

your statement seems to be a very generous read given Trump's distaste for the intelligence community overall.  may be true on the collection but almost certainly wrong on the analytic part of intel.

Sorry, my post wasn't clear. The last two sentences were not intended to relate to Trump. They were oriented to the idea that a reset to better relations as sought and desired by the previous four presidents did not preclude a commitment to significant intelligence collection at the same time. The fact they all elected (some more than others) to not make such a commitment was IMHO regrettable. Trump would think it unnecessary since relations were "perfect".

[dabigv13]

The secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, Oleksiy Danilov, said Ukraine had managed to deliver weapons via helicopter under cover of darkness to the steel plant in Mariupol, The Associated Press reported

Remarkable if true, but in context of what Ukrainians have already verifiably accomplished thus far, eminently believable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world...d=url-copy

Ukrainian intelligence: Russia plans to conscript Ukrainian civilians from occupied regions

Desperation. It is only a matter of time before Ukraine drives the invaders out if the Russian army can't even reconstitute their forces with other Russians. Kherson will probably be first, but if the defenders of Azovstal can hold out for a couple months, breaking the siege there seems plausible if Russia exhausts themselves with their piecemeal offensive in the Donbas.

[dabigv13]

The secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, Oleksiy Danilov, said Ukraine had managed to deliver weapons via helicopter under cover of darkness to the steel plant in Mariupol, The Associated Press reported

Remarkable if true, but in context of what Ukrainians have already verifiably accomplished thus far, eminently believable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world...d=url-copy

Ukrainian intelligence: Russia plans to conscript Ukrainian civilians from occupied regions

Desperation. It is only a matter of time before Ukraine drives the invaders out if the Russian army can't even reconstitute their forces with other Russians. Kherson will probably be first, but if the defenders of Azovstal can hold out for a couple months, breaking the siege there seems plausible if Russia exhausts themselves with their piecemeal offensive in the Donbas.

[Goose]

Ukrainian intelligence: Russia plans to conscript Ukrainian civilians from occupied regions

Desperation. It is only a matter of time before Ukraine drives the invaders out if the Russian army can't even reconstitute their forces with other Russians. Kherson will probably be first, but if the defenders of Azovstal can hold out for a couple months, breaking the siege there seems plausible if Russia exhausts themselves with their piecemeal offensive in the Donbas.

And really stupid. Does any sane person give weapons to people who are not willing combatants and who are citizens of the opposite side? They may be ethnic Russians but obviously if they are still in Ukraine they wanted to be. If only a very few of them go rogue they can kill and destroy lots of "important" Russian officers and equipment. If entire units do, look out!

[Goose]

Ukrainian intelligence: Russia plans to conscript Ukrainian civilians from occupied regions

Desperation. It is only a matter of time before Ukraine drives the invaders out if the Russian army can't even reconstitute their forces with other Russians. Kherson will probably be first, but if the defenders of Azovstal can hold out for a couple months, breaking the siege there seems plausible if Russia exhausts themselves with their piecemeal offensive in the Donbas.

And really stupid. Does any sane person give weapons to people who are not willing combatants and who are citizens of the opposite side? They may be ethnic Russians but obviously if they are still in Ukraine they wanted to be. If only a very few of them go rogue they can kill and destroy lots of "important" Russian officers and equipment. If entire units do, look out!

[slide]

Make it four. Bush the first was in that category IMHO. I exclude Trump only because I don't think he had an opinion on Intelligence collection and undoubtedly thought our relations with Russia were "perfect". Intelligence collection is not mutually exclusive of better relations. It often fosters it, as we find out our opponent isn't 10 feet tall and actually has no plan to invade our country.

your statement seems to be a very generous read given Trump's distaste for the intelligence community overall.  may be true on the collection but almost certainly wrong on the analytic part of intel.

