Online
Pašreiz BMWPower skatās 187 viesi un 2 reģistrēti lietotāji.
|
Tēma: Notikumi pasaulē, EU/ASV,NATO u.tml.
| Autors | Ziņojums |
|---|
| Mixzzz | | 07. Mar 2024, 00:55 |
#8821
|
|  Kopš: 09. May 2013
No: Rīga
Ziņojumi: 2789
Braucu ar: e34 un e91 kuuc
|
06 Mar 2024, 21:55:21 @Briize rakstīja:
06 Mar 2024, 20:57:22 @Samsasi rakstīja:
06 Mar 2024, 18:09:44 @Briize rakstīja:
https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/06.03.2...medium=frontpage
Nu tad beidzot sabiedētie prāti varēs atdzist un beigt baidīties...
man liekas, ka stāsts ir par to, ka šodien nav, bet pēc gadiem 5 pilnīgi reāli. Viss atkarīgs, kā ies Ukrainā. Un tas tikai nozīmē to, ka mums ir jāgatavojas tiesī tapat, kā to dara mūsu kaimiņi. Nevis jāklaigà par 5to pantu.
Kas ir paradoksāli, ka pēdējos 3 mēnešus visādi politiķi un militāristi visu laiku izplata paziņonumus, ka tūlīt nu būs mačilova NATO ar Krieviju un ka Baltijas valstis var sākt raut kreklu dirsā, tad Vācijas kaut kāds tur politiķis, tad Niderlandes kaut kāds militārists, tad Zviedrijas premjers, ja nemaldos, tad kaut kādi NATO militāristi, tad kaut kādi ASV atvaļinātie ģenerāļi un visi mūsu mēdiji to atspoguloja pēdējos mēnešos a tagad NBS paziņo, ka tā esot Kremļa propoganda - nopietni ?! Tad sanāk, ka mūsu oficiālie mēdiji izplata Kremļa propogandu ?! 
Tas ko saka rietumu politiķi ir pa lielam tikai un vienīgi priekš pašu tautām, lai attaisnotu palīdzību Ukrainai un ļoti iespējams mobilizētu atbalstu militārajai ražošanai un attiecīgi tēriņiem. |  Offline | | |
| mrCage | | 07. Mar 2024, 01:03 |
#8822
|
| Kopš: 03. Apr 2021
Ziņojumi: 1977
Braucu ar:
|
06 Mar 2024, 21:55:21 @Briize rakstīja:
Kas ir paradoksāli, ka pēdējos 3 mēnešus visādi politiķi un militāristi visu laiku izplata paziņonumus, ka tūlīt nu būs mačilova NATO ar Krieviju un ka Baltijas valstis var sākt raut kreklu dirsā, tad Vācijas kaut kāds tur politiķis, tad Niderlandes kaut kāds militārists, tad Zviedrijas premjers, ja nemaldos, tad kaut kādi NATO militāristi, tad kaut kādi ASV atvaļinātie ģenerāļi un visi mūsu mēdiji
Pie kara pierod ,tāpēc kā variants ,tie izteikumi ir ar mērķi uzturēt aktuālu ''Krievijas problēmu '' Rietumos ,lai varētu turpināt atbalstīt Ukrainu .
Un pabīdīt malā visādas ''love ,not hate'' sniegpārsliņas ,kurām liekas ,ka visa tā bruņošanās tak ir tik vecmodīga un nevajadzīgi maskulīna - labāk nokrāsot zilus matus un stāvēt ar plakātiņu.
| | Offline | | |
| Arsm3ns | | 07. Mar 2024, 06:54 |
#8823
|
|  Kopš: 27. Oct 2023
Ziņojumi: 880
Braucu ar:
|
06 Mar 2024, 23:01:06 @voicish rakstīja:
06 Mar 2024, 22:21:39 @Arsm3ns rakstīja:
06 Mar 2024, 21:55:21 @Briize rakstīja:
06 Mar 2024, 20:57:22 @Samsasi rakstīja:
06 Mar 2024, 18:09:44 @Briize rakstīja:
https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/06.03.2...medium=frontpage
Nu tad beidzot sabiedētie prāti varēs atdzist un beigt baidīties...
man liekas, ka stāsts ir par to, ka šodien nav, bet pēc gadiem 5 pilnīgi reāli. Viss atkarīgs, kā ies Ukrainā. Un tas tikai nozīmē to, ka mums ir jāgatavojas tiesī tapat, kā to dara mūsu kaimiņi. Nevis jāklaigà par 5to pantu.
