Did he claim that though, I remember them campaigning on eat shit peasants.
Die Zeit found the perfect framing device in a young man the reporter just happened upon in front of the bomb crater south of Beirut, and apparently follows him around all night. He's perfect for the story. Too perfect.
He's looking for his family from one of the nearby damaged buildings (no worries happy ending). His father is Hezbollah, he's Hezbollah technically, but doesn't want to become a fighter against his father's wishes. They had a fight and he's the black sheep of the family now. He works at a hair salon and rather likes beautiful hair, no, beauty itself! He blames Hezbollah for this. He says there were of course weapons at the Hezbollah HQ next to his home. He thinks Israel is just too powerful; can't be beaten. He just wants to live in a real country with a proper army and a president.
This conversation with a young man who lives and grew up in the heart of the Hezbollah movement, who, as he says, is of course a member, like everyone in this neighborhood, but is not convinced, who criticizes Hezbollah so bluntly amidst a crowd of irritated Hezbollah guards, is completely improbable - and perhaps only possible for this reason. Nobody pays attention to us anymore.
OK now they're just fucking with me, right?
Ukraine is now losing ground in five different sections of the front line simultaneously. In Kursk, near Kupiansk, around Chasiv Yar, near Pokrovsk and near Vuhledar.
I have actually chilled out a bit on this. Russia is winning and this escalation isn't significant enough to change that. Russia isn't desperate at the moment, and therefore the cooler heads should easily have the upper hand against any nuke-crazy maniacs.
It's still an escalation obviously, so unless someone gives in at some point, we're all going to die. It's just that right now, I don't think the Russians have any reason to even consider going nuclear.
In two studies, experts reveal enormous deficits in the Bundeswehr's procurement and armaments system. There is a lack of money and speed, some scientists even speak of “state failure”.
“This offers no incentives for the arms industry because it is unclear how much money Germany wants to and can spend on defense after the 100 billion special fund expires,” said lead author and economist Guntram B. Wolff in a telephone conversation with the SZ. This is because defense companies that are thinking about building an additional factory have an investment horizon of ten years.
Give us more money!
Best part:
“At the current rate of procurement, it would take Germany up to almost 100 years to reach the military inventory of 20 years ago.” [...]
According to the scientists, Russia, on the other hand, would be able to provide the same quantities in a much shorter time. Moscow would need around half a year to produce the Bundeswehr's entire stock.
full article in German because archive.is no longer gets around SZ paywall
Brisante Studien zur Bundeswehr: Von wegen Zeitenwende
- September 2024, 18:01 Uhr
In zwei Studien zeigen Experten enorme Defizite im Beschaffungs- und Rüstungswesen der Bundeswehr auf. Es mangele an Geld und Tempo, manche Wissenschaftler sprechen gar von „Staatsversagen“.
Von Sina-Maria Schweikle, Berlin
Am Dienstag beginnen die Haushaltsberatungen im Deutschen Bundestag. Dabei spielt der Verteidigungsetat eine zentrale Rolle. Seit dem 24. Februar 2022, dem Beginn des russischen Angriffs auf die Ukraine, herrscht Krieg in Europa. Drei Tage später postulierte Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz in seiner Regierungserklärung, die Aggression markiere eine „Zeitenwende in der Geschichte unseres Kontinents“. Es werde getan, was notwendig sei, um den Frieden in Europa zu sichern. Deutschland müsse deutlich mehr in die Sicherheit des Landes investieren, um Freiheit und Demokratie zu schützen. „Das Ziel ist eine leistungsfähige, hochmoderne, fortschrittliche Bundeswehr, die uns zuverlässig schützt“, sagte Scholz damals.
Zweieinhalb Jahre später scheint dieses Ziel in weite Ferne gerückt zu sein. Nach einer Bestandsaufnahme bilanzieren Verteidigungs- und Sicherheitsexperten in einer am Montag veröffentlichten Studie der SPD-nahen Denkfabrik Dezernat Zukunft: „Staatsversagen“. Daran dürften auch die geplanten 53 Milliarden Euro im Verteidigungsetat nichts ändern.
