This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
Don't know if the drop and the explosions match-can 4 have been designated for each target?
Kim Jong-un has called his army the ‘strongest in the world’ but they are vulnerable to malnutrition, and none have seen combat or know the terrain in Russia’s war
Depending on whom you ask, they are the boost that Russian forces need to make a significant breakthrough in Ukraine, or they are simple cannon fodder, destined for repatriation in body bags.
After weeks of speculation, Nato and the Pentagon have confirmed that around 10,000 North Korean troops are in Russia, with most massing near Ukraine’s border in Kursk, where the Kremlin’s forces have struggled to repel a Ukrainian incursion.
US officials believe the North Koreans could enter the conflict within days, as the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, pleads with his country’s allies to “stop watching” while his troops prepare to confront a new and untested enemy.
It is too early to say how the Russian-North Korean “blood alliance” will change the dynamics of the conflict. The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said Russia had been training them to use artillery, drones and “basic infantry operations, including trench clearing, indicating that they fully intend to use these forces in frontline operations”.
But not one of the young men drafted from Kim Jong-un’s regular army of around 1 million – the “strongest in the world”, according to Kim – has seen combat. And they will be fighting on unfamiliar territory, with new weapons and in uniforms bearing the flag of a country – Russia – they know little about.
While their arrival relieves pressure on Russia to draft more of its own citizens, with the US estimating that more than 500,000 Russians have been killed or wounded since the war started in February 2022 – experts believe the military dividends for the Kremlin will be limited.
North Korean pilots flew during the Vietnam war, and the country provided military advisers and air force personnel to Egypt during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, as well as military aid to Syria.
But North Korea has not fought in a major war since the early 1950s, when a three-year conflict between North and South ended in an uncomfortable truce but not a peace treaty.
The soldiers, thought to be mostly in their teens or early 20s, have been trained in mountainous North Korea and have no experience of the large, flat battlefields of Ukraine, according to experts.
Russia appears to have armed more than 7,000 North Korean soldiers positioned near the border with Ukraine with 60mm mortars, AK-12 rifles, machine guns, sniper rifles, anti-tank guided missiles and anti-tank grenade launchers, as well as night vision equipment, the Yonhap news agency said, citing Ukraine’s intelligence agency.
“This deployment is historic for North Korea, which has previously sent advisory or specialist groups abroad but never a large ground force,” the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a US thinktank, said in an online post.
The North Korean forces in Russia are thought to include about 500 officers and a small number of generals, as well as members of the Storm Corps, elite troops who are better trained – and fed – than most of their comrades, who are poorly equipped and vulnerable to illness and malnutrition.
In 2017, a North Korean soldier who made a frantic escape across the border – barely surviving multiple gunshot wounds from his own side – was found by the South Korean doctors who saved him to have a 27cm intestinal worm and a host of other parasites in his system. His stomach contents reflected a poor diet – cheaper corn instead of rice – and this for a staff sergeant said to be from the relatively elite border guard. South Korean researchers in 2015 cited elevated rates of chronic hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis and parasites among North Korean defectors.
Provided they survive, the transplanted troops could benefit from their time on the Ukrainian front, according to former North Korean soldiers who say many will see their tour as a source of pride. It will also an opportunity to earn extra money and, perhaps, secure better treatment for their families who, according to South Korean military intelligence, have been moved en masse to unknown locations to keep the deployment secret.
“They are too young and won’t understand exactly what it means,” said Lee Woong-gil, a former member of the Storm Corps who defected to the South in 2007. “They will just consider it an honour to be selected as the ones to go to Russia among the many North Korean soldiers. But I think most of them are unlikely to come back home alive.”
Most of their wages will go directly to the regime – potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign currency that is rumoured to form part of a deal Kim reached with Vladimir Putin this summer. Depending on how long the conflict lasts and the number of North Korean troops involved, their mutual defence agreement could include the transfer of sophisticated Russian weapons technology in return for North Korean ammunition, missiles and personnel.
Reports of dead and wounded soldiers would have little impact on the North Korean army – state media claimed last month that 1.4 million people had applied to join or return to the army in the space of a week. But significant losses would deal a blow to Kim should the news ever get past the country’s tightly controlled propaganda machine.
