Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[jice]

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Obviously economics always apply, but this isn't just about wanting to save a few bucks. Russia has a tremendous amount of leverage in the area because European countries can't just go get their natural gas elsewhere.

 

…[agree with what you said in the middle.]

 

Fossil fuels are regularly shipped all over the world; transportation is not nearly as big of an issue as production is, and the Biden administration is quite explicitly dedicated to reducing American production.

When you’re talking about supplying a continent, transportation is absolutely a much bigger issue than production. The infrastructure for export on that scale by ship to Europe has never existed in the United States and likely will not ever exist, unless/until Russian and Middle Eastern oil cease to be available and/or oil prices rise, irreversibly, to a level that those multi-billion dollar investments make sense. You really can turn production off and on rapidly to respond to the market (think Midland/Odessa TX over the last 12 years). Cap the well, ship your leased equipment back to some about-to-be-bankrupt equipment yard, pay a guy to keep people away, and tell your contractors to go work at Home Depot. Everything will still be there when the prices rise again. 
 

When you build ships and filling infrastructure for them you’d better be damn sure they’ll be useful and profitable in the long term.  If they’re not working at or near capacity, they’re not paying for themselves; if there’s zero throughput, they’re expensive, broken monuments to optimism. We’re exporting primarily to Mexico and Canada not because they’re our best friends, but because there isn’t an ocean of costs (and risk) between producer and consumer. 

For reference, US exports to the waterborne market have been hitting historic highs year over year for the past half decade, but there’s simply no way to “turn the spigot” to create that infrastructure. (Almost exclusively located on the gulf coast.) It’s reactive to the market, which doesn’t support hundreds of billions of dollars of overhead at current oil prices. US oil tends to be more expensive because of the extraction methods required for large portions of it (something at which we’re still truly world-beating), so expecting that infrastructure to materialize out of the kind hearts of corporations in the very short term would simply price US oil out of the market when Russia’s/(country x’s) pipelines turn on again and the market normalizes. 

 
That said (and not saying this in response to anybody’s posts in particular), opposition to domestic pipelines is insane. The product is going to be sent. The nice thing about using pipes is that the product never derails and crashes through buildings or school busses. On the whole, way more environmentally and economically friendly. I’ve got pipes in my house. Work great.

The way we replace Russian oil in Europe… that’s a doosie. Break economics? It just isn’t going to happen until Russian oil becomes proportionally more expensive to extract than it is for us to ship. Or! Lay pipe across the Atlantic… no, guys, not the way aircrew usually do.

Edited January 31, 2022 by jice

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, jice said:

When you’re talking about supplying a continent, transportation is absolutely a much bigger issue than production. The infrastructure for export on that scale by ship to Europe has never existed in the United States and likely will not ever exist, unless/until Russian and Middle Eastern oil cease to be available and/or oil prices rise, irreversibly, to a level that those multi-billion dollar investments make sense. You really can turn production off and on rapidly to respond to the market (think Midland/Odessa TX over the last 12 years). Cap the well, ship your leased equipment back to some about-to-be-bankrupt equipment yard, pay a guy to keep people away, and tell your contractors to go work at Home Depot. Everything will still be there when the prices rise again. 
 

When you build ships and filling infrastructure for them you’d better be damn sure they’ll be useful and profitable in the long term.  If they’re not working at or near capacity, they’re not paying for themselves; if there’s zero throughput, they’re expensive, broken monuments to optimism. We’re exporting primarily to Mexico and Canada not because they’re our best friends, but because there isn’t an ocean of costs (and risk) between producer and consumer. 

For reference, US exports to the waterborne market have been hitting historic highs year over year for the past half decade, but there’s simply no way to “turn the spigot” to create that infrastructure. (Almost exclusively located on the gulf coast.) It’s reactive to the market, which doesn’t support hundreds of billions of dollars of overhead at current oil prices. US oil tends to be more expensive because of the extraction methods required for large portions of it (something at which we’re still truly world-beating), so expecting that infrastructure to materialize out of the kind hearts of corporations in the very short term would simply price US oil out of the market when Russia’s/(country x’s) pipelines turn on again and the market normalizes. 

