Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Jim Duffy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Duffy. Show all posts
Jim Duffy ✍ A fascinating, thorough analysis by retired General Ben Hodges, a widely respected analyst. 

He served as Commanding General, US Army Europe. He has been the Senior Advisor to Human Rights First (formerly known as Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights) since June 2022 and also serves as the NATO Senior Mentor for Logistics. He previously held the Pershing Chair in Strategic Studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis.

The video uses an AI-generated image of him and AI-generated version of his voice for practical purposes as he constantly travels and so cannot do a real recording, but the analysis is his, voiced by AI. So there are a lot of illogical breaks in sentences and wrong pauses.

He also uses verified sources, and media outlets regarded by the media as factual and neutral. It also includes casualty numbers, whether the casualties by deliberate targeting of civilians (which is a war crime) or unintended casualties caused by debris, etc.

His reports are of the sort a professional analyst would produce.

As I have said before, Ukraine is fighting a strategically brilliant war, redesigning technology in ways unexpected to achieve intelligent goals. Various experts have said that Ukraine's use of drones has arguably reinvented the methodology of war, producing a paradigm shift as significant as the invention of the heavy machine gun in the late nineteenth century or the invention of the tank in World War I. Paradigm shifts in war effectively create a before and after, with everything changed utterly by the paradigm shift. Ukraine's change of methodologies of war is so profound that wars of the future will be fought differently to wars before Russia's war in Ukraine. For example, the appearance of heavy machine guns and tanks entirely changed war, making the traditional cavalry obsolete. (Poland fought against the change, still trying to use cavalry in World War II before finally realising it was now obsolescent.)

Neither Ukraine nor Russia invented the use of drones, but Ukraine's radical re-imagining of their use will be copied by all militaries in the future. Indeed Iran in its war against the US studied Ukraine's tactics and learned from it, whereas the US did not.

One radical change Ukraine has perfected has been the use of drones to hit locations far from the battle front, disrupting critical supply chains and funding chains in ways not previously used. That has turned one of Russia's biggest advantages, its size, into a weakness as it cannot protect everywhere from attack.

Often in asymmetric warfare, the smaller state is forced by necessity to move away from traditional tactics where it is at a disadvantage to radically new ones that the larger state is unprepared for. One example was in the Irish War of Independence, where Michael Collins' Flying Columns reinvented tactics that Britain struggled to cope with.

In traditional warfare, the battlefield was central. Arguably, Ukraine has made battlefield less important if not obsolescent. Ukraine's drone wall has effectively made it since March almost redundant, as Russian soldiers cannot advance without each soldier being hunted down and killed by drones.
Instead the war has moved to oil fields, ports, individual shadow fleet vessels and warehouses - throwing Russia's export of oil into chaos, so disrupting the income flow Russia is critically dependent on.

Hodges mentions attacks by Ukraine last weekend on a major Baltic Sea port and on shadow fleet vessels, their significance and the complexity of hitting targets in the Baltic Sea, given that it is almost totally controlled by NATO as only two small pieces of land around the Sea are not controlled by NATO.

What Ukraine has effectively done is lock the battlefields down with drones and instead opened new battlefields all over Russia.

Though he didn't mention it, one possible though outside chance is that the attack on Wildberries warehouses could collapse the Russian banking sector, as much of the sector's debt is tied in with that company. Its failure could pull down the banking system and so Russia's economy and state. The war would end as the ability of the state to fund it would collapse.

It is a long shot, but one example of the remarkably innovative thinking in Ukraine - as it spotted that the sheer size of Wildberries meant its failure might collapse Russia's banking system. Think of Wildberries as potentially being the Anglo-Irish Bank of Russia.

Even long-time cheerleaders for the war of Russia are now deeming Russia's war "unwinnable". The most decorated Russian soldier in the war, praised as a hero by Putin, two months ago said "the war is lost" in an interview. A retired Soviet general now living in the west said the same. He said that at worst for Ukraine, the war is a stalemate. But he reckoned the war is "advantage Ukraine." He said Ukraine was fighting an "astonishing war" whereas Russia had fought an "incompetent" one.

Russia's long term advantage, that due to its size it can "outbreed and outbleed" rivals no longer applies. Firstly Russia is facing its worst demographic crisis in two hundred years, meaning it has far fewer men of fighting years. It is now recruiting up to 15000 men fewer than it is losing every quarter. In addition the Ukrainian zone wall means the average soldier's lifespan on the front line is thirty-five minutes. Massive payments to soldiers are failing as men won't join up if all they have are thirty five minutes to enjoy being wealthy.