“Kim Jong-un is taking a big gamble,” said Ahn Chan-il, a former North Korean army first lieutenant who is now head of the World Institute for North Korean Studies, a thinktank in Seoul. “If there are no large casualty numbers, he will get what he wants to some extent. But things will change a lot if many of his soldiers die in battle.”
The coming weeks will tell if the North Korean troops are more than poorly prepared, unwitting mercenaries Kim has offered up to enrich and strengthen his regime.
Choi Jung-hoon, a former first lieutenant in North Korea’s army who now leads an activist group in Seoul, said his “heart ached” when he saw a Ukraine-released video purporting to show young North Korean soldiers lining up to collect their Russian military fatigues and equipment last month.
“None would think they are going to Russia to die,” Choi said. “But I think they’re cannon fodder because they will be sent to the most dangerous sites. I’m sure they will be killed.”
www.theguardian.com
Depending on whom you ask, they are the boost that Russian forces need to make a significant breakthrough in Ukraine, or they are simple cannon fodder, destined for repatriation in body bags.
After weeks of speculation, Nato and the Pentagon have confirmed that around 10,000 North Korean troops are in Russia, with most massing near Ukraine’s border in Kursk, where the Kremlin’s forces have struggled to repel a Ukrainian incursion.
US officials believe the North Koreans could enter the conflict within days, as the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, pleads with his country’s allies to “stop watching” while his troops prepare to confront a new and untested enemy.
It is too early to say how the Russian-North Korean “blood alliance” will change the dynamics of the conflict. The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said Russia had been training them to use artillery, drones and “basic infantry operations, including trench clearing, indicating that they fully intend to use these forces in frontline operations”.
But not one of the young men drafted from Kim Jong-un’s regular army of around 1 million – the “strongest in the world”, according to Kim – has seen combat. And they will be fighting on unfamiliar territory, with new weapons and in uniforms bearing the flag of a country – Russia – they know little about.
While their arrival relieves pressure on Russia to draft more of its own citizens, with the US estimating that more than 500,000 Russians have been killed or wounded since the war started in February 2022 – experts believe the military dividends for the Kremlin will be limited.
North Korean pilots flew during the Vietnam war, and the country provided military advisers and air force personnel to Egypt during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, as well as military aid to Syria.
But North Korea has not fought in a major war since the early 1950s, when a three-year conflict between North and South ended in an uncomfortable truce but not a peace treaty.
The soldiers, thought to be mostly in their teens or early 20s, have been trained in mountainous North Korea and have no experience of the large, flat battlefields of Ukraine, according to experts.
Russia appears to have armed more than 7,000 North Korean soldiers positioned near the border with Ukraine with 60mm mortars, AK-12 rifles, machine guns, sniper rifles, anti-tank guided missiles and anti-tank grenade launchers, as well as night vision equipment, the Yonhap news agency said, citing Ukraine’s intelligence agency.
“This deployment is historic for North Korea, which has previously sent advisory or specialist groups abroad but never a large ground force,” the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a US thinktank, said in an online post.
The North Korean forces in Russia are thought to include about 500 officers and a small number of generals, as well as members of the Storm Corps, elite troops who are better trained – and fed – than most of their comrades, who are poorly equipped and vulnerable to illness and malnutrition.
In 2017, a North Korean soldier who made a frantic escape across the border – barely surviving multiple gunshot wounds from his own side – was found by the South Korean doctors who saved him to have a 27cm intestinal worm and a host of other parasites in his system. His stomach contents reflected a poor diet – cheaper corn instead of rice – and this for a staff sergeant said to be from the relatively elite border guard. South Korean researchers in 2015 cited elevated rates of chronic hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis and parasites among North Korean defectors.
‘Most of them are unlikely to come back home alive’
Provided they survive, the transplanted troops could benefit from their time on the Ukrainian front, according to former North Korean soldiers who say many will see their tour as a source of pride. It will also an opportunity to earn extra money and, perhaps, secure better treatment for their families who, according to South Korean military intelligence, have been moved en masse to unknown locations to keep the deployment secret.
“They are too young and won’t understand exactly what it means,” said Lee Woong-gil, a former member of the Storm Corps who defected to the South in 2007. “They will just consider it an honour to be selected as the ones to go to Russia among the many North Korean soldiers. But I think most of them are unlikely to come back home alive.”
