il mondo è cosi bello! perché distruggerlo? geopolitica, storia, analisi militari. niente è come sembra.

[Invictus25]

C-17As of the 62nd Airlift Wing at Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Seattle have been cleared to transport new B61-12 nuclear bomb.

 

[Invictus25]

https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_se/publication/afi91-115/afi91-115.pdf


BY ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 91-115 1 NOVEMBER 2022 Safety SAFETY RULES FOR NUCLEAR
AIRLIFT OPERATIONS

 

[Invictus25]

The C-17A Has Been Cleared To Transport B61-12 Nuclear Bomb To Europe​

​

The C-17A Has Been Cleared To Transport B61-12 Nuclear Bomb To Europe​

By Hans Kristensen • January 9, 2023


In November 2022, the Air Force updated its safety rules for airlift of nuclear weapons to allow the C-17A Globemaster III aircraft to transport the new B61-12 nuclear bomb.

The update, accompanied by training and certification of the aircraft and crews, cleared the C-17A to transport the newest U.S. nuclear weapon to bases in the United States and Europe.

The C-17As of the 62nd Airlift Wing at Joint Base Lewis-McChord serve as the Prime Nuclear Airlift Force (PNAF), the only airlift wing that is authorized to transport the Air Force’s nuclear warheads.

The updated Air Force instruction does not, as inaccurately suggested by some, confirm that shipping of the weapons began in December. But it documents some of the preparations needed to do so.

Politico reported in October last year that the US had accelerated deployment of the B61-12 from Spring 2023 to December 2022. Two unnamed US officials said the US told NATO about the schedule in October.

But a senior Pentagon official subsequently dismissed the Politico report, saying “nothing has changed on the timeline. There is no speeding up because of any Ukraine crisis, the B61-12 is on the same schedule it’s always been on.”

Although the DOD official denied there had been a change in the schedule, he did not deny that transport would begin in December.

The B61-12 production scheduled had slipped repeatedly. Initially, the plan was to begin full-scale production in early-2019. By September 2022, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was still awaiting approval to begin full-scale production. Finally, in October 2022, NNSA confirmed to FAS that the B61-12 was in full-scale production.

The B61-12 is intended as an upgrade and eventual replacement for all current nuclear gravity bombs, including the B61-3, -4, -7, and probably eventually also the B61-11 and B83-1. To that end, it combines and improves upon various aspects of existing bombs: it uses a modified version of the B61-4 warhead with several lower- and medium-yield options (0.3-50 kilotons). It compensates for its smaller explosive yield (relative to the maximum yields of the B61-7 and -11) by including a guided tail-kit to increase accuracy, as well as a limited earth-penetration capability.

At this point in time, it is unknown if B61-12 shipments to Europe have begun. If not, it appears to be imminent. That said, deployment will probably not happen in one move but gradually spread to more and more bases depending on certification and construction at each base.

There are currently six active bases in five European countries with about 100 B61 bombs present in underground Weapons Storage and Security Systems (WS3) inside aircraft shelters. A seventh site in Germany (Ramstein Air Base) is active without weapons present and an eighth site – RAF Lakenheath – has recently been added to the list of WS3 sites being modernized. The revitalization of Lakenheath’s nuclear storage bunkers does not necessarily indicate that US nuclear weapons will return to UK soil, especially since as recently as December 2021, NATO’s Secretary General stated that “we have no plans of stationing any nuclear weapons in any other countries than we already have . . . ” However, the upgrade could be intended to increase NATO’s ability to redistribute the B61 bombs in times of heightened tensions, or to potentially move them out of Turkey in the future. In addition, four other sites have inactive (possibly mothballed) vaults (see map below).

 

[Invictus25]

 

[Invictus25]

Two unarmed B61-12 trainers are loaded on a C-17A during an exercise at Joint Base Lewis-McChord AFB in April 2021. Image: U.S. Air Force.

 

[Invictus25]

Hans Kristensen​

Direttore del progetto di informazione nucleare
Stato degli arsenali nucleari in tutto il mondo Stati Uniti Politica nucleareDe-alerting Armi Nucleari
Hans M. Kristensen è direttore del Nuclear Information Project presso la Federation of American Scientists, dove fornisce al pubblico analisi e informazioni di base sullo stato delle forze nucleari e sul ruolo delle armi nucleari. È specializzato nell'uso del Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) nella sua ricerca ed è un consulente frequente ed è ampiamente citato nei media sul ruolo e lo stato delle armi nucleari.
La sua collaborazione con i ricercatori dell'NRDC nel 2010 ha portato a una stima delle dimensioni delle scorte di armi nucleari degli Stati Uniti che erano solo 13 armi dal numero effettivo declassificato dal governo degli Stati Uniti.
Kristensen è co-autore della colonna Nuclear Notebook nella panoramica del Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the World Nuclear Forces nell'Annuario SIPRI. Il Nuclear Notebook è, secondo l'editore, "ampiamente considerato come la fonte più accurata di informazioni sulle armi nucleari e sulle strutture per le armi disponibili al pubblico". Le colonne del quaderno nucleare passato possono essere trovate qui. Un elenco completo delle pubblicazioni di Kristensen può essere trovato qui.
Tra il 2002 e il 2005, Kristensen è stato consulente del programma nucleare presso il Natural Resources Defense Council di Washington, D.C, dove ha studiato le questioni relative alle armi nucleari e ha scritto il rapporto “U.S. Armi nucleari in Europa" (febbraio 2005) e coautore di numerosi articoli tra cui "Cosa c'è dietro i tagli nucleari di Bush" (Arms Control Today, ottobre 2004) e "The Protection Paradox" (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, marzo/aprile 2004). Tra il 1998 e il 2002, Kristensen ha diretto il progetto di strategia nucleare presso il Nautilus Institute di Berkeley, in California, ed è stato consulente speciale del ministero della Difesa danese nel 1997-1998 come membro della Commissione di difesa danese. È stato ricercatore senior presso l'unità di informazione nucleare di Greenpeace International a Washington D.C dal 1991 al 1996, prima di quale ha coordinato la campagna per i mari nucleari di Greenpeace in Danimarca, Norvegia, Finlandia e Svezia.


Hans Kristensen

 

[Invictus25]

The FAS Nuclear Notebook is co-authored by Hans M. Kristensen and Matt Korda and published bi-monthly in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Each issue provides a snapshot of a nuclear-armed country weapons programs or a global nuclear weapons matter. The FAS Nuclear Notebook is one of the most widely sourced reference materials worldwide for reliable information about the status of nuclear weapons, and it is the most visited section of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists web site. Starting in 2020, the Bulletin only offers the Notebooks in web format, but full PDF formats are still available from Taylor & Francis. Because of their importance as a resource to an informed public debate about nuclear weapons, the FAS Nuclear Notebooks are freely available on the Internet.

FAS Nuclear Notebook

Nuclear Notebook​

Since 1987, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has published the Nuclear Notebook, an authoritative accounting of world nuclear arsenals compiled by top experts from the Federation of American Scientists. Today, it is prepared by Hans M. Kristensen and Matt Korda of FAS. Because of its importance to researchers, governments, and citizens around the world, the Nuclear Notebook is always free-to-access.