Kas ir paradoksāli, ka pēdējos 3 mēnešus visādi politiķi un militāristi visu laiku izplata paziņonumus, ka tūlīt nu būs mačilova NATO ar Krieviju un ka Baltijas valstis var sākt raut kreklu dirsā, tad Vācijas kaut kāds tur politiķis, tad Niderlandes kaut kāds militārists, tad Zviedrijas premjers, ja nemaldos, tad kaut kādi NATO militāristi, tad kaut kādi ASV atvaļinātie ģenerāļi un visi mūsu mēdiji to atspoguloja pēdējos mēnešos a tagad NBS paziņo, ka tā esot Kremļa propoganda - nopietni ?! Tad sanāk, ka mūsu oficiālie mēdiji izplata Kremļa propogandu ?!
man blakus topikā šāds pats jautājums bija  Vienkārši, vienā mēnesī sākās ziņas no visiem oficiālajiem un atgremojošiem infogetliņiem, vai tie rietumu vai rus, ka nu tik strelka ar putinu būs. Viens pret vienu, ja kāds nāks talkā kad putlers sitīs guļošo, tad medvedjevs pušku vilks no mēteļa 
Tā vien izskatās, ka tās smakas sākas no ļoti maz kanāliem un tad visi izvazā. Cita izskaidrojuma nav, kāpēc naratīvu var īsā laikā raustīt jebkurā virzienā.
Arsmen, tu šeit esi lielākais smakas vazātājs. Atgādini tādu neizdevušos vīrieti, kurš sēž uz savas plikās pakaļas un gaida, ka notiks kas tāds, kas satracinās paša vienmuļo ikdienu. Bet tā kā ikdiena nemainās, tad atliek ar maza vīreļa sašutumu tukši skandināt pa pasauli - kā tad tā, solīja tak, ka būs tā, bet re, nekas nav mainījies. Eh, visi ir nelieši/uzmetēji/pi&%ri!
Bez stresa, tu neesi viens, daudzās virtuvēs vakaros sēž Armenveidīgi neveiksminieki, kas ar īgnu seju kaldina plānu, kā atriebties visai pasaulei.
kas tev par personīgo sāpi  Sakārto tamponu, lai nespiež un skaties tālāk Ponrāmu un ziņo te, kurš izdevies kurš neizdevies viedoklis un novērojums
| | Offline | | |
| martins_usars | | 07. Mar 2024, 07:30 |
#8824
|
|  Kopš: 01. May 2023
Ziņojumi: 1026
Braucu ar: BMW 530i, VW Passat 2.0TDI, AR Giulia 2.0T
| Arsmen, šis bija kārtīgs pisaks un hdš vertuškā tieši pa maza vīrieša pasaules dominances plāniem  Tev jāizdomā labāks pretuzdirsiens, jo pagaidām rezultāts viennozīmīgi 1:0 pret tevi | | Offline | | |
| Samsasi | | 07. Mar 2024, 08:26 |
#8825
|
|  Kopš: 01. Nov 2014
Ziņojumi: 4580
Braucu ar:
| Pirms diviem gadiem krievs parādīja, ka ir neprognozējams mērkaķis ar rokasgrāmatu... Ar tādu kaimiņu labāk gatavoties karam, nekā saņemt karu negatavotam. Nu un protams daudz un dažādi faktori, lai tas notiktu.
Bet tas neatceļ to ka tikai katrs divsimtais krievs ir labs krievs. | | Offline | | |
| Kidd | | 07. Mar 2024, 14:22 |
#8826
|
|  Kopš: 18. May 2009
Ziņojumi: 8242
Braucu ar: 400Zs
| foršas ziņas..
https://www.tvnet.lv/7974854/vdd-rosina-apsudze...eputati-grevcovu | | Offline | | |
| uldens1 | | 07. Mar 2024, 16:20 |
#8827
|
|  Kopš: 28. Feb 2008
Ziņojumi: 16212
Braucu ar:
|
07 Mar 2024, 14:22:34 @Kidd rakstīja:
foršas ziņas..
https://www.tvnet.lv/7974854/vdd-rosina-apsudze...eputati-grevcovu
kas tur ir??Kaut kas labs??Gaidīt vakarā brēmaņa vaimanas  | | Offline | | |
| Samsasi | | 07. Mar 2024, 17:16 |
#8828
|
| Kopš: 01. Nov 2014
Ziņojumi: 4580
Braucu ar:
|
07 Mar 2024, 16:20:33 @uldens1 rakstīja:
07 Mar 2024, 14:22:34 @Kidd rakstīja:
foršas ziņas..
https://www.tvnet.lv/7974854/vdd-rosina-apsudze...eputati-grevcovu
kas tur ir??Kaut kas labs??Gaidīt vakarā brēmaņa vaimanas
Tu ar rudiju kopā dzīvo? | | Offline | | |
|
|
| uldens1 | | 07. Mar 2024, 17:17 |
#8829
|
| Kopš: 28. Feb 2008
Ziņojumi: 16212
Braucu ar:
|
07 Mar 2024, 17:16:47 @Samsasi rakstīja:
07 Mar 2024, 16:20:33 @uldens1 rakstīja:
07 Mar 2024, 14:22:34 @Kidd rakstīja:
foršas ziņas..
https://www.tvnet.lv/7974854/vdd-rosina-apsudze...eputati-grevcovu
kas tur ir??Kaut kas labs??Gaidīt vakarā brēmaņa vaimanas
Tu ar rudiju kopā dzīvo?
laikam,ik pa laikam feisbukā nākas sastapt | | Offline | | |
| Samsasi | | 07. Mar 2024, 17:40 |
#8830
|
| Kopš: 01. Nov 2014
Ziņojumi: 4580
Braucu ar:
| Slikti esi sakopis savu fb dārziņu , | | Offline | | |
| DeeCee | | 07. Mar 2024, 19:38 |
#8831
|
|  Kopš: 29. Jun 2007
No: Rīga
Ziņojumi: 9264
Braucu ar: Tenere 700 un Procaliber
| arī video
https://twitter.com/jurgen_nauditt/status/1765378742824656994
Ukrainian specialists are taking part in military operations in Sudan against Russian forces.