Most of their wages will go directly to the regime – potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign currency that is rumoured to form part of a deal Kim reached with Vladimir Putin this summer. Depending on how long the conflict lasts and the number of North Korean troops involved, their mutual defence agreement could include the transfer of sophisticated Russian weapons technology in return for North Korean ammunition, missiles and personnel.
Reports of dead and wounded soldiers would have little impact on the North Korean army – state media claimed last month that 1.4 million people had applied to join or return to the army in the space of a week. But significant losses would deal a blow to Kim should the news ever get past the country’s tightly controlled propaganda machine.
“Kim Jong-un is taking a big gamble,” said Ahn Chan-il, a former North Korean army first lieutenant who is now head of the World Institute for North Korean Studies, a thinktank in Seoul. “If there are no large casualty numbers, he will get what he wants to some extent. But things will change a lot if many of his soldiers die in battle.”
The coming weeks will tell if the North Korean troops are more than poorly prepared, unwitting mercenaries Kim has offered up to enrich and strengthen his regime.
Choi Jung-hoon, a former first lieutenant in North Korea’s army who now leads an activist group in Seoul, said his “heart ached” when he saw a Ukraine-released video purporting to show young North Korean soldiers lining up to collect their Russian military fatigues and equipment last month.
“None would think they are going to Russia to die,” Choi said. “But I think they’re cannon fodder because they will be sent to the most dangerous sites. I’m sure they will be killed.”
Inexperienced, poorly trained and underfed: the North Korean troops heading to Ukraine
Kim Jong-un has called his army the ‘strongest in the world’ but they are vulnerable to malnutrition, and none have seen combat or know the terrain in Russia’s war
"As we have reported in the past, the HAWK — an acronym for Homing All the Way Killer — first entered U.S. Army service back in 1959 but has seen numerous improvements since then. In general, however, the system uses a combination of radars providing high and low-altitude target detection, as well as target tracking and ‘illumination.’ After launch, the missiles use reflected radar energy to zero in on the ‘illuminated’ threat."
https://www.twz.com/air/first-inside-look-at-ukraines-hawk-air-defense-systems
“This company allegedly used not one, not two, but three different schemes to illegally transship sensitive American technology to Russia,” said Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement Matthew S. Axelrod of the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). “Today’s charges, against both the company and two top executives, are a prime example of our work to bring to justice both the companies and the corporate executives alleged to have circumvented our rules in search of a fatter bottom line.”
https://odessa-journal.com/a-compan...rted-technologies-to-russias-defense-industry
Good story about Ukraine utilizing satellite recon from outside sources to hit targets inside Russia.
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-gu...cy-russia-iceye-sar-satellite-imagery-1977397
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-gu...cy-russia-iceye-sar-satellite-imagery-1977397
Fascinating.
"By accessing ICEYE satellites, Ukraine snapped images of more than 4,000 targets, including 370 air bases and more than 230 locations housing air defense systems and intelligence gathering equipment, the agency said.
The satellites also captured images of more than 150 oil and fuel depots, nearly the same number of missile storage sites and ammunition dumps, and 17 naval bases, the GUR added.
In a veiled reference to its long-range strikes deep into Russian territory—which it sometimes takes explicit responsibility for—the GUR said the intelligence gathered by the satellites helped Kyiv monitor Russian-controlled swathes of Ukraine and "other places on the planet where the terrorist [R]ussia's military forces and assets are located."
Nearly two-fifths of the information gathered through ICEYE satellites was "was used to directly prepare strikes on the enemy," equivalent to billions of dollars in damage."
The GUR works alongside Ukraine's military, plus its SBU security agency, to carry out attacks on Russia's most prized assets, like jets, air defenses and boats. Newsweek has reached out to the GUR, SBU and General Staff for comment.
Without up-to-date intelligence for this type of long-range strike, how "would you know where to direct the drone 500 kilometers past your border?" asked Witold Witkowicz, who oversees much of ICEYE's cooperation with the GUR. Sometimes, Witkowicz said, images from SAR satellites may be the only way for Ukraine to see its targets.
The SAR satellites can monitor Russian sites double-digit times per day, whatever the weather or the hour, and through Russia's attempts to hide its movements, Witkowicz told Newsweek: "Imagine all the different things you can do with this information."
