Happy birthday, Putin – you've been pwned Ukrainian hackers shut down Russian state news agency VGTRK's online broadcasting and streaming services on Monday – president Vladimir Putin's 72nd birthday – as Kremlin officials vowed to bring those responsible for the "unprecedented" cyber attack to justice. Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov confirmed the breach to …
Surely UNESCO is a UN agency designed to promote education, science and culture. World culture has been slightly improved by taking Russia's news off the air - so surely UNESCO should approve?
I don't know anything about the quality of other Russian TV - I'm sure it's no worse than anyone else's. But what passes for news TV in Russia is an absolute disgrace. Especially the news discussion shows - with panels of the maddest and shrillest commentators they can find. They tend to demand the nuking of London about every other week - when they're not demanding the nuking of Ukraine, Germany, the US, France or wherever.
I'm surprised anyone calls this unprecedented though. Ukrainian and Russian hackers have been having at each others TV stations for the duration of this war. Either knocking them off air for a brief period, or even getting to broadcast their own material sometimes.
I love Putin's response to the increased capabilities of Ukrainian drones to hit targets in Russia ... Since his vast mansion in Sochi is close to Ukraine he initially had it surrounded by dozens of mobile missile batteries. Now he's just demolished the entire mansion like a child who would rather break his own toy than let others play with it.
I think the Ukrainians are shrewd enough to prefer Russia wastes a whole lot of SAM systems defending a mansion rather than obliterating it and freeing those systems up for use near the front. It would piss Putin off, particularly because his many mansions are something he hated Navalny for revealing, but it would have zero strategic value.
@Pascal very funny! Have a beer ===>
@navarac on the point completely - Pint for you too! ===>
@A/C great commentary ===>
I always chuckle when the Russian State responses are posted.
It's like they can't believe they are also being attacked back!
Russian State Spokesman "We don't understand why we are under attack, so we are very cross and will say things about justice!" (You must say this with a Colonel Kurt von Strohm accent in your head for good effect)
I do wish the whole affair would end and the suffering with it!
This post has been deleted by its author
The rot set in after Andrew Orlowski left.
A bunch of them moved to California. Never go full Californian. But even vultures gotta eat, so if appealing to a US audience of TDS sufferers, Musk haters and neo-McCarthyists gets the ads, they'll lean into that. So hacking Russia is good, Russia hacking is bad. Otherwise it becomes another field that can be escalatory.. Which is a good thing in a way, if the elevated threat prods the C-suits into taking security seriously, instead of after the fact.
You do realise it's not a zero-sum game?
Kinda why I made the comment. Ukrainians have been arrested for regular hacking and extortion, and El Reg has reported on some of those. So has Russia, and those have been reported as well. It can make a lot of money for criminals, providing they don't get caught. The political situation just makes it harder for LEAs to catch and prosecute criminals, along with a reduction in intelligence sharing.
Ukrainians defending their homeland is very different from years of FSB / CIA / MI5 / MSS etc. general snooping and sabotage for no good reason.
You do realise there are two groups of Ukrainians defending their homeland, which is why Ukraine's civil war started in 2014, along with politically motivated hacking and cyberattacks. That might be at the individual level, or it might be at the state, or state-sponsored level. If it's contained within Ukraine or Russia, it's their problem. If we hack Russia, it becomes our problem because they'll hit back. We hack their CNI, they hack ours. We sabotage their infrastructure, they sabotage ours.
It's just rather hypocritical to complain that other nations are playing the same games that we are. Especially when we're also expanding the threat landscape, so now we're dealing with threats from Russia, DPRK, China, Iran, Syria, and any other nation that might currently consider themselves being attacked/oppressed by the 'West'. And there'll still be all the regular criminals just looking to make a quick bit of cash from extortion, or just for the lulz.. Which isn't likely to stop any time soon and just keeps LEAs and security professionals on their toes.
@ Jellied Eel
You seem to have so much to say and know a lot. Some threads are flooded with your comments.
Would it not be more productive to write one long well written comment and share your ideas? Or the topics covered are too complex? Maybe running a blog, writing a book and sharing a link? I would certainly have a look. Just without JavaScript, if you decided to.
Would it not be more productive to write one long well written comment and share your ideas?
Discussion forums don't really fit that very well, ie I'll either post a comment, or respond to a comment and things may progress or regress from there.
Or the topics covered are too complex?
Some are very complex, ie exceed both 140 character twitter length, or for the first time I recently hit the 10k character limit for comments here. The big problem El Reg has is complex topics now often devolve into trolling along tribal lines, like 'Orange man bad!'. That triibalism also extends to moderation, and since the Moderatrix left, comments are often deleted with no explanation making it rather hard to understand what's deemed objectionable. Especially when people call Trump or Musk a Nazi etc and those posts remain.
Oh, and the influx of anyonym.. posters. Those don't exactly help follow along with discussions, especially when multiple ACs are piling on.
Maybe running a blog, writing a book and sharing a link? I would certainly have a look. Just without JavaScript, if you decided to.
I do all of the above, and none are JavaScript enabled! The only good Java is a hot Java! Downside to blogging is finding a decent way to host those, without the inevitable risk of getting de-platformed if/when people find my opinions challenging or defying theirs. I also contribute to a few others.
> complex topics now often devolve into trolling along tribal lines, like 'Orange man bad!'
Says person who's the epitome of partisan and who uses frequent "culture war"-derived insults, including your use of TDS ("Trump Derangement Syndrome", the American right's canned attempt to mock and dismiss anyone who doesn't like Trump as foaming at the mouth) just a few posts up.
It's not just people who don't like Trump. Someone suffering from TDS rants and rages about pretty much anything and blames it on Trump.
And it's not unique to Trump haters.
There is BDS (Biden Derangement Syndrome), or 0BS (0bama Derangement Syndrome), and on your side of the pond no doubt there are people who behave the same away about your politicians...
