poesel

Interview with Oberst Reisner, the Austrian guy that does regular videos about this war on Youtube. He is slightly more negative than the general consensus here. His predictions are that Russia will occupy Donezk, the war will be fought to a standstill in winter and continued next spring.
Interview in German:
https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Interview-mit-Markus-Reisner-zum-Krieg-in-der-Ukraine-Vier-Raketenwerfer-das-ist-reine-Symbolik-article23377155.html

Interview with Oberst Reisner, the Austrian guy that does regular videos about this war on Youtube. He is slightly more negative than the general consensus here. His predictions are that Russia will occupy Donezk, the war will be fought to a standstill in winter and continued next spring.
Interview in German:
https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Interview-mit-Markus-Reisner-zum-Krieg-in-der-Ukraine-Vier-Raketenwerfer-das-ist-reine-Symbolik-article23377155.html

So far Business Insider appears to be the only source. I found a few reports in other media but everyone was quoting Business Insider. I can't say too much about credibility but given how generally uninformed German mass media is w.r.t. the finer details of this war, I doubt there is much real fact checking going on.
On a personal note: Could we please reduce the general Germany-bashing a bit? As I have said here severals times, I am not much of a Scholz-fan myself and Scholz is not Germany. Moreover, as (I think) Napoleon once said, never assume ill will when you can explain something with incompetence instead... Third point: While I often share the irritation caused by German politics, we should still keep in mind (and here I have to kind of defend Scholz): Germany's democratically elected chancellor is still called Scholz, not Selenskyj or Duda or Biden. So, while it is legitimate to ask or even demand something of a country it is also legitimate for said country not to grant everything. Not meant inflammatory and, as I said, I don't like much of what Scholz & Co decided (or rather did not decide) in the past.

Eh, I blame the programme manager - he's the one responsible for making SURE discrete elements of the project interact properly. Mind you, no self respecting engineer would be using non-metric in the first place, so theres that.

why I remember the day when your news came on a piece of paper - you could write all the comments you wanted... but nobody could read them... you youngsters.  Then we'd started yelling at the TV....

This cartoon from 1982 aged like fine wine. 😀

Just because you don‘t share someone’s reasoning you can not (or least should not) call it BS. That is not a discussion, just flinging dirt.
Thanks for the warm words from the neighbours!
I guess Germany gets a lot of bashing because it is still seen as a big military power. It is not - it is a dwarf (relative to its economic power). The reason the Bundeswehr exists is because of the cold war. After that was won it had no perceived purpose at all (from the German public viewpoint) and it was underfunded into oblivion. That is where we are now. The promised 100b€ were just approved last week. It will be a while until this is a respectable army again.

Something that fortuitously dropped into my lap this morning that gets deeply into the German conundrum:   https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/germany-dependence-russian-energy-gas-oil-nord-stream?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Just because you don‘t share someone’s reasoning you can not (or least should not) call it BS. That is not a discussion, just flinging dirt.
Thanks for the warm words from the neighbours!
I guess Germany gets a lot of bashing because it is still seen as a big military power. It is not - it is a dwarf (relative to its economic power). The reason the Bundeswehr exists is because of the cold war. After that was won it had no perceived purpose at all (from the German public viewpoint) and it was underfunded into oblivion. That is where we are now. The promised 100b€ were just approved last week. It will be a while until this is a respectable army again.

I don't think Scholz is doing much wrong. Germany supports countries who send their Russian made material to Ukraine, but also sends German weapon systems like the powerful PzH 2000 and the Gepard Flakpanzer, not to mention the many Panzerfaust ATGM' s.  I don't see any justification to call that BS. There's a strange Germany bashing atmosphere in this thread, but I think Germany is doing all it can in a very difficult and complicated situation. 
Apart from that I'm not in favor of sending all available weapons to Ukraine because we don't have much left to start with. Rearmament will take years and years and Ukraine is getting enough weapons to stand their ground. In the meantime NATO has to rebuild it's strength and prepare for the time when the US will turn it's back on Europe.

I even haven't voted for this guy but this is stupid. He may be slow or cautious whatever you want to call it but he is not on the Russian side.
That would be the most interesting part. For Scholz to refuse delivery of German tanks by OTHER countries would be  politically impossible. If that gets approved and no nukes are raining on Spain, there could be hardly made an argument for Germany not to deliver tanks, too. That discussion will be fun.
But I haven't seen that piece hitting the German news so the show hasn't started, yet.
 
Edit: SPIEGEL has it but only in the short news so that is on

Ah, thanks. I just assumed it was blocked. Since the Baltics also run on broad gauge going through Belarus would at least seem possible.
Overview of rail gauges used in the world:

Is Ukraine still attacked from/through Belarus?
IIRC Ukraine plans(!) to switch to standard gauge. Starting with Lviv - Kiev, Lviv - Odessa and a 3rd line I've forgotten. But this will take years to complete.
 

The occupation regime in Kherson continues:
https://theins.ru/en/politics/251334

I had to read up on the different names for the MLRS systems to understand what Germany will deliver.
The tracked MLRS system was fielded by the US at the beginning of the 80s under the name M270. About 150 of them were bought by Germany a few years later and were used by the Bundeswehr under the name 'MARS' (for "Mittleres Artillerieraketensystem" "medium artillery system"). About 40 of the systems were upgraded to "MARS II" a few years ago, the rest was mothballed. MARS II should be equivalent to M270A1 but I'm not sure about that.
 