 
That said (and not saying this in response to anybody’s posts in particular), opposition to domestic pipelines is insane. The product is going to be sent. The nice thing about using pipes is that the product never derails and crashes through buildings or school busses. On the whole, way more environmentally and economically friendly. I’ve got pipes in my house. Work great.

The way we replace Russian oil in Europe… that’s a doosie. Break economics? It just isn’t going to happen until Russian oil becomes proportionally more expensive to extract than it is for us to ship. Or! Lay pipe across the Atlantic… no, guys, not the way aircrew usually do.

All great points, but the fact is we do have Russian oil coming across the sea, and the amount of fossil fuels that crosses oceans every day is eye-watering.

 

The reality is we don't have to deal in absolutes. Pipelines that would only serve North America reduce the amount of oil and gas crossing the oceans, distorting the supply on the European side and reducing demand for Russian product. Getting to a point where the flow goes in the other direction would have a huge impact far before the unrealistic goal of replacing all Russian output.

 

That's not to say it's the most effective strategy either, but the question was asked how it has an effect, and it does have an effect.

 

But if the Democratic party wasn't overrun by the anti-human climate movement, which to this day has no logical coherence to it, there would be a wildly effective way to put a huge dent in Russia's energy leverage. Nuclear power, developed and subsidized by the United States could be implemented across Eastern Europe. Not only would it have the foreign policy effect of diminishing Russian influence, it would reduce carbon emissions more effectively than any other alternative energy source being championed by the progressives. Charge foreign nations just enough for the fuel and consulting to break even. 

 

We can get into another discussion about nuclear power, but it ties into everything else the Democratic party (now almost fully taken over by the progressive movement) does. Namely, nothing they do syncs up with what they say. If you care about developing nations and you care about carbon emissions, and you care about Russian aggression, the only solution that satisfies those goals is nuclear. But they don't care about developing nations, and they don't care about the environment. They are sentimentalist anti-human relativists, and if you want to start understanding the positions they hold, you need to stop looking at what they say they support, and start framing everything from the perspective of what they are against. Then everything starts to make sense. Spoiler alert, they are against power imbalances.

 

They've just been smart enough to realize that you can't campaign on things you're against, because people resonate with causes *for* something. 

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

All great points, but the fact is we do have Russian oil coming across the sea, and the amount of fossil fuels that crosses oceans every day is eye-watering.

 

The reality is we don't have to deal in absolutes. Pipelines that would only serve North America reduce the amount of oil and gas crossing the oceans, distorting the supply on the European side and reducing demand for Russian product. Getting to a point where the flow goes in the other direction would have a huge impact far before the unrealistic goal of replacing all Russian output.

 

That's not to say it's the most effective strategy either, but the question was asked how it has an effect, and it does have an effect.

 

But if the Democratic party wasn't overrun by the anti-human climate movement, which to this day has no logical coherence to it, there would be a wildly effective way to put a huge dent in Russia's energy leverage. Nuclear power, developed and subsidized by the United States could be implemented across Eastern Europe. Not only would it have the foreign policy effect of diminishing Russian influence, it would reduce carbon emissions more effectively than any other alternative energy source being championed by the progressives. Charge foreign nations just enough for the fuel and consulting to break even. 

 

We can get into another discussion about nuclear power, but it ties into everything else the Democratic party (now almost fully taken over by the progressive movement) does. Namely, nothing they do syncs up with what they say. If you care about developing nations and you care about carbon emissions, and you care about Russian aggression, the only solution that satisfies those goals is nuclear. But they don't care about developing nations, and they don't care about the environment. They are sentimentalist anti-human relativists, and if you want to start understanding the positions they hold, you need to stop looking at what they say they support, and start framing everything from the perspective of what they are against. Then everything starts to make sense. Spoiler alert, they are against power imbalances.

 

They've just been smart enough to realize that you can't campaign on things you're against, because people resonate with causes *for* something. 

It seems like you want to couch the issue squarely in the political context. While I agree the Biden admin has had some missteps here (I will admit, I was genuinely unaware the admin had lifted sanctions), I believe all administrations since the end of the cold war have avoided a cohesive Russia policy & if there was ever a time for an issue to transcend political spats, this is it. Like it or not, Biden will be dealing with this issue for at least the next three years. I think there is a track here that Rs and Ds can actually agree on. Let’s not shoot our selves in the foot just to hurt our perceived political enemies.
 