"Such actions for Kiev are part of a strategy aimed at undermining Russia's military and economic operations abroad, making the war more expensive for Moscow, while positioning Ukraine in the world as a bulwark against Russian incursions, including in regions in which the …”West does not want to be directly involved,” writes the Wall Street Journal.
Not to mention the fact that the “Wagnerites” have previously seized part of the gold mining fields in Sudan and are using this gold to finance the war in Ukraine.
P.S. And the west? Failing to push back the Houthis - they continue to sink ships and destroy submarine cables. | | Offline | | |
Lafter  | | 08. Mar 2024, 18:21 |
#8832
|
|  Kopš: 23. Sep 2007
Ziņojumi: 28686
Braucu ar: wv
| Mutual Frustrations Arise in U.S.-Ukraine Alliance
Ukrainian officials are disheartened about stalled aid. The Pentagon wants Kyiv to heed its advice on how to fight.
Share full article
451
Rubble of a building destroyed in Avdiivka, Ukraine.
Avdiivka, Ukraine, in October. U.S. officials say Ukraine defended the city too long and at too great a cost.Credit...Nicole Tung for The New York Times
Helene CooperEric SchmittThomas Gibbons-Neff
By Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt and Thomas Gibbons-Neff
Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt reported from Washington, and Thomas Gibbons-Neff from eastern Ukraine.
March 7, 2024
More than two years into their wartime alliance, the bond between the United States and Ukraine is showing signs of wear and tear, giving way to mutual frustration and a feeling that the relationship might be stuck in a bit of a rut.
It is the stuff that often strains relationships — finances, different priorities and complaints about not being heard.
For the Pentagon, the exasperation comes down to a single, recurring issue: American military strategists, including Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, believe that Ukraine needs to concentrate its forces on one big fight at a time. Instead, President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has vowed to drive Russia out of every inch of Ukraine, expends his forces in battles for towns that U.S. officials say lack strategic value.
The most recent example involved the battle for the eastern city of Avdiivka, which fell to Russia last month. U.S. officials say Ukraine defended Avdiivka too long and at too great a cost.
For its part, Ukraine is increasingly disheartened that American political paralysis has resulted in shortages of ammunition for troops on the front. As each day goes by without a fresh supply of munitions and artillery, and Ukrainian crews ration the shells they have, morale is suffering.
Mr. Zelensky promised a “renewal” of Ukraine’s military in its stagnant campaign against Russia when he dismissed his commanding general, Valery Zaluzhny, last month and named Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky, the head of his ground forces, to replace him.
Gen. Charles Q. Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was on the phone with General Syrsky the next day, as officials in the Biden administration tried to figure out whether they had found an ally in the Ukrainian military for what they see as the most likely route to success.
Image
President Biden walks down a sidewalk surrounded by green grass.
Ukrainian officials have frequently complained that the Biden administration has been slow to approve advanced weapons systems.Credit...Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times
The jury is still out. Some officials say General Syrsky may be more in sync with Mr. Zelensky than his predecessor.
“Zelensky has made a much more unified chain of command responsive to his leadership as well as advice from outside,” said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee and recently visited Ukraine.
Two other officials, however, worried whether the new military chief would be willing to push his boss in a direction he did not want to go.
Even now, months after a counteroffensive that failed because Ukraine, in the eyes of the Pentagon, did not take its advice, Kyiv is still too often unwilling to listen.
White House and Ukrainian officials both say that the failure of Congress so far to pass an emergency aid bill including $60.1 billion for Ukraine has already undermined the fight on the ground. The measure would rush badly needed artillery ammunition and air defense interceptors to Ukrainian forces.
But the Ukrainians have other frustrations with the United States. They have frequently complained that the Biden administration has been slow to approve advanced weapons systems that could cross perceived Russian red lines, from fighter jets to long-range missiles.
“We’ve been fiddling while Rome burns,” Emily Harding, a former American intelligence official, said during a Ukraine discussion last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “If we had not been dithering early on,” she added, “if we had actually provided the things that we should have provided, we would have been much better off now.”
Just a few miles from Russian trenches in eastern Ukraine, the crump of incoming Russian artillery shells from howitzers, rockets and mortars last Friday was almost nonstop. The Ukrainian response, marked by the sharp bang of outgoing fire, was noticeably less frequent.
In the basement of what used to be a small farmhouse, the shock wave of explosions above ground distinctly changed the air pressure in the cramped, cold room, where a Ukrainian soldier was busily adjusting drone equipment.
“The reasons the Russians can advance is because of the lack of ammunition,” said the soldier, who went by the call sign D.J. in keeping with military protocols. He added that he was frustrated by U.S. inaction, attributing the fall of Avdiivka to the United States’ failure to supply aid.
