Nice guy

Bildung hat noch niemandem geschadet, außer dem, der sie nicht hat.
Und davon gibt es anscheinend immer mehr.

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@gepardtatze Beim lesen der Kommentare wird man ja irre!
Da wird Schlacht mit Krieg gleichgesetzt und auf der Basis gelabert.
Sind bestimmt die gleichen Helden, die Klima und Wetter gleich setzen oder an statt Luftverteidigung lieber die Luft abwehren.
Bitte macht letzteres!

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AndySch64494719 Moin, ist vielleicht einfach nur ein gewachsenes Demokratie Verständnis in NDS.
Ihr habt Eure kommunale Vertretung für die nächste Legislatur gewählt.
Andere bewerten in einer LTW die Politik der Bundesregierung für die laufende Legislatur.

[World Events | Geo Briefs @GlobalGeoWorld1]

France was already the country best-positioned to make this argument, before the Iran war even started.

It gets roughly 68-70% of its electricity from nuclear, the highest share in the world, and had already committed to building 6 new reactors under its 2026-2035 Multi-Annual Energy Plan (PPE 3), targeting 380-420 TWh/yr of nuclear output by 2030-2035.

This war is accelerating an existing policy direction, not creating a new one from scratch.

TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné warned back in June that France could face an actual "era of energy shortages" if Hormuz stayed closed just 2-3 months, and called for new pipeline infrastructure to reduce dependence on that chokepoint.

That is a important French-specific vulnerability directly traceable to this conflict, even though the EU's overall Gulf oil dependence is comparatively limited (~20% of European oil imports, ~5% of gas).

The complication for the "just build more nuclear" argument lies in France's own recent history shows nuclear isn't a clean escape hatch from these shocks either, in 2022, a huge chunk of France's own nuclear fleet (-80 TWh) was offline for corrosion repairs, forcing Europe to lean harder on gas at the worst possible moment.

Nuclear expansion helps long-term energy sovereignty, but new reactors take a decade-plus to build (Flamanville took nearly 17 years), it doesn't insulate France from a Hormuz-driven price shock happening right now.

That's the bigger structural shift Trump's Iran decision may end up contributing to, even if unintentionally, accelerating momentum for nuclear that was already building well before February.

Repost so others see the full context of the situation.

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese Wenn ich mir das Verhalten der Menschheit ansehe, dann erfordert es ein hohes Maß an Arroganz, um hier von intelligentem Verhalten zu sprechen.
Warum sollte eine hochentwickelte Intelligenz also Kontakt zu uns aufnehmen?

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese Nach innen gerichtet sagt Herr Putin was die Leute glauben sollen (Wir sind bedroht!).
Nach außen, was sie hören wollen (Wir wollen alle ein friedliches miteinander).
Die Drohung aber bleibt!

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@ronzheimer Ich finde es durchaus gerechtfertigt, zu verlangen, dass Artikel gelesen werden, bevor man sie ablehnt oder befürwortet. Somit kann ich Ihnen folgen.
Und die blaue Blase anscheinend auch, so wie die hier wieder rumzicken.

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese Putin hat bestimmt keine Angst vor einem Blackout. Der Kreml wird bestimmt über Generatoren versorgt. Und die Bevölkerung...
Die war und ist Herrn Putin egal!
Anders als auf der ukrainischen Seite.

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese Verurteilen? Jeder!
Aber das wird Herrn Putin mindestens zwei Meter am Steißbein vorbei gehen.
Die Ukraine braucht Patriot Flugkörper, das FREYA Projekt wird wohl kaum vor dem Winter verfügbar sein. 😔🤷🏻‍♂️

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@CarloMasala1 Wobei mir in der Sache der rote Faden fehlt. Mal verhandelt man mit Terroristen, dann wieder nicht.
Diese Ambivalenz beruht vielleicht auf eine mangelhafte strategische Ausrichtung.
Wäre schön wenn sich daraus Handlungsbedarf ableiten ließ.

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese Aber Russland war doch bedroht von der fiesen NATO....
Und natürlich auch von den ukrainischen Nazis.,..
Russland hatte doch keine Wahl....

Dieses Pack war noch nie anders, so kenne ich die seit den 80ern. Firmieren jetzt nur unter anderem Namen.

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese PDS-Fähigkeiten wurden bisher von den Alliierten, allen voran die USA bereit gestellt.
Angesichts der amerikanischen (un-) Zuverlässigkeit also genau der richtige Schritt.

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese Wenn ich die Waffenproduktion Russlands und die Situation, die sich durch den Abzug amerikanischer Fähigkeiten und den aktuellen Mangel seitens Europa diese auszugleichen, dann ergibt sich für Putin ein strategisches Fenster.
Klug wäre es dennoch nicht.

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese Russland droht laufend. Man sollte es in diesem Zusammenhang als Propaganda einordnen.
Nach innen gerichtet demonstriert man Stärke, das ist vermutlich das Ziel.

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese Flagge zeigen!
Eine Taktik, die schon in den 80ern erfolgreich war, damals noch gegen die UdSSR. Aber als direkter Nachfolger sollte es auch gegen Russland die nötige Abschreckung entfalten.

