"The Guardian": An overheard conversation shows that British soldiers are in Ukraine

    "British soldiers are on Ukrainian territory, helping the Ukrainians launch Storm Shadow long-range missiles - according to an overheard conversation between German Air Force officers. The recording of the conversation was posted on the Internet.

 

    

 

     On March 1, the editor-in-chief of RT television, Margarita Simonjan, made public the recording of a conversation between four officers of the German Air Force.

 

    

 

     Leaked conversation between German officers: Almost 40 minutes of conversation, including: about the attacks on the Crimean Bridge

 

    

 

     The overheard officers talk for almost 40 minutes about, among others: the use of German Taurus missiles by Ukraine to attack the Crimean Bridge. German officers are wondering whether it would be possible to avoid the participation of representatives of the German army in this attack.

 

    

 

     Germany has not yet decided to transfer Taurus precision missiles, with a range of approximately 500 km, to Ukraine, even though Kiev has been asking for them for a long time.

 

    

 

     Due to the publication of the recording, the German ambassador was summoned by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

 

    

 

     During the conversation, General Ingo Gerhartz, commander of the German Air Force, describes how Great Britain is cooperating with Ukraine when Kiev uses Storm Shadow long-range missiles. These missiles allow for precise destruction of targets at a distance of approximately 250 km.

 

     British soldiers are in Ukraine. Help attack targets with Storm Shadow missiles?

 

    

 

     - When it comes to mission planning (using Storm Shadow missiles - ed.), I know how the British do it, they do it completely from a distance. They also have some people on the ground doing this, the French don't (France gave Ukraine its version of the Strom Shadow missile, SCALP-EG - ed.).

 

    

 

     The conversation between Luftwaffe officers went online. The Russians could have eavesdropped

 

    

 

     Chancellor Olaf Scholz promises a quick clarification of reports about German officers' conversations regarding Tauruses intercepted by Russia.

 

    

 

     Gerhartz's statement - as "The Guardian" writes - shows that there are British soldiers in Ukraine who participate in attacks on Russian targets (Storm Shadow missiles are used for strikes deep behind the front, including strikes on Crimea.

 

    

 

     Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, commenting on the content of the conversation, said that it was evidence of "the direct involvement of the collective West in the conflict in Ukraine.

 

 

     German officers whose conversation was leaked to the media admit that the quick transfer of Taurus missiles to Ukraine would require the involvement of the German army

 

    

 

     The authenticity of the recording published by Simonjan has not been confirmed. Germany is investigating the matter, and German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has accused Russia of waging an information war.

 

    

 

     Former British deputy defense minister Tobias Ellwood believes that the Russians probably knew about the British military presence in Ukraine anyway.

 

    

 

     Britain confirmed for the first time the presence of a "small number of troops" in Ukraine last Tuesday. However, it was not specified what role British soldiers played on the Dnieper.

 

    

 

     Olaf Scholz said last Monday that Germany does not want to transfer the Taurus missiles to Ukraine because it would require the presence of German soldiers on the Dnieper and the involvement of the Ukrainian army in handling these missiles.

 

    

 

     German officers whose conversation was leaked to the media admit that the quick transfer of Taurus missiles to Ukraine would require the involvement of the German army, including the presence of German soldiers in Ukraine."

 

Many in the West will not like the British playing with the fire of a global nuclear war. Therefore, the chances that US Republicans will vote for military support for Zelensky are decreasing. The Russians will unite even more closely against such a danger.

 

    

Today's most important information

 "Intercepted conversations of German generals released these days show that US, British and French officers stationed in Ukraine are helping to organize missile attacks against such important targets as the Kerch bridge."

 

A nuclear world war has never been so close.

Svarbiausia šiandienos informacija

"Šiomis dienomis paviešinti perimti Vokietijos generolų pokalbiai rodo, kad Ukrainoje dislokuoti JAV, Didžiosios Britanijos ir Prancūzijos karininkai padeda rengti raketų antpuolius prieš tokius svarbius taikinius, kaip Kerčės tiltą."

Branduolinis pasaulio karas dar niekad nebuvo taip arti.

Disagreements over defense spending in Lithuania

  "The data of the survey published last week show that 36 percent of respondents do not approve of more funds being allocated to defense, 31.5 percent would not agree to pay higher taxes, but believe that business could do it, 18.6 percent are willing to pay higher taxes for defense, while 13.9 percent of respondents have no opinion.