BTW I agree 100% with you on nuclear power. 

[DirkDiggler]

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/putins-ukraine-quagmire/

 

  Interesting article arguing that Putin's calculus on Ukraine may be having effects opposite that which he intended. 

[Prosuper]

Get ready for high food costs, nitrogen-based fertilizers have gone through the roof more than doubled last year prices due to high natural gas prices in Europe. Since Russia is the #1 supplier of natural gas to Europe and these fertilizers come from Europe or they buy up our stocks of it, supply and demand. Also, Russia and China have building up stocks of commodities corn, wheat, and soybean paying premium price. Good for US farmers, $5 corn pays a bunch of bills, not good for city folk.  

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Prosuper said:

Get ready for high food costs, nitrogen-based fertilizers have gone through the roof more than doubled last year prices due to high natural gas prices in Europe. Since Russia is the #1 supplier of natural gas to Europe and these fertilizers come from Europe or they buy up our stocks of it, supply and demand. Also, Russia and China have building up stocks of commodities corn, wheat, and soybean paying premium price. Good for US farmers, $5 corn pays a bunch of bills, not good for city folk.  

What are you talking about?  The left is telling us that the economy is doing great!  

[arg]

2 hours ago, Prosuper said:

Get ready for high food costs, nitrogen-based fertilizers have gone through the roof more than doubled last year prices due to high natural gas prices in Europe. Since Russia is the #1 supplier of natural gas to Europe and these fertilizers come from Europe or they buy up our stocks of it, supply and demand. Also, Russia and China have building up stocks of commodities corn, wheat, and soybean paying premium price. Good for US farmers, $5 corn pays a bunch of bills, not good for city folk.  

My neighbor farms 3,000 acres, his cost just to put seeds in the ground have increased 300%.  

[Prosuper]

On 2/3/2022 at 8:07 PM, arg said:

My neighbor farms 3,000 acres, his cost just to put seeds in the ground have increased 300%.  

Russia just shut off ammonia nitrate fertilizer between Feb 2 to Apr 12 to insure their farmers have a some for their own use. They supply two thirds of the worlds supply. 

[Blue]

Seen this video pop up multiple places.  An exchange between State Department spokesperson Ned Price and AP reporter Matt Lee.  It's a pretty good 5 minute listen.

Price claims the US has "information" that Russia is planning on staging a false flag attack implicating Ukraine, in order to generate a pretext for further Russian invasion.

Part of that false flag would be a propaganda video with "graphic scenes of false explosions – depicting corpses, crisis actors pretending to be mourners, and images of destroyed locations or military equipment – entirely fabricated by Russian intelligence."

AP Reporter Matt Lee lays into Price, asking for evidence of these claims.  Price basically says "take my word for it."

Lee brings up previous State Department falsehoods such as: "WMDs in Iraq," "Kabul was not going to fall," etc.  Along with this gem of a quote highlighted in the tweet below: "I mean, this is – like, crisis actors? Really? This is like Alex Jones territory you’re getting into now. What evidence do you have to support the idea that there is some propaganda film in the making?"

Interestingly enough, Price is a former CIA analyst.

 

[Prozac]

5 hours ago, Blue said:

Seen this video pop up multiple places.  An exchange between State Department spokesperson Ned Price and AP reporter Matt Lee.  It's a pretty good 5 minute listen.

Price claims the US has "information" that Russia is planning on staging a false flag attack implicating Ukraine, in order to generate a pretext for further Russian invasion.

Part of that false flag would be a propaganda video with "graphic scenes of false explosions – depicting corpses, crisis actors pretending to be mourners, and images of destroyed locations or military equipment – entirely fabricated by Russian intelligence."

AP Reporter Matt Lee lays into Price, asking for evidence of these claims.  Price basically says "take my word for it."

Lee brings up previous State Department falsehoods such as: "WMDs in Iraq," "Kabul was not going to fall," etc.  Along with this gem of a quote highlighted in the tweet below: "I mean, this is – like, crisis actors? Really? This is like Alex Jones territory you’re getting into now. What evidence do you have to support the idea that there is some propaganda film in the making?"

