Emil Archambault

So the article says ”Israel’s goal is a systematic degradation of the Iranian regime and its military sites.”
1- Is that also the US’ goal, or just Israel’s?
2- Is degradation the end or means to an end?
3- Is that just a temporary situation then that will be repeated to maintain the ”degradation”?

Hadn’t noticed - but yes, interesting point. Open-source estimates remain limited.

And what are they actually shooting at, when they still haven’t figured out what they’re actually doing?

And as we know, at least several of those strikes hit civilian targets and killed civilians. That’s also counted as part of this air campaign. Just counting strikes and munitions hides these killings.

Sure, degrading Iranian forces is one thing - but it’s an intermediary aim, to do what? And a large number of strikes gives no indication of whether the degradation of enemy forces is successful or not.
So apart from bombing, what are they doing and why?

As is their practice in air campaigns, CENTCOM is counting sorties, tonnage, strikes. Which says nothing about what they’re actually doing and whether that is achieving objectives.

In the total absence of war aims determined from above, what do these achieve?

Carney created Schrodinger's speech. It can be considered to be simultaneously about being principled and pragmatic, but you won't know which one until a major international event occurs.

Canada doesn’t have a position on the Iran strikes, it has a superposition.

Do people like this really think so poorly of themselves and their colleagues? I’m not one to advocate for profs with huge egos, but come on, have some pride. I’d like to think I’m worth more than a random word generator with a big dictionary.

C’est immonde.

Frappes sur l’Iran | Il faut parfois assassiner les tyrans Devant les fleuves de sang versés par ce régime d’assassins, aurait-il fallu attendre encore un an ? Dix ans ?

Une chronique particulièrement abjecte, à tous les niveaux.

www.lapresse.ca/internationa...

This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism vs. No It Won’t George W. Bush may think that a war against Iraq is the solution to our problems, but the reality is, it will only serve to create far more.

This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism vs. No It Won’t

European sovereignty also means being able to make foreign policy without being terrified by the US’ shadow.

So this is what focusing on the Western Hemisphere looks like.

Air power and elite special forces both make leaders feel like they have costless military options because any consequences are abstracted and delayed.

Those unable to value delayed gratification are equally unable to conceive of any price that's not immediate and obvious.

Absurdly dangerous.

Civilians should never pay the price of military action, their protection is essential.

All parties to the conflict should respect international humanitarian law and prioritize the protection of civilians.

These truths are universal.

#Iran

For the nerds

YouTube video by DRM News FULL REMARKS: Trump Confirms “Major Combat Operations” in Iran in Video Post | AH1B

It is just a half sentence, but I still find it strangely infuriating that Trump is using the argument that Iran could threaten 'our good allies in Europe' as part of the reasoning for this war he started.

He’s welcome to apply to the next lectureship in British Politics. I mean, now he’s got an impact case study in electoral politics.

The Green victory in Denton is the result which will have the biggest effect on Labour, far more so than a Reform win.

The blithe assumption progressives have nowhere else to go has been proved catastrophically wrong.

Can’t help thinking of this quote from a Labour minister, a year ago…

PM: You get those migration numbers down?

Home Sec: Sure did boss, real fuckin damaging to public services and increasing the one voters hate most, just like you asked

PM: what

Is there a table of contents available or is it too early?

YouTube video by DW News What Peter Thiel has to do with Germany’s drones | Berlin Briefing Podcast

Full video here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=57Yw... (and audio on all main podcast platforms)

Some of my comments on Germany's loitering munitions contract and changes to the Bundeswehr's procurement, on @deutschewelle.dw.com's Berlin Briefing with @ninahaase.bsky.social.

@dgap.org

Pas sérieux…

"You haven't tried our Gen AI tool, Ask FT"

Damn right I haven't.

In short, is Peter Thiel's investment in Stark Defense a problem?
- In itself, no, it's not different from other defence companies with foreign dependencies.
- The BMVg is right to identify and clarify his role.
- These systems fill a critical capability gap - Germany must encourage its development.

YouTube video by DW News What Peter Thiel has to do with Germany’s drones | Berlin Briefing Podcast

I was happy to join @ninahaase.bsky.social for @deutschewelle.dw.com's Berlin Briefing to discuss the debates concerning Germany's Loitering Munitions procurement from Stark (and Helsing).
With Roman Goncharenko (DW) and Christopher Schuetze (NYT).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=57Yw...
@dgap.org

To be clear: the loitering munitions would be purchased from Stark Defence - not Palantir (Palantir doesn’t make drones).
There’s no direct link between Stark and Palantir (Thiel is chairman of Palantir and has invested in Stark, but has no formal leadership role there).

They’re German (not sure how easy to get abroad) and somewhat pricey, but I love my Kapten & Son (I’ve got a small work backpack, but they have a wide range of sizes/uses). kapten-son.com/de