Sorry, my post wasn't clear. The last two sentences were not intended to relate to Trump. They were oriented to the idea that a reset to better relations as sought and desired by the previous four presidents did not preclude a commitment to significant intelligence collection at the same time. The fact they all elected (some more than others) to not make such a commitment was IMHO regrettable. Trump would think it unnecessary since relations were "perfect".

thanks for clarifying

[slide]

Make it four. Bush the first was in that category IMHO. I exclude Trump only because I don't think he had an opinion on Intelligence collection and undoubtedly thought our relations with Russia were "perfect". Intelligence collection is not mutually exclusive of better relations. It often fosters it, as we find out our opponent isn't 10 feet tall and actually has no plan to invade our country.

your statement seems to be a very generous read given Trump's distaste for the intelligence community overall.  may be true on the collection but almost certainly wrong on the analytic part of intel.

Sorry, my post wasn't clear. The last two sentences were not intended to relate to Trump. They were oriented to the idea that a reset to better relations as sought and desired by the previous four presidents did not preclude a commitment to significant intelligence collection at the same time. The fact they all elected (some more than others) to not make such a commitment was IMHO regrettable. Trump would think it unnecessary since relations were "perfect".

thanks for clarifying

[dabigv13]

On topic of conscripts, this was a very interesting thread analyzing the number of conscripts in a Russian Southern Military District Brigade's various subunits based on captured documents leaked by Ukrainian intelligence. It has been fighting in southern/eastern Ukraine.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/HN_Schlottman/status...EjtDMXdLZA[/tweet]


Generally higher percentage in air defense and engineering units as compared to frontline fighting units (unsurprising).

Of course the frontline units will also be taking the most attrition, and replacing them with Russian or *gulp* Ukrainian conscripts will lead increasingly to difficulty in mounting offensive operations. If Ukraine can quickly learn how to use all the advanced arty coming their way and Russia is relying on units with fresh conscripts to defend what they have taken, look out!

[dabigv13]

On topic of conscripts, this was a very interesting thread analyzing the number of conscripts in a Russian Southern Military District Brigade's various subunits based on captured documents leaked by Ukrainian intelligence. It has been fighting in southern/eastern Ukraine.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/HN_Schlottman/status...EjtDMXdLZA[/tweet]


Generally higher percentage in air defense and engineering units as compared to frontline fighting units (unsurprising).

Of course the frontline units will also be taking the most attrition, and replacing them with Russian or *gulp* Ukrainian conscripts will lead increasingly to difficulty in mounting offensive operations. If Ukraine can quickly learn how to use all the advanced arty coming their way and Russia is relying on units with fresh conscripts to defend what they have taken, look out!

[BostonCard]

In the early days of the war, even some reporters were getting scoops from high level FSB operatives. I think even we were leaking that we were getting info from high level sources, but that could have been an attempt to sow distrust. Still a number of high level intelligence and defense administrators have been put under house arrest, so it may be true (or the ruse may have worked well).

BC

---

Make it four. Bush the first was in that category IMHO. I exclude Trump only because I don't think he had an opinion on Intelligence collection and undoubtedly thought our relations with Russia were "perfect". Intelligence collection is not mutually exclusive of better relations. It often fosters it, as we find out our opponent isn't 10 feet tall and actually has no plan to invade our country.

your statement seems to be a very generous read given Trump's distaste for the intelligence community overall.  may be true on the collection but almost certainly wrong on the analytic part of intel.

Sorry, my post wasn't clear. The last two sentences were not intended to relate to Trump. They were oriented to the idea that a reset to better relations as sought and desired by the previous four presidents did not preclude a commitment to significant intelligence collection at the same time. The fact they all elected (some more than others) to not make such a commitment was IMHO regrettable. Trump would think it unnecessary since relations were "perfect".

We infamously tapped Angela Merkel’s phone, so yeah.  OTOH, once discovered it didn’t exactly lead to a strengthening of ties, so I think the moral of the story is spying on your friends is fine, getting caught is not.

BC

[BostonCard]

In the early days of the war, even some reporters were getting scoops from high level FSB operatives. I think even we were leaking that we were getting info from high level sources, but that could have been an attempt to sow distrust. Still a number of high level intelligence and defense administrators have been put under house arrest, so it may be true (or the ruse may have worked well).

BC

---

Make it four. Bush the first was in that category IMHO. I exclude Trump only because I don't think he had an opinion on Intelligence collection and undoubtedly thought our relations with Russia were "perfect". Intelligence collection is not mutually exclusive of better relations. It often fosters it, as we find out our opponent isn't 10 feet tall and actually has no plan to invade our country.

your statement seems to be a very generous read given Trump's distaste for the intelligence community overall.  may be true on the collection but almost certainly wrong on the analytic part of intel.

