OneWeb is in deep trouble. Other than tiny Vega, Arianespace has done only 3 launches on its own rockets vs. 10 on Soyuz since 2021. Sounds like it's time for the EU to actually build a space program. The era of hard power is back.
With Vulcan waiting on years delayed BE-4 (and New Glenn on BE-4 and rest of the rocket as well), SpaceX launching Starlink constellation on its own reusable rockets is looking like the only game in town for a while.
>We barely develop any software here anymore. So even very European companies like like Nokia and Ericsson, that are now trying to tell us that they are building our European telecommunication infrastructure. They’re actually not, they’re getting that built by other people in other countries far away. Anything having to do with server and PC development and manufacturing, there’s nothing left of that in Europe anymore.
Preach it! Outside of FOSS contributions, commercial EU software industry is in a sorry state, unless you count the crypto trading and fintech platforms getting millenials and zoomers to gamble their little money they have on stonks and crypto coins because they can't afford to invest in decent real estate, which I don't think is a healthy industry to promote as far as SW innovation goes.
All great EU innovation comes out universities and research and institutes funded mostly by EU taxpayer money, and the good innovations get immediately bought up by US or Chinese big tech, with the duds and left overs being bought by clueless European dinosaurs like Siemens, Daimler, T-Systems, etc. So basically our tax money is funding US and Chinese tech dominance because EU old money and EU governments are too cheap and clueless to invest in local tech and instead are focused on offshoring everything and investing only in perpetuating the real estate bubble and living off rent seeking while taxing the skin off your back, and most people suffering from rampant inflation and now rampant energy costs because EU leadership didn't bother investing in energy self-sufficiency.
Not exactly a healthy environment to breed good competitors for AWS, Google, Apple, Nvidia, Tesla and Microsoft, despite the social safety nets, when you're being financially squeezed from all directions.
I'm european but I moved to Hong Kong to dev software. I d like to come back, but when I joined a startup in Paris, for 3 years the other devs talked day and night about class warfare, the state was taking 2 months of my salary end of year (now they take each month directly from your salary), 20% tax on everything I bought, a few hundreds in local taxes, criminality was unlivable, the boss stopped sleeping at some point out of financial stress because the gov made a mistake and took 2 years of corporate tax at once, unemployment was reaching 10% and muslims were killing you in the weekend if you went to a concert.
So I scrapped together some savings, learned English and bailed and Im happier for it. Maybe our roads and hospitals were beautiful, but it wasnt worth the constant frustration. All I can do now is vote and wait they wake up.
Are you french by any chance? Most ambitious french devs I've met have either moved to Switzerland, UK or the US, citing the lack of VC money and a stingy and overly bureaucratic government taxing the living daylights out of you.
Also a french dev I knew, moved with his family to Warsaw, Poland citing a higher safety than in Paris.
Then again, I also have a friend who moved to Toulouse, France to work in the aerospace and defense sector (Airbus) and he's very happy with his life there.
Yeah, I m sad you dismiss them as clichés but I've met people who cant believe what it is to work in Paris for some of us, so well... I left and now I dont have to bother people with my complaints as much : if you can live well in France, happy for you!
Pro-market small gov, indeed, never found my candidate. I vote Macron, since I often agree with his stance, but the problem has never been the politicians, it's the people: they cant see it the way I do, so they wont vote for that imaginary candidate if he appears. So I left and I'm happy, that s all that matters: that s what borders are for.
It would be a good thing coming from a bad thing if space get more funding in the EU.
Now, without the Soyuz, maybe there is a chance of a manned spaceflight program. Starting from the Space Rider (1) all the components are there, I think.
Does SpaceX collaborate at all with the European Space Agency? Still, I do not understand this thirst at seeing a private company monopolising space travel. It's that old "this is good for Bitcoin" meme all over again.
I reckon I'm one of the few on this forum that doesn't hold SpaceX stock.
> I do not understand this thirst at seeing a private company monopolising space travel.
I don't think the poster your replying to is saying that, nor do I think the market is headed in that direction. Currently, SpaceX has the only crew certified transport aside from Russia's Soyuz capsule for transport to ISS. That is likely to change in the next two years as Blue Origin continue their certification process and NASA's SLS gets closer to launch (whether or not SLS is a good decision is a totally separate conversation). The more options, the better.
> I reckon I'm one of the few on this forum that doesn't hold SpaceX stock.