Nuclear Notebook Archives - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Search results​

• Showing 1-10 of 232 results for search: [Keywords: nuclear-notebook] AND [in Journal: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/...1=Nuclear-notebook&startPage=&sortBy=Earliest

 

[Invictus25]

Pentagon Sends U.S. Arms Stored in Israel to Ukraine​

Israeli officials had initially expressed concerns that the move could damage its relations with Russia.


WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is tapping into a vast but little-known stockpile of American ammunition in Israel to help meet Ukraine’s dire need for artillery shells in the war with Russia, American and Israeli officials say.

The stockpile provides arms and ammunition for the Pentagon to use in Middle East conflicts. The United States has also allowed Israel to access the supplies in emergencies.

The Ukraine conflict has become an artillery-driven war of attrition, with each side lobbing thousands of shells every day. Ukraine has run low on munitions for its Soviet-era weaponry and has largely shifted to firing artillery and rounds donated by the United States and other Western allies.

Artillery constitutes the backbone of ground combat firepower for both Ukraine and Russia, and the war’s outcome may hinge on which side runs out of ammunition first, military analysts say. With stockpiles in the United States strained and American arms makers not yet able to keep up with the pace of Ukraine’s battlefield operations, the Pentagon has turned to two alternative supplies of shells to bridge the gap: one in South Korea and the one in Israel, whose use in the Ukraine war has not been previously reported.


The shipment of hundreds of thousands of artillery shells from the two stockpiles to help sustain Ukraine’s war effort is a story about the limits of America’s industrial base and the diplomatic sensitivities of two vital U.S. allies that have publicly committed not to send lethal military aid to Ukraine.

Israel has consistently refused to supply weapons to Ukraine out of fear of damaging relations with Moscow and initially expressed concerns about appearing complicit in arming Ukraine if the Pentagon drew its munitions from the stockpile. About half of the 300,000 rounds destined for Ukraine have already been shipped to Europe and will eventually be delivered through Poland, Israeli and American officials said.

As senior defense and military officials from dozens of nations, including NATO states, prepare to meet at Ramstein Air Base in Germany on Friday to discuss sending Ukraine more tanks and other arms, U.S. officials have been scrambling behind the scenes to cobble together enough shells to keep Kyiv sufficiently supplied this year, including through an anticipated spring offensive.

“With the front line now mostly stationary, artillery has become the most important combat arm,” Mark F. Cancian, a former White House weapons strategist, said in a new study for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, where he is a senior adviser.

Another analysis published last month by the Foreign Policy Research Institute said that if Ukraine continued to receive a steady supply of ammunition, particularly for artillery, as well as spare parts, it would stand a good chance of wresting back more territory that Russia had seized.

“The question is whether these advantages will prove sufficient for Ukrainian forces to retake territory from entrenched Russian troops,” wrote Rob Lee and Michael Kofman, leading military analysts.


Arming the Ukrainian military with enough artillery ammunition is part of a larger American-led effort to increase its overall combat power by also providing more precision long-range weapons, Western tanks and armored fighting vehicles, and combined arms training.

The United States has so far sent or pledged to send Ukraine just over one million 155-millimeter shells. A sizable portion of that — though less than half — has come from the stockpiles in Israel and South Korea, a senior U.S. official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.

Other Western countries, including Germany, Canada, Estonia and Italy, have sent 155-millimeter shells to Ukraine.
The Ukrainian army uses about 90,000 artillery rounds a month, about twice the rate they are being manufactured by the United States and European countries combined, U.S. and Western officials say. The rest must come from other sources, including existing stockpiles or commercial sales.

Mr. Kofman said in an interview that without adjustments to how the Ukrainian military fights, future Ukrainian offensives might require significantly more artillery ammunition to make progress against entrenched Russian defenses.
“The U.S. is making up the difference from its stockpiles, but that’s doubtfully a sustainable solution,” said Mr. Kofman, who is the director of Russian studies at CNA, a research institute in Arlington, Va. “It means the U.S. is taking on risk elsewhere.”
Pentagon officials say they must ensure that even as they arm Ukraine, American stockpiles do not dip to dangerously low levels. According to two senior Israeli officials, the United States has promised Israel that it will replenish what it takes from the warehouses in its territory and would immediately ship ammunition in a severe emergency.
“We are confident that we will continue to be able to support Ukraine for as long as it takes,” Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, the Pentagon spokesman, told reporters last week. “And we’re confident that we’ll be able to continue to maintain the readiness levels that are vital to defending our nation.”
General Ryder told The New York Times in a statement on Tuesday that the Pentagon “will not discuss the location or units providing the equipment or materiel,” citing operational security reasons.

And those war reserve stockpiles are playing a pivotal role.
When last year the Pentagon first raised the idea of withdrawing munitions from the stockpile, Israeli officials expressed concern about Moscow’s reaction.
Israel has imposed a near-total embargo on selling weapons to Ukraine, fearing that Russia might retaliate by using its forces in Syria to limit Israeli airstrikes aimed at Iranian and Hezbollah forces there.

Israel’s relationship with Russia has come under close scrutinysince Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last February, and Ukrainian officials have called out Israel’s government for offering their country only limited support and bowing to Russian pressure.
As the war dragged on, the Pentagon and the Israelis reached an agreement to move about 300,000 155-millimeter shells, Israeli and American officials said.
The American desire to move the munitions was officially submitted in an encrypted phone conversation between the U.S. secretary of defense, Lloyd J. Austin III, and Benny Gantz, the Israeli minister of defense at the time, according to an Israeli official who was briefed on the details of the conversation.
Mr. Gantz brought the issue to the Israeli cabinet. The officials asked to hear the opinion of the defense establishment, whose representatives recommended accepting the plan to avoid tension with the United States, in part because the ammunition was American property. Yair Lapid, then the prime minister, approved the request at the end of the discussion.



The Israeli officials said that Israel had not changed its policy of not providing Ukraine with lethal weapons and rather was acceding to an American decision to use its own ammunition as it saw fit.
“Based on a U.S. request, certain equipment was transferred to the U.S. D.O.D. from its stockpiles” in Israel, a spokesman for the Israeli Defense Forces said in a statement, referring to the Department of Defense.

The stockpile of American military hardware and munitions in Israel has its origins in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, which saw the United States airlifting weapons to resupply Israeli forces.
After the war, the United States established warehouses in Israel so that it could rely on them if it were again caught in a crisis. A strategic memorandum signed by the two countries in the 1980s paved the way for the “pre-positioning” of Pentagon assets in Israel, according to two former U.S. officials and a former senior Israeli military officer with direct knowledge of the agreement.
American tanks and armored personnel carriers were initially moved to Israel’s southern desert with the understanding that they would be used by U.S. forces in the region if needed, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations.
In the 2000s, the program was expanded to include munitions for the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force — all stored in separate locations accessible only to American military personnel, according to a former U.S. arms inspector.
At the time, the stockpile, officially called the WRSA-I, or War Reserve Stocks for Allies-Israel, was overseen by the U.S. European Command. But it is now managed by the U.S. Central Command, following a redrawing of its area of responsibility in September 2021.
Israel was allowed to withdraw American munitions from the stockpile during its war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006 and again during operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip in 2014, according to a Congressional Research Service report released in February 2022.