It's not just people who don't like Trump. Someone suffering from TDS rants and rages about pretty much anything and blames it on Trump.
They'll also willingly self-identify.
There is BDS (Biden Derangement Syndrome), or 0BS (0bama Derangement Syndrome), and on your side of the pond no doubt there are people who behave the same away about your politicians...
I don't think so, but then our politicians are much more willing to lock people up for posting mean things on facepalm, X etc and they're also busily implementing new laws on 'hate speech' and unofficial misinformation. Or some can just file for superinjunctions to stop our media publishing really embarassing stuff because they've never heard of the Streisand Effect.
I've not heard BDS get mentioned, but one of the funny things about TDS is it was originally coined to refer to Clinton's 'deplorables', or Biden's 'Extreme MAGA Republicans'.. But then TDS promptly got flipped and gained a lot more traction referring to people who have a very deranged view wrt Trump. And like a lot of US culture, the whole thing went global. As a notionally British IT news site, it's a little bizarre that Trump's managed to find a way to live rent-free in non-American's brains. Downside to globalism I guess, but provides a rich seam for even Sky News Australia to tap with their regular 'Lefties Losing It' segment. But then lefties will lose it at the drop of a hat, especially if it's a red hat with the letters 'MAGA' on it.
> As a notionally British IT news site
It's clear that The Register has been deliberately moving away from being a UK-centric site to being one aiming far more strongly at a US audience for some time now (most notably when it moved from the ".co.uk" to the ".com" domain in early 2020).
That said...
> it's a little bizarre that Trump's managed to find a way to live rent-free in non-American's brains.
...the most "bizarre" thing is that you don't even get the irony here.
*You're* supposedly British, yet you're so obviously influenced by the imported "culture war" that your political opinions expressed here almost entirely reflect that, right down to the US-centric obsessions and perspective, with everything defined in terms of the American political system, viewpoint and society?
*You're* supposedly British, yet you're so obviously influenced by the imported "culture war" that your political opinions expressed here almost entirely reflect that, right down to the US-centric obsessions and perspective, with everything defined in terms of the American political system, viewpoint and society?
Make your mind up. I've said many times that I'm mostly a libertarian/conservative who sometimes comments on the US political system, and other topics. But that apparently makes me a 'Russian shill'. Or it's just an example of the way TDS sufferers lose any semblance of objectivity or critical thinking. This isn't necessarily a US-centric problem, just a reflection on the US influence on the world. Or maybe a problem of duopolies in politics, along with the divisive nature and the way that division is making the US and Europe's influence in the world a lot weaker.
> I've said many times that I'm mostly a libertarian/conservative
Yes, *you've* claimed to be that more than once. What's telling is that your comments, positions and obsessions almost always seem to line up with the same fault lines and talking points of right-wing US culture war propaganda, right down to the adoption of vociferous pro-Russian/anti-NATO apologetics in recent years.
I'm not accusing you of being a "shill" (*), I'm accusing you of being the complete opposite of the independent thinker you like to flatter yourself as.
(*) You're aware those who disagree with you are separate people, and not a homogenous mass obliged to share a consistent opinion on you? Personally, I think you waste too much time on convoluted rationalisations (that a troll or shill not personally invested would realise almost everyone is going to skim then ignore anyway) not to be for real.
What's telling is that your comments, positions and obsessions almost always seem to line up with the same fault lines and talking points of right-wing US culture war propaganda, right down to the adoption of vociferous pro-Russian/anti-NATO apologetics in recent years.
What is perhaps more telling is you think that because I'm not blindly supportive of Ukraine, or join in the chorus of rabid Russophobia, I'm somehow pro-Russia. If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would see that isn't the case. Comments like 'Russia is winning' are not pro-Russia, they're just objectively true.
You're aware those who disagree with you are separate people, and not a homogenous mass obliged to share a consistent opinion on you?
Of course I am. It's just when those people choose to disagree as anonymous cowards, it can make conversations harder for me, or anyone else to follow. You are under no obligation to agree with my opinions, yet I make those opinions as clear as I can so posters know they're my opinions.
...would realise almost everyone is going to skim then ignore anyway) not to be for real.
And yet you choose to pile on, anonymously of course. If you don't like my opinions, why not practice what you preach and just ignore them?
> If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would see that isn't the case. Comments like 'Russia is winning' are not pro-Russia, they're just objectively true.
Of *course* they are, and of *course* you're not an uncritical pro-Russian (despite your consistently pro-Russian, anti-NATO posts!)
If you genuinely believe that something so one-sided *and* laughably simplistic is "objectively true"- and I suspect you do- it doesn't disprove how brainwashed and lacking in independent thought you are. It pretty much confirms it.
> And yet you choose to pile on, anonymously of course.
Poor little you, playing the victim. In reality, what you perceive as a "pile on" is a simple reflection of the fact that most people here disagree with and see through your whaarrrrgarbl, even if you don't.
> If you don't like my opinions, why not practice what you preach and just ignore them?
What strawman "preaches" that? Because I certainly don't, and I'm as entitled to disagree with anything you post as you were to post it in the first place.
This post has been deleted by its author
> It's not just people who don't like Trump. Someone suffering from TDS rants and rages about pretty much anything and blames it on Trump.
Not really. Treating it as if it was ever *meant* to be An Actual Thing- or turning it into one- just plays into the hands of those that invented the term as an intentionally trollish put-down, i.e. an attempt to smear and dismiss *anyone* who disagrees with or dislikes Trump. I suspect there's also a bit of projection in there as well, but I Am Not A Psychologist. ;-)
> There is BDS (Biden Derangement Syndrome), or 0BS (0bama Derangement Syndrome)
I'm sure there must be *some* people out there who've used those (rather obvious derivative) versions- possibly as a misjudged "no u"- but that doesn't make them A Thing, and I've never seen them widely used.