I reckon there are only a few that do actually hold SpaceX stock, given the fact they are a private company with limited investment opportunities for the common person.
>Still, I do not understand this thirst at seeing a private company monopolising space travel.
Probably because it's a dumb strawman you've created to knock down. Strawmen do indeed tend to be hard to understand since they aren't actually real. There is no "thirst" to see a private company monopolizing space travel per se. What people are thirsty for is serious, cheap, effective, ambitious space travel in turn leading to serious space development and humanity (and life in general) moving beyond the cradle permanently. The irritation with government agencies is a matter of brutal raw fact: they have failed miserably at this, and they're getting WORSE, not better. Debacles like the SLS or Shuttle. Zero effort to drive down cost, rather the reverse with space being treated as a very shitty bit of pork. I don't even want to say "jobs program" because SpaceX and co will generate WAY more jobs via space development in the long term, but long term thinking isn't very fashionable in much of government anymore. Or at least not in this sphere.
Everyone interested in space would be delighted at more competitive players. And there are indeed a number that might manage it alongside SpaceX, eventually. Smaller players like Rocket Lab are in fact launching for real cargo to orbit, and have reasonable plans to scale up. There is certainly room for another provider or two. But NASA, ESA, Russian, and other government efforts aren't even trying to go there yet and show no potential to do so. They are stupendously wasteful cash blackholes, which is coming directly out of money that could be doing awesome stuff. Awesome good government stuff even, the kind of blue sky research and infrastructure work that governments can do to really blaze the way and help industry. The billions being sunk worthlessly into SLS could be funding a true space station/shipyard/depot [0] designed around the capabilities of Starship, helping to further accelerate smaller hungry players with the capital they need to get into the medium-lift aspect, not to mention a lot of great science.
You're confusing dislike for the gross waste and failures of old fat players and excitement with the incredible efforts and progress of young ambitious new players with some sort of silly "monopoly" thing. Try to research and think about things you don't actually know much about or follow yourself a bit more before forming an opinion perhaps?
----
0: Including helping to figure out standards so that fuel depots can be used by multiple players fairly.
With the highest level person at SpaceX worried about them going bankrupt it is in Europe's best interest for them to develop their own launch systems an capability.
I am willing to bet a lot of money that SpaceX will not go bankrupt as long as it keeps up the pace of innovation, and even after that happens, for a very long time.
SpaceX can turn to private investment and there are a lot of people willing to buy what they are selling. And SpaceX is incredibly innovative and a stratetic asset for the US so they will not let it sink. Sometimes, the utility of something is much more than the immediate economic calculation.
I suggest that Musk sending emails containing sentences like this "“We face genuine risk of bankruptcy if we cannot achieve a Starship flight rate of at least once every two weeks next year" tends to worry people. It was a very irrational and illogical email for him to send.
Unfortunately as usual, most people only saw the clickbait about the email and not the subsequent clarification about how he meant that while it was unlikely, it wasn't impossible in the event of a severe enough global economic downturn, pointing to examples of much bigger companies which went bankrupt during downturns: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/30/elon-musk-warning-not-first-...
Given his net worth right now, he could very likely carry SpaceX through some economic trouble, but in the event of a big enough downturn, his net worth will probably drop hard due to it being mostly Tesla stock, thus his concern.
Getting results, short term, isn't being an effective leader. Effective leaders do what they say and don't take insane risks that have no way of paying off.
He's been leading SpaceX from success to success for 20 years now, or a quarter of the average American lifespan, a bit absurd to suggest that's "short term".
Don't forget everything in SpaceX is built around the Mars mission. They could reorganize the business and "simply" be a profitable orbital launch provider if they wanted to.
Space, despite what some people want to believe, is not for commercial enterprise. SpaceX is backed by uncle Sam's deep pockets. And uncle Sam is locked into a cold war with China.
"The white bird rose up once again, laser cannon in its wings. It was a moving sight. In my heart, though, I wished it didn't have to be used in war."
I want to say upfront that I have no issue with the latter half of your statement, but not the way intended by who I responded to. First though what I don't think is correct:
>With the highest level person at SpaceX worried about them going bankrupt
Um, no. That statement got very, very confused in the media and retellings. The "bankruptcy" has to do with SpaceX's ultimate Mars ambitions and the rapid viability of Starlink without further investment. Very correctly, Musk and everyone else at SpaceX wants it to be able to stand on its own two feet as fast as possible, and further be able to be printing enough money to fund the enormously long term and capital intensive vision of Mars development. That is the point of it after all, and ultimately that must happen for it all to work. However, that's not the same thing at all as saying that it won't actually be getting further funding. Musk has tens of billions worth of Tesla, a bunch of which he liquidated last year. He will indeed continue to pour money into it. The number of private investors who'd be happy to add in is not exactly tiny either, nor the public for that matter though both those of course bring some challenges around control and overhead.