Sorry, my post wasn't clear. The last two sentences were not intended to relate to Trump. They were oriented to the idea that a reset to better relations as sought and desired by the previous four presidents did not preclude a commitment to significant intelligence collection at the same time. The fact they all elected (some more than others) to not make such a commitment was IMHO regrettable. Trump would think it unnecessary since relations were "perfect".

We infamously tapped Angela Merkel’s phone, so yeah.  OTOH, once discovered it didn’t exactly lead to a strengthening of ties, so I think the moral of the story is spying on your friends is fine, getting caught is not.

BC

[Goose]

We infamously tapped Angela Merkel’s phone, so yeah.  OTOH, once discovered it didn’t exactly lead to a strengthening of ties, so I think the moral of the story is spying on your friends is fine, getting caught is not.


BC

I was however talking about spying on our enemies. Reagan was able to negotiate the SALT treaty because we knew exactly what Russia had in terms of strategic weapons and what they could and could not do. Further, we were certain we knew. You can make intelligent compromises when you know exactly how much it matters. He knew they weren't 10 feet tall and he also knew what they couldn't do. Unconditional hostility wasn't necessary or helpful. It is much harder to negotiate agreements with the enemy when there is lots of Fear and Doubt about the correlation of forces.

As far as spying on friends, everyone does it. France has conducted active industrial espionage against the US with full support of the French government for many, many years. We know it, they know we know it. Israel, well that speaks for itself. As far as Merkel's phone goes, any government employee at her level who uses a regular commercial telephone to conduct any "business" is a fool. I think the list of telephones the BND does NOT tap is very short. Relatively, we are amateurs. Getting caught is indeed bad form.

---

In the early days of the war, even some reporters were getting scoops from high level FSB operatives. I think even we were leaking that we were getting info from high level sources, but that could have been an attempt to sow distrust. Still a number of high level intelligence and defense administrators have been put under house arrest, so it may be true (or the ruse may have worked well).



BC

Russia has a very long history of having intelligence agents (KGB back then) "leak" information. Some of it was true, which gave them credibility. However, there were whoppers inserted that caused much angst in many quarters. It is rumored that some of these whoppers got people killed by countries that don't have quite the sensibilities of the US. If someone may be a spy, just off them. No point in taking chances.

[Goose]

We infamously tapped Angela Merkel’s phone, so yeah.  OTOH, once discovered it didn’t exactly lead to a strengthening of ties, so I think the moral of the story is spying on your friends is fine, getting caught is not.


BC

I was however talking about spying on our enemies. Reagan was able to negotiate the SALT treaty because we knew exactly what Russia had in terms of strategic weapons and what they could and could not do. Further, we were certain we knew. You can make intelligent compromises when you know exactly how much it matters. He knew they weren't 10 feet tall and he also knew what they couldn't do. Unconditional hostility wasn't necessary or helpful. It is much harder to negotiate agreements with the enemy when there is lots of Fear and Doubt about the correlation of forces.

As far as spying on friends, everyone does it. France has conducted active industrial espionage against the US with full support of the French government for many, many years. We know it, they know we know it. Israel, well that speaks for itself. As far as Merkel's phone goes, any government employee at her level who uses a regular commercial telephone to conduct any "business" is a fool. I think the list of telephones the BND does NOT tap is very short. Relatively, we are amateurs. Getting caught is indeed bad form.

---

In the early days of the war, even some reporters were getting scoops from high level FSB operatives. I think even we were leaking that we were getting info from high level sources, but that could have been an attempt to sow distrust. Still a number of high level intelligence and defense administrators have been put under house arrest, so it may be true (or the ruse may have worked well).



BC

Russia has a very long history of having intelligence agents (KGB back then) "leak" information. Some of it was true, which gave them credibility. However, there were whoppers inserted that caused much angst in many quarters. It is rumored that some of these whoppers got people killed by countries that don't have quite the sensibilities of the US. If someone may be a spy, just off them. No point in taking chances.