Die Ampelspitzen hatten sich im Juli darauf geeinigt, dass die Bundeswehr im kommenden Jahr deutlich weniger zusätzliches Geld bekommt als von Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius (SPD) gefordert. Ab 2025 soll der Wehretat von derzeit 52 Milliarden Euro nur leicht um rund 1,2 Milliarden Euro steigen. Ab 2028, wenn das 100-Milliarden-Sondervermögen aufgebraucht ist, soll der reguläre Wehretat dann aber 80 Milliarden Euro betragen, um die Nato-Vorgaben zu erfüllen. „Mit dem Verteidigungsetat wird auch eine Lücke beschlossen.“
Sicherheitsexperten wie Christan Mölling von der Bertelsmann-Stiftung sehen diese Zahlen skeptisch. Er hat mit sieben weiteren Kolleginnen und Kollegen das Kapitel „Verteidigung“ in der Studie des Dezernats Zukunft verfasst und sagt im Gespräch mit der Süddeutschen Zeitung: „Mit dem Verteidigungsetat wird auch eine Lücke beschlossen: Wir wissen heute schon, dass für 2025 mehr als 53 Milliarden nötig wären. Bis 2030 fehlen rund 103 Milliarden Euro“, so Mölling.
Für ihre Studie haben die Expertinnen und Experten mit Politikern und Fachleuten gesprochen sowie öffentlich zugängliche Daten ausgewertet. Der deutsche Staat habe den Verfassungsauftrag, Streitkräfte zur Verteidigung zu befähigen, in den vergangenen Jahren nicht erfüllt, erfülle ihn heute nicht und könne ihn auch auf absehbare Zeit nicht erfüllen, heißt es in dem Bericht.
Für die militärische Verteidigungsfähigkeit müssten demnach in Deutschland kurz-, aber auch mittelfristig zusätzliche Finanzmittel aufgebracht werden. Ob die geplanten 80 Milliarden Euro ab 2028 für eine entsprechende Kehrtwende nicht ausreichen? Christian Mölling hat eher grundsätzliche Zweifel: „Ob es wirklich einen sprunghaften Anstieg um 30 Milliarden Euro im Jahr 2028 geben wird, steht in den Sternen.“ Den Rüstungsunternehmen fehlt das Vertrauen in die Haushaltsplanung
Eine Frage, die sich auch seine Kollegen vom Kieler Institut für Weltwirtschaft stellen. Dort haben Experten eine Studie mit dem Titel „Kriegstüchtig in Jahrzehnten: Europas und Deutschlands langsame Aufrüstung gegenüber Russland“ veröffentlicht. Wie Mölling und seine Kollegen haben auch die Kieler Wissenschaftler auf öffentlich zugängliche Daten zurückgegriffen. Und auch sie kritisieren die deutsche Haushaltsplanung. „Diese bietet keine Anreize für die Rüstungsindustrie, weil unklar ist, wie viel Geld Deutschland nach dem Auslaufen des 100-Milliarden-Sondervermögens für Verteidigung ausgeben will und kann“, sagte der Hauptautor und Ökonom Guntram B. Wolff in einem Telefonat mit der SZ. Denn Rüstungsunternehmen, die über den Bau einer zusätzlichen Fabrik nachdenken, hätten einen Investitionshorizont von zehn Jahren.
Mit Sorge blicken er und seine Kollegen auf das Beschaffungswesen der Bundeswehr: „Um den militärischen Bestand von vor 20 Jahren zu erreichen, bräuchte Deutschland beim derzeitigen Beschaffungstempo bis zu knapp 100 Jahre.“ Die Bestände des Jahres 2004 könnten beispielsweise beim derzeitigen Beschaffungstempo bei Kampfflugzeugen in rund 15 Jahren, bei Kampfpanzern in rund 40 Jahren und bei Artillerie-Haubitzen erst in fast 100 Jahren wieder erreicht werden.
Russland hingegen, so die Wissenschaftler, wäre in der Lage, die gleichen Mengen in sehr viel kürzerer Zeit bereitzustellen. Um den Gesamtbestand der Bundeswehr zu produzieren, bräuchte Moskau etwa ein halbes Jahr. Seit dem Angriff auf die Ukraine habe Putin seine Produktionskapazitäten bei Panzern verdreifacht und bei der weitreichenden Flugabwehr verdoppelt. Deutschland hingegen habe erst ein Jahr nach Beginn des russischen Angriffskrieges begonnen, seine Verteidigungsausgaben zu erhöhen, kritisieren die Autoren. Ein „Weiter so“ wäre angesichts der russischen Aggression fahrlässig und unverantwortlich.