Recruitment numbers are now falling quarter by quarter, while casualties rise.

In addition in the last ten days Russians have been withdrawing their money from banks as they fear Putin is so running out of money that Putin may try to seize their savings. They judge it safer to have their money under their mattresses than to have it in banks where Putin could seize it

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Ukraine Is Fighting A Strategically Brilliant War

Jim Duffy ✍ JFK secretly wired his own Oval Office in 1962. 

A hidden switch by his knee triggered a reel-to-reel recorder Secret Service agent Robert Bouck built into the room that July. By November 1963 it held some 260 hours of Cabinet Room strategy and private calls, a self-made record he never explained. Historians still argue over why he really started taping.

His recordings are a fascinating insight to the man. His phone calls to his predecessor, General Eisenhower, show an open-minded leader consulting his wise and experienced predecessor. His respect for the general, and the general's respect for him, come across strongly.
 
When Kennedy was elected, Eisenhower privately disparaged the new president as "the boy." Eisenhower's vice-president, Richard Nixon, whom Kennedy had beaten in the election, was a long-time friend of Kennedy. He told Eisenhower that Kennedy may be inexperienced but he was one of the most brilliant people he, Nixon, had ever known, and predicted Eisenhower would soon be impressed by him. Eisenhower quickly changed his opinion of Kennedy and really valued their phone calls. At JFK's funeral, Mrs Kennedy told Eisenhower how much Jack valued their chats.
 
The recordings paint an impressive picture of Kennedy as competent, always reading and learning, and being a deep strategic thinker. I am struck with the way Kennedy recorded his calls, showing him warts and all. In contract, Irish cabinet minutes are extremely uninformative and don't recall who said what.
Leaders should be able to record all their phone calls so how decisions are taken become obvious. Obviously, security issues need to be strictly embargoes. One Kennedy call shows an angry Kennedy furious at what had been delivered to the White House to equip it for the birth of son. Sadly his son died. It showed a different side to Kennedy - not a president but a husband and father fiercely protective of his wife and soon-to-be-born son.
 
Kennedy died before his legacy had been settled. The calls show the immense ability snuffed out in Dallas in November 1963. The calls prove Nixon correct in describing Kennedy as a man of exceptional ability and a deep thinker.
 
It is fascinating to think that the US in 1960 had a presidential election where two close friends ran against each other. They were so close that when Kennedy's back pain got too bad during all night meetings of Congress Kennedy would go to Nixon's office to sleep on the couch as it was far nearer than his own.
 
In one election Kennedy came into Nixon's office to say his father wanted to donate to Nixon's congressional campaign. Nixon suspected it was really a donation from Jack himself, but as a Democrat he couldn't be seen donating to a GOP candidate.
 
Nixon was invited to attend Kennedy's wedding but due to a prior commitment couldn't attend. Nixon's obvious affection for Kennedy came across in interviews in retirement. They were elected to Congress at the same time as each other, sat on many of the same committees and co-operated closely.
 
At the time close friendships across parties were commonplace. They could disagree but it did not become personal, like John McCain, Joe Biden and Lindsey Graham. They completely disagreed on things but were very close friends. That is how politics and life should be. Left wing firebrand Aneurin Bevan and King George VI were close friends. They bonded over both having crippling stutters. Bevan's famed bombastic style of speaking was his way of controlling his stutter.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Friendship In Politics

Jim Duffy ✍ The Presumptions Are Well Known.


1. Fine Gael will demand that any supports with electricity, etc Must be universal - meaning much of the money will go to millionaires (who admit to being embarrassed at getting it. Michael O'Leary called giving him those payments "disgusting"). 

Most of the money will go to people who don't need it and those that do will not get enough as so much is wasted on those that won't. Fianna Fáil, independents and the civil service will try to block such a dumb policy. Fine Gael will threaten to collapse the government unless all aid is "universal". So the dumb policy will continue - despite being condemned by every expert and everyone from the ESRI to the Fiscal Council. Fine Gael is fixated on the idea. 

When working for Fine Gael I tried arguing against the idiotic idea of "universality" in payments. It was impossible to convince Fine Gaelers of the idiocy of the policy. Even the Fiscal Council, which is hardly left wing, calls the policy idiotic. However for some reason it is an article of faith for Fine Gael.
 
2. Harris will demand that social welfare recipients not get payments adjusted for inflation so he can give the middle and upper middle class tiny tax cuts. Fianna Fáil will say "over our dead body" and threaten to collapse the government. Fianna Fáil, thankfully, will win that one.
 
