NATO is certainly not a defensive alliance in the post cold war world. It continues to exist mainly to ensure the western flank of american hegemonic drive in Euroasia is protected. But as with any aggression, military by no means being the only kind, pursuing the aggression generates additional defensive needs. meeting defensive needs arising from hegemonic drive does not make it an defensive alliance.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
It wasn't a defensive alliance in the cold war either.
Those are some of the same tweets I saw, but they offer absolutely zero clarity. First, I've heard that the Russians threw down anywhere from two to four pontoons. This is the most important point that needs clarification; how many bridges are the Russians crossing on? If the Ukrainians destroyed one and there are still three left standing, then we have a fight on our hands. Second, I saw the same images of those armored vehicles, and they don't look destroyed to me. I don't get what's the point of showing them; maybe to argue that they're isolated or something from the rest of the Russian army? It's just not clear at all to me what's happening from what I've seen on Twitter so far. I mean, you could say that about everything else in this war too.
There were images of Su-34's using garmin GPS's on the dashboard in Syria, so it is not new but it doesn't imply the planes' GLONASS system isn't working, either and not all Su-34's had them, so it might be personal preference of each crew, too.
It seems fud from one of Johnson's clown, given that Kalibrs don't seem to be lacking on the precision front unless they are taping comercial GPS to them, too. Also the UK seems incredibly invested in this war, for some reason.
Last edited:
Distracts from the ongoing cluster f that is Brexit, "partygate", and inflation.
Good points - but lets not wander off into the Politics and Propaganda side of things ... again..
Stick to military facts, such as they are.
Stick to military facts, such as they are.
lol.Imagine listening to British "consultants" on how to run a war..
They were right on the broader strategic benefits, but as usual "consultants" are useless when they go into the details..
They were right on the broader strategic benefits, but as usual "consultants" are useless when they go into the details..
One bit of propaganda that is actually true, but misleading. Earlier in the war a Russian Su-25 pilot released in cockpit view of a sortie. On the dashboard was a standalone GPS type device. I doubt it was actually using GPS, it could have been a military standalone unit using GLONASS. But with the Russians, you never know.
I wonder if the PLAAF are doing something similar with old platforms like J-7s. Rather than replace the whole avionics, just have a standalone unit.