This article by the FT (archive) about the Pokrovsk situation is nothing but bad news for the Ukrainian war effort and barely any attempt is made to suggest this could be turned around. Some excerpts:
Oleksandr Kovalenko, a military analyst at the Kyiv-based Information Resistance group, called the situation on the eastern edge of Pokrovsk “a complete defensive failure”.
“The trenches in front of Novohrodivka were empty. There was practically no Ukrainian army in the once 20,000-strong city,” she [MP Mariana Bezuhla] wrote in a scathing post.
In fact, Russian forces have advanced more rapidly in Donetsk since August 6 compared with the previous months, according to several military analysts, including Deep State, a Ukrainian group with close ties to Ukraine’s defence ministry that monitors frontline movements.
“There is complete chaos,” said Deep State’s Roman Pohorilyi pointing to the fall of key towns such as Novohrodivka and the looming threat to Pokrovsk.
“Ukraine committed reserves to Kursk, leaving fewer options to plug gaps elsewhere. Some of the more experienced brigades have been replaced by newer, less experienced units,” Lee said.
Soldiers who were mobilised this summer following the Ukrainian government’s new conscription laws meant to fill Kyiv’s dwindling ranks have been sent into the fray with little training or experience.
“They freeze . . . they don’t know what to do in real combat,” said a lieutenant whose troops are on the frontline near Pokrovsk. Many “turn and run at the first explosion”.
Soldiers in artillery units near Pokrovsk also highlighted a deficit in shells and a severe mismatch in firepower compared to Russian forces.
“Our shells are running out. We just don’t have enough,” said an artillery commander, noting that many resources had been redirected north to Kursk. For about the past month, his unit has had one shell for every six to eight fired by the Russians.
Russian forces, meanwhile, maintain a significant tactical advantage, bolstered by superior aviation and drone capabilities as well as in artillery, the CDS think-tank said.
So their command lost control, there are not enough people to man the trenches, the press-ganged slaves are less than helpful, Russia has more ammo, drones, air power, everything; and they made this worse by diverting all the good stuff to Kursk.
The Bundeswehr is buying 8.5 billion € worth of 155 mm shells from Rheinmetall. (n-tv | archive)
Actually it's a "framework contract" for "up to" 8.5 billion, upped from 1.3 billion previously. They want to start shipping by the beginning of 2025, and want to produce 100,000 per year by the second year, and 200,000 eventually. Mainly this is to replenish stocks in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Estonia, but Germany wants to send some of it to Ukraine.
This is... not that much. I guess Ukraine can hope to get three weeks worth of extra ammunition in 2026 from that.
There is this MEP, Nico Semsrott, a comedian, got elected to the European Parliament for a satire party. Anyway he's depressed and quitting, and promoting his book (which he didn't write or read apparently, based on his notes), so there's a bunch of recent interviews.
That guy is such a fucking lib. He describes how utterly pointless and soul-crushing this whole system is, and how it's 100% totally impossible to change literally anything as an MEP, and yet, he still sounds so very lib. Like how is that even possible? Zeit interview (in German)
Federal culture minister Roth commissioned an opinion from a constitutional expert, Christoph Möllers from Humboldt-University Berlin, about the legality of having recipients of art grants sign antisemitism provisions (like propsed in the state of Berlin for example). Yes, Claudio Roth is the one that clapped at the Berlinale during the anti-apartheid speech and then was hounded by the Springer press. In her defense she put out a statement about how she was clapping for the Israeli Jew, forgetting to mention there was a Palestinian on stage as well. That one.
So he looked at the legality of having artists and institutions declare their commitment to diversity, and against racism and antisemitism (in general and also according to something like the IHRA definition, which conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel), if they want to receive government grants.
Findings:
- Since basically everyone receives these grants in Germany, this is pretty delicate, because it de-facto impacts artistic freedom. The vast majority artists and cultural institutions cannot realistically get out of these pledges, even if they can in theory.
- A commitment to diversity is too vague and would leave the signees unsure about what they can and cannot do.
- A commitment against racism and antisemitism is more concrete, but the IHRA definition is subject to scientific debate, and the state weighing in on this violates academic freedom.
- In order to enforce this, a new control mechanism would have to be implemented, which would be rife for abuse and might narrow the space for artistic expression.
So basically he thinks this would be unconstitutional and a bad idea.
SBU assassinates a guy in Moscow. Ukrainian MP who defected.
Assassinating a guy for picking the winning side, after they already know they lost. These people must have a death wish.
*Mark