3. Chambers will demand cuts to spending on Defence, calling them savings, despite the fact that Defence in Ireland has been so chronically underfunded that there is no room whatsoever for cuts. Asking it to cut spending is like suggesting to a skeleton that they lose weight. Hopefully, Fine Gael will stand their ground on that one and threaten to walk if Defence spending is not increased as committed to.
 
4. Chambers will demand a complete embargo on hiring staff in the health service - despite mental health services chronically understaffed to such an extent that an "urgent" appointment, that elsewhere is provided in days or weeks in Ireland takes six months or more. 

It is literally third world standard. That is not an exaggeration. It is quicker to get urgent appointments in much of Africa than it is in Ireland. In Britain there were calls on the health secretary to resign due to a delay of three Weeks. In that very week I was offered an "urgent" appointment eight Months away!
 
As a result there are people dying by suicide in every parish in Ireland as they cannot get appointments with psychologists. I have heard of a scary number of suicides in my home parish. I was in a group of people who used to meet weekly in a support group. Two of that group killed themselves entirely because of the lack of access to appointments. One young woman killed herself when for the fourth time her appointment was postponed and she was offered an appointment in the following year. She could not take it anymore. She killed herself. DPER simply saw that as having one less person to pay money to and one less person in the queue.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Budget 27 🪶 The Human Cost

Jim Duffy ✍ A core problem with the neo-realist theory advocated by Mearsheimer comes from the generation of academics of his era. 


They were either conscientiously or subconsciously influenced by the dominant Marxist theory that swept through academia, which argued against the "great man" theory of history and instead focused on structural issues in society. The theory was that outcomes were decided by structural issues in a society, not leaders.
 
I completely disagreed in classes on it. Yes, the "great man" theory was wildly overblown and also completely ignored the critical role of structure and failings in a society. But the structural theory that neo-rationalism is built on ignored the crucial role a leader played. Yet at critical junctures the leader was central, either positively or negatively. If one takes the leader out of the equation, the outcome could have been radically different even with the same structural issues.
 
A classic example is that of King Louis XVI and the French revolution. A standard theory was that he was a weak not particularly able man unable to handle the structural flaws in the Ancien Regime. However some years ago unknown papers of Queen Marie Antoinette were found in the archives of a prominent figure in the period who had been close to her. She had given her papers to him for safe keeping.
 
What they showed, first of all, was that Louis XVI was actually a very capable man. He was however seriously ill and she described it in detail. Her description showed unambiguously that Louis had what we would describe as clinical depression. In his case it was to an extreme degree. I happen to have battled clinical depression. Reading her diary entries were shocking and I instantly understood what was happening. His already severe clinical depression was made dramatically worse when his elder son, the first Dauphin, died. He so went to pieces he could barely talk, barely react, barely get out of bed and wash. So, a man who was exceptionally able and might have been able to handle the crisis, was left effectively catatonic by mental illness.
 
Contrary to myth she didn't seize power. Her diaries show she never wanted power. The trouble was that there was nobody else available while Louis was in a catatonic state. He had two brothers. One was seen as cynical, manipulative and untrusted - the future Louis XVIII. The other, the future Charles X, was an intolerant extreme reactionary unfit ever to be monarch. The new Dauphin was a child so couldn't rule.
 
Marie Antoinette knew she was unqualified to rule. As the daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Francis she had never been trained to rule, whereas male heirs were. She knew she was out of her depth, but asked herself in her diary "but who else is there?" She reluctantly took on a governing role as there was nobody else in the Royal Family trusted enough and competent enough to do it, and her husband was catatonic.
 
Had Louis XVI not had extreme clinical depression, the talent he had shown before experiencing the extreme bursts of clinical depression might, just might, have avoided the revolution. It happened because he was severely ill and unable to physically or mentally function, and she wasn't qualified to, and the vacuum led to the revolution.
 
The more I read the more I felt sympathy for the King and Queen. I knew from experience exactly what he was going through. I could read her descriptions of Louis day by day and recognise things I went through. She was in despair. He was catatonic. There was nobody else suitable to act for the King among the senior royals, leaving her, to her horror, having to do it.

So that example, in that case of the impact of a vacuum at the heart of decision-making, showed that leaders do matter and it is not all about structural issues.
 
There were major structural issues in society in inter-war Germany. However there was nobody else able to take over and dominate Germany the way Hitler could. His unique personality enabled him to appear to speak for ordinary Germans. Take him out of history and again there is no certainty that the same outcome would have happened.
 