"The advantage of the ICEYE satellite lies in its ability to clearly detect clusters of even meticulously camouflaged mechanised [R]ussian units with its military equipment," the GUR said earlier this year, adding coyly: "What do you think happens to them afterwards?"
Maybe it was more of a sacrifice to satisfy Ukraine 
Last edited:
Every day, the Russian losses tally just seems to confirm that Putin's strategy is just to extend the war until Ukraine runs out if soldiers.
At least that's my view.
At least that's my view.
It was actually to extend the war until he can get Trump back in office.
That strategy may take a hit this week (but will not fully be disrupted/destroyed until January)
Averaging ~960/day moving forward hits 750k before Christmas....
But after January, US support for Ukraine may simply evaporate.
Hopefully other NATO countries have been saving up for a rainy day.
From June so may have already been posted.
"Despite Kamala Harris’ recent anointment as the new Democrat presidential candidate following Biden’s withdrawal therefrom, Trump’s reelection remains nevertheless a credible prospect. As such, a once-unwavering Euro-Atlantic relationship is still in peril. Though Europe managed to weather an already-difficult first Trump presidency, a second is all but certain to hit harder. A turbulent European political landscape and two far-reaching wars have already set the scene for whoever is inaugurated into the White House come January. Add to it a questionable American backing for Ukraine, a doubtful US adherence to NATO’s mutual defence clause, and a punitive US trade policy on a European economy dependent on exports to North America, and Europe will additionally face its ‘biggest test in transatlantic relations in postwar history’, were Trump to be reinstated.
With Biden still in office, both Washington and Brussels are gearing up for this prospect. Yet, little of Trump-proofing the Euro-Atlantic partnership can prepare the EU for what may soon be an existential risk to its unity. Were American leadership to wither, EU leaders will be forced to face dire dilemmas regarding the future of an ever more isolated and internally-fragmented bloc.
The 75th anniversary of the longest-standing military alliance in history may have very well been a time for homage were it not overshadowed by US internal politics. As NATO heads-of-state gathered in Washington in July formally to commemorate the milestone, the prospect of Trump leading the organisation’s backbone loomed ‘over every conversation’ at the summit, as said by an Eastern European diplomat.
Asked by the Washington Post if Trump was a recurring topic of conversation behind-the-scenes among European leaders, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre replied ‘you will not believe me if I said no’.
Long-term pledges seeking to safeguard — or rather ‘Trump-proof’ — the alliance’s commitment towards Ukraine’s defence have hence taken precedence. NATO leaders have agreed to shift responsibility for coordinating Ukrainian military support from the United States’ Pentagon to Germany’s southern city of Wiesbaden — unofficially seen as an attempt to strip leverage from a future Trump presidency.
(More)
"Despite Kamala Harris’ recent anointment as the new Democrat presidential candidate following Biden’s withdrawal therefrom, Trump’s reelection remains nevertheless a credible prospect. As such, a once-unwavering Euro-Atlantic relationship is still in peril. Though Europe managed to weather an already-difficult first Trump presidency, a second is all but certain to hit harder. A turbulent European political landscape and two far-reaching wars have already set the scene for whoever is inaugurated into the White House come January. Add to it a questionable American backing for Ukraine, a doubtful US adherence to NATO’s mutual defence clause, and a punitive US trade policy on a European economy dependent on exports to North America, and Europe will additionally face its ‘biggest test in transatlantic relations in postwar history’, were Trump to be reinstated.
With Biden still in office, both Washington and Brussels are gearing up for this prospect. Yet, little of Trump-proofing the Euro-Atlantic partnership can prepare the EU for what may soon be an existential risk to its unity. Were American leadership to wither, EU leaders will be forced to face dire dilemmas regarding the future of an ever more isolated and internally-fragmented bloc.
The 75th anniversary of the longest-standing military alliance in history may have very well been a time for homage were it not overshadowed by US internal politics. As NATO heads-of-state gathered in Washington in July formally to commemorate the milestone, the prospect of Trump leading the organisation’s backbone loomed ‘over every conversation’ at the summit, as said by an Eastern European diplomat.
Asked by the Washington Post if Trump was a recurring topic of conversation behind-the-scenes among European leaders, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre replied ‘you will not believe me if I said no’.