 

     Most attention was paid to the large proportion of those who opposed the new taxes, 3.5 times as large as those who supported them (36 plus 31.5 equals 67.5, divided by 18.6, we get 3.6 times). The results can be evaluated in different ways. I would be inclined (I emphasize - inclined) to think that this shows the common sense of the majority Lithuanians, their ability to resist the "sky is falling" scenarios put forward by the highest government officials, that after a while Russia will attack Lithuania or other NATO countries. For others, it shows that there are many stupid people (majority) who do not care about the security of Lithuania, who are influenced by Russian propaganda and disinformation.

 

     Urbanites and more educated people support the increase of national defense, villagers and poorer people are against it. Difference of opinion is not necessarily determined by knowledge and education. Called to serve, a village boy will serve. The cream of the crop will more easily avoid service and are unlikely to be sent to an infantry company.

 

     The more funds are allocated to defense, the less will be left for reducing segregation and various social services important to the less well-off. After becoming president of the United States in April 1953, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe Dwight D. Eisenhower aptly observed that "every weapon manufactured, warship launched, missile fired ultimately represents a theft from those who are hungry and underfed, from those who are cold and underclothed." The richer people do not need social services, so they are not important to them.

 

     There's no need to jump to conclusions from one survey, but the results are troubling for advocates of increasing defense spending. Minister of National Defense Arvydas Anušauskas says that higher funding for defense is necessary in order to develop the necessary capabilities in time, and the fact that a majority of society does not feel the threat is not just. I don't understand what the opposition to increasing the defense budget has to do with justice, how do you define justice? Maybe it would be wrong to avoid paying higher taxes if they were passed, but that's another question.

 

     In order to determine which behavior is the most rational under conditions of uncertainty, it is necessary to calculate which possible alternative maximizes the product of utility and probability for all possible actions.

 

     Let's say that maximum preparation to stop or deter a Russian attack is much more useful than investing money in education and health care if Lithuania is occupied or ravaged by Russia. But what are the chances that Russia will decide to attack? If the additional spending provides a better defense that can stop a Russian attack (say a security value of 1000) but the probability of an attack is 5 percent, the defense benefit is 50. If the benefit of greater investment in social services is 200, and the probability is 50 percent, then the benefit (100) is twice the increased defense benefits. The example here is for illustration purposes only, but it shows that the benefits of increased defense capabilities depend on how potential actions by the Russian government are assessed.

 

     Many Western politicians, political scientists and military personnel believe that if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, after five or ten years the Kremlin will direct its army to NATO countries or destabilize them by hybrid means.

 

     These apprehensions are difficult for me to understand. During the current conflict, Russia has not attacked any NATO country, even those through which modern weapons are supplied to Ukraine. Empty threats aside, it has not responded to increased Western support, not only in weapons but also in intelligence.

 

     Intercepted conversations of German generals released these days show that US, British and French officers stationed in Ukraine are helping to plan attacks on such important targets as the Kerch bridge.

 

      Ukraine is a special obsession of Putin and many Russians, other countries are not given such importance, so it is unlikely that there will be an attempt to subdue them.

 

     Some observers regret that no consensus has been reached in the security policy, that it is politicized, that the Soc-Dem voter will automatically reject everything proposed by the conservatives. I don't think partisanship affects security policy that much, or at least it can't be claimed without a deeper analysis.

 

     Many politicians believe that common solutions should be found on important issues. Consensus is useful if it is sincere and flexible, not imposed and rigid and dogmatic. It is important to leave the freedom to change your mind and demand change.

 

     The great British economist John Maynard Keynes said that, "when the facts change, I change my opinion - what do you do, sir?" Except for war, a country does not need too much unity, it is important to maintain diversity of thought and opinion, especially since the government leaders are used to thinking that they know the most, assess the situation most accurately, so they wait for their opinions to be approved.

 

     When it comes to security, caution is a virtue, as is developing independent and reasoned thinking. It is to be hoped that the reluctance to accept the government's appeals uncritically is useful, even if it only forces it to better explain government's aims, rather than taking them for granted."