So while the 'great men' theory overestimated the impact someone could have as what they did or did not do was massively impacted by structural issues, structural issues won't deliver the same outcome without the impact of leaders.
 
Winston Churchill's pre-1940 career was haunted by many spectacular mistakes. He was desperately unpopular. He became prime minister in 1940 because everyone was tainted by appeasement, and all his warnings about Hitler proved prophetic. World War II would have been profoundly different without the impacts of Churchill, FDR, Stalin, Hitler - notwithstanding the structural issues.
 
Mearsheimer's problem in Ukraine is that his theoretical framework has always had significant design flaws in the area of the psychology of identity, nationalism, nations and nation-states. It has been an area many liberals cannot understand. It doesn't fit their rationalist theoretical framework. It is why they cannot understand the public opposition to mass migration, why they cannot understand the appeal of the nation state, etc. Mearsheimer's thesis cannot explain why Putin's nationalist view would invade Ukraine as neo-realist theory said he wouldn't. It cannot explain the determination of Ukraine to fight for its survival. It cannot explain why countries invaded fight more aggressively and determinedly than the invader. (The invaded are fighting for their survival. The invader's existence is not dependent on winning the war so they are less motivated.)
 
Mearsheimer's increasingly desperate efforts to double down, despite a 100% rate of being wrong on the war, are because his entire theory, his life's work, is on the line. If Ukraine wins, his theory is wrong. In the last few weeks he has spun stories of mythical Russian advances - all based on Putin spins.
 
Yet even Russian military bloggers and former Russian generals have rubbished those claims by the Kremlin. They have access to satellite images that entirely disproves the Kremlin claims. Those same bloggers and ex-generals are not pro-Ukraine. Many were enthusiastic supporters of the 'special military operation' but they can see in the data that the Kremlin claims are entirely disprovable. In one case, Russia announced that it was now just thirty miles from a critical target. That was spun by the Russian media as an "advance". Mearsheimer called it a "breakthrough". The bloggers pointed out that one year ago Russia was five miles from the city. Now it is thirty miles. It isn't an advance. It is actually a retreat of twenty-five miles! Furthermore, satellite images show that Russia had retreated.
 
Not alone that, but in a single month Russia suffered more deaths than the US suffered in the entire Vietnam war, and suffered more deaths than it was able to recruit. Russia's "advance" and it hasn't won more territory than it lost since March, is actually slower than in the notorious Battle of the Somme. One 'Z blogger', as they called themselves, pointed out that at that rate, it would take Russia 261 years to conquer Ukraine!!!
 
Mearsheimer's core problem is that his theory, his life's work, is being disproved daily by Ukraine. He cannot back down without admitting his theory, and life's work, is wrong. So he must double down on ludicrous predictions, even swallowing disproved Kremlin spin. As a result, it isn't just Putin's Russkiy Mir that risks being destroyed in Ukraine, but Mearsheimer's intellectually dubious claims in his life's work - his theoretical framework.

Some years ago, Putin gave a top military honour to a Russian soldier over his military leadership in Ukraine. One month ago, that now ex-soldier said "the war is lost. We cannot win it." Many oligarchs and generals believe that too. It a comment that Mearsheimer cannot echo. He and Putin are in the same boat, with their reputations dependent on winning in Ukraine, despite all the evidence that at best Russia is not winning. At worst, Ukraine is.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Mearsheimer's Core Problem

Jim Duffy ✍ In other contexts the TUPOLEV TU-95 bear bomber was used to send a message to countries that they were a target for Russia in any war. 

It repeatedly targeted Irish-controlled air space (that is, not the sovereign airspace, as that would potentially constitute an illegal act under international law, but the international airspace a country had the legal obligation to police to secure international civilian airflight) between 2017 and 2020.
 
They were no accidental arrivals. At one stage Irish-controlled airspace was targeted twice in two days. Each time, as Ireland's chronically underfunded defence means its air corps cannot intercept planes it had to call out the RAF to intercept the bears and force them out.
 
Russia was sending a deliberate message to Ireland - you are a target for Russia. This was nothing to do with Irish support for Ukraine, the standard spin of the neutrality hardliners. This was before Russia's second invasion of Ukraine. All countries are Russian targets. Every one. Neutrals and NATO alike. Every country had the bear bomber message. Russia sent the message to neutrals 'Neutrality is irrelevant. You are a target.'
 
