Comments by "Peter Lund" (@peterfireflylund) on "OBF" channel.

  1.  @rogeliozamora6018  The Russian Wunderwaffe only exist on paper. Many of them don’t work or are just prototypes. Not a single one exists in large quantities or have a decent chance of working as specified in practice. They look good in victory parades and on Russian TV — and that’s all they are intended to do. Real weapons cost too much to develop so Russia doesn’t do that.
    37
  2. The EU’s mutual defense clause is much more limited than NATO’s. It doesn’t guarantee troops or nuclear retaliation or much of anything. It’s more like a statement of the possibility of mutual defense.
    6
  3. I am not sure they will be a Russia afterwards. There might very well be many broken pieces, some civilized, some run by warlords. It will be interesting times…
    5
  4. One thing that has definitely changed is the EU’s foreign policy coordination. We know that the member states don’t entirely agree, but they stick to their common decisions. Whether you hear it from Charles Michel, Ursula von der Leyen, Josep Borrell… or Macron or Scholz, the message is the same. That was unthinkable two months ago. One more conflict like this, and the EU will have turned into a real super power instead of just being a trading cartel. We will have a common foreign policy and we will have a common military and we will have EU nukes and not just French nukes.
    4
  5. That makes two of us.
    3
  6. We build in our own waters. China builds in everybody else’s waters. That kinda makes a difference, doesn’t it?
    2
  7. No risk of that. Not because they can’t be made but because the regulatory climate is so needlessly harsh for nuclear energy.
    1
  8.  @skippern666 Serbia would never have been handled by the UN. Remember that Russia had a veto (and still has). China would likely have vetoed, too.
    1
  9.  @skippern666  you wrote that they “took too long”.
    1
  10.  @rogeliozamora6018  hi botski, don’t be dumbski.
    1