 

   

Nesutarimai dėl išlaidų gynybai

"Praeitą savaitę paskelbtos apklausos duomenys rodo, jog 36 proc. apklaustųjų nepritaria, kad būtų skiriama daugiau lėšų gynybai, 31,5 proc. – nesutiktų mokėti didesnių mokesčių, tačiau mano, kad tą galėtų daryti verslas, 18,6 proc. dalis pasiryžusi mokėti didesnius mokesčius gynybai, o 13,9 proc. apklaustųjų nuomonės neturi.

Daugiausia dėmesio sulaukė didelė nepritariančiųjų naujiems mokesčiams dalis, tris su puse karto didesnė, negu mokesčius palaikančiųjų (36 plius 31,5 lygu 67,5, padalinus iš 18,6, gauname 3,6 karto). Rezultatus galima vertinti įvairiai. Aš būčiau linkęs (pabrėžiu – linkęs) manyti, kad tai rodo sveiką nepritariančiųjų protą, jų gebėjimą atsispirti aukščiausių valdžios pareigūnų peršamiems „dangus griūva“ scenarijams, kad po kiek laiko Rusija puls Lietuvą ar kitas NATO šalis. Kitiems tai rodo, kad yra daug Lietuvos saugumu nesirūpinančių runkelių, kuriuos veikia Rusijos propaganda ir dezinformacija.

Miestiečiai ir labiau išsilavinę žmones palaiko krašto apsaugos didinimą, kaimiečiai ir vargingesnieji priešinasi. Nuomonių skirtumą nebūtinai lemia žinios ir išsilavinimas. Šaukiamas tarnauti kaimo vaikinas tarnaus. Grietinėlės atžala lengviau išvengs tarnybos ir vargu, ar bus siunčiama į pėstininkų kuopą. 

Kuo daugiau gynybai bus skiriama lėšų, tuo mažiau jų liks atskirčiai mažinti bei įvairioms socialinėms paslaugoms, svarbioms ne tokiems pasiturintiems. Vos tapęs JAV prezidentu 1953 m. balandį, buvęs Sąjungininkų pajėgų Europoje vyriausiasis vadas Dwightas D. Eisenhaueris taikliai pastebėjo, kad „kiekvienas pagamintas ginklas, paleistas karo laivas, iššauta raketa galiausiai reiškia vagystę iš tų, kurie alksta ir nėra pamaitinti, iš tų, kuriems šalta ir kurie nėra aprengti.“ Turtingesniems socialinių paslaugų nereikia, tad jiems jos nesvarbios.

Nereikia skubėti daryti išvadų iš vienos apklausos, bet rezultatai sukelia nerimą išlaidų gynybai didinimo šalininkams. Krašto apsaugos ministras Arvydas Anušauskas sako, kad didesnis finansavimas gynybai yra būtinas, norint laiku vystyti reikalingus pajėgumus, o tai, kad dalis visuomenės nejunta grėsmės, nėra teisinga. Nesuprantu, ką bendro nepritarimas gynybos lėšų didinimui turi su teisingumu, kaipgi apibrėžti teisingumą? Gal būtų neteisinga vengti mokėti didesnius mokesčius, jei jie būtų priimti, bet tai yra kitas klausimas.

Siekiant nustatyti, koks elgesys yra racionaliausias neapibrėžtumo (angl. uncertainty) sąlygomis, reikia apskaičiuoti, kuri galima alternatyva maksimaliai padidina naudingumo ir tikimybės sandaugas visiems galimiems veiksmams.

Tarkime, kad maksimaliai ruoštis sustabdyti ar atgrasyti Rusijos puolimą yra gerokai naudingiau, negu investuoti pinigus į švietimą ir sveikatos apsaugą, jei Lietuvą okupuos ar nusiaubs Rusija. Bet kokia yra tikimybė, kad Rusija nutars pulti? Jei papildomos išlaidos užtikrina geresnę gynybą, galinčią sustabdyti Rusijos puolimą (tarkime, kad saugumo vertė yra 1000), bet antpuolio tikimybė yra 5 procentai, gynybos nauda yra 50. Jei didesnių investicijų į socialines paslaugas nauda yra 200, o jos tikimybė yra 50 proc., tada jos nauda (100) yra dvigubai didesnė nei padidintų išlaidų gynybai. Pavyzdys čia tik iliustracijai, tačiau parodo, kad didesnių gynybos pajėgumų nauda priklauso nuo to, kaip vertinami potencialūs Rusijos vyriausybės veiksmai.