On top of that, he believes (or at least, wants others to believe) that the only people saying, "orange man bad" are doing so due to blind obedience to a certain political party. It's people from all US political parties/beliefs.. It's not political at all, it's an issue of people saying, "self-serving, pathologically lying, rapist traitors etc etc etc... are bad.". (But that's a lot to type, so 'orange man bad' for short...)
Such as those hard line Marxists Dick and Liz Cheyney?
Or the roughly 200 ex White House staffers who've actually worked for the FOCF up close?
My instinct is that following this election either the actual sane Republicans ("Republicans" with a small "r"?) will either a) Split off and form a new party or b)have to conduct some kind of housecleaning to dis-infect the party of it's MAGA infestation, which is what Tony Blair did with Labour from the infiltration by "Militant" in the 80's. * Possible but difficult.
Your slogan could be "Taking back control." That's not in use at the moment.
*TBH My instinct is the rot is too deep and the old Republican party is going down the sh**ter of history, as the Electoral College should have done after the Civil War.
He was the one who kept posting "stories" about how anthropogenic climate change "isn't real", right? I see he writes for the Torygraph now.
Yeah, having had a decent scientific education, I can wholeheartedly state that he isn't missed. If you want to read that sort of bollocks, there's always QAnon for you.
is?
Sounds like we're a commie cowboy ranch which is rich coming from the deranged detritis of a failed fairly unpleasant communist empire.
I assume Maria Z. isn't claiming amongst "competent authorities and departments" that "the United Nations and UNESCO" can be so described although unfortunately she is probably right in claiming they are "literally obliged to pay attention" but free thereafter to ignore.
I think "sudo /bin/rm -rf /" to be certain.
Since this gag obviously went over your head, here's where it comes from...
If Russia, the largest country in the world by area, can't find sufficient resources to generate sufficient funds for its 145m population (only ninth largest in the world) it's obviously doing something wrong. Could it be (whisper it) that Putin and his cronies are asset stripping the place?
Jellied Eel,
There's no NATO funds to embezzle. Admittedly EU funds are a different matter. Although pretty much all the Warsaw Pact countries that got out and joined the EU and/or NATO are richer and less corrupt than the ones that stayed in Russia's orbit.
But the reason they joined NATO is that most of them had been invaded by Russia and/or the Soviet Union multiple times within the last century - and didn't fancy the odds. Something they were proved right about subsequently. NATO didn't enlarge and swallow them up - they all spent the early 90s campaigning to be let into NATO - despite large chunks of NATO not really wanting them. Similar to Ukraine later on - if we'd let Ukraine into NATO (or even armed them after 2014 - rather than just giving training) this war probably wouldn't have happened.
There's no NATO funds to embezzle. Admittedly EU funds are a different matter.
You really haven't been keeping up, have you? So Trump's been in the news (constantly) talking about how European countries aren't paying their 'fair share' and contributing 2% of GDP to NATO. Then Mark Rutte has also been in the news talking about how 2% is simply not enough and NATO members should be contributing 3-5%. Where do you think that money goes?
But in other news, Ursula von der Liar quietly apppointed Andrius Kubilius as the EU's defence minister. He's also an arch-Federalist. During Brexit, the Remnants claimed that the idea of an EU military was crazy, and yet it is happening. Because Russia, naturally. Despite failing to conquer (in Gen Mark Milley's terms) Ukraine in 3 days, 2.5yrs later, Russian expansion is now the greatest threat to Paris, and the EU needs to spend more money on defence. Which is arguably true given 28+ nations in the West haven't been able to supply Ukraine (or now Israel) with everything they need or want.
Which rather begs the question. Does Europe need both NATO, and a bigger EU military?
Similar to Ukraine later on - if we'd let Ukraine into NATO (or even armed them after 2014 - rather than just giving training) this war probably wouldn't have happened.
How quickly you forget Minsk and the way that was used to both train and arm Ukraine during the phoney war. Or that the coup was to set the stage for Ukraine to join both the EU, and NATO.. NATO membership being a tad problematic given the civil war that kicked off after the coup. Which is still a problem for everyone other than the numbskulls that consider themselves 'leaders'. October 12th is a NATO jolly at Ramstein in Germany.
There, assorted rumours are flying around, like presenting Russia with a fait acompli 'Peace Plan' that involves NATO membership for Ukraine, a cease-fire and using 'diplomacy' to return Ukraine to their 1991 borders. A truly genius move that Russia is bound to accept because it isn't at all Minsk 3. Ukraine is still insisting that they have a 'victory plan' and Zelensky is still insisting that Ukraine will not surrender any territory. He still hasn't grasped that it really isn't up to him, and patience is wearing thin.
There's no NATO funds to embezzle. Admittedly EU funds are a different matter.You really haven't been keeping up, have you? So Trump's been in the news (constantly) talking about how European countries aren't paying their 'fair share' and contributing 2% of GDP to NATO. Then Mark Rutte has also been in the news talking about how 2% is simply not enough and NATO members should be contributing 3-5%. Where do you think that money goes?
Jellied Eel,
I'm disappointed in you. I thought you were more intelligent than that.
You claimed these countries only joined to embezzle NATO money. I said there pretty much wasn't any. And your comeback is that people are urging individual NATO members to raise their own defence budgets? That's their own bloody money.
In fact, I'm sure you are more intelligent than that. Which suggests you knew your first statement was wrong, and decided to double down on the lie, rather than say not making stuff up in the first place. Your problem is that you do make the odd good point, but then you also make the odd bollocks point and throw in loads of pointless whataboutism at the same time.
NATO has a pretty small budget. It has a bunch of shared HQs - which the bigger countries pay most of the costs of - and a few common assets (like the AWACS pool) - plus some common weapons buying programs. But there's no money to steal.
How quickly you forget Minsk and the way that was used to both train and arm Ukraine during the phoney war.