The Pentagon also approached South Korea last year about transferring munitions in the U.S. stockpile there to Ukraine.


The South Koreans were more willing than the Israelis to work with the United States on using the stocks, a senior U.S. official said. But they also objected to shipping artillery shells directly to Ukraine, though for different reasons, the official said. The South Korean government did not want artillery rounds marked R.O.K. (Republic of Korea) showing up in Ukraine in violation of South Korean arms export rules.
A compromise was reached. Artillery shells from the Korean stockpile would be sent to replenish American stocks elsewhere.
The United States has also agreed to buy 100,000 new artillery shells from South Korea, a deal previously reported by The Wall Street Journal.
U.S. officials say that accessing the overseas stocks will help tide over the Ukrainians until American ammunition makers can ramp up their production.
Other factors may ease the pressure for more shells. Russia’s artillery fire has reduced sharply in recent weeks, Pentagon officials said, possibly reflecting rationing of rounds because of low supplies. White House officials said in November that North Korea was shipping artillery shells to Russia, another sign of likely munitions shortages, U.S. officials said.
Finally, the United States is helping Ukraine use ammunition more efficiently. The Ukrainians have been firing so many artillery barrages that about a third of the 155-millimeter howitzers provided by the United States and other Western nations are out of commission for repairs.

Over the summer, during intense fighting between Ukraine and Russia in the eastern region of Donbas, Pentagon officials gathered satellite imagery that showed the devastation wrought on farmland between the two forces’ trench lines. Fields had been transformed into moonscapes, pitted and pocked with thousands of crater shells.
Since then, American officials have leaned on Ukrainians to use their artillery more judiciously. And the arrival of precision rocket artillery, like HIMARS rocket artillery, has allowed Ukraine to strike more expertly.

 

[Invictus25]

Ukraine’s Allies Pledge to Send Major Infusion of Military Aid​

As representatives from dozens of countries prepared to attend a war-planning meeting in Germany, the talk was of missiles, air defense and — above all — tanks.


A day before a critical meeting in Germany to chart the next steps in the defense of Ukraine, Kyiv’s allies made it clear on Thursday that they were prepared to furnish a major infusion of military aid to help it fend off Russian aggression.
Armored vehicles, rockets and missiles, artillery rounds and air-defense systems were just part of an aid package that is expected to total billions of dollars worth of matériel when officials from as many as 50 nations have struck a final deal on Friday.
“In a war like it is being fought, every type of equipment is necessary,” Adm. Rob Bauer of the Netherlands, chairman of a top NATO military committee, said Thursday.
Even before they began to gather at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, nations appeared to be staking out positions on how best to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as it nears its first anniversary.

U.S. officials said they planned to send nearly 100 Stryker combat vehicles as part of a roughly $2.5 billion shipment of arms and equipment. And after the British and Estonian defense secretaries hosted a meeting for military officials from the Baltics and Central Europe at an army base in Estonia, they, too, began to detail their plans.

Estonia said it would send its largest military aid package yet to Ukraine, including remote fire and anti-tank weapons as well as ammunition, worth a total of 113 million euros, or about $122 million. Britain reiterated its commitment to sending Challenger 2 tanks and also said it would supply 600 Brimstone missiles.
“The free world must continue to provide arms assistance to Ukraine, and do so at much greater scale and speed,” said Estonia’s prime minister, Kaja Kallas. “All countries must look into their stockpiles and ensure that industries are able to produce more and faster.”
The countries that signed a pledge of support after the meeting, including Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Slovakia, said in a joint statement that they were committed to “collectively pursuing delivery of an unprecedented set of donations” in support of Ukraine.

But the big question remained: Will Berlin in the end agree to send advanced, German-made battle tanks to Ukraine? Or at least allow other countries that now have them to do so?

Ukraine and some of its allies have been putting pressure on Germany to supply or authorize the export of the advanced Leopard 2 tanks, but there have been conflicting reports about what Berlin might do.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz has made it clear that Germany, still emerging from its post-World War II aversion to a strong military, will not “go it alone.” That means that when it comes to the Leopards, German officials said this week, Berlin will not send any from its own stock unless the United States sends its M1 Abrams tanks as well — a step Washington appears highly reluctant to take.
A Pentagon spokeswoman, Sabrina Singh, said Thursday that “it just doesn’t make sense” to provide Ukraine with Abrams tanks “at this moment” because they use jet fuel and are difficult to maintain. She said the Germans would have to make up their own minds about the Leopard 2s.
“Ultimately this is Germany’s decision,” Ms. Singh said.
Some officials think that in the end, Germany is likely to allow other countries that have bought Leopards to send them to Ukraine.
On the eve of the meeting at Ramstein, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine made a plea for more weapons but said their acquisition was outside his control.

“We exert political pressure as best we can, but the most important thing is that we exert reasoned pressure,” Mr. Zelensky said at a news conference in Kyiv, according to the Ukrinform news agency. “Against thousands of tanks available to the Russian Federation, the courage of our military and motivation of the Ukrainian people are not enough.”
William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director, traveled to Kyiv last week for secret consultations with Mr. Zelensky, according to a U.S. official. Since just before the invasion, Mr. Burns has made periodic visits to Ukraine to meet with intelligence officials and to convey information to Mr. Zelensky.
Western officials, worried that Ukraine may have only a narrow window before anticipated springtime offensives begin, have been working to speed the delivery of heavy, sophisticated weapons to Kyiv.
“The Russians are really digging in,” Colin H. Kahl, the U.S. under secretary of defense for policy, told reporters this week. “They’re digging trenches. They’re putting in these dragon’s teeth, laying mines.”
Ukraine, he said, needs more mechanized infantry and armored personnel carriers to punch through heavily fortified Russian defenses.
“To enable the Ukrainians to break through given Russian defenses,” Mr. Kahl said, “the emphasis has been shifted to enabling them to combine fire and maneuver in a way that will prove to be more effective.”

After the NATO meeting in Brussels, Admiral Bauer of the Netherlands and the supreme allied commander in Europe, Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli of the United States, said that quality tanks were important for Ukraine as part of what they called “a balance of all systems.”

“There is not a particular weapon system that is a silver bullet,” General Cavoli said. “In the end, attack simply comes down to a balance between firepower, mobility and protection.”
In addition to the Strykers, a medium-weight, eight-wheeled armored vehicle that can carry troops and weapons, the package the United States plans to announce will include more Bradley fighting vehicles, ammunition for HIMARS rocket artillery, 155-millimeter and 105-millimeter artillery rounds, other vehicles and air defense systems, a U.S. official said Thursday.

Officials said the Bradleys would be especially helpful to Ukrainian units fighting Russian forces in eastern Ukraine.