Interestingly enough, Price is a former CIA analyst.

 

So we expose sources and methods to appease the AP? Seems to me that the purpose for revealing this intel publicly is likely an attempt to deter the Russians from attempting such an operation. Is the AP suggesting that the Russians are not on invasion footing? Why are so many Americans willing to give Putin a pass lately? 

[FLEA]

17 minutes ago, Prozac said:

So we expose sources and methods to appease the AP? Seems to me that the purpose for revealing this intel publicly is likely an attempt to deter the Russians from attempting such an operation. Is the AP suggesting that the Russians are not on invasion footing? Why are so many Americans willing to give Putin a pass lately? 

Sometimes yes. Remember when we waited until after Russia was completed speaking at the UN to show high altitude photos of their missile sites in Cuba to the whole UN floor, a capability they didn't realize we had? War is information now, and sometimes you have to sacrifice a pawn to get to the king. 

In the press's defense he's right. This may as well be a made up allegation and I certainly wouldnt risk my journalism credibility on publishing it. Not after WMDs, ISIS in Iraq and the collapse of Kabul. Our intelligence machine is about as trustworthy as evening backup weatherman. 

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, Prozac said:

So we expose sources and methods to appease the AP? Seems to me that the purpose for revealing this intel publicly is likely an attempt to deter the Russians from attempting such an operation. Is the AP suggesting that the Russians are not on invasion footing? Why are so many Americans willing to give Putin a pass lately? 

No one trusts the Deep State Press Corparatist Globalist Media Tech Complex anymore.  

The debacle of Afghanistan, the bitter taste of Iraq, the Libyan misadventure, the mixed results at best of Syria all while denying we are being overrun on our southern border by foreigners and they (said referenced corrupt hypocritical power structure) do nothing about that while expecting Americans and particularly the less than 1% who serve in the military or would if called upon to get on board with a conflict to defend a principle (which I support) to fall in line and fight for someone else's country while they do not defend ours.

I'm not for Putin overrunning Ukraine and think we but particularly the Europeans should stand up on their hind legs and say not one inch or soldier across this border, but I'm not surprised "they" can't generate that necessary percentage of public support, given their track record and present action / inactions.

That reporter was just channeling the frustrations of the majority of Americans, fight for Ukraine but not defend our borders?  Not surprising it eventually peculated out to challenge the official talking points delivery machine.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Clark Griswold

[tac airlifter]

4 hours ago, Prozac said:

So we expose sources and methods to appease the AP? 

You might be too young to remember how the Iraq war started, but Colin Powell provided the ultimate “trust us, we have rock solid intel” and we spent trillions and suffered ten of thousands of casualties for nothing.  Had we exposed the “sources and methods” for some critical QC we likely would have avoided that debacle.  Our government lacks the credibility to play this card, especially when the consequence is war with a nuclear capable country.

[HeloDude]

4 hours ago, Prozac said:

So we expose sources and methods to appease the AP? Seems to me that the purpose for revealing this intel publicly is likely an attempt to deter the Russians from attempting such an operation. Is the AP suggesting that the Russians are not on invasion footing? Why are so many Americans willing to give Putin a pass lately? 

Remember this gem?  Yeah, just “trust” the feds…

Oh, and I also remember the left (Congressman Schiff as just one example) saying they had proof that Trump colluded with Russia even though they never provided such proof.  And yet, even Mueller couldn’t find such evidence.  
 

If you want more examples of the dishonesty in our government, let me know…God knows there has been plenty, on both sides.  

[FLEA]

Also speaking of dossiers, the Steele Dossier, and the "Intel" that Trump was a willing Russian asset. 

To Clark's point though, am eerie realization I've had while living in Europe is that the majority of Europeans have no recollection of what the lesson learned with pre WW2 Germany was. They've slid right back to an appeasement strategy with this misguided idea that if they let Russia have Ukraine that will be enough and they'll stop there. They simply aren't willing to go to war until it threatens their country personally (and even then iffy) 

[uhhello]

13 hours ago, Blue said:

Seen this video pop up multiple places.  An exchange between State Department spokesperson Ned Price and AP reporter Matt Lee.  It's a pretty good 5 minute listen.