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/profpaulpoast/status/1515304526487638016?s=21&t=P6pWGwpyzLVMJcElc8Wodg[/tweet]

Thread on NATO and article V, which probably is closer to Goose’s position than my own (and brings up the hypothetical attack against a Polish airfield, even).  I still think that NATO, as a whole, responds, because it’s entire credibility and reason for being is lost if it doesn’t, but I appreciate it may not be as cut and dry as I may have believed.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/profpaulpoast/status/1515304526487638016?s=21&t=P6pWGwpyzLVMJcElc8Wodg[/tweet]

Thread on NATO and article V, which probably is closer to Goose’s position than my own (and brings up the hypothetical attack against a Polish airfield, even).  I still think that NATO, as a whole, responds, because it’s entire credibility and reason for being is lost if it doesn’t, but I appreciate it may not be as cut and dry as I may have believed.

BC

[Goose]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/profpaulpoast/status/1515304526487638016?s=21&t=P6pWGwpyzLVMJcElc8Wodg[/tweet]

Thread on NATO and article V, which probably is closer to Goose’s position than my own (and brings up the hypothetical attack against a Polish airfield, even).  I still think that NATO, as a whole, responds, because it’s entire credibility and reason for being is lost if it doesn’t, but I appreciate it may not be as cut and dry as I may have believed.

BC

Thanks for the link BC. I totally agree with the final conclusion of this thread:
"In sum, there is nothing "automatic" or "iron clad" about the Article 5 commitment of NATO. But it's at least perceived as valuable...and that's what really matters."

I therefore agree totally with you that NATO's credibility would be tied to an Article 5 response if in the hypothetical Poland called for it. That is why I believe the US would request Poland not do so, because the expected tepid response would be very damaging. Practically speaking, it would be difficult to suggest a "good" response. The US realistically can't go to war for Poland unless we have full cooperation from Germany and probably the Danes and Dutch as well. Access just isn't good enough if we have to use only Polish ports and airfields. I am assuming the UK would go along, but in this case they probably don't have much to offer. Of course, the danger of nuclear escalation would be very, very high. Yet we can't just give up on Ukraine because Putin shoots missiles into Poland. It is IMHO a real tough situation if it happens. Let's hope better brains than mine have got a plan for this eventuality.

[Goose]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/profpaulpoast/status/1515304526487638016?s=21&t=P6pWGwpyzLVMJcElc8Wodg[/tweet]

Thread on NATO and article V, which probably is closer to Goose’s position than my own (and brings up the hypothetical attack against a Polish airfield, even).  I still think that NATO, as a whole, responds, because it’s entire credibility and reason for being is lost if it doesn’t, but I appreciate it may not be as cut and dry as I may have believed.

BC

Thanks for the link BC. I totally agree with the final conclusion of this thread:
"In sum, there is nothing "automatic" or "iron clad" about the Article 5 commitment of NATO. But it's at least perceived as valuable...and that's what really matters."

I therefore agree totally with you that NATO's credibility would be tied to an Article 5 response if in the hypothetical Poland called for it. That is why I believe the US would request Poland not do so, because the expected tepid response would be very damaging. Practically speaking, it would be difficult to suggest a "good" response. The US realistically can't go to war for Poland unless we have full cooperation from Germany and probably the Danes and Dutch as well. Access just isn't good enough if we have to use only Polish ports and airfields. I am assuming the UK would go along, but in this case they probably don't have much to offer. Of course, the danger of nuclear escalation would be very, very high. Yet we can't just give up on Ukraine because Putin shoots missiles into Poland. It is IMHO a real tough situation if it happens. Let's hope better brains than mine have got a plan for this eventuality.

[TrumpCard]

There’s such a thing as a measured, non-escalatory response that still acts as a deterrent. We don’t need port access to fire off a few cruise missiles at Russian troop positions.

[TrumpCard]

There’s such a thing as a measured, non-escalatory response that still acts as a deterrent. We don’t need port access to fire off a few cruise missiles at Russian troop positions.