But that message was a rally-the-troops kind of thing, in stark contrast to Blue Origin for example. Musk doesn't want employees to think of SpaceX as a government too-big-too-fail contractor on safe cost-plus financing simply because it's backed by someone wealthy and dedicated. SpaceX's vision is too big even for him by itself. It needs to be a viable enterprise. It needs to stay hungry and fast even though it has earned the top spot in the current launch market, because they want to obsolete the current launch market entirely while expanding it by orders of magnitude. Starship (and future even bigger ships) has to work for all this, and for Starlink to work economically and help kick off the planned virtuous circle. And Musk is correct that the environment may turn hostile in unpredictable ways so who knows how many years SpaceX actually has to prove itself and really get bootstrapping.
But it's still in a stupendously better position than the ESA, which isn't aiming humanity for the stars in the first place right now with Ariane.
So all that said:
>their own launch systems an capability
This is certainly fine and yes I think it matters strategically. While I don't agree with much of what the EU has done, I also think much of it is wonderful and that fundamentally it's a great institution as well as Europe as a whole. Any entity on that scale should have a route to space in the future, just as the EU has Airbus for flight. And that will help the US as well.
But the way to go about that isn't through Arianespace. The EU, yesterday (a decade or more ago in fact), needs to get their own commercial sector going. With proven examples they can go much faster than NASA did if they want. But they need to supply the vision, big incentives, cut regulatory obstacles, and provide good government infra support and so on then let private players work out the actual implementation servicing those goals.
>But that message was a rally-the-troops kind of thing
I disagree. Statements like this "“We face genuine risk of bankruptcy if we cannot achieve a Starship flight rate of at least once every two weeks next year” sent of a holiday demonstrate a level on strangeness that really worries people launching very expensive space hardware.
It is hard to understand what he will say / do next and the gulf between what he says and what he does seems to be growing over the past year.
Yes. A CEO should always be worried about bankruptcy and do everything to avoid it, but never talk about it, except if they want to file for it soon. Even if the company is shortlz before going bankrupt, it woule just drive the value down, and prevent it from getting the needed capital.
He said that it was unlikely, but not impossible, pointing to risks like a large global economic crisis that drives away investor money before Starlink becomes self-sustaining (which requires Starship to be successful too).
I think you're seriously exaggerating the "gulf between what he says and does". He's always been the type to be extremely focused on the smallest of risks.
>I think you're seriously exaggerating the "gulf between what he says and does".
His statements regarding subsidies being wrong / government interference in the market as contrasted to how actively Tesla searches for and applies for subsidies.
I personally have an issue with those who think that burning the bridge that helped them get where they are so others can't use it is the correct thing to do.
If he was always focused on the smallest of risks he would not have smoked a joint on camera while working to launch national security payloads for the NRO and DoD. It was just a very short sighted thing for him to do.
They aren't monopolizing anything. Making the cheapest product available doesn't make them the enemy. The US is funding (at a premium) two other spacecraft near completion and there are other developments ongoing for more commercial spacecraft.
> Does SpaceX collaborate at all with the European Space Agency? Still, I do not understand this thirst at seeing a private company monopolising space travel. It's that old "this is good for Bitcoin" meme all over again.
You misunderstand. The "thirst" is for a private company making space travel cheaper than ever before. Also before SpaceX came along the US launch industry was basically in the position of the current European space industry. A single old decrepit launch company with overpriced rockets.
Yes. I have code in space that was funded by ESA and launched on a Falcon 9. If you count the ISS then SpaceX is a launch partner and is probably our best bet in the near future for shuttling people and cargo (plus the ATV).
ESA is basically open to partnering with them, there is a statement somewhere about them looking into reusable systems. It's politically tricky because part of ESA'S remit is to contract with member states and increase capacity in Europe: you buy into ESA, ESA throws you bones in the form of tender opportunities. I believe it's also reasonably fair, so they make sure that contracts go to everyone.