Ukraine’s Allies Pledge to Send Major Infusion of Military Aid

 

[Invictus25]

Allies Fail to Agree on Sending Tanks to Ukraine​

​

Allies Fail to Agree on Sending Tanks to Ukraine​

Officials tried to play down the rift. But Germany is still insisting it will not be the country to take the first step alone, for fear of incurring Moscow’s wrath.


BERLIN — Western defense officials meeting in Germany said on Friday that they had failed to reach an agreement for sending battle tanks to Ukraine, in a setback to Kyiv’s hopes to quickly receive weapons that President Volodymyr Zelensky has called crucial to the next phase of the war.
The officials had hoped to reach agreement on sending advanced, German-made Leopard 2 tanks, which are stocked by many European countries. But Germany has refused to send its own Leopards to Ukraine or to give its approval to other countries to export them, not wanting to be the first to take the step and asking that the United States send its best tank, the M1 Abrams, as well.
The failure to strike a deal was quickly criticized by some Ukrainians as well as the Polish and Latvian governments, who have argued that tanks are critical to claw back territory seized by Russia early in its invasion and to defend against an expected Russian offensive in the spring.
“Arming Ukraine in order to repel the Russian aggression is not some kind of decision-making exercise. Ukrainian blood is shed for real,” Poland’s foreign minister, Zbigniew Rau, said on Twitter. “This is the price of hesitation over Leopard deliveries. We need action, now.”

Still, American and German officials sought to play down the disagreements, emphasizing that Germany might yet approve sending Leopards to Ukraine. The U.S. defense secretary, Lloyd J. Austin III, told reporters at Ramstein Air Base that Germany was “a reliable ally, and they’ve been that way for a very, very long time.”
His German counterpart, Boris Pistorius, said his country would begin an inventory of its vehicles, in case of a future deal, and would begin training Ukrainians on how to use the tanks.
“This is not to prejudice the outcome,” he said. “It’s to prepare for a day that will possibly come, at which point we would be able to act immediately and deliver the support within a very short period of time.”

From the beginning of the war, the Biden administration has carefully calibrated weapons deliveries to Ukraine, holding back more powerful weapons to avoid provoking a Russian escalation.

But after a string of battlefield successes, Ukraine has convinced the White House and its Western supporters to drop a series of taboos and provide more powerful offensive weapons, including infantry fighting vehicles and, this week, American Stryker armored vehicles. Yet, the provision of main battle tanks remained a step that many countries were reluctant to take.

That began to change in recent weeks, as Britain announced a shipment of tanks to Ukraine and pressure rose on Germany from Eastern European and Baltic countries to at least allow them to send their Leopard 2 tanks, which number about 2,000 in 14 countries across Europe. But even that step has been ruled out, for now, creating widespread frustrations, particularly as time is running short to ship the tanks to Ukraine and train its soldiers in their use.

“Many countries, including Latvia, are stepping up military assistance to Ukraine, but it is not enough,” said Latvia’s foreign minister, Edgars Rinkevics. “Leopard tanks must be provided to Ukraine now!”

German officials insist Berlin is not standing in the way, and have hinted that perhaps other countries, too, have concerns about making that move without a broader coalition.
“There is no unified consensus,” Mr. Pistorius said. “The impression that has occasionally been created that there is a united coalition and that Germany is standing in the way is wrong.”
Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany has insisted in recent months that he will not let Germany “go it alone” on weapons deliveries to Ukraine, and Germany has requested that the U.S. contribute some of its M1 Abrams tanks as part of the package. But the Pentagon has resisted, pointing to the logistical hurdles posed by a fuel-guzzling vehicle that requires continuous maintenance.

The German government has tried to soften the impression that it has demanded the United States provide Abrams tanks. At a news conference on Friday, the chancellor’s spokesman, Steffen Hebestreit, said that Germany was following three principles: “The first is to back Ukraine as much as possible. The second is to prevent NATO and Germany from becoming warring parties. The third thing is that we are not going it alone nationally, but are coordinating very closely with our international partners — above all the U.S.A.”
Germany’s reluctance to send tanks is likely to stem from fears about the risks of escalation and potential retaliation by Russia, said Thorsten Benner, the director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin.
“It would be a significant step for this main battle tank, the Leopard system, to go into Ukraine, and they want maximum reassurance from the U.S.,” he said. “There must be something in their heads about Germany being targeted in retaliation for sending this kind of signature German main battle tank — what that is, Scholz hasn’t spelled it out.”

For all the efforts to play down the divisions among the Western allies, the failure to reach a deal showed there were still major rifts among Ukraine’s supporters, especially between Eastern European nations demanding speedy action and the countries that have called for caution.
“Every day is worth its weight in gold, Ukraine needs to be supported, so we continue this diplomatic pressure together,” Poland’s deputy foreign minister, Pawel Jablonski, said after the meeting. “We will use different methods of direct and indirect persuasion, and we hope that this attitude will change — as it was with the Patriots.”
But aides to Germany’s chancellor argue that Mr. Scholz’s position is very close to that of President Biden, who has only gradually provided Ukraine with advanced weapons such as HIMARS rocket systems and Patriot missile air defenses.

Mr. Austin and Mr. Pistorius denied there were demands connecting U.S. and German tanks, though they provided no explanation for what was stalling a deal.
“There is no linkage between providing M1s and providing Leopards,” said Mr. Austin, adding that officials at the meeting were “pushing hard” to meet Ukraine’s needs for tanks and armored vehicles. The defense chiefs said that the United States and Germany would both step up training for Ukrainian troops, including on Leopard 2 tanks.
Some German lawmakers said privately this week that even countries calling to send Leopards want to present a united front, and are reluctant to request re-export licenses until all European partners — including Germany — agree to send tanks.


The German defense minister’s remarks made clear that other countries were also hesitating to deliver tanks, said Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmerman, the head of the Defense Committee in the German Parliament and a member of the governing coalition, though she added it was unclear which nations or what their concerns are.
“Ultimately, however, this should not be the issue,” she said. “The countries who want to do it should do it, and Germany should take a lead.”
Mr. Pistorius said there was no timeline for a deal on tanks, suggesting it could take days or weeks. Mr. Austin, on the other hand, said the clock was ticking.

“We have a window of opportunity here, between now and the spring, whenever they commence their counteroffensive,” he said, referring to the expected Russian campaign. “That’s not a lot of time.”
The lack of agreement was certain to disappoint many in Ukraine, including President Zelensky, who had appealed directly to the officials before the talks began. “Hundreds of thank-yous are not hundreds of tanks,” he said in a video address. “All of us can use thousands of words in discussions, but I cannot use words instead of guns.”