But a Ukrainian commander, who went by the call sign Chef, was far more forgiving. Had it not been for the United States, Ukrainian forces would still be trying to push the Russians out of Kyiv.
Image
Ukrainian soldiers in green camouflage fire a howitzer.
Ukrainian fighters firing at Russian targets in the direction of Avdiivka last month.Credit...Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
Neither the Americans nor the Ukrainians are heading for exit doors. Their commitment remains solid, as each side needs the other. The U.S. intelligence community still provides a substantial amount of real-time information to Ukraine’s military on Russian command posts, ammunition depots and other key nodes in Russian military lines. The Pentagon still hosts monthly Contact Group meetings to prod Ukraine’s partners to provide money, weapons and ammunition.
Perhaps most of all for the Biden administration, Ukraine is hollowing out the army of one of America’s biggest foes.
U.S. estimates put the number of Russian troops killed or wounded since the war started at around a staggering 350,000, according to American officials. Russia has also lost huge amounts of equipment; some 2,200 tanks out of 3,500 have been destroyed along with one-third of its armored vehicles, according to a congressional staff member who saw an intelligence assessment.
Even Russia’s victory in Avdiivka has come with considerable cost: A pro-war Russian military blogger said in a post that Russia had lost 16,000 men and 300 armored vehicles in its assault. (The blogger, Andrei Morozov, deleted the post late last month after what he said was a campaign of intimidation against him. He died the next day.)
“At the end of the day, make no mistake: Even those generals who might be frustrated with Ukraine are at the same time looking at the Russian casualties reports and equipment losses and they’re smiling,” said Dale Buckner, a former Army colonel who is the chief executive of Global Guardian, a U.S.-based security firm.
But Avdiivka was the kind of fight that American war planners would have preferred Ukraine to handle differently.
A former American commander with close ties to the Ukrainian armed forces said there was no reason to hold the city as long as Ukrainian forces did except to bleed Russia of more troops and equipment — sacrifices Moscow was more than willing to accept to claim victory.
Even after it became clear that Russian forces, with larger reinforcements, would prevail, Ukraine held out, rather than conduct a strategic withdrawal, U.S. officials said.
As a result, American frustration levels were high with the Ukrainians, especially Mr. Zelensky and the political leadership, according to a senior Western military official and the former U.S. commander. But the Biden administration has said Mr. Zelensky, as commander in chief, makes the call.
Ultimately, Ukraine’s chaotic retreat was a mistake, the former U.S. commander said. Hundreds of Ukrainian troops may have disappeared or been captured by the advancing Russian units, according to Western officials.
The disagreement over Avdiivka was a mirror image in reverse of Washington’s frustrations with the Ukrainian counteroffensive last summer. In that case, Mr. Austin and other American officials urged Ukraine to focus its assault on one main effort along the 600-mile front line and press to break through Russian fortifications there.
Image
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in a dark shirt stands at a lectern in front of Ukrainian and U.S. flags.
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine at the White House in December. American frustration with the Ukrainian leadership was high, according to a senior Western military official and a former U.S. commander.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
U.S. officials believed that General Zaluzhny had agreed with the American advice but that he could not convince his president. So instead of a single defining fight, Kyiv split up its troops, sending some to the east and some to other fronts, including in the south.
The counteroffensive failed. At the Pentagon, some officials say they do not consider last summer’s efforts to have been a counteroffensive at all.
“We say in the military, when you seek to attack everywhere, you can end up attacking nowhere — because your forces are spread too thin,” said James G. Stavridis, a retired admiral and the former supreme allied commander for Europe. “The Pentagon sees this as a mistake and will continue to offer advice to the Ukrainians along these lines.”
“The U.S. side is frustrated because they give military advice and it doesn’t feel like it’s being taken,” said Evelyn Farkas, a former senior Pentagon official for Ukraine and Russia who is now the executive director of the McCain Institute. “But the Ukrainians don’t like being micromanaged.”
On top of that, Dr. Farkas said, “our political system is shockingly unreliable right now.”
Pentagon officials are still giving advice on the military campaign they would like to see in 2024. Three U.S. military officials said in interviews that the United States wanted Ukraine to concentrate long-range strikes on “putting Crimea at risk,” a phrase that translates into attacking the Russian “land bridge” that traverses southern Ukraine and connects Russia to the Crimean Peninsula, which President Vladimir V. Putin seized in 2014.
Russian troops use the land bridge for resupply and logistics, and it is critical for their efforts in southern Ukraine and Crimea.
But again, Ukrainian frustration with American congressional paralysis is at play.
Western officials and military experts have warned that without U.S. assistance, a cascading collapse along the front is a real possibility this year.
Helene Cooper is a Pentagon correspondent. She was previously an editor, diplomatic correspondent and White House correspondent. More about Helene Cooper
Eric Schmitt is a national security correspondent for The Times, focusing on U.S. military affairs and counterterrorism issues overseas, topics he has reported on for more than three decades. More about Eric Schmitt
Thomas Gibbons-Neff is a Ukraine correspondent and a former Marine infantryman. More about Thomas Gibbons-Neff
-----------------
Gribās pļūtīt? Nejūties novērtēts? Neviens nepievērš uzmanību?