[BostonCard]

Status update…

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jominiw/status/1517660500733136898?s=21&t=U-SPgr810ph0XynW53Vpow[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Status update…

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jominiw/status/1517660500733136898?s=21&t=U-SPgr810ph0XynW53Vpow[/tweet]

BC

[Goose]

There’s such a thing as a measured, non-escalatory response that still acts as a deterrent. We don’t need port access to fire off a few cruise missiles at Russian troop positions.

Any significant response is escalatory by definition. Some are more so than others. US missiles striking a Russian target, even one in Ukraine is a "big deal". One very seriously bad effect of this is that Putin can then tell his people (truthfully) that they have been attacked by the US and he is calling a general mobilization. It also would undoubtedly fire up lots of his troops that right now are pretty demotivated. This doesn't mean we should do nothing, but what we do will have consequences. My guess is that Putin then destroys the Aegis Ashore site in Poland. He hates it being there, it isn't operational yet so it can't defend itself, it will kill US troops (though not many), and it is in Poland which sends a message about more attacks on Polish cities. Now what?

The actual tactical effect of firing a few cruse missiles at Russian troop positions is nugatory. Doing damage to tactically positioned troops that way is pretty difficult. Cruise missiles are the wrong weapon for that. You need a more concentrated target, like a tank park or barrack's facility to do any real damage that way. Russia would just shrug that off. A MLRS "Finger of God" would possibly get their attention. Neither of these would prevent more missiles into Poland IMHO. They would have the bad side effects named above.

While its is possible for the US to fire cruise missiles from Europe (actually from/through European air space. We don't have any GLCM capability) against a Russian target without the support (or at least acquiescence) of most other NATO countries, the political consequences to NATO of us doing so would be dire. It simply won't happen without it. We may be able to get that acquiescence, but we would require it. A MLRS strike from Ukraine to a point in Ukraine probably does not. OK, I admit it, I have all along wanted to give Ukraine MLRS capability. It can do some real damage. I think we are loath to do that because it is a precision strike weapon that could be fired into Russia.

[Goose]

There’s such a thing as a measured, non-escalatory response that still acts as a deterrent. We don’t need port access to fire off a few cruise missiles at Russian troop positions.

Any significant response is escalatory by definition. Some are more so than others. US missiles striking a Russian target, even one in Ukraine is a "big deal". One very seriously bad effect of this is that Putin can then tell his people (truthfully) that they have been attacked by the US and he is calling a general mobilization. It also would undoubtedly fire up lots of his troops that right now are pretty demotivated. This doesn't mean we should do nothing, but what we do will have consequences. My guess is that Putin then destroys the Aegis Ashore site in Poland. He hates it being there, it isn't operational yet so it can't defend itself, it will kill US troops (though not many), and it is in Poland which sends a message about more attacks on Polish cities. Now what?

The actual tactical effect of firing a few cruse missiles at Russian troop positions is nugatory. Doing damage to tactically positioned troops that way is pretty difficult. Cruise missiles are the wrong weapon for that. You need a more concentrated target, like a tank park or barrack's facility to do any real damage that way. Russia would just shrug that off. A MLRS "Finger of God" would possibly get their attention. Neither of these would prevent more missiles into Poland IMHO. They would have the bad side effects named above.

While its is possible for the US to fire cruise missiles from Europe (actually from/through European air space. We don't have any GLCM capability) against a Russian target without the support (or at least acquiescence) of most other NATO countries, the political consequences to NATO of us doing so would be dire. It simply won't happen without it. We may be able to get that acquiescence, but we would require it. A MLRS strike from Ukraine to a point in Ukraine probably does not. OK, I admit it, I have all along wanted to give Ukraine MLRS capability. It can do some real damage. I think we are loath to do that because it is a precision strike weapon that could be fired into Russia.

[dabigv13]

Belarusian rail partisans helped cripple Russian logistics in the early war

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/202...rs-russia/


[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status...mhYc0Hfqww[/tweet]

More 152mm ammo from Bulgaria? Or perhaps even better, S300 missiles or systems...

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1518164615535943680?s=20&t=kZoqKFJOoXyCm5MZBVrvDA[/tweet]

Great list of legacy Soviet equipment in European stocks

[dabigv13]

Belarusian rail partisans helped cripple Russian logistics in the early war

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/202...rs-russia/


[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status...mhYc0Hfqww[/tweet]

More 152mm ammo from Bulgaria? Or perhaps even better, S300 missiles or systems...