 

[Invictus25]

 

[Invictus25]

​

Tutte le armi dell’Italia all’Ucraina e il decreto del governo Meloni per i nuovi invii​

Roma ha fornito a Kiev lanciamissili e obici. Ora si prepara il sesto pacchetto. Che dovrà essere autorizzato da tutto il centrodestra

Ci sono i missili MLRS, versione potenziata degli Himars. L’Italia donerà due lanciamissili semoventi corazzati che ne possono lanciare fino a 12. Proprio quelli che secondo la Russia rischiano di portare all’escalation nucleare. E poi gli obici da 155 millimetri FH70. Consegnati a primavera, l’Ucraina li sta usando nell’offensiva per Cherson. Il lungo elenco delle armi consegnate da Roma a Kiev lo racconta oggi Repubblica, mentre il governo Meloni si prepara al sesto invio. Arriverà con un decreto interministeriale che dovrà portare con sé la firma del ministro dell’Economia Giorgetti, di quello degli Esteri Tajani, del responsabile della Difesa Crosetto. Ovvero i rappresentanti dei tre maggiori partiti del centrodestra. Tra i quali c’è chi, come la Lega, comincia a smarcarsi. E con Salvini torna a definire le sanzioni come un dramma.

Gli ordigni da Roma a Kiev​

Tra le sigle delle armi ci sono i pezzi migliori dell’arsenale della Nato. L’Italia possiede in tutto 18 MLRS. All’Ucraina ne arriveranno due. Insieme a quelli di Londra e Berlino. Poi ci sono i Pzh2000, obici con un cannone da 155 millimetri con sparo computerizzato. Possono colpire fino a 40 chilometri di distanza. E sparano 20 proiettili in 3 minuti. Sei semoventi verranno dati a Kiev dei 68 in possesso. L’ultimo decreto del governo Draghi ha dato l’ok anche ai semoventi M109L. Da un paio di settimane circolano fotografie dei semoventi in movimento lungo le autostrade del Nord Italia. Dai depositi dell’esercito vengono prelevati anche i veicoli di trasporto truppe M113. Nella tarda primavera abbiamo donato gli obici Fh70, sempre da 155 millimetri. Che si sono rivelati utilissimi per la battaglia estiva nel Donbass. I fuoristrada blindati Lince sono stati assegnati ai reparti d’assalto aviotrasportati nell’offensiva per liberare Cherson e Zaporizhzhia. Il trasferimento è stato gestito dal Covi, il Comando Vertice Interforze diretto dal generale Francesco Paolo Figliuolo.

Tutte le armi dell'Italia all'Ucraina e il decreto del governo Meloni per i nuovi invii

Un po’ datato ( di qualche mese fa ) ma serve sempre ricordare .

 

[Invictus25]

The NATO Alliance Is Holding Strong on Ukraine. But Fractures Are Emerging.​

​

The allies differ on strategy for the coming year and the more immediate question of what Ukraine needs ahead of a major offensive in the spring.​

Jan. 20, 2023
WASHINGTON — The billions of dollars in new arms for Ukraine announced this month — including British tanks, American fighting vehicles and howitzers from Denmark and Sweden — are testament to President Vladimir V. Putin’s failure to split the NATO allies after nearly a year of war. But small yet significant fractures are getting too big to hide.
The differences are over strategy for the coming year and the more immediate question of what Ukraine needs in the next few months, as both sides in the war prepare for major offensives in the spring. And while most of those debates take place behind closed doors, Britain’s impatience with the current pace of aid and Germany’s refusal to provide Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine broke out into public view this week.
When the new British foreign secretary, James Cleverly, visited Washington this week, he gathered reporters for lunch and made the case that it is possible for Ukraine to score a “victory” in the war this year if the allies move fast to exploit Russia’s weaknesses. Officials in Poland, the Baltic States and Finland have largely agreed with the British assessment.
American officials pushed back, saying it is critical to pace the aid, and not flood Ukraine with equipment its troops cannot yet operate. And they argue that in a world of limited resources, it would be wise to keep something in reserve for what the Pentagon believes will likely be a drawn-out conflict, in which Russia will try to wear Ukraine down with relentless barrages and tactics reminiscent of World War I and II.
On Friday, at the conclusion of a meeting in Germany of the dozens of nations supplying the war effort, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, repeated the assessment he has offered since the fall.
“For this year it would be very, very difficult to militarily eject the Russian forces,” he said. The best that could be hoped for is pressing Russia into a diplomatic negotiation — the way most wars end — though senior American diplomats say they have low expectations that Mr. Putin will enter serious talks.
Then came the more immediate blowup with the German government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz, over his refusal to send what many military experts believe could be a decisive weapon in Ukrainian hands: the German-built Leopard 2 tanks.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III spent several days trying to persuade the Germans to ship them, or at least allow Poland and other nations that use the tanks to re-export them. But by the time the meeting with scores of allies ended, the German defense minister, Boris Pistorius, reported that no agreement had been reached, although he said they would make a decision “as soon as possible.” He and Mr. Austin tried to focus on the unity of the effort to confront Russia, rather than the obvious rift over arms.
Differences of strategy among wartime allies are the norm, not the exception. In World War II there were major debates about whether to focus on defeating Nazi Germany first, and turn to Japan — which had actually attacked American territory — second. Similar debates happened during the Korean War, Vietnam and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because the United States was providing the bulk of the fighting force, it usually prevailed.
But in interviews with American, British and other European officials, including senior military leaders, it is clear that Ukraine is different. Only the Ukrainians are on the line, and no one wants to tell them how to fight a battle in which their forces, the only ones engaged in the daily brutality, have shown both grit and determination. But with both Russia and Ukraine planning fresh offensives, the debate over strategy and arms has reached what the NATO secretary general has called “an inflection point.”
The Ukrainians have made no secret that much as they appreciate the support of their allies, what they are getting is not enough. When Britain announced earlier this week that it was sending Challenger 2 tanks, Ukraine’s foreign minister and defense ministers issued a joint statement thanking the British government but adding that “it is not sufficient to achieve operational goals.”
Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, was typically blunt. After thanking the United States for a $2.5 billion contribution of arms, atop $3 billion announced several weeks ago, he said: “Hundreds of thank yous are not hundreds of tanks.”
In an appearance on German television, he said: “If you have Leopards, then give them to us.”
American officials were clearly frustrated after their negotiations with the German government this week. Germany had begun by saying that it would send Leopard tanks, and authorize others to, if the United States sent its M-1 Abrams tank as well. The United States declined, saying the tank is such a gas guzzler — it employs a jet engine — and requires such a supply line to keep running that it would not be useful in Ukraine’s environment. (The officials dodged questions about why a tank so difficult to operate on European battlefields is in the American arsenal.)
The British Challengers and German Leopards are more flexible and easier to run. But in public, Mr. Austin and others avoided criticizing Mr. Scholz, who in their view has managed the biggest reversal of German foreign policy — starting with the suspension of two pipelines bringing gas from Russia — quite skillfully.
Mr. Scholz’s real concern, they suspect, is that he does not believe the world is ready to see German tanks near the borders of Russia, a reminder of the Nazi invasion in World War II. One senior American official said this week that if Mr. Scholz and the German public are worried about that, in these circumstances “they are the only ones who are.”
While Germany did not say yes to sending Leopard tanks this week, it didn’t say no, either — at least not yet. But Ukraine has a very narrow window of time in which to launch a potentially decisive spring offensive before the Russians do, and the tanks are a key part of that effort.
Before that launch, Ukraine has to muster thousands of combat-ready troops, receive new advanced weapons from the West, and train their soldiers in how to use and maintain those arms. Getting all that done would be, according to General Milley, “a very, very heavy lift.”
That’s why Germany’s delay on approving tanks was so frustrating to Mr. Austin and other top Western officials who had been trying all week to reach an agreement with their German counterparts to provide what Ukraine needs now to wrest back territory.
“If we stop now or limit or diminish it, it will all have been in vain,” Wopke Hoekstra, the Dutch foreign affairs minister, said in an interview. “We have to double down. There is no substitute for victory on the battlefield.”
Speaking about the current German position, a British official said that London’s commitment to send Challenger tanks was intended to encourage other nations to do likewise, and that the British government still hoped it would.
At a news conference after Friday’s meeting, Mr. Austin sought to play down the importance of the Leopard tanks and highlight what Germany has provided — fighting vehicles, air defenses and training ranges for Ukrainian soldiers — no doubt hoping Berlin eventually would come around on Ukraine’s main request.
“This isn’t really about one single platform,” Mr. Austin said, quickly pivoting to note that Ukraine was still getting more than 100 Bradley fighting vehicles and nearly 90 Stryker combat vehicles from the United States, the equivalent of “two brigades of combat power.”
Still, Mr. Austin signaled the calendar is not on Ukraine’s side. “We have a window of opportunity here, between now and the spring,” he said. “That’s not a long time.”

