Ukraine War Update NEWS (20240707b): Military Aid & Geopolitics News 

Glory to the Armed Forces of Ukraine ..🇺🇦

To me, 'required watching' if you need to know what's up.

I just was watching the news… I really hope so. Nothing gives me the shits more than a lunch to the right in this climate.

@@Dunnomate.. now the yank gamble bloody scarey

@@Johnlarkin69 100%. At least this gives a better footing for Europe regardless of the part America takes. Mad ass times… the worlds bonkers now days.

That will be RUSSIA - CHINA PROPAGANDA we need to do something about it.

The left coalition are the largest block so they will want the prime minister, but if Macron can pull together a Center left coalition, this could work out just fine. Trying to compromise with the Communists will be his biggest challenge. Good news is that the Ukraine supporters are in clear majority, and RN looks like it will be the smallest of the three.

I agree, I had two disappear from the first video 😢

Yes the AI police seem to be triggered today. I just buried my message in slang and interpretive talk and it went up fine.

Hi John, once again 🤗

Hi Richard ❤

@@surpriseitsus9622 Hi Lynn and GTSY

Hello 🤗 🍿

@@surpriseitsus9622 Hi my friend 🍾🍷😁

Good prediction

It is Massive in-fact. I knew this would happen. I knew the gamble would pay-off big.

Group of drones, would easaly triangulate, the source.

"AI" is being somewhat overly hyped. Firstly, AI is not a new concept. I studied as my compsci major almost 30 years ago. Additionally, AI is not intelligent. What has changed significantly is the hardware that supports it.

Thank YOU

Let me offer my own attempt at a response to that open letter "The Nato alliance should not invite Ukraine to bevome a member", signed by several dozen academics. The authors call it "unwise" to invite Ukraine into NATO. The reason is that article 5 would compel members to go to war to repel an attack against Ukraine, especially the USA. But the USA, they argue, has insufficient security and prosperity interests to warrant direct military intervention. They say that if this is true today, they should not commit themselves in the future. To this, I have to say that one of NATO's principles is that an attack on a member state is an attack on the entire alliance. If every alliance member prioritized its own security and prosperity interests over those of the entire alliance, then one would have to question the purpose of the alliance as such. Would the authors, by implication, also make the entry of the USA into a military intervention dependent on its own security interests when a NATO country was under attack? Would they, for example, warn against a robust military response when a Baltic NATO member state was under Russian attack? Would they say that the security and prosperity interests of the USA would be greater with Estonia than with Ukraine? Or is that a tacit dismissal of the entire NATO policy, and a return to security politics centered on national interest? The problem that needs solving is how to protect Ukraine from Russian imperialism. This doesn't just mean to deter invasions, but also to counter other forms of hostile activity against Ukraine. The instruments that have been used in the past, for example the Budapest Memorandum, have shown to be insufficient or ineffective. We need something better, and the question is what realistic options there are left. You can of course argue that protecting Ukraine is not "our" (USA, NATO, EU, whoever) problem. To say it in the words of the authors: That our security and prosperity interests don't encompass the independence or survival of Ukraine. But I would argue that this is not only short sighted, but nonsensical. It is already more than obvious that Russian imperialism isn't focused only on Ukraine, but that it aims much further. It is also clear that Russia views NATO and the West in general as its "real" adversary. There is no reason to think that they won't follow up on this as soon as they see a chance. Helping Ukraine defend themselves against Russia is directly and materially in the interest of the West in general, and the USA in particular. At the moment it suffices to enable Ukraine to do the fighting, but ultimately it is Russia's decision whether they want to pull NATO into this war more directly. NATO as a whole obviously doesn't want this, but it would be silly to give Russia a guarantee that it won't ever happen. The authors dismiss as wishful thinking "that the act of bringing Ukraine into Nato would deter Russia from ever invading Ukraine again", not least because "if Ukraine were to join Nato, Russia would have reason to doubt the credibility of Nato’s security guarantee", because it didn't go to war against Russia in 2014 already. This strikes me as an absurd argument. This is precisely the difference between Ukraine being a NATO member, and not being one! Of course NATO didn't directly intervene in 2014! It didn't have to, didn't have any mandate, and it was not interested in driving the escalation forward! The reaction can be criticized as too inconclusive, and too weak, but to conclude that it would be similarly weak when Ukraine was admitted into NATO, is effectively declaring NATO to be a paper tiger. What they are saying is that Putin wouldn't take NATO seriously anyway, and attack Ukraine even if it was a NATO member. Rather than helping Ukraine, admitting it into NATO would effectively increase the risk of NATO breaking apart because of members being incapable of coming to an agreement about how to react to an invasion. They don't say how they would protect Ukraine. They hypocritically say that "Ukrainians deserve to weigh their strategic options through clear eyes", but they don't say what they are. They claim that "the challenges Russia poses can be managed without bringing Ukraine into Nato", but they don't say how. This avoidance of the crucial questions is typical. It tries to make believe that the security interests of NATO or the USA can somehow be decoupled from the security interests of Ukraine, and by casting the Ukraine adrift, the USA can better cater to their own interests. That's wishful thinking. I don't believe that the authors are so naive. I think their arguments are underhanded. If Ukraine isn't admitted into NATO, it would require a different arrangement that provides the battered country with a similarly robust set of guarantees. They would not be served with, and accept, the kind of hollow and inconsequential verbal guarantees they had in the past. They need something similar to article 5. They need something they can rely on. This could be arranged outside NATO if enough guarantors stepped up and committed themselves to military intervention in case of further attacks on Ukraine. But there would be no point, as it would have to be many of the same countries that are in NATO already, and it could be interpreted by Russia as a similar threat to its security as NATO. It would be NATO by another name. I don't see any point in that. Of course Russia could see that as a pretext for World War III, but we have very little control over how they interpret things anyway. NATO is a defensive alliance, and if people don't recognize that, there's little we can do about it. So far NATO has done everything to convince the world that it doesn't want to attack Russia. Not admitting Ukraine does nothing to help here. It would only show Russia that NATO isn't serious about defending Ukraine.