Daugelis Vakarų politikų, politologų ir kariškių mano, kad, jei bus leista Rusijai įveikti Ukrainą, po kokių penkerių ar dešimties metu Kremlius nukreips savo kariauną į NATO šalis arba hibridinėmis priemonėmis jas destabilizuos.

Šie nuogąstavimui man sunkiai suprantami. Per dabartinį konfliktą Rusija nepuolė jokios NATO šalies, net tų, per kurias Ukrainai tiekiama moderni ginkluotė. Neskaitant tuščių grasinimų, ji nereaguoja į padidintą Vakarų paramą – ne tik ginklais, bet ir žvalgybine informacija. 

Šiomis dienomis paviešinti perimti Vokietijos generolų pokalbiai rodo, kad Ukrainoje dislokuoti JAV, Didžiosios Britanijos ir Prancūzijos karininkai padeda rengti antpuolius prieš tokius svarbius taikinius, kaip Kerčės tiltą.

 Ukraina yra ypatinga Putino ir daugelio rusų obsesija, kitoms šalims nesuteikiama tokios reikšmės, tad vargu, ar bus siekiama jas paglemžti.

Kai kurie stebėtojai apgailestauja, kad nepasiekta konsensuso saugumo politikoje, kad ji politizuota, socdemų rinkėjas esą automatiškai atmes viską, ką siūlo konservatoriai. Nemanau, kad partinės rietenos taip smarkiai veikia saugumo politiką arba bent negalima to tvirtinti be nuodugnesnės analizės.

Nemažai politikų mano, kad svarbiais klausimais reikia rasti bendrų sprendimų. Konsensusas naudingas, jei jis nuoširdus ir lankstus, o ne primestas ir griežtas bei dogmatiškas. Svarbu palikti laisvę persigalvoti ir reikalauti pokyčių.

Didysis britų ekonomistas Johnas Maynardas Keynes‘as sakė, kad, „kai faktai keičiasi, aš keičiu savo nuomonę – ką jūs darote, pone?“ Išskyrus karą, šaliai nereikia per daug vienybės, svarbu palaikyti minties ir nuomonių įvairovę, juolab, kad valdžios vadovai pripratę manyti, jog jie daugiausia žino, tiksliausiai vertina padėtį, tad laukia, kad jų nuomonėms būtų pritariama.

Saugumo klausimais atsargumas yra dorybė, kaip ir savarankiško bei pagrįsto mąstymo ugdymas. Reikia tikėtis, kad nenoras nekritiškai priimti valdžios raginimus yra naudingas, net jei tik priverčia ją geriau paaiškinti jos tikslus, užuot pateikus juos kaip savaime suprantamus."

 

 

Krūmuose slepiasi britų ir prancūzų triušiai

 „Berlynas – Vokietijos kanclerio Olafo Scholzo išvada, kad britų ir prancūzų darbuotojai kontroliuoja Ukrainai dovanotas sparnuotąsias raketas, yra „neteisinga, neatsakinga ir smūgis į veidą sąjungininkams“, – ketvirtadienį pareiškė JK parlamento Užsienio reikalų komiteto pirmininkė Alicia Kearns“.

 

Net britai ir prancūzai bijo, kad jų teritorija sulauktų branduolinių sprogimų mainais už nuotykius Ukrainoje ir Rusijoje. Vargšai triušiai žaidžia su tomis kvailomis raketomis. Kad negauti smūgio į veidą, tokiu atveju geriausia atsukti užpakalį. Žaisti su pasaulinio branduolinio karo pavojumi yra didelis nusikaltimas.

 

British and French rabbits are hiding in the bushes

"BERLIN — An inference by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that British and French personnel are operating cruise missiles donated to Ukraine is “wrong, irresponsible and a slap in the face to allies,” the chair of the U.K. parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee Alicia Kearns said Thursday."

Even British and French are afraid to have their territory getting nuclear explosions in return for adventures in Ukraine and Russia. Poor rabbits playing with those stupid missiles. In order not to get hit in the face, in this case it is best to turn your back. Playing with the risk of global nuclear war is a major crime.