That also means that most of the big ticket contracts go to companies like Airbus and Ariannespace. Airbus would lobby pretty hard if ESA started spending big money in the US. Though you can see how that worked out for Boeing. A lot of these contracts are big and multiyear, projects using specific launch partners are designed around fairing capacities and so on. We don't necessarily need roscosmos for a lot of this, plenty of launches are done using Ariane rockets from Kourou.
SpaceX isn't publicly listed so the vast majority of people here don't own any. It's not like TSLA.
Finally on monopolies - ESA already doesn't really build much itself, most of the hardware is built by private companies. NASA is the same, though they have a bit more in house capacity than ESA. Apollo and the Space Shuttle were spread out to a huge number of US contractors (people like Lockheed Martin, Rockwell and Northrop Grumman). Orion/SLS? Not built by NASA, built by boeing, rocketdyne and others.
SpaceX has had remarkable success precisely because they disrupted existing launch platforms that were failing to innovate fast enough. In a monopoly, users don't have choice which is not the case here - there's Blue Origin, ULA, Ariane, etc.
Fair enough, I stand corrected. Still, I wanted to point out that it's a company, not a government agency. Publicly traded or private doesn't change my point.
private companies also build esa rockets, and the space shuttle, and saturn v, in partnership with government space programs. spacex human flight is also in partnership with nasa.
It's likely a very very small group, but I am certain there are some ultra high net worth members of HN that are SpaceX investors, either directly through family offices, or indirectly through private equity funds.
It's also pretty easy to invest in them indirectly. There are a few Fidelity funds that include SpaceX, and you can also invest in other companies that invested in SpaceX (ulterior motives, including my employer)
I don’t care if its private or not, we are just excited to see better spacecraft, and most so called public space programs are also being built by private companies. The difference a matter of nuance. Russia may have been the only one that wasn’t largely private.
The impression I got from the statement is that the 4 canceled Soyuz launches will most likely move over to Ariane 6. Exomars is probably SOL for at least 2 years
Problem being that Ariane 6 doesn't yet exists and until they have free capacity and a even remotely high flight rate it will take years.
Ariane 6 already has planned flights, then you need to move over 4 flights from Soyuz and then OneWeb has another 6. It will take many years for the Ariane 6 to complete all these things and it will be far more expensive.
That one. Yuval Noah Harari in a recent TED talk noted that we could measure the peace of an era by the percent of world GDP spent on military. He suggested that the period between the Berlin Wall coming down and this invasion was a significant historical low.
I don't think you honestly need a high GDP for conflict and violence. There has been a number of genocides that have happened since the Berlin wall came down, that were not performed by advanced military equipment.
World's GDP spent on military I would argue applies more to inter-state violence, which is comparatively more rare than violence within the state.
I agree it seems overly simplified to the point of being useless. A single Columbia class submarine (without munitions) costs the same as (approx) 10 million loaded AK47's. The two of these would have very different effects on peace, especially not considering where those AK47's are used.
World GDP also doesn't account for purchase parity. A state with cheaper labour building the exact same weapon as a state with more expensive labour would still result in the same weapon being created.
I'm wondering if NASA will change their plans for Mark Vande Hei to return on Dragon instead of Soyuz. His return is planned for later this month, so I suppose we'll know pretty soon.
Is seems like people have forgotten any lesson the cold war gave us. About the principles of peaceful coexistence that allowed us to be alive today.
Anything that can further the mutual understanding in culture, art and science between peoples is a good thing. It is our duty to do anything to ensure the peace.
People seem to prefer to advertise their moral rightfulness even at the risk at dooming humanity. After all, everyone who doesn't agree must be a Putin-loving traitor.
Putin's Russia might be a fact of live for many years still to come and we will need to live with them. I know people wish otherwise but that is not how the world works.
We can live with Russia and share cultural experiences with Russians without directly funding its military industrial complex though. Not to mention the practical complications introduced in cooperating with Roscosmos by Putin's unilateral decision to end the peace. It's safe to say ESA has dropped contractors for a lot less.
The space programs goals is primary to further scientific research, not sure how it directly contributes to the military.
Nobody ended any peace. The fight between Putin's Russia and NATO is purely on the ideological and economic level. It was the decision of NATO to escalate it.
Ukraine was neither part of EU nor NATO. The war has nothing to do with NATO other than them supporting the other side. Were the support for Syrian rebels or the bombing of Libya military attacks on Russia? No. NATO countries have invaded plenty of countries. People just have more sympathy with Ukrainians because they are not "brown people".