Spied zemāk.
Spama topiks
Jā! Man jūk komati. Tas dēļ ilga perioda komunicējot citās valodās.
| | Offline | | |
| bum_bumz | | 08. Mar 2024, 19:15 |
#8833
|
| Kopš: 05. Jan 2006
Ziņojumi: 6754
Braucu ar: E34
| Abi labi - Vovans izplānoja blitzkrieg 3 dienās, Džo gribēja vaņkas ar cepurēm nosist.
Frustrācijas jau būs arī nākotnē. Ja Eiropa un pati UA spēs pabarot konvenciālos stobrus un sist krievu, atkal nebūs labi  | | Offline | | |
| Lafter | | 10. Mar 2024, 19:35 |
#8834
|
| Kopš: 23. Sep 2007
Ziņojumi: 28686
Braucu ar: wv
| Links
-----------------
Gribās pļūtīt? Nejūties novērtēts? Neviens nepievērš uzmanību?
Spied zemāk.
Spama topiks
Jā! Man jūk komati. Tas dēļ ilga perioda komunicējot citās valodās.
| | Offline | | |
| Kasics | | 11. Mar 2024, 00:52 |
#8835
|
|  Kopš: 19. Feb 2004
No: Rīga
Ziņojumi: 2528
Braucu ar: kuģi pa bruģi.
|  Spied "Play", lai skatītos video! | | Offline | | |
| Lafter | | 11. Mar 2024, 23:30 |
#8836
|
| Kopš: 23. Sep 2007
Ziņojumi: 28686
Braucu ar: wv
| Biden’s Armageddon Moment: When Nuclear Detonation Seemed Possible in Ukraine
For a few weeks in October 2022, the White House was consumed in a crisis whose depths were not publicly acknowledged at the time. It was a glimpse of what seemed like a terrifying new era.
Image
President Biden walking through a factory with an American flag in the background.
On his trip to New York in October 2022, President Biden stopped for a tour of an I.B.M. plant. That night, he had a disturbing message for guests at a fund-raiser.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
David E. Sanger
By David E. Sanger
David E. Sanger is a White House and national security reporter and the author, with Mary K. Brooks, of the forthcoming “New Cold Wars: China’s Rise, Russia’s Invasion and America’s Struggle to Defend the West,” from which this article is adapted.
March 9, 2024
Sign up for the On Politics newsletter. Your guide to the 2024 elections. Get it sent to your inbox.
President Biden was standing in an Upper East Side townhouse owned by the businessman James Murdoch, the rebellious scion of the media empire, surrounded by liberal New York Democrats who had paid handsomely to come hear optimistic talk about the Biden agenda for the next few years.
It was Oct. 6, 2022, but what they heard instead that evening was a disturbing message that — though Mr. Biden didn’t say so — came straight from highly classified intercepted communications he had recently been briefed about, suggesting that President Vladimir V. Putin’s threats to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine might be turning into an operational plan.
For the “first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis,” he told the group, as they gathered amid Mr. Murdoch’s art collection, “we have a direct threat of the use of a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they’ve been going.” The gravity of his tone began to sink in: The president was talking about the prospect of the first wartime use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
ADVERTISEMENT
And not at some vague moment in the future. He meant in the next few weeks.
Image
A man in camouflage standing in a field near a crushed tank that is lying partly in a pond.
The commander of a Ukrainian assault unit, standing by an abandoned Russian tank in October 2022. That period appears to have been the high-water mark of Ukraine’s military performance over the past two years.Credit...Ivor Prickett for The New York Times
The intercepts revealed that for the first time since the war in Ukraine had broken out, there were frequent conversations within the Russian military about reaching into the nuclear arsenal. Some were just “various forms of chatter,” one official said. But others involved the units that would be responsible for moving or deploying the weapons. The most alarming of the intercepts revealed that one of the most senior Russian military commanders was explicitly discussing the logistics of detonating a weapon on the battlefield.
Fortunately, Mr. Biden was told in his briefings, there was no evidence of weapons being moved. But soon the C.I.A. was warning that, under a singular scenario in which Ukrainian forces decimated Russian defensive lines and looked as if they might try to retake Crimea — a possibility that seemed imaginable that fall — the likelihood of nuclear use might rise to 50 percent or even higher. That “got everyone’s attention fast,” said an official involved in the discussions.
No one knew how to assess the accuracy of that estimate: the factors that play into decisions to use nuclear weapons, or even to threaten their use, were too abstract, too dependent on human emotion and accident, to measure with precision. But it wasn’t the kind of warning any American president could dismiss.
Image
Gen. Mark A. Milley in uniform, carrying a folder.
Gen. Mark A. Milley in November 2022, while he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and contending with a possible nuclear threat from Russia.Credit...Yuri Gripas for The New York Times
ADVERTISEMENT
“It’s the nuclear paradox,” Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until he retired in September, told me over dinner last summer at his official quarters above the Potomac River, recalling the warnings he had issued in the Situation Room.
