1. I'm slow to get to this, but it's fascinating. #Mali PM Maïga responding to criticism by the "national transition council." They asked, "you haven't accomplished much. Why not?"
2. His response largely is to insist on Mali's having re-found its sovereignty by kicking out the French, and he complains that France announced it was leaving, which would create a vacuum, which proved it was bad for Mali to be dependent.
3. Then he blamed the many problems of the military on its dependence on France. That's revealing: there's some truth to this in that France's presence encouraged a large measure of complacency, though it's odd to blame France for Malian leaders' inaction.
4. In any case, if the French departure propels Mali's leaders to act, so much the better.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. The Russian military's shabby performance should not be taken as proof that Europe and the US need not worry about Russia, or that Finland and Sweden need not question their "neutrality." Why not?
2. First, Russia, for all its operational failings, retains the capacity to wreak extraordinary amounts of damage and pain upon its neighbors. It could still flatten Kyiv, if it wanted to, and that's w/o resorting to nukes. So,
3. Finland for example would cut the Russian army to pieces, but still would have to endure extraordinary hardship and horror.
1. The article's focus is on Rafals, but the argument applies to much else. Basically, the "pie" of available fighters is too small given that some significant number must always be available for air superiority over France itself...
2...and another number must be trained and ready for a nuclear raid. That's basically a Doolittle-esque suicide mission, but it needs to have a realistic chance of reaching its objectives.
3. Meanwhile, presumably Fr has been fighting a hot war somewhere for long enough to have sustained significant losses. Does it have enough to matter in that fight AND sustain attrition AND defend its skies AND retain ability to launch a strategic raid? Not really.
1. A UN entity holds Mali's Army--accompanied by Wagner--responsible for a massacre early in the month. I've seen a video of the victims and, yeah, you don't want to. Naturally, a "quasi-totality" of the 30 victims were Fulanis.
2. The report confirms information we've received (from Malian sources). No reports indicate Wagner itself did the killing, but they were present at the scene.
3. What did they say to their Malian colleagues at the time? I don't know, but I find it implausible that they tried to stop them. I fear Wagner's involvement at least tacitly encourages Malian forces to heed their worst angels. And thereby act against their own interests.
1. I recommend in the strongest terms this essay (in French) about anti-French sentiment in the Sahel, explaining how it's both easy to understand while also representing a disastrous intellectual defeat on the part of the people of the Sahel. rahmane.substack.com/p/du-sentiment…
2. It's become a substitute for thinking clearly about real problems, and for imagining a real strategy for overcoming the region's problems.
3. One insight that I've been trying to articulate myself is the fundamental difference between Serval/Barkhane and previous French interventions, especially of the 1960-1994 era. Namely, earlier interventions were "neocolonial" and all about preserving French...
2. If it's true and it goes through, I think it likely that Macron would abandon Mali. I know everyone says #Barkhane's ending anyway, but it's not true...but this could make it true for Mali. FR would redeploy to Niger, Burkina, and Mauritania.
3. Would Mali "fall"? Yeah, it just might. I don't see Wagner turning the tide against the jihadists. So what is their purpose? Doubtful anything positive.
1. More thoughts on Schoendoerffer's "Dien Bien Phu," which war movie buffs absolutely have to add to must-see lists. Schoen. made an interesting choice in letting an American journalist in Hanoi basically tell the story of the battle.
2. The focus is on his conversations, which become more intense as the convos are with men who keep volunteering to drop into a battle that already is lost. He switches back and forth from those to battle scenes constructed for their visual beauty and pathos.