Price claims the US has "information" that Russia is planning on staging a false flag attack implicating Ukraine, in order to generate a pretext for further Russian invasion.

Part of that false flag would be a propaganda video with "graphic scenes of false explosions – depicting corpses, crisis actors pretending to be mourners, and images of destroyed locations or military equipment – entirely fabricated by Russian intelligence."

AP Reporter Matt Lee lays into Price, asking for evidence of these claims.  Price basically says "take my word for it."

Lee brings up previous State Department falsehoods such as: "WMDs in Iraq," "Kabul was not going to fall," etc.  Along with this gem of a quote highlighted in the tweet below: "I mean, this is – like, crisis actors? Really? This is like Alex Jones territory you’re getting into now. What evidence do you have to support the idea that there is some propaganda film in the making?"

Interestingly enough, Price is a former CIA analyst.

 

Embarrassing 

[di1630]

Russia just shut off ammonia nitrate fertilizer between Feb 2 to Apr 12 to insure their farmers have a some for their own use. They supply two thirds of the worlds supply. 

Truth data, I run a 1,000 acre wheat farm as a side gig…after reading you guys here I just contacted my fertilizer guy for a quote and the price last year for fertilizer per acre cost me $63, this year it’ll be $120 at current rates.

Never seen anything like it.

Of course this will drive up prices and be passed to the consumers.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

Also speaking of dossiers, the Steele Dossier, and the "Intel" that Trump was a willing Russian asset. 

To Clark's point though, am eerie realization I've had while living in Europe is that the majority of Europeans have no recollection of what the lesson learned with pre WW2 Germany was. They've slid right back to an appeasement strategy with this misguided idea that if they let Russia have Ukraine that will be enough and they'll stop there. They simply aren't willing to go to war until it threatens their country personally (and even then iffy) 

Read these two articles from WOR related to your point on Europe / Germany specifically:

A MILLENNIAL CONSIDERS THE NEW GERMAN PROBLEM AFTER 30 YEARS OF PEACE

WHY GERMANY BEHAVES THE WAY IT DOES

It's probably time for a new security organization in Europe for collective security underwritten by the USA / UK.  Avoids the distraction of including and dealing with members that are unlikely to act on a collective defense call up unless they were actually under attack.

Finland, Baltics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, etc...   New organization purpose built and mission statement for neutrality, collective defense, sovereignty and no out of area kinetic operations.  If a new nation of Western Ukraine comes from this crisis (Ukraine west of the Dnieper and to the Black Sea) then it would be included too.  Would need a US / UK boots on the ground, fighter tails based in country, etc... type of deterrence commitment, probably in the range of 50k and 150 jets in bases and distributed from the Baltics to Bulgaria, but would be acceptable to this tax payer.

Basically, a fence to section off Western Europe, acknowledging they are not interested in deterring Russia and would in all likelihood not risk blood and treasure for Eastern / Central Europe.  Not an insult to them just reality, it's time to acknowledge it and move on.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Clark Griswold

[FLEA]

55 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Read these two articles from WOR related to your point on Europe / Germany specifically:

A MILLENNIAL CONSIDERS THE NEW GERMAN PROBLEM AFTER 30 YEARS OF PEACE

WHY GERMANY BEHAVES THE WAY IT DOES

It's probably time for a new security organization in Europe for collective security underwritten by the USA / UK.  Avoids the distraction of including and dealing with members that are unlikely to act on a collective defense call up unless they were actually under attack.

Finland, Baltics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, etc...   New organization purpose built and mission statement for neutrality, collective defense, sovereignty and no out of area kinetic operations.  If a new nation of Western Ukraine comes from this crisis (Ukraine west of the Dnieper and to the Black Sea) then it would be included too.  Would need a US / UK boots on the ground, fighter tails based in country, etc... type of deterrence commitment, probably in the range of 50k and 150 jets in bases and distributed from the Baltics to Bulgaria, but would be acceptable to this tax payer.

Basically, a fence to section off Western Europe, acknowledging they are not interested in deterring Russia and would in all likelihood not risk blood and treasure for Eastern / Central Europe.  Not an insult to them just reality, it's time to acknowledge it and move on.