Nytimes

 

[Invictus25]

A Brutal New Phase of Putin’s Terrible War in Ukraine​

Jan. 21, 2023

titolo propagandistico di un occidente diffamatorio e irrazionale.

Non pubblico per Misericordia.

Chi lo vorrà leggere può facilmente cliccare sul link sottostante.

Opinion | A Brutal New Phase of Putin’s Terrible War in Ukraine

 

[Invictus25]

U.S. Extends Troop Deployment in Romania, at Ukraine War’s Doorstep​

The buildup is part of President Biden’s commitment to increase American forces in Europe in response to the Russian invasion last February.​

Jan. 21, 2023, 12:17 p.m. ET
Sign Up for On Politics, for Times subscribers only. A Times reader’s guide to the political news in Washington and across the nation.
The Pentagon will keep several thousand American troops in southeast Romaniafor at least nine more months, closer to the war in neighboring Ukraine than any other U.S. Army unit, officials said on Saturday.
Over the last year, the sprawling Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base, just a seven-minute rocket flight across the Black Sea from where Russian forces have settled in Crimea, has become a training hub for NATO forces in southeast Europe. The forces would be a first line of defense should Russia invade further west.
There are around 4,000 U.S. soldiers with the 101st Airborne Division who have been stationed at the air base since last summer, including small groups of troops that frequently train right on Romania’s border with Ukraine. Before that, there was a smaller contingent from the 82nd Airborne that was sent as part of a quick-response force after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February.
The 101st Airborne Division troops will leave in the next two months, and officials said they would be replaced by a different brigade from the 101st Division, which is based at Fort Campbell, Ky.
Additionally, officials said, the mission will be led by the senior staff, including its two-star general and top planners, from the 10th Mountain Division, based in Ft. Drum, N.Y., for what is expected to be a nine-month deployment.
Prior to Saturday, it had not been clear whether the Pentagon would keep the senior-level unit at the air base on Romania or move its forces elsewhere.
Sending a two-star general that close to the combat zone, military analysts have said, would allow for quick decisions about where to position troops and weapons should Russia push the war into NATO territory.
The move “would ensure the United States continues to be well positioned to provide a robust deterrent and defensive posture alongside our allies across the European continent,” the Army said in a statement on Saturday. “The United States will continue to adjust its posture as needed in response to the dynamic security environment.”
The buildup was part of President Biden’s commitment in June to increase American forces in Europe in response to Russia’s invasion. That also included about 12,000 American troops, currently based in western Poland, to work with NATO forces in Poland and the Baltics.
Supporters of maintaining a strong presence in Eastern Europe have pointed to Russia’s attack as proof that the United States and its NATO allies did not do enough to deter Moscow last winter.
The American forces in Romania are training soldiers from NATO allies in Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary and Slovakia. Though they are among the closest units to the combat, they are not training Ukrainian forces on advanced weapons systems that are being shipped to the Ukrainians.
Romanian military officials have welcomed the American troops as a force large enough to ensure what Lt. Gen. Iulian Berdila, chief of the country’s land forces, described last month as “predictable deterrence and defense together.”
The Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base, near the Romanian coastal city of Constanta, previously served as a sleepy outpost for training NATO troops, including several hundred American soldiers, and was known more broadly in the military as a way station with a small mess hall for U.S. forces heading to and from Afghanistan.

U.S. Extends Troop Deployment in Romania, at Ukraine War’s Doorstep

 

[Invictus25]

In Romania, U.S. Troops Train Close to Russia’s War, in Signal to Moscow​

The deployment to a NATO country near the conflict in Ukraine is seen as a model of deterrence for a U.S. military that has recently stepped back from direct fighting.​

Published Jan. 3, 2023Updated Jan. 4, 2023

U.S. Extends Troop Deployment in Romania, at Ukraine War’s Doorstep

 

[Invictus25]

MES & DIRETTIVA UE SULLE CASE/ La morsa per creare un Paese a noleggio (e a prestito)​

Pubblicazione: 20.01.2023 - Marco Pugliese

Il Mes, insieme alla Direttiva Ue sulle case e al Patto di stabilità rischia di mettere il nostro Paese nell’angolo e in grande difficoltà​

Diciamolo a chiare lettere e fuor di polemica: il “nuovo” Mes è peggio del vecchio e unito alla Direttiva Ue “green” sulle case, ancora in bozza, potrà diventare (insieme all’astruso e iniquo Patto di stabilità) una morsa che porterebbe l’Italia a boccheggiare. Spieghiamone i dettagli.

Iniziamo dal nuovo Mes: questo strumento di fatto è pensato per ingabbiare l’Italia, facendo trasferire il debito pubblico (che è per due terzi in mano ai risparmiatori italiani, forti di ben 9.800 miliardi di euro di patrimonio) presso la Bce a un ente esterno che si comporta solo come un freddo ristrutturatore dei debiti.

Le bolle economiche​

Dal 2000 abbiamo vissuto due bolle immobiliari che si sono trasformate in bolle economiche, i prezzi delle case raggiunsero livelli di accessibilità mai visti prima negli Stati Uniti. Questa morsa è avvenuta a causa di politiche volte a prestiti dall’erogazione spesso scoperta e a tassi di interesse artificialmente bassi che hanno spinto individui finanziariamente instabili ad acquistare case che non potevano permettersi. L’insolvenza generò crisi economiche, si arrivò a pignoramenti, l’Ue non seppe arginare il problema e visto che era esposta a livello privato (i famosi titoli tossici) pensò bene di risolvere la questione imponendo regole aziendali agli Stati, che si indebitano (come nel caso greco) proprio con quelle banche tedesche e francesi proposte ad Atene per “supportare” i propri cittadini e le Olimpiadi, un pacchetto di sogni “a debito”, privato però. Per non far fallire le banche franco-tedesche, nell’Ue pensarono bene di far fallire la Grecia.

