Necro Mancer (Twitter)

RT @bodmiruk: 115 днів мій підрозділ безпосередньо виконує бойові завдання майже без додаткової грошової винагороди (лише за з.п. 22-26тис. грн/міс.)
Бійці моєї в.ч. «премію» отримали за цей час лише за період 20 днів, коли були в підпорядкуванні одної з 4х бригад в складі яких ми працювали.👇

Necro Mancer (Twitter)

RT @206_110: @gilead_soldier: Нормальний, але в мене порвався коли накладав, на фото чекаю закінчення обстрілу, а очі досі охуєвші, коли тільки перестало кров пиздувать з артерії, і тут вороттк в руках лишився)))

‌Status-6 (Twitter)

RT @JenGriffinFNC: Hegseth to NATO: “These security guarantees (for Ukraine) should NOT be provided through NATO membership, but must 
instead be backed by capable European and non-European troops. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission and not covered under Article 5. (An attack on one is an attack on all.) There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact.

To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will NOT be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine.”

‌Status-6 (Twitter)

RT @JenGriffinFNC: Hegseth to NATO: “The U.S. is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, 
recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing tradeoffs to ensure deterrence does not fail. 
As the United States shifts its attention to these threats, 
European allies must lead from the front. 
Together, we can establish a division of labor that maximizes our comparative advantages in Europe and the Pacific respectively.”

‌The Lookout (Twitter)

While unpopular, these two quotes are the most uncontroversial of Hegseth's statement.

Reaching pre 2014 borders has been unlikely for quite some time.

US troops on the ground and NATO membership for Ukraine was off the table with the previous admin too.

The rest of what he said, IMO, points towards significant consequences, both for Ukraine and Europe as a whole.

The Lookout (Twitter)

@shashj: To me, his statement implies that the US footprint in Europe will shrink.

A transcript would be useful, so going by memory here, but think he said something like "Europe must manage conventionally on their own".

Not sure if they have thought about things like SACEUR yet.

The Lookout (Twitter)

@akihheikkinen @shashj: That's what it sounded like to me.

He also said something like "the US will empower it". Means they won't cut us off from the US defense industry. Rather, I think they would very much like us to buy and use their stuff.

All in all, I think this week will likely be a rough one for European leaders.

Colby Badhwar 🇨🇦🇬🇧 (Twitter)

@Inferno_Man @ArchivesDefense: Read the article. This was delivered sometime last year.

Dan (Twitter)

16.🇷🇺155th Naval Infantry Bde POWs in Kursk Oblast.
A 5th POW from 155th in the recent🇺🇦Air Assault film of 21 POWs captured by various units in Kursk.
No additional info given and I found no interview of him so far.
Released 05th February.t.me/ua_dshv/4951

IgorGirkin (Twitter)

Guevo claimed, another ru worms air strike on ru worms village

Kursk region

Necro Mancer (Twitter)

Пятиминутка русофобии
t.me/azov_media/6543 t.me/Assault_Battalion_1/242 t.me/argus38/473 t.me/Rarog_427/421 #RussianUkrainianWar

Status-6 (Twitter)

RT @OstapYarysh: 🚨@SecDef Pete Hegseth outlined U.S. defense policy towards Ukraine:

"We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.

A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again. This must not be Minsk 3.0. That said, the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.

Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine, at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission, and they should not be covered under Article Five.

There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact. To be clear: as part......

Status-6 (Twitter)

RT @ItsArtoir: Solid from Healey at the first Ukraine Defence Contact Group that he has lead at short notice.

Confirms £4.5bn in military aid for the year with more weapons including drones, A2A missiles and tanks to be delivered.

IgorGirkin (Twitter)

RT @OstapYarysh: 🚨@SecDef Pete Hegseth outlined U.S. defense policy towards Ukraine:

"We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.

A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again. This must not be Minsk 3.0. That said, the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.

Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine, at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission, and they should not be covered under Article Five.

There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact. To be clear: as...

Перейти на оригинальный пост