Long-term pledges seeking to safeguard — or rather ‘Trump-proof’ — the alliance’s commitment towards Ukraine’s defence have hence taken precedence. NATO leaders have agreed to shift responsibility for coordinating Ukrainian military support from the United States’ Pentagon to Germany’s southern city of Wiesbaden — unofficially seen as an attempt to strip leverage from a future Trump presidency.
(More)
"The Biden administration is planning to rush the last of over $6 billion remaining in Ukraine security assistance out the door by Inauguration Day, as the outgoing team prepares for the weapons flow to end once President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
The plan, described by two administration officials who were granted anonymity to discuss internal matters, is the only option the White House has to keep sending equipment to Ukraine to fight off continued Russian offensives. But the problems are immense. It normally takes months for munitions and equipment to get to Ukraine after an aid package is announced, so anything rolled out in the coming weeks would likely not fully arrive until well into the Trump administration, and the next commander in chief could halt the shipments before they’re on the ground.
One big holdup to pushing that aid out the door quickly is that the U.S. can only send equipment already on its shelves. While the money allocated reimburses the Pentagon for that equipment, it is dependent on how fast new artillery shells and weapons can be produced or contracted to replace them.
“We have been sending whatever industry can produce each month, but the problem is you can only send these things as they are produced,” said Mark Cancian, a former DOD budget official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The administration could dip into the stockpiles and send equipment more quickly, but it’s unclear the Pentagon would want to do that since it would affect its own readiness.”
The Pentagon will remain “on track to continue to provide the authorized assistance to support Ukraine,” Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Col. Charlie Dietz said. “We expect to have further assistance in the coming weeks.”
The money remaining from April’s $61 billion Ukraine aid package is tied up in two buckets. There is $4.3 billion to pull existing stocks and $2.1 billion in funding to put weapons on contract with U.S. defense companies.
During Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to Washington in September, Biden directed the Pentagon to allocate the remainder of the military aid that had been appropriated for Ukraine by Congress before the end of his term. That included plans to parcel out the remaining Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds, money that the government can use to put weapons in production for Ukraine instead of buying them off the shelf, by the end of 2024.
Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance have criticized the Biden administration for spending billions on military aid for Ukraine, with all of Europe collectively only managing to equal the amount Washington has made available. European leaders have said they need to do more for the country and will likely see Trump’s election as a forcing function to invest more heavily in their own defense and offer more support for Ukraine, if their own internal politics allows."
The plan, described by two administration officials who were granted anonymity to discuss internal matters, is the only option the White House has to keep sending equipment to Ukraine to fight off continued Russian offensives. But the problems are immense. It normally takes months for munitions and equipment to get to Ukraine after an aid package is announced, so anything rolled out in the coming weeks would likely not fully arrive until well into the Trump administration, and the next commander in chief could halt the shipments before they’re on the ground.
One big holdup to pushing that aid out the door quickly is that the U.S. can only send equipment already on its shelves. While the money allocated reimburses the Pentagon for that equipment, it is dependent on how fast new artillery shells and weapons can be produced or contracted to replace them.
“We have been sending whatever industry can produce each month, but the problem is you can only send these things as they are produced,” said Mark Cancian, a former DOD budget official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The administration could dip into the stockpiles and send equipment more quickly, but it’s unclear the Pentagon would want to do that since it would affect its own readiness.”
The Pentagon will remain “on track to continue to provide the authorized assistance to support Ukraine,” Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Col. Charlie Dietz said. “We expect to have further assistance in the coming weeks.”
The money remaining from April’s $61 billion Ukraine aid package is tied up in two buckets. There is $4.3 billion to pull existing stocks and $2.1 billion in funding to put weapons on contract with U.S. defense companies.
During Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to Washington in September, Biden directed the Pentagon to allocate the remainder of the military aid that had been appropriated for Ukraine by Congress before the end of his term. That included plans to parcel out the remaining Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds, money that the government can use to put weapons in production for Ukraine instead of buying them off the shelf, by the end of 2024.
Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance have criticized the Biden administration for spending billions on military aid for Ukraine, with all of Europe collectively only managing to equal the amount Washington has made available. European leaders have said they need to do more for the country and will likely see Trump’s election as a forcing function to invest more heavily in their own defense and offer more support for Ukraine, if their own internal politics allows."
BERLIN — Germany’s three-party ruling coalition collapsed on Wednesday evening after Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced he would fire his Finance Minister Christian Lindner over persistent disagreements about economic reforms.