Huh? What has this got to do with the price of fish? Or is this just another pointless addition to argument because when in doubt, throw more shit at the wall and hope some sticks?
There was no expectation of a war. Hence there was no phoney war. France and Germany didn't even believe Russia were going to inavde Ukraine on the morning of the invasion - despite being warned by the UK and US for months. Admittedly Ukraine's politician's didn't either - but their military were mostly prepared for it - so I don't know if that was political disbelief while they tried diplomacy? The head of German foreign intelligence was in Kyiv on the day the war started and had to be rescued by German special forces. Macron sacked the head of French military intelligence for getting it wrong.
Minsk was a deal done by France and Germany to get Russian troops out of Ukraine. For some reason the UK and US barely got involved.
If there was some great conspiracy to heavily arm Ukraine, we'd have heavily armed Ukraine. We didn't. The US, UK and Canada trained about 50,000 Ukrainian troops in basic infantry tactics over about 5 years - but we gave them few weapons of any significance - so as not to anger Russia. Had we given them even 5% of the weapons we've handed over since the war began, there would have beeen no war, and both Ukrainians and Russians would be a lot better off today. Merely at the cost of a rise in Putin's blood pressure. But fainter hearts prevailed in the West - and we didn't. A lesson I hoep we learn over Taiwan.
I'm disappointed in you. I thought you were more intelligent than that.
You're a Banderite. So it's natural you have your own way to revise history. Much like the poster who used 'ruzzia' instead of Russia, which probably just indicates they get their news from people like Denys Davidov.
You claimed these countries only joined to embezzle NATO money. I said there pretty much wasn't any. And your comeback is that people are urging individual NATO members to raise their own defence budgets? That's their own bloody money.
Surely if it's their own money, then NATO members can choose to spend that money how they want, not how NATO tells them to? But you're ignoring.. well, pretty much everything-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#NATO_defence_expenditure
Member states pay for NATO's three common funds (the civil and military budgets and the security investment programme) based on a cost-sharing formula that includes per capita gross national income and other factors. In 2023–2024, the United States and Germany were the biggest contributors with 16.2% each.
Huh? What has this got to do with the price of fish?
Err.. Everything? Previously you claimed that NATO membership would have prevented this conflict. NATO is continuing this conflict. The prospect of NATO membership is a key element of Ukraine's peace or victory plans..
There was no expectation of a war. Hence there was no phoney war. France and Germany didn't even believe Russia were going to inavde Ukraine on the morning of the invasion - despite being warned by the UK and US for months.
Anyone with half a brain should have known a war was coming. But again this is an example of propaganda and historical revisionism. So the coup and 'regime change' operation was pretty obvious back in 2012. That happened in 2014 and was obvious to Russia because it was the same coup-in-a-can model followed in other regime-change operations. That resulted in Ukraine's civil war and Crimea, the DPR and LPR breaking away from the Kiev regime. That resulted in some very brutal fighting, heavy losses for the UAF, along with the loss of some kit that would no doubt have been interesting to Russia. Like NATO artillery counter-battery radar sets, still in their packing crates.
Minsk was a deal done by France and Germany to get Russian troops out of Ukraine. For some reason the UK and US barely got involved.
Now I know you're joking. Sure, the 'Trilateral Commission' was Russia, France & Germany but you're either a fool or disingenous to suggest the UK and US were not involved. But the claimed objective was peace, based in part on this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine#Fifteen-point_peace_plan
Decentralization of power (through the election of executive committees, protection of Russian language; draft amendments to the Constitution).
Which was pretty reasonable. The UK does this with Wales, Scotland, N.Ireland. But Putin also wanted the DPR & LPR represented at those talks. Poroshenko refused, then later cancelled those peace negotiations-
Poroshenko vowed to take revenge on the separatists: "Militants will pay hundreds of their lives for each life of our servicemen. Not a single terrorist will avoid responsibility
which was the same Poroshenko who later claimed that seperatists would live cowering in their basements. Lovely chap. So then came a new stab at peace via Minsk 1 & 2..
If there was some great conspiracy to heavily arm Ukraine, we'd have heavily armed Ukraine. We didn't. The US, UK and Canada trained about 50,000 Ukrainian troops in basic infantry tactics over about 5 years - but we gave them few weapons of any significance - so as not to anger Russia. Had we given them even 5% of the weapons we've handed over since the war began, there would have beeen no war.
If Poroshenko had stuck to his 15-point peace plan and granted autonomy to the DPR & LPR, there probably wouldn't have been an SMO either. Instead, Merkel admitted that Minsk was little more than an opportunity to buy time to reconstitute, retrain and rearm the UAF. This was also obvious to Russia as well. But Poroshenko was replaced by Ukraine's comedian-in-chief, who despite being elected as a healer, continued with de-Russification, culminating in ordering the recapture of Crimea, DPR and LPR. Oh, and at the Munich security conference, stating that Ukraine should become a nuclear power. Then started assembling his forces in preparation to re-occupy the Rhineland. I mean Crimea and Donbas, then indulge in the traditional Banderite sport of ethnic cleansing.
Russia kept warning Ukraine not to do this, and the West not to support it. We ignored those warnings, red lines were crossed, as were borders. Then there was the Instanbul peace agreement that we told Ukraine to ignore as well. Our 'leaders' never wanted peace, so they FAFO. Ukraine, and the West is now paying that price.
This post has been deleted by its author
But in other news, Ursula von der Liar quietly apppointed Andrius Kubilius as the EU's defence minister. He's also an arch-Federalist. During Brexit, the Remnants claimed that the idea of an EU military was crazy, and yet it is happening.
This simply isn't true. He's commissioner for defence and space. But it's basically going to have to create a meaningful role for the EU - which will be in defence-industrial coordination.