It is well known why Irish airspace and waters are a target. Russia in any war intends to use Irish airspace and waters to launch ballistic missiles, and potentially nuclear missiles. That is why potentially nuclear-armed nuclear submarines frequently are in Irish waters, as with the submarine in Cork harbour some years ago.
 
Knowing the Irish, through chronic underfunding, is unable to do basic defence, Russia knows Ireland is dependent on the RAF and Royal Navy. However they need to be acting on an Irish request or with Irish permission. That takes time. Russia needs to know how quickly can its bear bombers or submarines intercept and evict its bear bombers and submarines. That would tell it how much time it has to launch missiles, whether ballistic or nuclear, from Ireland.
 
So, Irish negligence is not a threat to itself. It puts every potential target, including major cities in Europe, at risk.
 
People like Richard Boyd Barrett work themselves into a frenzy thinking Ireland is under pressure to join NATO. It is a figment of his paranoia and overactive imagination. I worked in politics in the area of defence. I know the private views of politicians on defence. I did not come across any TD who wants to join NATO. Not one. No party has any intention of joining NATO. Nor has NATO invited Ireland to join or even raised the issue. Neither Ireland, not Austria, not Malta nor Switzerland has any intention of joining NATO.
 
The pressure on defence is not to join NATO. It is simply "fix your goddamned defence. You are putting everyone at risk by your negligence."

They simply want Ireland to have standard defence neutrals like Austria, Cyprus and Switzerland have. Unlike Ireland they take defence as a neutral seriously. Austria has reached 1% of GDP on defence, and will reach 1.3% by 2032 - funded by an extra tax. Switzerland will reach 1% by 2030. Cyprus currently spends 1.8% on defence, excluding pensions. Even tiny Malta, more akin to the Aran Islands times six, spends 0.38% of GDP. Ireland spends a minuscule 0.27% of GDP - the third lowest in the world as a percentage of GDP. Only Mauritius and Haiti spend lower.
 
The pressure is simply on Ireland to have the sort of defence proper neutrals have. It has nothing to do with joining NATO. It is the sort of spending Ireland should be doing as a sovereign neutral state anyway. If you cannot properly secure your waters and airspace, and after one hundred years of independence still rely on your former colonial master to do your defence for you, are you really independent at all?

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Defence Is Not About Joining NATO

Jim Duffy ✍ I am glad to see that the police are taking the vile hate-filled comment by the University of Aberdeen staff member, and that she has been arrested. I have read the comments and they made he feel sick.
 
I did meet Ann Widdecombe once. Most of her views where diametrically opposed to mine. Yet like many gay people that came to know her I found her personally impossible to dislike even while fundamentally disagreeing with her on so many things. 

I could never imagine making the comments that staffer made following the death of someone, no matter what I thought about the dead person's views. She deserved to be arrested and deserves to be prosecuted for pure hate. It is likely that the university will sack her, while the Greens are reviewing her membership of their party and may expel her. She deserves it for what she posted, especially when she refused to take them down despite universal appeals to - especially when it was revealed that Ann had been murdered following a brutal assault.
 
I won't post the comments here because they are too vile to. She should be ashamed of herself.
Update: it appears Ms Herbert, who has now been charged, has a history of extreme language and vicious posts. She also appeared in a video where the man beside her said "if people don't show love [to trans people], show bullets", a comment Ms Herbert did not disown or react to. 

Horrific.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Too Vile To Post

Jim Duffy ✍ Ireland unambiguously never has been and never will be politically neutral. 

That has been made unambiguously clear by successive taoisigh, successive External/Foreign Affairs ministers and others. Sean MacBride as Minister for External Affairs made it clear in the Dáil and Seanad in February 1949 that Ireland is of The West, part of The West, and on the side of The West.

Ireland is simply militarily neutral - meaning it is not in NATO. Its decision not to join NATO was not based on some principle but on one simple fact - the existence of partition. On 23 February 1949, Minister for External Affairs Sean MacBride told the Dáil that:

Ireland as an essentially democratic and freedom-loving nation is anxious to play her full part in the protecting and preserving of Christian civilisation and the democratic way of life. With the general aim of the Atlantic Pact (setting up NATO), therefore, we are in agreement.

He told the Seanad:

We approve of the Atlantic Pact and I think that, if it were not for the fact that a portion of our country is wrongfully occupied by Britain, we would have been in the Atlantic Pact. Theoretically, its aims, its purpose are in accord with our own wishes and our own desire.