Many in Germany had hoped that the victory of Donald Trump in the U.S. election earlier in the day would force the coalition to hold together over fears that the incoming president would give Europe’s biggest economy a hard ride — targeting its all-important car industry in a trade war.
Ultimately, however, not even the looming threat of Trump proved enough for the fractious parties to put aside their differences.
Crisis talks in the coalition of Scholz’s Social Democratic Party, the Greens and Lindner’s Free Democratic Party had come to a head after the FDP issued a paper with demands for liberal economic reforms that were difficult for the other two parties to accept.
During a dramatic meeting of leaders from the three parties on Wednesday evening in the chancellery, Lindner told Scholz he saw no way of continuing the coalition and urged him to pave the way for snap elections.
This resulted in Scholz announcing he would sack him, two people with knowledge of the discussions told POLITICO.
Although Scholz could potentially seek to continue ruling in a minority government, he has no majority to pass a budget, increasing the likelihood of a vote of no confidence and snap elections — potentially in early March.
The FDP is the smallest party in the coalition and is now polling at only four percent — below the threshold needed to make it into the German parliament in the next federal election, scheduled for September — meaning its leaders have been mulling a coalition break in order to save their political futures.
Lindner’s policy paper, leaked to the media last week, called for tax cuts and a scaling back of climate policies in order to stimulate economic growth — both positions that put the party at odds with his coalition partners.
Central to the government negotiations is the adoption of the 2025 budget by parliament — in which a gap of at least €2.4 billion, and potentially far more, needs to be filled — as well as an agreement on measures to revamp the country’s ailing economy.
Trump’s victory is expected to put heavy pressure on Europe’s largest economy. An analysis from the German Economic Institute (IW) estimates that a new trade war could cost Germany €180 billion over Trump’s four years in office."
This story is being updated.
www.politico.eu
Many in Germany had hoped that the victory of Donald Trump in the U.S. election earlier in the day would force the coalition to hold together over fears that the incoming president would give Europe’s biggest economy a hard ride — targeting its all-important car industry in a trade war.
Ultimately, however, not even the looming threat of Trump proved enough for the fractious parties to put aside their differences.
Crisis talks in the coalition of Scholz’s Social Democratic Party, the Greens and Lindner’s Free Democratic Party had come to a head after the FDP issued a paper with demands for liberal economic reforms that were difficult for the other two parties to accept.
During a dramatic meeting of leaders from the three parties on Wednesday evening in the chancellery, Lindner told Scholz he saw no way of continuing the coalition and urged him to pave the way for snap elections.
This resulted in Scholz announcing he would sack him, two people with knowledge of the discussions told POLITICO.
Although Scholz could potentially seek to continue ruling in a minority government, he has no majority to pass a budget, increasing the likelihood of a vote of no confidence and snap elections — potentially in early March.
The FDP is the smallest party in the coalition and is now polling at only four percent — below the threshold needed to make it into the German parliament in the next federal election, scheduled for September — meaning its leaders have been mulling a coalition break in order to save their political futures.
Lindner’s policy paper, leaked to the media last week, called for tax cuts and a scaling back of climate policies in order to stimulate economic growth — both positions that put the party at odds with his coalition partners.
Central to the government negotiations is the adoption of the 2025 budget by parliament — in which a gap of at least €2.4 billion, and potentially far more, needs to be filled — as well as an agreement on measures to revamp the country’s ailing economy.
Trump’s victory is expected to put heavy pressure on Europe’s largest economy. An analysis from the German Economic Institute (IW) estimates that a new trade war could cost Germany €180 billion over Trump’s four years in office."
This story is being updated.
German government coalition collapses as Scholz sacks Finance Minister Lindner
Christian Lindner’s liberals are making demands for economic reforms that are hard for other coalition members to accept.
www.politico.eu
After bludgeoning Russia's navy in the Black Sea, Ukraine is now going after a new batch of warships
The Ukrainian military carried out a drone attack on Russian warships in the Caspian Sea for the first time on Wednesday.
With clever weapons like this I wonder if they have or will go after the far eastern oil terminals on the Pacific.
After bludgeoning Russia's navy in the Black Sea, Ukraine is now going after a new batch of warships
The Ukrainian military carried out a drone attack on Russian warships in the Caspian Sea for the first time on Wednesday.news.yahoo.com