If the role was important it would have had to go to a big hitter in European politics or a big country if the commissioner is being sent to Europe as a sort of retirement job. It's not even a vice president job, as you can see from the new Commission org chart here (link to Politico)
The entire EU budget is only 1% of EU GDP - and that has to cover everything. There simply isn't a budget for an EU defence department - and there aren't any powers in the treaties - so the EU does not have competency in this area. Anything would have to be done by unanimity. There is PESCO - which are small EU defence projects that only have a lmited membership in order to cooperate on particular areas. For example, there's a PESCO on cross border military mobility which is looking at how to get troops moved through everyone's customs posts and get all the health-and-safety forms done for when they're moving ammo. This is the only one the USA have joined - and the UK have been looking at joining for a couple of years now. I'm not even sure if the defence Commissioner will have conrol of these, given they're individual groups of countries.
This simply isn't true. He's commissioner for defence and space. But it's basically going to have to create a meaningful role for the EU - which will be in defence-industrial coordination.
Uhuh. Defence ministers have no control or influence over their militaries..
If the role was important it would have had to go to a big hitter in European politics or a big country if the commissioner is being sent to Europe as a sort of retirement job.
Oh, if only that were true. Josep Borrell is leaving his post as the EU's chief diplomat and being replaced by.. err.. Kaja Kallas of, ermm.. Estonia. So two teeny Baltic States in charge of EU defence, foreign and security policy. Both virulently anti-Russian.
There simply isn't a budget for an EU defence department - and there aren't any powers in the treaties - so the EU does not have competency in this area.
Yet. The EU doesn't have competency in many areas, yet when it exerts its (in)competency, it gets it. Energy policy being a shining example. And then when it starts to exert competency, it can then claim exclusive competency. Then per treaty, EU members are expected to obey EU Diktats. Sure, there are supposed to be some opt-outs for national security or critical infrastructure, but if member states try to defy the EU, then the EU just attempts to bribe, bully or fine them into submission. See Hungary, Poland etc for more info.
But again it's a lot like NATO. EU members will be expected to pay into the EU defence budget, and then Kubilius will direct how that money is spent. Or in typical pork-barrel politics and grift, where that money is spent. And of course Ukraine is already angling for a large slice of that pork with the suggestion that it can become the EU's 'Arsenal of Democracy' rather than just arse. Obviously it makes sense to put defence factories in Russian missile range. But if the EU throws money at Rheinmetall to build factories in Ukraine, Rheinmetall's shareholders will take it. Ukrainians will skim money off those contracts. Then when Russia demonstrates the old joke that mechanical engineers build weapons systems, civil engineers build targets, the EU can just give shareholders and grifters more money. The EU's accountants can probably also spin the losses as EU economic growth as well.
Uhuh. Defence ministers have no control or influence over their militarie
Jellied Eel,
He's not a fucking defence minister. That's rather the point. There ain't no European army. The EU does not have the budget or the legal ability to hire one. Nor does the Commission have access to any population to man said army, The armies of the EU members are paid for and controlled by the EU governments. Which means they choose what weapons to buy and they choose what officers to promote to senior ranks and they get to tell those officers what to do. Although, even there, most defence ministers aren't actually in the chain of command - so can't even give orders to their own militaries. The US Secretary of Defense is no in the chain of command - the President is. In Britain its even weirder - as officially the King is head of the armed forces, and the Prime Minister only his advisor - so nobody in the government is technically in the chain of command at all. In France it's the President again - I've no idea what Germany's constitution says. The EU therefore does not have a military, nor the legal or financial ability to have one, without changing the treaties and going through referendums in several member states.
Oh, if only that were true. Josep Borrell is leaving his post as the EU's chief diplomat and being replaced by.. err.. Kaja Kallas of, ermm.. Estonia. So two teeny Baltic States in charge of EU defence, foreign and security policy.
If you knew more about European politics, you'd know that Kaja Kallas is a reasonably big hitter. She was a serious candidate to lead NATO - and an outsider to be Commission President last time round. The Ukraine war has improved the profile of some of the Easter European states, particularly in security terms, because Germany and France fucked up Russia policy so badly. And are publicly seen to have done so. Minsk was their baby - and failed on their watch. German energy policy of deliberately making themselves dependent on Russian gas and Macron's grandstanding attempts at diplomacy not helping. Borell was the opposite, a never has-been from Spain (a big country). And a pretty shit High Representative too.
You're also wrong on your assertion of the Baltics running security policy. If you'd followed the link I sent you - you'd have seen that the Defence Industry and Space Commissioner isn't under the High Rep for foreign affairs. He's under the commissioner for Digital Services - Communications Networks, Content & Technology - who's also Vice President for Tech Sovereignty Security & Democracy.
As a side note, one of the problems of having so many member states - is they've had to invent new departments for them to run. Which is one reason why Juncker invented the system of vice presidents - to have some commissioners reporting to them.
The EU doesn't have competency in many areas, yet when it exerts its (in)competency, it gets it. Energy policy being a shining example.
Again, you fail to understand the EU. The EU already has partial competence in energy. See the following link on the areas of full, partial and special competencies.
And then when it starts to exert competency, it can then claim exclusive competency
Wrong. Not without changing the treaties. Admittedly there can be cheating round the edges, as the European Court is pretty federalist, and will often bend the treaties to get the EU a bit of extra power. But you can't turn partial competency into full competency without changing the treaties.
But again it's a lot like NATO. EU members will be expected to pay into the EU defence budget, and then Kubilius will direct how that money is spent.
What the fuck? There is no central NATO defence budget. Every country has its own armed forces and defence budget and spends their own tax (or borrowed) money on their own forces. There's a small NATO central budget (c. $400m a year) to fund its offices and HQs - but even there most NATO HQs are just an extra staff in an existing HQ - or even an extra NATO hat worn by an existing force commander. Plus NATO funds a fleet of AWACS aircraft Similarly there's no central EU defence budget. The EU gets most of the EU's customs duties, a proportion of VAT a levy on plastics use and then a proportion of each country's GNI - I think it was about 1.03% at the last budget.