"Read my lips. No new taxes!" Then he raised taxes a record amount.

Also algo...

​@@sirsmeal3192Hello Sir 🤗 Happy Sunday.

@@surpriseitsus9622 Thanks, Lynn! Happy 4th of July weekend to you. - Jim

The US GDP per capita is higher than most western nations, yet too many Americans complain about the economy. Trump.plays on that for votes.

Thanks for a polite​ answer. I wasn't expecting that. So why is GDP so much higher in the US?@@toby9999

Chinese militray for anti-terrorism.... Crazy uncle Luka know RF will not able to handle for 2025 election. Making PLA troops familiar with the surroundings.

Correct Tim. I expanded on this in my daily finger diarrhea today.

@@michaelwiwchar3414 whOReBAN 👍 Nice one. That I missed that one. PUTaIN 😊 Say the French today. Germans go for the: KAPUTin kaPUTIN

@@timmommens901 I have many of them I am glad you enjoyed it. I hide what I know is a cesspool of slang and name calling to get around the YT AI police. You decipher that you will get to my deeper meaning which generally has merit.

​@@michaelwiwchar3414 Forgot before. Your subscriptions. Aside Jake Broe tumbnail or as Perun, Suchomimus or Konstatin Inside Russia humor. Easter eggs of William Spaniel. Even RFU "unfortunally for the russians". No fan from Juzzie from Ukraine News TV for his memes ? Edit: feel stupid now. Time to catch some sleep. Night night.

Please don't yell

Broken keyboard?

well according to Cormac Smith interviewed on silicon curtain yesterday ,when he asks his ukranian contacts both political and military which country is your staunchest ally ,they reply unanimously it is the United kingdom

I doubt it. They've been around for centuries, even before there was an EU and they're still ok.

But given a little time, things will get better

It's really is cult like and makes me cringe

@@surpriseitsus9622 He isn't winning any beauty contest here, but he is the nominee. I will vote for him because he may make it legal to oppose the government again. Biden could free the "rioters" tomorrow, but won't, so I'll waste my vote here in MD.

What is your problem? You are one angry dude

@@surpriseitsus9622 ho non moi je n'ai pas de problème et je ne suis absolument pas pro russe et je ne suis pas un troll je suis pro ukrainien. Par contre la il va y avoir un problème avec la France elle est devenu ingouvernable !

That was a giant wall of rubbish. The Taliban breaches basic human rights and is ant-women, etc. Being "legitimate"... what the hell does that mean? I guess you'd argue that putin is legitimate? What a load of crap. Choose a new user name without "brain" in it.

Regarding the original comment and Toby’s response, I can’t do the subject justice. My own biases make it very difficult for me to be positive about the Taliban but none of these issues should be understood in totally black or white terms, over simplification of all Afghan matters has always been a problem for westerners. The guerilla/terrorist argument is largely a matter of perception, it depends on where you are standing at the time, historical perspective can change the one's opinion. With all due respect, I think to call the OP ‘a giant wall of rubbish’ shows a lack of knowledge or understanding. I think the Taliban are more capable of evolving into something more humane and positive than ISIS if they were given positive, careful help and tolerance, not best by Putin though. I think I would enjoy delving deeper into the topic with ‘I-have -a-brain’ but this is probably not the best place for that. I remember Afghanistan under King Zahir Shah with much affection and am devastated by it’s subsequent history and our part in it, I couldn’t just let this post pass by without chucking in my pennyworth.

@@dromrai To be honest I know nothing of Afghanistan history other than what some of the descendants of the camel drivers have presented at public lectures . As for the time since the US pulled out I have kept a sort of passing interest in it and was quite frankly astounded by what the Taliban have achieved in such a short time . Weather we approve of a government or not is no reason to make them a parrier state . The truth is when faced with a choice between the Taliban and the enforced US backed government the Afghans chose the Taliban and we have to accept that regardless of weather we like the Ideology of the Taliban or not . And from what I have seen the Taliban have been far more honest and far less corrupt than any government since the over throw of the king . We crap on about open, transparent & honest government then we ostracise this one because it does not meet our standards of human rights . Neither does Turkey, Hungry, most of South America and a big chunk of Africa .

@@I-have-a-brain_and-use-it Well you obviously have been taking a deeper interest in the country and it’s progress than most people bother to. Unfortunately, unless it is at the centre of some current issue, Afghanistan is now largely ignored by the majority. It is refreshing to read some positive views about the Taliban, who I do abhor but recognize could possibly evolve into something, better given the right encouragement. I agree it would be good if we were capable of producing honest, open, transparent government ourselves rather than just pretending that’s what we have. Unfortunately this is not a venue where you and I can sit and chat over a beer or two whilst throwing these subjects around, perhaps somewhere, sometime...

I agree, but it's too late. Focus on the people Biden surrounds himself with. 💪