Dieci anni di narrazione contro l’Italia​

L’Italia, grazie a Enrico Mattei, entrò nel club dei Paesi economicamente più importanti al mondo. Questo scatto ci fece approdare nel G7 e stare stabilmente tra le prime dieci economie mondiali. Lo strapotere politico di Berlino e Parigi nel 2011 non diede la tanto sperata spallata al Belpaese, già incastrato nella morsa europea che portò a privatizzazioni dannose se non inutili e a delocalizzazioni tossiche per la nostra produzione di qualità. Nonostante tutto il Paese resse, pur spesso messo vicino ai greci (Pil delle Marche) e inferiore alla Spagna (nemmeno tra le prime venti economie mondiali) non crollò, nessun prestito dall’Ue che anzi fu ancora una volta finanziata dalle tasse degli italiani. Il debito pubblico non fu mai un problema per i titoli di Stato, JP Morgan lo affermò per tutto il decennio. Il patrimonio da quasi 10mila miliardi degli italiani unito ad asset solidi, un disavanzo primario notevole e una riserva d’oro quarta al mondo mise il Paese al sicuro, nonostante le scellerate ricette economiche neoliberiste applicate perfino da forze progressiste. Politiche che non erosero la nostra manifattura, ancora saldamente seconda in Europa e sesta al mondo.

L’attacco al patrimonio immobiliare italiano​

La bozza della Direttiva Ue che mette mano alle classi energetiche delle case non è altro che l’ennesimo tentativo di erodere il patrimonio immobiliare (5.000 miliardi di euro) degli italiani, in parte tramandato (sacrifici di generazioni), in parte acquistato. Nessuno in Europa come gli italiani, parsimoniosi e con le idee chiare: casa di proprietà e posto fisso (o comunque tentativi di impresa solida), due asset che non generano quel debito tossico privato che porta a crisi. Secondo gli standard europei proposti, appare evidente come le case degli italiani siano da ammodernare, visto che molte sono sotto tutela o antiche. Due terzi, se passasse questa bozza, dovrebbe indebitarsi per raggiungere gli standard, l’ecologia in realtà è marginale.


Ma veniamo ai costi, già messi in cantiere da Enea. Si partirà da infissi e caldaie: nel primo caso si può decidere di sostituirli del tutto, ma sarà necessario abbinare anche la coibentazione di un appartamento, quest’anno il superbonus varrà al 90%, i prossimi anni si vedrà. Trentamila euro la cifra da pagare. Da cambiare anche le caldaie a gas (o pompe di calore) che dovranno appoggiarsi a un impianto fotovoltaico sufficientemente grosso per avere un’alimentazione continua. Altro salasso, in media possiamo anche stimare al ribasso (e contiamo i tassi Bce già sballati e l’inflazione) 45mila euro in media per milioni d’italiani già alle prese con bollette, mutui e magari prestiti per avere una macchina “green”, chiaramente un altro costo oneroso e imposto dall’alto di Bruxelles. Un salasso che colpirà l’Italia come nessuno in Europa, visto che le case di proprietà sono una chimera in stati come Paesi Bassi, ma anche Germania o Nord Europa, considerate da sempre “roba per ricchi”.

Insomma, la volontà è creare un Paese a noleggio e a prestito, l’esatto contrario di ciò che va fatto per affrontare le sfide del prossimo futuro, in primis l’economia spaziale, che vede l’Italia avere una filiera autonoma per la produzione di satelliti. Un Paese depresso e privatamente indebitato con il cordone in mano a Bruxelles sarebbe svuotato dei propri giovani (e l’attacco alla nostra scuola non è casuale) e depredato dei propri brevetti, finanziati da quella ricerca pubblica che il Patto di stabilità ci blocca.

C’è molto di più in gioco oltre che una “tassa” iniqua sulla casa, c’è il futuro del nostro Paese.

MES & DIRETTIVA UE SULLE CASE/ La morsa per creare un Paese a noleggio (e a prestito)

 

[Invictus25]

STOP AUTO BENZINA E DIESEL DAL 2035/ Meloni-Salvini vs. diktat Ue, il “come” è tutto​

Pubblicazione: 03.01.2023 - Marco Zacchera

In conferenza stampa di fine anno la Meloni ha preso posizione contro lo stop europeo ai motori termici entro il 2035. Una scelta dannosa per l’Italia​

Giusto il tempo di sottolineare nei commenti come Giorgia Meloni sembrasse una continuatrice delle posizioni dell’Italia in Europa, che – come è apparso chiaro nella sua conferenza stampa di fine anno – ecco che la premier ha cominciato ad inanellare dei distinguo, sassolini lanciati a Bruxelles che nei prossimi mesi potrebbero diventare ben più dirompenti.


Un esempio: l’estrema chiarezza con la quale si è esposta contro il divieto – che dovrebbe entrare in vigore nel 2035 – di produrre in Europa motori funzionanti con la combustione di materiali fossili, in primis benzina e gasolio.

Insomma, finiti i rituali giri di valzer delle strette di mano e le conferme sulle principali linee di politica estera e comunitaria, ecco che la Meloni sembra coscientemente avviarsi a raccogliere le scontate critiche del mondo ambientalista.


La linea del governo non si discosta molto, peraltro, dal prudente scetticismo già espresso da Cingolani sul programma “Fit for 55” soprattutto quando dalla teoria bisogna passare alla pratica. In sé l’idea è infatti giusta e condivisibile: ridurre le emissioni nocive volgendosi verso produzioni “verdi”, limitando la combustione e privilegiando i motori elettrici, ma imponendo conseguenti e pesanti nuovi costi al sistema produttivo, soprattutto in quei Paesi – come l’Italia – che non possono disporre di energia nucleare.

Le parole della Meloni hanno subito fatto rumore, anche se annegate in una conferenza stampa di tre ore, e infatti sono state subito bene intese dalle parti interessate.

La posizione della Meloni non è personale: anche il ministro delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti Matteo Salvini aveva dichiarato – durante l’ultimo Consiglio Ue – come la progettata fine dei motori diesel e benzina fosse il risultato di un “integralismo pseudo-ambientalista”, e che “mettere fuori legge queste motorizzazioni dal 2035, chiedendo anche di passare all’Euro 7 dal 2025, non ha nessun senso economico, ambientale e sociale, oltre al rischio di lasciare in mezzo alla strada decine di migliaia di operai”. Salvini (e non solo lui) teme che il nostro Paese – ancora così lontano dall’elettrico – subisca per scelta europea la dittatura produttiva cinese, visto che la Cina è indubbiamente più avanti sull’elettrificazione, una presenza che andrebbe ulteriormente ad incidere sulla nostra economia.