The Commission spends a tiny amount of money 1% of GNI - compared to the governments of the EU who spend about 40% of GNI.
If you want to talk about this stuff, you really need to learn about it first.
What the EU might do effectively is co-ordinate. Though probably not, because of politics. After all there was European effort to build a 6th gen stealth fighter with France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain adn Sweden on board. But then they split into two. And then Britain and Italy got Japan on board (I think Sweden decided it was too expensive). Now France, Germany and Spain's offereing has delayed the fighter for more work on drones, that can work with current fighters. And then France has just announced yesterday that it's building a French only stealth drone, rather than going in with the joint one with Germany. Even though the quid-pro-quo of the deal was the France would lead on the new fighter and Germany would lead on the drone. But then, that's what comes of trusting the French. Though as the Germans decided to buy Israel's Arrow 3 for a joint European air defence project, rather than Italy, France's Aster 30 B1NT - not even considering the existing European system that could have done with the extra sales, maybe they deserved it.
That is something the EU might coordinate. It'll probably fail, due to protecting national champions. But would be good if it actually worked.
He's not a fucking defence minister. That's rather the point.
Calm down dear. I realise you're a tad biased and missinformed after you failed to understand the origin of the 'Slava' thing..
There ain't no European army. The EU does not have the budget or the legal ability to hire one. Nor does the Commission have access to any population to man said army, The armies of the EU members are paid for and controlled by the EU governments.
Yet. But it's a new role, and one of the first announcements was that EU members must maintain obligatory stockpiles of things like artillery ammunition. NATO doesn't have their own standing army either, they just define standards, force strengths etc etc. The kinds of things Defence ministers do.
The EU therefore does not have a military, nor the legal or financial ability to have one, without changing the treaties and going through referendums in several member states.
And it has never done this before when it's decided to exercise its power, or enforce its will? Poland's judicial reforms, Hungary's implementation of FARA, or Hungary's veto over the latest $6bn bung to Ukraine.. Which the EU is trying to do an end-run around by suggesting EU members can just 'donate' money to the EU's Ukrainian slush fund.
If you knew more about European politics, you'd know that Kaja Kallas is a reasonably big hitter. She was a serious candidate to lead NATO
In her own mind, maybe. She didn't get the NATO job, she has been annointed as the EU's chief diplomat despite not being very diplomatic. But what Ursual wants, Ursula gets. Unless that's jail time for frauds during her vaccine buying spree..
What the fuck? There is no central NATO defence budget.
Err.. right. There is no NATO budget except the NATO budget. Or NATO's ability to define standards. Go read up on stuff like how 5.56mm came to be the NATO standard for small arms. Or just read this, which I assume you'll consider 'fake news'-
https://www.reuters.com/world/nato-will-need-35-50-extra-brigades-under-new-defence-plans-source-says-2024-07-08/
WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) - NATO will need between 35 and 50 extra brigades to fully realise its new plans to defend against an attack from Russia, a military source told Reuters.
That's going to cost.. rather a lot of money to recruit, train and equip. And I guess you missed Macron's statements suggesting that those brigades come under EU rather than NATO control, because he actually has a point. If the threat to Europe is Russia, should NATO be calling the shots, or the EU.. Again probably why Ursula's started putting those peices into place with the creation of an EU defence minister.. Trump's been demanding Europe pay more for their defence, maybe the EU has heard the message.
Jellied Eel,
Biased I may be - although you might want to look at the beam in your own eye before criticising the mote in your borther's.
However, I don't believe you get to call anyone else misinformed, when you've just argued that all NATO spending is pooled and shared out between countries - so that nasty Eastern Europeans get to steal it all. Which is obviously mad - and not what happens. And that something similar might somehow happen at EU level.
And no, there is no significant NATO budget for people to pilfer from. Which was your original point. NATO has 32 members and a budget of less than half a billion. It's bugger all.
Also, what is that story from Reuters? 35 new brigades? That's mad. That's 1-2 million new troops - and 1-2 times the size of the entire Russian military! Interesting that a search on the number only came up with the Reuters story and a bunch of unknown publications - no major news outlets. Who presumably can read, and comprehend and so even with the current reduced state of defence journalism could work out that this unknown source is talking utter bollocks. It's not in the Reuters orignal, but all the other articles have a headline of 350,000 troops - so I guess someone might have boobed and meant battalions? Or this is classic disinformation.
I can quite confidently say that NATO isn't going to be recruiting 11-16 new divisions - that would be taking it back up to its 1980s strength. I've seen no statement from Macron about the EU paying for any of this, because there's been no official statement about any of this happening.
You need to stop uncritically believing everything you see on the internet just because it somehow portrays the people you approve of in a good light, or the people you disapprove of in a bad light. The EU is a mostly quite boring and extremely bureaucratic organisation that is not going to develop into a state any time soon, because its members can barely agree on anything. Sadly lumbered with a terrible single currency by its federalist ideological believers just at the time they retired - so it's stuck unable to go either forward or backwards. There ain't no EUSSR - because it doesn't work like that. Also partly because it's run by von der Leyen who's a second-rate German politician promoted to the EU because Merkel had to do something with her, and Macron thought he could manipulate her. And the alternative might have been Axel Weber - who's a third rate German politician on his good days.
There are very few major international conspiracies, because almost nobody is organised or competent enough to manage them.
The reason that Eastern European countries wanted to join NATO is bloody obvious. You even said it yourself. Whole bunches of people there are very anti-Russian. Which given that Russia has invaded most of their countries multiple times, in living memory, is entirely unsurprising. The stupid thing about you arguing in favour of Russia - is that Putin doesn't want them in NATO for the very reason that he believes Russia is a great power, and great powers get to dominate all the countries near them, by right. He wants to be able to threaten them with impunity. They realise this, and hence wantn to be in NATO.