He added: “The more successful the Ukrainians are at ousting the Russian invasion, the more likely Putin is to threaten to use a bomb — or reach for it.”
This account of what happened in those October days — as it happened, just before the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest the United States and the Soviet Union ever came to a nuclear exchange in the Cold War — was reconstructed in interviews I conducted over the past 18 months with administration officials, diplomats, leaders of NATO nations and military officials who recounted the depth of their fear in those weeks.
Though the crisis passed, and Russia now appears to have gained an upper hand on the battlefield as Ukraine runs low on ammunition, almost all of the officials described those weeks as a glimpse of a terrifying new era in which nuclear weapons were back at the center of superpower competition.
ADVERTISEMENT
While news that Russia was considering using a nuclear weapon became public at the time, the interviews underscored that the worries at the White House and the Pentagon ran far deeper than were acknowledged then, and that extensive efforts were made to prepare for the possibility. When Mr. Biden mused aloud that evening that “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily” make use of “a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon,” he was reflecting urgent preparations being made for a U.S. reaction. Other details of extensive White House planning were published in a New York Times opinion piece by W.J. Hennigan and by Jim Sciutto of CNN.
Mr. Biden said he thought Mr. Putin was capable of pulling the trigger. “We’ve got a guy I know fairly well,” he said of the Russian leader. “He is not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming.”
Since then, the battlefield advantage has changed dramatically, and October 2022 now looks like the high-water mark of Ukraine’s military performance over the past two years. Yet Mr. Putin has now made a new set of nuclear threats, during his equivalent of the State of the Union address in Moscow in late February. He said that any NATO countries that were helping Ukraine strike Russian territory with cruise missiles, or that might consider sending their own troops into battle, “must, in the end, understand” that “all this truly threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons, and therefore the destruction of civilization.”
Image
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia is seen on a screen superimposed with the reflection of a woman looking at him.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia made a new set of nuclear threats during his speech to the nation in late February. Credit...Maxim Shemetov/Reuters
“We also have weapons that can strike targets on their territory,” Mr. Putin said. “Do they not understand this?”
Mr. Putin was speaking about Russian medium-range weapons that could strike anywhere in Europe, or his intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the United States. But the scare in 2022 involved so-called battlefield nukes: tactical weapons small enough to be loaded into an artillery shell and designed to eviscerate a military unit or a few city blocks.
At least initially, their use would look nothing like an all-out nuclear exchange, the great fear of the Cold War. The effects would be horrific but limited to a relatively small geographic area — perhaps detonated over the Black Sea, or blasted into a Ukrainian military base.
Yet the White House concern ran so deep that task forces met to map out a response. Administration officials said that the United States’ countermove would have to be nonnuclear. But they quickly added that there would have to be some kind of dramatic reaction — perhaps even a conventional attack on the units that had launched the nuclear weapons — or they would risk emboldening not only Mr. Putin but every other authoritarian with a nuclear arsenal, large or small.
Yet as was made clear in Mr. Biden’s “Armageddon speech” — as White House officials came to call it — no one knew what kind of nuclear demonstration Mr. Putin had in mind. Some believed that the public warnings Russia was making that Ukraine was preparing to use a giant “dirty bomb,” a weapon that spews radiological waste, was a pretext for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
The wargaming at the Pentagon and at think tanks around Washington imagined that Mr. Putin’s use of a tactical weapon — perhaps followed by a threat to detonate more — could come in a variety of circumstances. One simulation envisioned a successful Ukrainian counteroffensive that imperiled Mr. Putin’s hold on Crimea. Another involved a demand from Moscow that the West halt all military support for the Ukrainians: no more tanks, no more missiles, no more ammunition. The aim would be to split NATO; in the tabletop simulation I was permitted to observe, the detonation served that purpose.
To forestall nuclear use, in the days around Mr. Biden’s fund-raiser appearance Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken called his Russian counterpart, as did Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and the national security adviser, Jake Sullivan. Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, was going on a planned visit to Beijing; he was prepped to brief Xi Jinping, China’s president, about the intelligence and urge him to make both public and private statements to Russia warning that there was no place in the Ukraine conflict for the use of nuclear weapons. Mr. Xi made the public statement; it is unclear what, if anything, he signaled in private.
Mr. Biden, meanwhile, sent a message to Mr. Putin that they had to set up an urgent meeting of emissaries. Mr. Putin sent Sergei Naryshkin, head of the S.V.R., the Russian foreign intelligence service that had pulled off the Solar Winds attack, an ingenious cyberattack that had struck a wide swath of U.S. government departments and corporate America. Mr. Biden chose William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director and former U.S. ambassador to Russia, who is now his go-to troubleshooter for a variety of the toughest national security problems, most recently getting a temporary cease-fire and the release of hostages held by Hamas.
Image
Sergei Naryshkin, the head of Russia’s foreign intelligence service.
Sergei Naryshkin, the head of Russia’s foreign intelligence service.Credit...Evgenia Novozhenina/Reuters
Image
C.I.A. Director William J. Burns, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia.