[Nico Lange @nicolange_]

CIA Director Ratcliffe in Moscow: A Warning to Putin and What Can Europe Do?

In recent days, NATO conducted a large-scale military exercise that took many by surprise. There was no major announcement. There was no dramatization. Instead, NATO simply stated the facts briefly, professionally, and dispassionately: Standard. Normal. Routine. Yet the scope of this exercise was anything but normal routine. It was a highly complex air-to-ground exercise right next to the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. It involved military capabilities that are only demonstrated when you want to send a message to the other side.

Over northern Poland, technologically advanced NATO aircraft flew circuit after circuit right next to the border with Kaliningrad. Precisely. Closely. Again, and again. Visible to every Russian air defense system. Visible to every analyst in the Russian armed forces and intelligence services. With transponders activated, visible to the whole world. These flights were not just exercise. They were an unmistakable message.

At the center of the action was the new American aircraft, the EA-37B Compass Call. A technologically advanced platform for electronic warfare. It can make communications impossible. It can jam radars. It can disable control systems for air defense systems and missiles. With the Compass Call, NATO is demonstrating what it could do in Kaliningrad if it had to.

This platform was accompanied by long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft, including some from Germany, and by aircraft conducting airspace surveillance. In addition, there were reconnaissance systems and flying “data vacuum cleaners” that capture everything that transmits radio signals. Fighter jets provided cover for the high-tech aircraft, and aerial refueling tankers ensured the necessary endurance. Polish ground forces were integrated into the maneuver. This was an air-ground integration of the kind that would be necessary in a real conflict.

Why this exercise? Why these capabilities? Why this visibility?

A U.S. intelligence assessment that was recently made public describes the situation soberly. Russia is testing vulnerabilities and reactions through hybrid operations, drone attacks, and even options for escalation in the Baltic states. The analytical assessment warns of limited but strategically significant attack scenarios against the Baltic states. It is not the only analysis in recent months pointing in this direction. The NATO exercise was the response to this. It is deterrence in the classic sense. One shows strength before it is needed. One demonstrates capabilities before one has to use them.

And then, almost simultaneously, a U.S. Air Force C-17 military transport lands in Moscow. On board: CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Four hours in the Kremlin. No photos. No statements. No transcripts. Only the flight path reveals significance.

This visit is reminiscent of another moment in the fall of 2022. CIA Director William Burns talks to his Russian counterpart. Secretly. Urgently. At the time, he delivers a clear warning: If Russia deploys tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, there will be serious consequences. The message was harsh and unambiguous. And it worked. The deterrent worked.

The current visit builds on that. It shows that the U.S. remains prepared to deliver messages in person. It shows that Washington is still there. With capabilities that Europe does not yet have. With authority that Europe does not yet possess.

But ambivalence must give us serious cause for concern. The U.S. is currently demonstrating strength in Europe, yet at the same time has been saying for months that it is withdrawing its military capabilities from Europe. What Trump wants is less presence and less engagement, which will result in fewer guarantees in the future. It is obvious that this poses greater risks to European security.

This leads to a logical question. Who in Europe would have the chutzpah, the brazenness, and the experience to deliver a tough and unambiguous message to the Kremlin? Who could speak with the same authority as Burns did in 2022 or Ratcliffe does today? Who could back up political statements with the same military credibility?

Europe does not have these capabilities. Not yet.

Because the message regarding Kaliningrad was not delivered solely through diplomatic channels. It was delivered through technology. Through an airborne platform that exudes power. Through satellites, aircraft, high-tech systems, long-range weapons, and data analysis, all of which are respected, and perhaps even feared, by the other side.

Europe needs precisely these tools, and it needs them quickly and as a matter of priority. A European platform for electronic warfare. Long-range weapons with range and precision. Satellite-based reconnaissance that ensures independence. A genuine European deterrent that no longer comes from Washington.

That is where defense funding must be directed as a priority and at a rapid pace, including from the German defense budget. Europe needs military capabilities that send a message. Europe needs systems that impress adversaries. It is also technological leadership that can ultimately prevent conflicts by demonstrating strength and superiority.

The NATO exercise was surprising, powerful, and clear. That’s good. Hopefully, it served as a deterrent to our adversaries. Nevertheless, it is no cause for complacency. For Europe must be able to do what we see today without the Americans as quickly as possible.

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese Russland nutzt das taktische Fenster. Die ukrainische Luftverteidigung ist sehr effektiv, außer im Bereich "ballistische Raketen". Und diese Schwäche wird Putin nutzen, so lange er kann. Und PAC3 sind lange nicht in Sicht. 🤔😔😬

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese Nicht das Trump noch auf den Geschmack kommt.. 😁

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@CarloMasala1 Das zusammen mit einer Freigabe von Star-Link für Deep Strike wäre ein Traum.

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese Dem könnte man natürlich politisch begegnen. Durchaus asymmetrisch, z. B. mit Visa-Beschränkungen etc.
Aber dafür braucht man Rückgrat, Arsch in der Hose und eventuell noch Eier.
Wer hat das?

[Nice guy @Expertenberater]

@AnnaDeMilanese Keine Drohnenangriffe als Brandauslöser? Geheimnisvoll!
Apropos Geheimnis, fällt das nicht in das Resort der Geheimdienste?
Nur so ne Idee