However, I don't believe you get to call anyone else misinformed, when you've just argued that all NATO spending is pooled and shared out between countries - so that nasty Eastern Europeans get to steal it all. Which is obviously mad - and not what happens. And that something similar might somehow happen at EU level
No, I did not. However it is obviously 'pooled and shared' between countries. NATO says spend 2-5% of GDP on NATO specified projects, members go 'err, ok'.
NATO has 32 members and a budget of less than half a billion. It's bugger all.
You should become an accountant. EU's GDP is a mere $20tn. So 5% of that is only $1,000,000,000,000 to be spent as NATO directs. Plenty of pork fat to embezzle there..
Also, what is that story from Reuters? 35 new brigades? That's mad. That's 1-2 million new troops - and 1-2 times the size of the entire Russian military! Interesting that a search on the number only came up with the Reuters story
Yes, well, your search-fu failed you miserably when you tried to claim the 'Slava' thing originated from a time when Ukrainian didn't even exist. You never did explain why you did that, did you? But try again, this time including De Welt, which also ran the story. In German, obviously, and behind a paywall. But as predicted, you appear to be claiming the Reuters article is 'fake news'. Yet uncorrected and unretracted. And yes, it is mad. But then it's also politics. Ask for more than you need in the expectation that the budget will inevitably be revised downwards.
Whole bunches of people there are very anti-Russian. Which given that Russia has invaded most of their countries multiple times, in living memory, is entirely unsurprising.
Hmm.. Both Estonia and Lithuania do have vampire myths, along with other mortals.. But remind me, when was the last time Russia invaded either of them? Or is this like the 'Slava', or Canada's 'war hero' and you've forgotten who's side you're supposed to be on? The last time 'Russia' invaded Estonia was in 1919, which didn't work out too well when 'Russia' (the White kind) helped repel that invasion. Oh, and they also beat Germany at the same time. The rematch didn't go quite as well with Estonia becoming Reichskommissariat Ostland and Estonians joining the 3rd and 20th SS Estonian divisions.
Just like Ukraine really. Funny the way history keeps repeating itself. But then the Soviet Union liberated Estonia and it seems that some Estonians have never forgiven them.
is that Putin doesn't want them in NATO for the very reason that he believes Russia is a great power, and great powers get to dominate all the countries near them, by right.
Yep. And Ursula was in the news today berating Hungary for allowing Russian tourists. It's almost as if she wants Hungrary to leave the EU and join BRICS. Oh, and in other news, Elensky can't find a country to host his 'peace' conference, so has cancelled it. Or perhaps more worrying for Ukraine, the NATO conference that was due to be held on the 12th has also been cancelled. Biden and Blinken cancelled, so the whole thing is off. Kinda understandable that Biden might want to be on hand for the US storms, but why would Blinken cancel? Why would NATO cancel? Neither the State Dept nor military are short of seniors who could attend, and brief back later. Poor Ukraine, I get the feeling Elensky is about to find out what happens when he becomes a liability, or an embarrassment.
One last reply to see if I can get you to talk sense.
However it is obviously 'pooled and shared' between countries. NATO says spend 2-5% of GDP on NATO specified projects, members go 'err, ok'.
Nope. Still wrong. NATO says spend 2% of GDP on defence. This is an organisation thtat works by unanimity, so literally everone has voted for this multiple times. And there are no punishments for failing - so Germany has spent about 1.3% of GDP on defence since. Apart from 2022 when they allocated a one-off €100bn.
But that budget is your total defence budget, and includes pensions and defence civil service too.
Moreover, NATO does not tell you what to spend it on. Again it works entirely by unanimity. Nothing gets done that people don't want to do. Everyone agrees on a rough plan, and then countries divvy up the tasks.
The UK and Netherlands have been slated to deliver an amphibious force to defend Norway since at least the 1960s. Both had amphibious forces anyway - so chose that committment to NATO as it suited the armed forces they already had.
Another example I saw in a press release about military excercises from France just yesterday saying that NATO has asked them to be able to deploy an entire division to Eastern Europe at 30 days notice by 2026. So they're doing an excercise this year, to deploy a brigade to Romania, and they'll do it again with a whole division next year.
I think this is being done to reassure Eastern Europe without deploying many permanent forces there.
NATO directs nothing. Because no single entity is in charge of NATO. The idea that NATO can tell the EU to spend 5% of EU GDP and then also get the EU to spend that cash on what NATO says is silly.
That's 5 times the entire EU budget for everything. EU budgets are agreed by unanimity not QMV. And the NATO spending limit is 2% of GDP not 5%. You're indulging in fantasy. Ireland are neural and would veto it. Germany would veto it on the grounds that they don't even want to spend the 2% of GDP they agreed with NATO since 2014. And the EU don't have a mechanism to spend it - the Commission only employs about 30,000 civil servants which is half the size of the British Ministry of Defence. How would they manage to spend a trillion? Total EU defence spending last year was about €200bn. The Germans couldn't manage to spend €100bn in a year - and that includes ordering new kit that won't arrive until 2030. It's not possible to gear industry up in that short a time even by going to a full wartime economy.
Oh and by the way, your fantasy 30-50 new brigades is 1-2m men. At an average salary of €40,000 that means your military pay alone has gone up by 40-80 billion a year. And that doesn't include food, uniforms, barracks to put them in, weapons, artillery, tanks, APCs, supply trucks, tanker trucks, air defence, military engineering vehicles, training budget.
Just throwing around silly numbers does not constitute an argument. None of this will happen, not because only minor publications picked up that Reuters story, but because that Reuters story is frundamentally stupid and financially illiterate. You can't order 1,000 new tanks off the shelf. You either have to wait a decade for them, or you have to build your own factory to produce them - and wait a decade to get them anyway - but now with the production capacity to replace them every 5 years. Except there are 20 years when your new tanks are shiny, so you have to hope to sell 4,000 tanks in the intervening 20 years before you need more or plan to have 5,000 yourself.