In November as Russia ratcheted up its anti-NATO rhetoric in preparation for using "NATO" as one of its excuses to start levelling its neighbours' cities, Roscosmos' chief was announcing the success of its newly developed anti-satellite weapon whilst accusing NATO of "sending weapons carriers into space". That's not exactly the position of a neutral scientific institute.
War has started in 2014, RF has occupied parts of the Ukraine, used special forces for proxy war in Ukrainan Donbass, 15,000 killed, 30,000 wounded, about 1,000,000 displaced.
RF specifically bombs civilians, kills womans and children.
You are sick individual, children are being exploded because of the ego of Putin, and this decision has made it clear how necessary NATO is. Yes NATO countries including mine have done the same kind of evil, and may the world reject any future actions the same way it is rejecting this action by russia. May hell exist and may you and monsters who think like you burn in it.
You can't attack another user like this on HN, regardless of how wrong they are or you feel they are. We ban accounts that post like this, so if you'd please read the guidelines and stick to them in the future, we'd appreciate it.
We have been doing that with Russia for 30 years and clearly it had no positive impact, maybe we can try again soon but right now we have more pressing matters. Also this was really russias call to end space cooperation, not EU.
Putin was pretty pro-West, even wanted Russia to join NATO when he started out. Analyzing what happened and how the mistakes can be avoided might be a good step.
Look, they say that the sample is representative, but is it really?
Let me try this:
"According to the survey (the sample is representative) around 20% Russians support the war"
You won't trust me, but why do you trust the quoted resource without verification? The two countries are at war and while Russian propaganda is horrible, it doesn't mean that everything else is 100% true. Note that I'm not blaming the victim, the situation is close to black and white. I'm only asking whether you really believe that 75% people support the ongoing war and support starting war with multiple other countries?
There's one more aspect. Even if the sample is representative by sex/age/income/education level etc, some people may be scared to tell their opinion to a stranger over the phone. The government labeled those against the war as traitors and who knows what's the real intent of people asking such questions over the phone.
How do you think, if the war was so popular, would there be a need for stricter laws and calling people traitors?
I lived in USSR, and suppression of speech and opposition is exactly needed to have such high popularity. The transition into 199x shown that informed population doesn't allow to sustain such high popularity, and this is why Russian regime has been tightening the screws back over the last 22 years.
>some people may be scared to tell their opinion to a stranger over the phone
Yet, there is no need to enthusiastically point to a next country. Almost all pointing to the same one is extremely suggestive of it being a genuine result.
>I'm only asking whether you really believe that 75% people support the ongoing war and support starting war with multiple other countries?
Yes. Of course most of those people aren't going to fight themselves. And it will take some time and more sanctions before they start to question the situation. With all the sanctions the life in Russia is still much better than at the beginning of 199x, and until that the Russians feel just fine finding satisfaction in resisting that "American attack on them". And don't forget that "Ukraine was with American help making nuclear and biological weapons to attack Russia".
I was too young to remember how was it in USSR and left Russia roughly 10 years ago. It's hard for me to believe in 75%, even considering state propaganda. Maybe things changed, I don't know.
> Yet, there is no need to enthusiastically point to a next country. Almost all pointing to the same one is extremely suggestive of it being a genuine result.
We don't know how many people refused to answer.
Don't get me wrong, I think even 20% support is unacceptable, and my gut feeling tells me that it is higher than that. Just not 75%. However, sadly I agree that situation is bad and shock therapy may be necessary. We'll see if it helps.
70% of RF population supports war. That's data from liberals who'd like to see different results. You should know public oppinion of Ichkeria (1994) occupation, Georgia (2008) occupation, Afganistan (1979) occupation.
Sure they are brainwashed, but their soldiers kills innocent and population supports this "special operation". Just like in Nazis Germany.
Okay, looks like your number is already lower than 75%.
Don't get me wrong, I hate what is happening and sick of Kremlin propaganda. If you are willing to have a constructive discussion, we can chat, otherwise please skip the rest. I'm on your side and support Ukraine in every way I can. Also, I admit that I haven't been to Russia in long time and don't know what exactly is happening there right now - I hope that the support is not overwhelming. I could be wrong.
I suspect that it's difficult to conduct a proper survey because I heard something (from a friend) that I haven't heard since 1990s (from parents): "this is not a phone conversation". That made me think that some people may not be comfortable telling their opinion to a stranger over the phone.