C.I.A. Director William J. Burns, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia.Credit...Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times
Mr. Burns told me that the two men saw each other on a mid-November day in 2022. But while Mr. Burns arrived to warn what would befall Russia if it used a nuclear weapon, Mr. Naryshkin apparently thought the C.I.A. director had been sent to negotiate an armistice agreement that would end the war. He told Mr. Burns that any such negotiation had to begin with an understanding that Russia would get to keep any land that was currently under its control.
It took some time for Mr. Burns to disabuse Mr. Naryshkin of the idea that the United States was ready to trade away Ukrainian territory for peace. Finally, they turned to the topic Mr. Burns had traveled around the world to discuss: what the United States and its allies were prepared to do to Russia if Mr. Putin made good on his nuclear threats.
“I made it clear,” Mr. Burns later recalled from his seventh-floor office at the C.I.A., that “there would be clear consequences for Russia.” Just how specific Mr. Burns was about the nature of the American response was left murky by American officials. He wanted to be detailed enough to deter a Russian attack, but avoid telegraphing Mr. Biden’s exact reaction.
“Naryshkin swore that he understood and that Putin did not intend to use a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Burns said.
David E. Sanger covers the Biden administration and national security. He has been a Times journalist for more than four decades and has written several books on challenges to American national security.
-----------------
Gribās pļūtīt? Nejūties novērtēts? Neviens nepievērš uzmanību?
Spied zemāk.
Spama topiks
Jā! Man jūk komati. Tas dēļ ilga perioda komunicējot citās valodās.
| | Offline | | |
|
|
| Samsasi | | 17. Mar 2024, 12:58 |
#8837
|
| Kopš: 01. Nov 2014
Ziņojumi: 4580
Braucu ar:
| par TAURUS
https://www.focus.de/politik/leak-aus-geheimsit...d_259767393.html | | Offline | | |
| Lafter | | 17. Mar 2024, 13:05 |
#8838
|
| Kopš: 23. Sep 2007
Ziņojumi: 28686
Braucu ar: wv
|
17 Mar 2024, 12:58:57 @Samsasi rakstīja:
par TAURUS
https://www.focus.de/politik/leak-aus-geheimsit...d_259767393.html
Nu tàtad nevajag dot. Pat nedrīkst! Jo viñiem uzticēt noslēpumu dotajā brīdī- tas pats, kas putinam aizsūtīt visu specifikāciju pa pastu. Ar pilnu info. (Diemžēl- bet fakts.)
P.s
Liekot linku izmanto Url opciju. Tas s! Pēdējais bieži sabojā visu lapu [ Šo ziņu laboja Lafter, 17 Mar 2024, 13:06:32 ]
-----------------
Gribās pļūtīt? Nejūties novērtēts? Neviens nepievērš uzmanību?
Spied zemāk.
Spama topiks
Jā! Man jūk komati. Tas dēļ ilga perioda komunicējot citās valodās.
| | Offline | | |
| Samsasi | | 18. Mar 2024, 23:25 |
#8839
|
| Kopš: 01. Nov 2014
Ziņojumi: 4580
Braucu ar:
| Kas ar trampu? Neesot pusjards ko iemaksāt | | Offline | | |
| Lafter | | 19. Mar 2024, 08:56 |
#8840
|
| Kopš: 23. Sep 2007
Ziņojumi: 28686
Braucu ar: wv
| Vinam ir problēmas jā!
NYT-
Trump Spurned by 30 Companies as He Seeks Bond in $454 Million Judgment
Donald J. Trump’s lawyers said in a court filing that he faces “insurmountable difficulties” as he tries to raise cash for the civil fraud penalty he faces in New York.
Image
Donald Trump in a navy suit and blue tie stands behind a barricade in a court hallway.
Donald J. Trump’s filing one week before the bond is due raised the prospect that the former president might now face a financial crisis.Credit...Maansi Srivastava/The New York Times
By Ben Protess, Maggie Haberman and Kate Christobek
March 18, 2024
Donald J. Trump’s lawyers disclosed on Monday that he had failed to secure a roughly half-billion dollar bond in his civil fraud case in New York, raising the prospect that the state could seek to freeze some of his bank accounts and seize some of his marquee properties.
The court filing, coming one week before the bond is due, suggested that the former president might soon face a financial crisis unless an appeals court comes to his rescue.
Mr. Trump has asked the appeals court to pause the $454 million judgment that a New York judge imposed on Mr. Trump in the fraud case last month, or accept a bond of only $100 million. Otherwise, the New York attorney general’s office, which brought the case, might soon move to collect from Mr. Trump.
Still, even if the higher court rejects his appeal, Mr. Trump is not entirely out of options. He might appeal to the state’s highest court, quickly sell an asset or seek help from a wealthy supporter.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Trump’s team has also left the door open to exploring a bankruptcy for corporate entities implicated in the case, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. That option, however, is politically fraught during a presidential race in which he is the presumptive Republican nominee, and for now it appears unlikely.