Sean Lemass in 1962 said:

NATO is necessary for the preservation of peace and the protection of the countries of western Europe, including this country. Although we are not members of NATO, we are fully in agreement with its aims.

Ireland has demonstrated unambiguously that it is on the side of the democratic West. On Sean Lemass's explicit orders, Kennedy's embargo on Cuba was enforced by Ireland in planes landing in Shannon en route to Cuba. Goods in Soviet and Eastern Bloc planes breaching the embargo were confiscated - to the fury of Khrushchev.
 
Ireland like other Western states never recognised the illegal Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and like other states recognised the governments-in-exile of those states as the legitimate government. The modern Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian governments stress that they are the descendants of the Governments-in-Exile and not the Soviet puppet regimes Moscow installed.

Ireland is unambiguously on the side of Ukraine, not Moscow, as Russia breached the UN Charter in its invasion as an UN member we are obliged to uphold the charter. In theory under UN rules Russia could have been expelled for its invasion, just as the USSR was expelled by the League of Nations for its invasion of Finland in 1939. In practice, the existence of vetoes made the expulsion power, like a lot of UN powers, inoperable as veto powers can simply veto actions against them or their friends.
 
Russia like the USSR has always acknowledged that Ireland is not politically neutral. It regards Ireland as a de facto member of NATO. It was one of the reasons who Stalin repeatedly vetoed Ireland's efforts to join the UN. (Countries are admitted by the General Council on the recommendation of the Security Council. Stalin vetoed Ireland annually, preventing any SC recommendation to admit Ireland.) His death removed the logjam.

He also despised Irish neutrality in World War II as "cowardice" - a longstanding Soviet and Russian attitude towards the concept of neutrality in general. The former Allies like Britain and the US lobbied Stalin on Ireland's behalf, pointing out that though officially neutral Ireland had been working closely with Allies, breaking codes, spying on Axis diplomats and passing on information. Stalin simply threw his hands in the air, and spat out "cowards!"
 
He was particularly animated on the issue of de Valera's dumb decision to offer condolences to the German minister in Ireland on the death of Hitler - perhaps the biggest blunder in Irish foreign policy.

The truth is simple. Ireland is not and never has been politically neutral. It has been consistently been on the side of the west. It is simply militarily neutral, meaning it is not in NATO.

Sean MacBride was clear in the Seanad in 1949 in a speech:

based directly on the contents of the Atlantic Pact (setting up NATO), based on military considerations, based on public policy, the Atlantic Pact is heralded as the new instrument of international co-operation in the North Atlantic. It was intended to preserve if you like, the democratic way of life among the nations of the North Atlantic.
With that, we are in complete agreement. We approve of the Atlantic Pact and I think that, if it were not for the fact that a portion of our country is wrongfully occupied by Britain, we would have been in the Atlantic Pact. Theoretically, its aims, its purpose are in accord with our own wishes and our own desire.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Ireland Is Not Politically Neutral

Jim Duffy ✍ The phenomenon of 'drone parties' is a remarkable feature of Russia's war in Ukraine.


Ukrainian citizens come together often at weekends in someone's house, hold a dinner party, and assemble drones for the military from parts supplied to them. In means every weekend tens of thousands of drones are made by ordinary citizens.

They augment the drones made by companies.

Not alone does it mean Ukraine has vast numbers of drones, but they are in a constant state of upgrade and evolution. In effect a new generation of Ukraine's drones are made every seven to ten days.

Russia launched an expensive missile some time ago. Each missile costs €50m. Russia could only afford forty. Four were launched a few weeks ago. Two hit their target. One went massively off target and hit Russian soldiers. The fourth however was brought down by an Ukrainian drone. Think about it. A €50m missile was brought down by a €1500 drone. Russia has not used those missiles since.

Western experts were puzzled by how Ukrainian drones were travelling so far, as it was further than their batteries should have been able to carry them. Then they found out the reason. Ukraine ingeniously has been releasing drones tied to balloons. The balloons carry them for hundreds of miles on the prevailing winds. Only when the balloons begin to descend does the drone switch on, so Ukraine is using a brilliant low tech method to get the drones near to where they are going.

Russia often sees them but they are so high up it cannot tell if they are weather balloons or balloons attached to drones. Soldiers don't launch expensive missiles as they don't know what they are shooting at. They would get in trouble if they are firing a one million euro missile at a weather balloon. Some Russian soldiers who still have access to Telegram and admitted to having an admiration for the ingenuity of Ukraine in using something as simple as a balloon to get drones so far, hitting oil facilities in Siberia.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Drone Parties

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)