Data from liberals (is it Navalny's team?) was collected in rush and they admitted that the methodology is far from perfect. Iirc in their report they indicated that day after day the numbers were lower, which could be the result of the misinformation at the beginning.
Re public opinion about other wars: you listed many things and we'll not be able to discuss everything in this thread. I'm only curious why you went as far back as Afghanistan? Last I checked, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Afghanistan - are you sure that the public opinion in Ukraine at the time was significantly different from other republics? I'm really curious if you have any data to back it up (genuine question, willing to learn). If you wanted to add another "this is **ed up" story, Moldova would be an easier example?
almost no changes. Yes, a lot of people decline but that's not the only evidence. People quite often share in YouTube comments that everyone around supports war.
I've mentioned Afghanistan because 3000 Ukrainians died in this war. I am Russian speaking from Kharkiv, I know what is Russian chauvinism and imperialism from the inside. I could also mention Soviet-Finland war (1939), Holodomor (1933), occupation of Ukrainian National Republic (UNR), same line by Kremlin imperialists.
I have no data on Ukrainians opinion of Afghanistan war, but times were different, we've got Internet now, so many ways to discover truth. That's why I've mentioned Ichkeria (1994), I had no understanding what was there until RF occupied Ukrainian Donbas. Clearly that was occupation and genocide by RF but what's your opinion? Do you enjoy RF troops song:
А мы береты на лоб надвинем
И автоматы удобней сдвинем
И с улыбкою веселой
Мы будем жечь чужие села
I have a mix of guilt, fear, shame and anger when look at photos from Kharkiv.
I realized that it's so easy for this discussion to go sideways and it was not my intention. Everything what is happening is like a nightmare, even after 2014.
This is the first time I see this song, it's disgusting. Also, I stopped following Katz after I learned that he was on Moscow dept of transportation payroll. Imo anyone taking money from state owned organizations is compromised.
It's pointless to poll a country where public statements against the "special military operation" are criminally prosecutable with 1-5 year sentences. Only TV zombies will respond.
This is not in fact true, the reality is that actual launch vehicles right now are incredibly tight and if you take out the Russian rockets, there is a huge issue with launching these sats.
SpaceX completely dominates the launch market and has a 15 years lead on everyone. Short of countries bared from purchasing launch services due to ITAR and nationalist job programs everyone is seriously lagging behind America.
I'm mildly concerned in the next 20 years Russia will blow up a few satellites and cause a huge amount of LEO space debris that makes it harder for everyone else to launch, just because they can't compete. I imagine something like offering internet access that gets around their firewall might be a precipitating event. Space is getting more important and with their space program in precipitous decline but still having some capabilities, the winning move for them might be to deny it to everyone. Fits their scorched earth approach to adversaries. I feel it rests on what their post-Putin leadership is like and whether their relationship with China is maintained or takes a turn for the worse.
If Russia intentionally causes a Kessler cascade in LEO, I’m pretty sure it triggers Article V, and the orbits will be clear for centuries before the next launch.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is being opposed by NATO, and they are fighting troops on the ground holding NATO-built weapons, NATO-built planes and controlling NATO-built drones. Possibly with training from NATO countries.
From the Russian perspective, I expect they already understand that they are at war with NATO. Since Russia can't "win" a war with NATO in any reasonable sense, it is really just a question of how scorched-earth they feel like going in defeat.
Please don't spread this kind of propaganda. This is not "Russia's perspective". The only perspective that matters is Putin's and whatever Putin says is gospel. His concern about Ukraine in his own words is it having been taking over by a "nazi-led junta" and other such nonsense. Nazis is the rallying call for the public, not NATO.
Also, there are no NATO planes in Ukraine, nor are there NATO drones. There are Turkish Drones, but the only one using those are Turkey's allies, not NATO.
Also Russia forced the west's hand here. Russia was slowly invading and taking territory from Ukraine. First in Crimea, then in the Donbass so US and others started providing them with small amounts of aid. Then Russia suddenly invaded again forcing the west's hand against a Hitler-like drumbeat that Putin has caused in Russia.
> nor are there NATO drones. There are Turkish Drones, but the only one using those are Turkey's allies, not NATO.
Turkey is a NATO member since 1952, so it's hard to say that Turkish drones are not NATO drones, while still accepting that Ukraine is using other NATO weapons.