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1518164615535943680?s=20&t=kZoqKFJOoXyCm5MZBVrvDA[/tweet]

Great list of legacy Soviet equipment in European stocks

[BostonCard]

Anyone have any thoughts on what would happen to a NATO unified front against Putin if Le Pen wins the French presidential election? Don't know much about her, other than that she is a right-winger who has been pro-Putin in the past.

Good news on that front:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/taniel/status/1518288943078199296?s=21&t=U-SPgr810ph0XynW53Vpow[/tweet]

16% spread is about half what it was last time, but still reflects a bounce from the first round.

BC

[BostonCard]

Anyone have any thoughts on what would happen to a NATO unified front against Putin if Le Pen wins the French presidential election? Don't know much about her, other than that she is a right-winger who has been pro-Putin in the past.

Good news on that front:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/taniel/status/1518288943078199296?s=21&t=U-SPgr810ph0XynW53Vpow[/tweet]

16% spread is about half what it was last time, but still reflects a bounce from the first round.

BC

[Goose]

More 152mm ammo from Bulgaria? Or perhaps even better, S300 missiles or systems...

Seems improbable, but I guess theoretically possible.

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news...eshow.html

Such a high level of maskirovka would seem pointless given that Russia can read ADS-B too. I suspect it is non-lethal aid.

[Goose]

More 152mm ammo from Bulgaria? Or perhaps even better, S300 missiles or systems...

Seems improbable, but I guess theoretically possible.

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news...eshow.html

Such a high level of maskirovka would seem pointless given that Russia can read ADS-B too. I suspect it is non-lethal aid.

[dabigv13]

This is the next tweet in the thread. I trust Bellingcat's read of the situation, they have proven very reputable on Russia. The whole thread is worthwhile.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1518275342137540609?t=6dwzpy2xFri685b2ql3C8g&s=19[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

This is the next tweet in the thread. I trust Bellingcat's read of the situation, they have proven very reputable on Russia. The whole thread is worthwhile.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1518275342137540609?t=6dwzpy2xFri685b2ql3C8g&s=19[/tweet]

[BostonCard]

Bellingcat is an open source intelligence outfit. They have a bunch of very smart people there, but they can only analyze that which they can see.

I was wondering if it was the Socialists who were forcing Petkov to chose his words very carefully.  He heads an interesting and diverse coalition, United mostly by an anti-corruption bent that was a reaction to corruption allegations against the previous prime minister (Boykin Borisov) and the GERB party that has largely dominated Bulgarian politics in the post-independence period.

BC

---

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ap/status/1518277602041077761?s=21&t=ZET7uuI54Q-hYpFsxdY4ew[/tweet]

Jansa is a right wing populist, but has supported Ukraine (thus, a bit more like PiS in Poland than Orban in Hungary).

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/20/108778374...-not-alone

It is interesting to see how local politics maps onto the crisis; it’s not necessarily predictable based on a conventional left/right divide, though certainly some far right (Le Pen, Orban) politicians sympathize with Russia, so do some far left politicians (more likely born out of antipathy to the US/NATO).

BC

[BostonCard]

Bellingcat is an open source intelligence outfit. They have a bunch of very smart people there, but they can only analyze that which they can see.

I was wondering if it was the Socialists who were forcing Petkov to chose his words very carefully.  He heads an interesting and diverse coalition, United mostly by an anti-corruption bent that was a reaction to corruption allegations against the previous prime minister (Boykin Borisov) and the GERB party that has largely dominated Bulgarian politics in the post-independence period.

BC

---

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ap/status/1518277602041077761?s=21&t=ZET7uuI54Q-hYpFsxdY4ew[/tweet]

Jansa is a right wing populist, but has supported Ukraine (thus, a bit more like PiS in Poland than Orban in Hungary).

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/20/108778374...-not-alone

It is interesting to see how local politics maps onto the crisis; it’s not necessarily predictable based on a conventional left/right divide, though certainly some far right (Le Pen, Orban) politicians sympathize with Russia, so do some far left politicians (more likely born out of antipathy to the US/NATO).

BC