Anche Giancarlo Giorgetti e Roberto Cingolani, ministro del precedente Governo Draghi, avevano manifestato in più occasioni il loro dissenso. Secondo l’ex ministro della Transizione ecologica non aveva senso puntare tutto sull’elettrico, tenuto conto che anche la stessa Ue avrebbe dei dubbi sui benefici dello stop ai motori termici entro il 2035. In particolare è stato recentemente lo stesso Thierry Breton, commissario Ue al Mercato interno e all’Industria (quindi proprio uno dei membri dell’organo che ha avanzato la proposta della nuova misura sull’elettrico, forse troppo frettolosamente approvata da Consiglio e Parlamento Ue) ad esprimere la sua preoccupazione. Per questo motivo Breton ha proposto la creazione di un Fondo comunitario e una revisione legislativa già dal 2026 per controllare i passaggi e lo sviluppo della transizione energetica.

Angelo Sticchi Damiani, presidente Aci, in una nota rivolge “Un plauso al coraggio e alla chiarezza del premier Giorgia Meloni, che afferma una verità ormai diventata verificabile da chiunque, ovvero che la messa al bando delle vetture endotermiche nel 2035 sia stata una scelta davvero poco sensata”. Ricordando che già dal 2019 questa era stata la posizione dell’Aci, Sticchi Damiani sottolinea “Che ci sono adesso le condizioni per rivedere finalmente quella scadenza e le politiche che l’hanno generata, pur mantenendo l’obiettivo della riduzione delle emissioni climalteranti e del raggiungimento della massima sostenibilità ambientale, nell’interesse non solo del comparto automobilistico nazionale ma anche dei cittadini italiani”.

È l’inizio di una nuova politica italiana verso l’Ue?

Forse. Sicuramente la Meloni ha già fatto capire che non intende stare zitta su molte tematiche e che non esiterà a scontrarsi in tutta una serie di problematiche ecologiche, morali, etiche e comportamentali contro il “politically correct” europeo, pur dando per scontato un potenziale e prevedibile fiume di critiche.

D’altronde la Meloni interpreta bene anche la “pancia” non solo dei suoi elettori, ma per esempio di quelli che affrontano quotidianamente la realtà legata alle progressive chiusure al traffico dei centri urbani senza alternative di trasporti e parcheggi pubblici e vuole scuotersi dagli auto-condizionamenti che deprimono fortemente l’economia europea.

Sono solo segnali indicatori della volontà di affrontare tante altri dossier già scritti da Bruxelles e accolti senza battere ciglio dai governi precedenti.

STOP AUTO BENZINA E DIESEL DAL 2035/ Meloni-Salvini vs. diktat Ue, il "come" è tutto

 

[Invictus25]

STOP UE AUTO BENZINA E DIESEL DAL 2035/ Un festa solo per Cina, costruttori e petrolieri

Pubblicazione: 10.06.2022 - Franco Oppedisano

La terza è più importante questione è: cosa gliene impipa ai parlamentari europei degli operai e delle industrie che vivono mettendo insieme motori termici. Questa è la risposta più facile, lapalissiana: non gliene frega niente. Lo hanno dimostrato l’altro ieri sera votando a maggioranza la norma che stabilisce che dalla fine del 2035 in Europa non potranno più essere vendute auto che abbiano anche solo una piccola parte della trazione mossa da un motore a benzina, a gasolio, a gpl o a metano. Tutto elettrico. Et voilà, tiriamo una riga.

Dopo le sanzioni energetiche che rischiano di mandarci in recessione bloccando le attività produttive, questa è la prova provata che tra i banchi di Strasburgo aleggia un pervicace, inspiegabile e incontenibile istinto suicidario. Salviamo il pianeta anche se mettiamo sul lastrico centinaia di migliaia di concittadini. Salviamo il pianeta anche se sappiamo benissimo che nessun altro in giro per il mondo ci seguirà. Salviamo il pianeta o, almeno, facciamo finta di salvarlo visto che nello stesso momento riapriamo le centrali a carbone, ripensiamo al nucleare e facciamo carte false per avere le terre rare necessarie per le batterie che vengono estratte da schiavi bambini nei posti più inquinati del mondo.
A rimetterci saranno gli automobilisti che dovranno avere a che fare con un mezzo che non soddisfa le loro esigenze, i molti meccanici che abbasseranno le saracinesche perché le auto elettriche sono meno complicate e più pericolose da riparare, i benzinai che da l’altro ieri hanno la data di scadenza come le mozzarelle. I produttori di petrolio, invece, festeggiano perché la maggior parte delle centrali elettriche (l’80% in Italia) vanno a derivati dell’oro nero e se ne consumerà di più, a parità di chilometri percorsi, per alimentarle rispetto a quelle che si utilizzavano per far marciare i motori termici. Come i cinesi che, in un solo colpo e grazie alla disponibilità di materie prime per le batterie, recuperano una posizione di forza, in un mercato dove non erano neanche mai riusciti ad avvicinarsi alla tecnologia occidentale.

Poco importa se tutto il traffico su strada, compreso quello dei mezzi pesanti, rappresenti solo l’11,9% e quello delle auto in particolare il 7,14% delle emissioni di CO2 nell’aria, mentre il riscaldamento degli edifici o l’agricoltura pesano oltre il doppio. E non importa nulla se le emissioni di CO2 di origine umana sono molto, ma molto, più piccole di quelle naturali (oceani, piante vulcani). Vi diranno che da qualche parte bisogna cominciare e che le emissioni umane alterano un equilibrio.

 

[Invictus25]

STOP AUTO BENZINA E DIESEL DAL 2035/ I piani dell'Ue lontani dalla realtà e dannosi per l'industria

Pubblicazione: 09.06.2022 - Patrizia Feletig

Il Parlamento europeo ha approvato lo stop alle vendite di auto con motore endotermico a partire dal 2035, una decisione con conseguenze importanti​

Sono finite con un pareggio le due votazioni avvenute ieri a Strasburgo in una delle battaglie più importanti della legislazione 2019-2024. Gli europarlamentari in seduta plenaria sono stati chiamati a esprimersi su 8 dei 14 testi legislativi che introducono modifiche più ambiziose nel pacchetto energia-clima che accompagna al 2030 gli Stati membri nella riduzione di 55% le emissioni rispetto ai valori del 1990. Questa è la prima tappa del percorso che deve portare al raggiungimento della neutralità carbonica entro metà secolo.

Viene invece approvato l’obbligo di vendere veicoli a zero emissioni entro il 2035. In sostanza, si tratta del bando dei motori a combustione interna nelle auto e nei furgoni seguendo un percorso che richiede alle case automobilistiche di ridurre le emissioni medie delle flotte del 15% nel giro di 3 anni rispetto al 2021, e del 55% nel 2030 e del 100% nel 2035. La decisione che segna la sorte del motore endotermico, tecnologia che in oltre un secolo ha progredito compiendo notevoli innovazioni anche in ambito di emissioni e costruito le fortune dell’industria automobilistica europea che occupa 6,5% della forza lavoro, è stata particolarmente dibattuta. Accolti gli emendamenti che posticipano al 2036 l’azzeramento delle emissioni per chi produce un numero di auto inferiore ai 10mila unità e 22mila unità per furgoni.