That is a phenomenal article thanks for sharing. This is definitely the mindset ive run into time and time again. It's also a gentle naivety that anything bad could happen to them. A complete forfeiture of vigilance in exchange for the temporary sensation of stability. 

[Prozac]

6 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

No one trusts the Deep State Press Corparatist Globalist Media Tech Complex anymore.

Is there an acronym for that? Dude, I get lack of trust. I was a First Lieutenant when the WMD claims we’re made & altered the course of our careers forever. But going full “global cabal” is a bit much. Additionally there are many (not necessarily directed at you) who seem to want to see the Biden admin fail no matter the cost to our nation, hence the rampant defamation of virtually every American institution imaginable.
 

WRT to this particular issue, Putin has indeed surrounded Ukraine with an invasion force. He has used cyberattacks, information warfare, fake media reports, false flag operations, and countless other non traditional warfare tactics in the past in places like Georgia, Lithuania, and Ukraine. It follows that he is prepared to use similar methods ahead of and in conjunction with any possible conventional attack. Further…..and this is important……no one in our government is attempting to use this intel as a pretext for American military action. It has been stated countless times that American combat actions are off the table. We have been candid with the Ukrainians and they have stated they do not expect American or NATO troops to fight on their behalf. Our State Department is revealing portions of intelligence in an effort to head Putin off at the pass and avoid a war altogether. I find it difficult to understand why that is a position that is so hard to support and why so many Americans continue to insist on selling our nation’s institutions down the river. They may be flawed, but I’ll take CIA over Putin’s FSB ten out of ten times. When did that become a controversial opinion?

[brickhistory]

If I am reading your post correctly, you are saying "Sure, the government has lied before, and I know it, but this time, it's on the level, so we should implicitly trust it."

 

Fool me once, shame on you.  Try to fool me repeatedly, including blatantly political shenangians? 

GFY, gub'mint.

 

I am old school and believe there should be a vital national interest before we, as a nation, expend blood and treasure on something.  

There is nothing about Ukraine that meets that bar for me.

And if Old Europe can't be unassed to care, why should I?  As Biden's former boss once claimed, "We'll lead from behind..."

[Prozac]

30 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

If I am reading your post correctly, you are saying "Sure, the government has lied before, and I know it, but this time, it's on the level, so we should implicitly trust it."

 

Fool me once, shame on you.  Try to fool me repeatedly, including blatantly political shenangians? 

GFY, gub'mint.

 

I am old school and believe there should be a vital national interest before we, as a nation, expend blood and treasure on something.  

There is nothing about Ukraine that meets that bar for me.

And if Old Europe can't be unassed to care, why should I?  As Biden's former boss once claimed, "We'll lead from behind..."

Again, no one is beating war drums. The idea is to prevent a war. 

[brickhistory]

So trust without questioning what our government is saying and doing on this matter?

That's a yes or no question. Putting caveats or qualifiers does not change the premise of my question.

[Prozac]

28 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

So trust without questioning what our government is saying and doing on this matter?

That's a yes or no question. Putting caveats or qualifiers does not change the premise of my question.

The US government is not going to divulge sources and methods when it comes to intelligence gathering. It never has and it never will. I would think the reasons for that would be obvious to almost everyone on this forum. The “proof” will be when Putin makes his moves & the world sees his shenanigans for what they are. Help me understand your concerns: Is it your belief that the US is secretly planning on committing troops to the fight for Ukraine? If that were the case, I would expect to be seeing large scale mobilizations going on yesterday. Eight thousand troops to Poland is nothing more than a symbolic gesture of our commitment to NATO. 

[DirkDiggler]

4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Read these two articles from WOR related to your point on Europe / Germany specifically:

A MILLENNIAL CONSIDERS THE NEW GERMAN PROBLEM AFTER 30 YEARS OF PEACE

WHY GERMANY BEHAVES THE WAY IT DOES

 

Those were both very good reads, thanks for posting.  

  It's interesting (in a sad sort of way) to see the long term impacts of what I view as a pretty relentless drive post WWII to tamp down German nationalism.  Even considering Adenauer and Brandt's focus on German unity and anti-communist stances, the generational echoes of Germany's actions in WWII and the resulting rejection of any sense of national pride and/or pride in the military are seriously impacting Germany's current actions.