The judge in the civil fraud case, Arthur F. Engoron, levied the $454 million penalty and other punishments after concluding that Mr. Trump had fraudulently inflated his net worth to obtain favorable loans and other benefits. The case, brought by the New York attorney general, Letitia James, has posed a grave financial threat to Mr. Trump.
The former president has been unable to secure the full bond, his lawyers said in the court filing on Monday, calling it a “practical impossibility” despite “diligent efforts.” Those efforts included approaching about 30 companies that provide appeal bonds, and yet, the lawyers said, he has encountered “insurmountable difficulties.”
The company providing the bond would essentially promise to cover Mr. Trump’s judgment if he lost an appeal and failed to pay. In exchange, he would pledge cash and other liquid assets as collateral, and he would pay the company a fee as high as $20 million.
ADVERTISEMENT
But Mr. Trump does not have enough liquidity to obtain the bond. The company would require Mr. Trump to pledge more than $550 million in cash and securities as collateral — a sum he simply does not have.
Although the former president boasts of his billions, his net worth is derived largely from the value of his real estate, which bond companies rarely accept as collateral. Mr. Trump has more than $350 million in cash, a recent New York Times analysis found, far short of what he needs.
He might have to post an appeal bond worth more than $454 million — possibly above $500 million, to reflect the interest he will owe — in order to prevent Ms. James from seizing his assets on March 25.
Under the law, Ms. James could have moved to collect from Mr. Trump as soon as Justice Engoron ruled, but she offered a 30-day grace period, until March 25. It is unclear whether she will provide Mr. Trump extra time or if she will move swiftly to collect. Nor is it clear whether the appellate court will rule on his plea for help before the deadline.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Trump could also seek to appeal to New York’s highest court, and it is unclear whether Ms. James will hold off on the seizure while he pursues that route.
A spokeswoman for Ms. James did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Trump has denied all wrongdoing and claimed that Ms. James and Justice Engoron, both Democrats, are out to get him.
“This is a motion to stay the unjust, unconstitutional, un-American judgment from New York Judge Arthur Engoron in a political witch hunt brought by a corrupt attorney general,” Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, said in a statement. “A bond of this size would be an abuse of the law, contradict bedrock principles of our republic, and fundamentally undermine the rule of law in New York.”
The looming deadline could not come at a worse time for Mr. Trump. He also faces four criminal indictments, including one in Manhattan that is tentatively set for trial in mid-April.
ADVERTISEMENT
And just last week he finalized a $91.6 million bond in a defamation case he recently lost to the writer E. Jean Carroll, a costly deal that drained him of precious cash.
Mr. Trump, who obtained that bond from the insurance giant Chubb, pledged an investment account at Charles Schwab as collateral, records show. He most likely pledged more than $100 million in cash and stocks and bonds that he could sell in a hurry — investments that are now no longer available for him to use in the civil fraud case.
A nearly $500 million bond, Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote on Monday, “is unprecedented for a private company.”
Yet Mr. Trump’s legal team “devoted a substantial amount of time, money, and effort” to finding one, according to a court filing by Alan Garten, the top lawyer at Mr. Trump’s family business.
Using four separate brokers, the lawyers approached more than two dozen companies that provide appellate bonds, including Chubb and Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate run for decades by Warren E. Buffett, Mr. Garten said. He added that most of the companies were either unable or unwilling to handle a bond of this size, and that none were willing to accept property as collateral.
Their best bet appeared to be Chubb, but within the past week, Chubb notified Mr. Trump’s lawyers that it, too, could not accept property as collateral.
“This presents a major obstacle,” Mr. Garten wrote.
Mr. Trump’s company has not ruled out the possibility of having the corporate entities declare bankruptcy, the people with knowledge of the discussions said. That move would automatically halt the judgment against those entities and prevent Ms. James from seizing some of the former president’s properties.
But Mr. Trump, scarred from an experience in the 1990s when some of his companies filed for bankruptcy, is likely to balk at a filing.
And even if he supported it, bankruptcy — which Mr. Trump used to describe derisively as “the b-word” — might not be a cure-all, legal experts said. Seeking court protection could trigger defaults in loans he holds, and would most likely set off litigation over whether Mr. Trump is still responsible to pay his company’s debts.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers on Monday also submitted a filing from one of his insurance brokers, Gary Giulietti, who said his team had for several weeks been “scouring the market” for a bond.
“Simply put, a bond of this size is rarely, if ever, seen,” he wrote.
Mr. Giulietti, who testified as an expert witness at the trial, also occasionally golfs and dines with Mr. Trump.
In his decision, Justice Engoron criticized his testimony, saying that in more than 20 years on the bench, he had never encountered an expert witness who “not only was a close personal friend of a party, but also had a personal financial interest in the outcome of the case.”
-----------------
Gribās pļūtīt? Nejūties novērtēts? Neviens nepievērš uzmanību?
Spied zemāk.
Spama topiks
Jā! Man jūk komati. Tas dēļ ilga perioda komunicējot citās valodās.
| | Offline | | |
|
Moderatori: 968-jk, AV, BigArchi, BlackMagicWoman, Czars, GirtzB, Lafter, PERFS, RVR, SteelRat, VLD, linda, mrc, noisex, smudo
|
