https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66134663

Freedom's just another word for ...

It's not like the UK is the only rich country that isn't doing all it should to help poorer countries mitigate climate change. Hell, we can't even help ourselves!

The funny part about this is that the Institute For The Study of War is a "think tank" that is run by the same folks who advocated for the invasion of Iraq, merely one of the worst geopolitical blunders ever undertaken. Lessons learned, anyone!?

Well, Wikipedia thinks they are a think tank. I have not heard of them before.

As for the paragraph in its entirety ... I think we are all capable of recognizing blatant spin when we read it.

Oh, there is definitely spin surrounding that paragraph, the question is who is doing the spinning?

Do have any reports about the UK NOT pulling its funding for climate mitigation that is more up to date than this Guardian piece from yesterday?

Yes, they specifically called out the Guardian piece. What the truth of the matter is...who knows.

massive panda 9

Do have any reports about the UK NOT pulling its funding for climate mitigation that is more up to date than this Guardian piece from yesterday?

As for the paragraph in its entirety ... I think we are all capable of recognizing blatant spin when we read it.

"asymmetrical attrition gradient". A silly made up phrase from a think tank but is it true or false? Your guy just wants to make fun of it, but if we look at the full paragraph..."

The funny part about this is that the Institute For The Study of War is a "think tank" that is run by the same folks who advocated for the invasion of Iraq, merely one of the worst geopolitical blunders ever undertaken. Lessons learned, anyone!?

"asymmetrical attrition gradient". A silly made up phrase from a think tank but is it true or false? Your guy just wants to make fun of it, but if we look at the full paragraph..."

The funny part about this is that the Institute For The Study of War is a "think tank" that is run by the same folks who advocated for the invasion of Iraq, merely one of the worst geopolitical blunders ever undertaken. Lessons learned, anyone!?

What do you have to say about the actual gist of the piece?
Which is the stalled counteroffensive - you just have to look at a map to see how small the gains are without having to compare it to the size of any other geographical area - and the growing concern among NATO allies and in the US over the current state of affairs on the battlefield and in Western weapon depots, not to mention the impact the Ukraine focus is having on the fight against the "dawning climate apocalypse".

This: It also claims that its forces have killed more than 230,000 Russian soldiers. That’s over 80,000 more soldiers than the entire Russian army which invaded Ukraine last year!

Is just blatant bullshit. If it wasn't for his "stellar" bio, I might give him slack for a possibly poor translation. That figure is causalities and in it's rough form is backed up by just about everyone.

More so, Fresno? Do you have any idea, beyond bulk population, what half a Fresno is? I do as I have been there as I had a friend who grew up there, but it has to be the most obscure comparisons I've seen in a long time...

"asymmetrical attrition gradient". A silly made up phrase from a think tank but is it true or false? Your guy just wants to make fun of it, but if we look at the full paragraph:

Ukrainian forces appear to be focusing on creating an asymmetrical attrition gradient that conserves Ukrainian manpower at the cost of a slower rate of territorial gains, while gradually wearing down Russian manpower and equipment. Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Oleksiy Danilov reported on July 4 that Ukrainian forces are performing their main task of destroying Russian manpower, equipment, fuel depots, artillery, and air defenses and that a “war of destruction is equal to a war of kilometers.”[1] Danilov’s assessment underlines the prioritization of Ukraine’s ongoing campaign to attrit Russian manpower and assets over attempting to conduct massive sweeping mechanized maneuvers to regain large swaths of territory rapidly. NATO Military Committee Chair Admiral Bob Bauer reported on July 3 that Ukrainian forces are correct to proceed cautiously and avoid high casualties in the counteroffensive and acknowledged that the counteroffensive is difficult due to landmines and other obstacles up to 30km deep into Russian-occupied territory.[2] Bauer stated that Ukrainian forces should not face criticism or pressure for moving slowly.

It has a defined meaning and is backed up at least someone in NATO. Why does your guy not mention that?

Lots of other vague stuff. A recession in Eurozone at .01% (more technical than real) vs the European union which is above the threshold for a recession. The UK has already refuted the pull out of 11.6 billion in the climate fund for poor nations.

Reading his newsletter is like reading something between FOX News and a Michale post. Seems to more about generating biased outrage than real analysis...

This study seems to accept and confirm this long war scenario.

I'm still digesting it ...

WILLIAM BRADLEY
Political Analyst
former presidential campaign advisor and special advisor to the governor
— “Let there be light.”

Cluster Bombs for the Cluster Frak

7/4/2023 11:40 pm ET

What an Independence Day. America is on the verge of demonstrating its exceptionalism, once again.

We are now a month into the long gestating winter/spring/summer Ukrainian counteroffensive. No breakthroughs, big losses, still more demands for more wonder weapons.

The hoped-for, constantly spun-up — by much the same people — strategic equivalent of the Iraq War’s Surge (which actually failed) turns out to be the Ukraine War’s Stall. As discussed here a week ago. And the Stall is, at least today, on this 4th of July, down a memory hole. As is all the excitement over the abortive Wagner mutiny.

I didn’t see see any reference this morning to the Ukrainian counteroffensive on the New York Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal front pages. Striking, given their constant enthusiastic coverage of the Ukraine War and NATO expansionism.

Tonight the strangely media-ubiquitous Institute for the Study of War, which earlier said the Ukrainian counteroffensive had entered a one-week “operational pause,” trotted out a new repositioning. The Ukrainian counteroffensive is now an “asymmetrical attrition gradient.”

The bafflegab accelerators have arrived.

Desperate times and all that, so the US is reportedly gearing up to send cluster bombs to the Kyiv government.

Cluster bombs, developed first by the Third Reich, notorious from heavy U.S. usage in the Vietnam War and Iraq War. Now banned by most countries in the world signed on to a global treaty, including three-quarters of NATO members. Oh, and currently illegal for US export.