I agree with most of your other points here. There are some quiblles to be touched on related to exactly who was first to escalate things in Ukraine (Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador discussing who they want to replace Yankovich a good two weeks before the people forced him out does suggest that the orange revolution that preceded the 2014 invasion wasn't 100% homebrewed), but yes, this is mostly a problem of Russia's own making.
> Nazis is the rallying call for the public, not NATO.
Unless the Spectator [0] is lying to me, NATO came up in the first & second paragraph of the war declaration. Nazis turn up a lot later.
And one disadvantages the west has in containing Russian propaganda about NATO expansion is that the Russians are being truthful. NATO expansion is being done to target Russia and make them less safe.
Being truthful in the sense that yes, sure, more countries are joining NATO.
But that's the same countries that used to be under the USSR sphere of influence, that Russia didn't manage to attract after 1991 (remember the Commonwealth of Independent States?), and that are now voluntarily choosing to join NATO, presumably because Russia is a scary neighbor to have (Crimea and all).
A nuclear power being "less safe" from an entity whose recent activity consists mostly of ignominious withdrawals from conflicts does tend to stretch credulity. Countries on Russia's borders aspire to join NATO because Russia has a habit of marching its armies into them to annex territory or back one faction or another, not the other way round.
One thing which disadvantages the West is that some of same people who rightly dismissed the "pre-emptive self defence" arguments for Western regime change in Iraq fall over themselves to argue that of all the many propaganda arguments Russia has put forward for invading Ukraine including literal statements of imperial ambition as well as "chemical weapons", "Nazis" and NATO, the self-defence arguments make sense.
Given that as far as I can recall, 0 NATO countries have been invaded in the history of NATO that leaves open the question - how did they get in to the conflict that they withdrew from?
Given the US's application of best-defence-good-offence in the last 30 years, it is easy to see that Russia should be nervous.
If I recall, al-Qaeda and Islamic State weren't innocent victims of NATO's aggression, and Putin approved the action of some NATO countries in the first conflict and involved Russia in the second for the same reasons (but stuck around for longer to ensure his man won the civil war). Russia has been involved in more conflicts in recent years, whilst also having been invaded 0 times since WWII for obvious reasons.
Even if it were possible for sane leadership to believe that invading a nuclear superpower would be a practical possibility for NATO if only enough neighbouring nations were members, it's pretty obvious that since Iraq totally discredited the idea of "pre-emptive defence" in Western eyes nearly two decades ago NATO hasnt had the slightest bit of interest in committing the ground troops to actually win wars against even its weakest rivals, whilst Russia has championed best-defence-good-offence by sending troops with various degrees of justification into several of its neighbours. Pretty sure they're the ones with cause to be nervous.
>If I recall, al-Qaeda and Islamic State weren't innocent victims of NATO's aggression
Al-Qaeda isn't a country, they can't get invaded. Eg, when the US took out bin Laden they managed to do it in an uncooperative country without launching a full scale invasion. Although technically the special ops team may have been an invasion.
Islamic State got most of their mojo from continuous destabilisation of the middle east by aggressive NATO members. They may as well have been innocent victims of NATO aggression when you look at the relative scales of wrongdoing. At least they were fighting on their home turf. NATO was going a long way out - and many of them travelling past a bunch of rather brutal dictators to get to the middle east I might add - to fight them.
This pretence that somehow Russia is violating political norms is hypocritical. They are behaving relatively routinely for a nuclear power. It isn't good but it isn't bad enough that NATO should be picking fights on a nuclear armed power's doorstep.
The brutal dictators that NATO travelled past to fight the Islamic State hadn't declared holy war on the West or encouraged their adherents to bomb its cities. Do make your mind up whether it's all NATO's fault for past interventions against brutal dictatorships or all NATO's fault for not intervening more against brutal dictatorships.
The idea that small nations seeking powerful allies due to Russia's habit of military intervention everywhere on its borders that isn't capable of retaliating by levelling Russia cities is NATO "picking fights" is the reductio ad absurdum version of the Russian preemptive defence doctrine. Make no mistake, the reason Russia picked a fight with Ukraine is because of NATO not being willing to attack Russia in response.
With Vulcan waiting on years delayed BE-4 (and New Glenn on BE-4 and rest of the rocket as well), SpaceX launching Starlink constellation on its own reusable rockets is looking like the only game in town for a while.
https://www.arianespace.com/launch-log/