Greece will also deliver its stock of 150-200 pieces of BMP-1s to Ukraine and will in return receive a number of Marders from Germany to replace them. Exact conditions are not known (to me).
 
Edit: Germany will also deliver one air defense system IRIS-T SL. It was scheduled for another nation and will be rerouted to Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS-T

This ... doesnt make a lot of sense. I mean, it's true, but only in a trivial sense. Why is a single source important at all, let alone being the /first/ thing you bring up? Given the plethora of proven, safe, and economical renewable generation sources available ... I'm truly at a loss as to what point you think you're making.
So you can't use solar in BC. Fine - use wind or tidal or geothermal or hydro. You cant use solar or hydro in Samoa - that's fine, use wind or tidal. Etc. The "lack" of a single solution is a strength, not a weakness.

No, won't happen.
Two reasons: one, there is no political will. Except for the extreme right (10% votes) no party actively supports nuclear power. Two, it is not economically feasible. The companies that run the 3 reactors declined an extension. It is just too expensive compared to alternatives.
Building new plants takes decades and would be too late anyway.
Saudi-Arabia is investing heavily into solar power and the creation of hydrogen. They know that the time for oil is running out. But they have a lot of space with a lot of sunshine, a lot of money and the infrastructure to ship stuff from their ports all over the world. And the world need a lot of hydrogen for steel making and for powering heavy vehicles.
Russia has no such option.

No, won't happen.
Two reasons: one, there is no political will. Except for the extreme right (10% votes) no party actively supports nuclear power. Two, it is not economically feasible. The companies that run the 3 reactors declined an extension. It is just too expensive compared to alternatives.
Building new plants takes decades and would be too late anyway.
Saudi-Arabia is investing heavily into solar power and the creation of hydrogen. They know that the time for oil is running out. But they have a lot of space with a lot of sunshine, a lot of money and the infrastructure to ship stuff from their ports all over the world. And the world need a lot of hydrogen for steel making and for powering heavy vehicles.
Russia has no such option.

No, won't happen.
Two reasons: one, there is no political will. Except for the extreme right (10% votes) no party actively supports nuclear power. Two, it is not economically feasible. The companies that run the 3 reactors declined an extension. It is just too expensive compared to alternatives.
Building new plants takes decades and would be too late anyway.
Saudi-Arabia is investing heavily into solar power and the creation of hydrogen. They know that the time for oil is running out. But they have a lot of space with a lot of sunshine, a lot of money and the infrastructure to ship stuff from their ports all over the world. And the world need a lot of hydrogen for steel making and for powering heavy vehicles.
Russia has no such option.

No, won't happen.
Two reasons: one, there is no political will. Except for the extreme right (10% votes) no party actively supports nuclear power. Two, it is not economically feasible. The companies that run the 3 reactors declined an extension. It is just too expensive compared to alternatives.
Building new plants takes decades and would be too late anyway.
Saudi-Arabia is investing heavily into solar power and the creation of hydrogen. They know that the time for oil is running out. But they have a lot of space with a lot of sunshine, a lot of money and the infrastructure to ship stuff from their ports all over the world. And the world need a lot of hydrogen for steel making and for powering heavy vehicles.
Russia has no such option.

Guys - we were talking about Hungary and I remembered seeing that Venn diagram of it. So I dug it up and posted it. The point was to show that Hungary was on the bad end of all the three big conflicts of the 20th century. Which may explain some of the, lets say, erratic behaviour of the Hungarian government.
A bit similar to Poland actually.
And I'm not criticising any of both countries. I'm just saying that it is necessary to keep the history of a country in mind to understand its current behaviour.

Guys - we were talking about Hungary and I remembered seeing that Venn diagram of it. So I dug it up and posted it. The point was to show that Hungary was on the bad end of all the three big conflicts of the 20th century. Which may explain some of the, lets say, erratic behaviour of the Hungarian government.
A bit similar to Poland actually.
And I'm not criticising any of both countries. I'm just saying that it is necessary to keep the history of a country in mind to understand its current behaviour.

Guys - we were talking about Hungary and I remembered seeing that Venn diagram of it. So I dug it up and posted it. The point was to show that Hungary was on the bad end of all the three big conflicts of the 20th century. Which may explain some of the, lets say, erratic behaviour of the Hungarian government.
A bit similar to Poland actually.
And I'm not criticising any of both countries. I'm just saying that it is necessary to keep the history of a country in mind to understand its current behaviour.

Guys - we were talking about Hungary and I remembered seeing that Venn diagram of it. So I dug it up and posted it. The point was to show that Hungary was on the bad end of all the three big conflicts of the 20th century. Which may explain some of the, lets say, erratic behaviour of the Hungarian government.
A bit similar to Poland actually.
And I'm not criticising any of both countries. I'm just saying that it is necessary to keep the history of a country in mind to understand its current behaviour.

Guys - we were talking about Hungary and I remembered seeing that Venn diagram of it. So I dug it up and posted it. The point was to show that Hungary was on the bad end of all the three big conflicts of the 20th century. Which may explain some of the, lets say, erratic behaviour of the Hungarian government.
A bit similar to Poland actually.
And I'm not criticising any of both countries. I'm just saying that it is necessary to keep the history of a country in mind to understand its current behaviour.