Reality dear boy. Reality. Not only are these budgets fantasy, but so is the industrial capacity to satisfy them. And that's before we get to politics. If Britain decided to spend 5% of GDP on defence next year, that means about 7% on income tax or cutting the entire education and policing budget. Fancy winning the next election after that?
Oh and by the way, your fantasy 30-50 new brigades is 1-2m men. At an average salary of €40,000 that means your military pay alone has gone up by 40-80 billion a year. And that doesn't include food, uniforms, barracks to put them in, weapons, artillery, tanks, APCs, supply trucks, tanker trucks, air defence, military engineering vehicles, training budget.
Not my fantasy, it's Reuters and De Welts. If you knew anything about politics (or European history), you'd also know this kind of thing is normal. Politicians float trial balloons like needing 30-50 brigades, other politicians go "How are we supposed to pay for that?!?" and they settle on 10 instead.
But ever since 2022 and Russophobia kicking into high gear, there have been constant calls to 'invest' more in defence. Which is the usual politicians version of investment. NATO says you'll need $1m missiles to defend airspace against $50k drones, which will end up being converted into maybe $500 in scrap. Or even more cost because recycling and landfill charges. But it's why war is such good business. $200bn spent on Ukraine in only 2 years, much of that going straight into the pockets of defence companys and fraudsters.
You can't order 1,000 new tanks off the shelf. You either have to wait a decade for them, or you have to build your own factory to produce them - and wait a decade to get them anyway.
Sure, but some people are idiots. So Ukraine demanding ever more stuff. We don't have it, we can't produce it. We're building some new capacity but it'll never keep up with the ordinance being expended in Ukraine, Israel and maybe soon, Iran and China.
Reality dear boy. Reality. Not only are these budgets fantasy, but so is the industrial capacity to satisfy them. And that's before we get to politics. If Britain decided to spend 5% of GDP on defence next year, that means about 7% on income tax or cutting the entire education and policing budget. Fancy winning the next election after that?
Neither you nor politicians deal in reality. NATO wants increased defence spending and floated increasing that beyond the current 2%. The US wants more defence spending and Trump has been demanding Europe pays its way, ie pays US defence businesses. And then if you want someone else that's even further out of touch with reality, look no further than BoJo who thinks we should be giving Ukraine $500bn-$1tn. But of course he's no longer interested in making money, only lobbying for people to give it to him.
Of course if there were any serious attempts at peace negotiations, Ukraine could stop spending so much money on weapons, and wasting so many of its peoples lives. But that doesn't sell wunderwaffe. But if peace happens, there'll be a need to spend on reconstruction, then cancelling the economic damage being caused by sanctions, and start trading with Russia again. The US has never really wanted that because a strong partnership between the EU and Russia would create a larger economy than the US. But instead both the US and EU economies are much weaker, and BRICS is gaining all the trade and investment.
One last reply to see if I can get you to talk sense.
The reverse is impossible. But guess what?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/09/trump-proof-european-security-by-setting-up-nato-bank-thinktanks-urge
To mitigate the impact of a second Trump presidency, Nato countries should support the creation of an allied multilateral lending institution, in practice a Nato bank, it says. This could “save nations millions on essential equipment purchases, offer low interest rates on loans to alliance members and introduce a new line of financing with longer repayment timeframes. The bank would be funded with initial subscriptions from Nato members in return for authorised capital stock”.
Want to buy a new BMW or Merc? They'll borrow money from the ECB and offer you a variety of finance deals. Want to buy a Leopard from NATO? Err.. wait, NATO doesn't produce equipment. And customers who buy MBTs are usually governments, who can arrange their own financing. But I guess this takes the arms business to it's absurd conclusion and part-privatises NATO (Gmbh).
> One last reply to see if I can get you to talk sense.
Seriously? Sorry to say, but at this point, that's got to be the textbook definition of the triumph of hope over experience! :-/
If you spent all that time on the expectation of changing Jellied Eel's mind and getting them to acknowledge *any* criticism of their shamelessly one-sided pro-Russia position- something I've *never* seen them do- or of getting anything other than more of the same longwinded rationalisation and apologetics, I'm afraid that's a lesson you've had to learn the hard way.
*any* criticism of their shamelessly one-sided pro-Russia position..
And yet another illiterate anonymous coward. Once again, being pro-peace and anti-Banderite, it doesn't follow that I'm pro-Russia.
..more of the same longwinded rationalisation and apologetics
Sometimes explaining things takes more than 140 characters.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
I'd assumed that Google wouldn't bowdlerise something like that, but when I gave it "хуйло" alone, it translated *that* as "shit".
So either it's softer in context, harsher out of it, the translated-as-a-whole phrase reflects the gist of it more accurately... or Google *did* bowdlerise the translation.
And no, "хуйло" wasn't the part that represented "Putin" ;-)
This post has been deleted by its author
"...So there we are, listening to the news, eagerly waiting for the confirmation that the Egyptians have crushed the Israeli forces. They have been trained by our boys after all, our instructors who are also there, and we know they'll crush them like bugs...We know it's about to start. We're exchanging ecstatic glances - no one mentions or names anything, but we all KNOW - it's coming ! It's about to happen !!!
...By the mid-afternoon, the news are still about Kolkhoz #174 having exceeded the production plans and which combine operator got a medal...WTF ?!?
...By the evening, FINALLY !!! A fifteen seconds tidbit: 'Today, in the Middle East...'
Ah !
'...The brave Egyptian army is still heroically resisting the Israeli aggressor's attacks'.
Ah...
We get it immediately from that one word. When 'aggressor' is used, it means we're getting our asses kicked..."
(Very approximately) paraphrasing Victor Suvorov's "The Liberator" from his early days in tank school in the '60s
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