I’ve continued to hear over the last few days that decision from the Biden administration is impending. That follows on the heels of this report in the staunchly pro-war Washington Post at the start of the holiday weekend:

“The Biden administration is pushing lawmakers and allies to put aside human rights concerns as regular ammunition stocks are depleted.
“Confronted with a worrying shortage of artillery ammunition, a counteroffensive that has been slow to launch and increasingly desperate appeals from Kyiv for more weaponry, the Biden administration is facing an imminent decision over whether to supply Ukraine with controversial cluster bombs.”

With the Ukrainian counteroffensive failing, Biden, who said no to cluster bombs last December, is, true to form, a stubborn guy.

It will no doubt be another great success.

The Kyiv government claims its counteroffensive has liberated, here and there, the territorial equivalent of … one-half of Fresno.

It also claims that its forces have killed more than 230,000 Russian soldiers. That’s over 80,000 more soldiers than the entire Russian army which invaded Ukraine last year!

Since that claim is beyond laughable, it’s just possible that the results of the Ukrainian counteroffensive are even more meager than they are already seem.

With the Ukrainian counteroffensive in very big trouble one month in, and the spin around it all not exactly hard to pierce, a certain desperation is setting in with the Washington alliance. Ukrainian generals openly chafe at growing criticism of their minor progress — nothing even close to a breakthrough, with actual Russian defensive lines still somewhere on the horizon — and complain that the U.S./NATO crew haven’t provided them with enough weapons and ammo. (They even complain about not having F-16s, which were never slated for the counteroffensive.) How many times have we heard that?

If the present trend continues, the Kyiv government and the Washington alliance which props it up will lose the war to the invading Russians. A war which should have been handled as a manageable regional security crisis before it spun up into a massive world crisis which has disrupted both the global economy as a whole and the utterly necessary transition away from fossil fuels.

The answer, as always? More supposed superweapons. A few more rungs up the escalation ladder.

Two more weapons systems were floated in government-friendly media outlets at the end of last week.

First, long-range ATACMS missiles, which National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said last summer they would never send. Now they’re very much on the table.

Second, cluster bombs, long infamous from their massive use by the US in the Vietnam War, as well as their use in America’s disastrous post-9/11 wars. Now many congressional Democrats are pushing hard for their use in the Ukraine War.

Most nations have banned cluster bombs, with a global treaty we won’t sign. And it is currently against US law to export cluster munitions.

How will all this play out?

First, the Brits have already given Kyiv longer range missiles, the Storm Shadow, which is roughly equivalent with the ATACMS. These have hit some Russian targets. They have also been jammed by electronic countermeasures or simply shot down.

Would the US sending ATACMS, which would require drawing down US or allied stores, make more of a difference than the Storm Shadow has? Hope springs eternal.

And at what point do the Russians interdict shipments of more advanced weapons? They are currently content to hit our weapons once they’re inside Ukraine.

The cluster bombs could be effective against Russian troops in defensive line positions. More so than conventional artillery shells and the previous techno-panacea HIMARS rockets, which in any event are in danger of running out. (The cluster bombs would in part also be an attempted short-term solution for the gap between Russian and Western artillery power.)

Cluster bombs shoot out many explosive bomblets over a target, potentially taking advantage of air gaps in defensive positions, shredding human bodies and penetrating vehicles and equipment. Since unexploded little bomblets are very hard to recover, they continued to kill and maim thousands of civilians many years after the Vietnam War ended, a phenomenon we’ve also seen in the Middle East.

Of course, the Ukrainians have to make it to Russian defensive lines in order to capitalize.

I can’t speak offhand to further defensive precautions against cluster bombs. But the Russians have them, too. One shudders to think what air bursts of cluster munitions would do to Ukrainian troops trying to advance in the field.

Both Ukraine and Russia, neither of which signed the treaty, have used cluster bombs in this war, but not much and not recently. That may be about to change.

Frustration leads to escalation.

Biden will journey to the NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania next week. With the failing Ukrainian counteroffensive layered atop the failed Biden plan to win the war by crushing the Russian economy with what turned out to be backfiring sanctions and asset seizures, it’s not an especially happy time.

The Eurozone is in recession. Centrist establishment governments are under severe stress. Food and energy costs and even supply are big problems for major members. The warmer than usual weather last winter helped them to escape the worst repercussions from their shift away from Russian energy. (Ironic, given the elite Moscow view that global warming is a big geostrategic plus in the future for Russia.) But the Euros — who are replacing piped Russian natural gas with liquefied American gas, much more expensive and emitting 10 times as much in greenhouse gases — may not be so fortunate again. To the extent that leaders with so many problems can be considered fortunate.

Sharply divided over its future leadership, NATO will once again extend the term of its civilian leader, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, a former Norwegian prime minister. The Supreme Allied Commander — a title from World War II first held by Dwight Eisenhower — under the notional guidance of the NATO military committee, is always an American general or admiral.

Now Biden and company have to present and sell a new scenario.

And they might just want to pay at least some attention to the concerns of most of the world, which takes a decidedly skeptical if not derisive view of what the US and its allies are up to in the Ukraine War.

Even before any further Ukraine War escalation, the British government has just announced it is cancelling its 11.6 billion pound contribution to a long promised/never materializing Western climate mitigation fund for poor nations bearing most of the early brunt of the dawning climate apocalypse (TM).

Why? The Brits have to spend more money propping up the Kyiv government. The Pentagon can’t keep finding convenient accounting errors.

New West Notes
HuffPost
Politics from the inside/outside…

I miss our Sunday nights.

Oh, and a very Happy Fourth of July to everyone else here, too! Have lots of fun and take good care ...