He held a pressy today and talking about France he asked.
Translation: MOSCOW, 26 Feb — RIA Novosti. At a press conference following the talks in Doha, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov asked for an explanation of French President Emmanuel Macron's statement about Russian assets. "We want to ask our French colleagues to clarify which international legal document allows the use of profits from what you stole," he said.
As you all know, French who for some unknown reason consider themselves a "player" in geopolitics, want to use the profit from Russia's frozen assets to be a part of "peace negotiations". Why Macron and French decided that they will be allowed anywhere near "peace negotiations" remains a complete riddle shrouded in mystery.
Meanwhile, in the news of a butthurt and increasing LOL, they continue to cope)) Look at the dates--they go on, and on, and on, while, unlike F-15 which never encountered any real enemy in the skies or on the ground, Russian Air Force redefined modern air combat and SEAD in REAL combat.
But the BS continues, to paint the picture of utter invincibility of something which never really fought. It is of interest, in this case, to elaborate on Pete Hegseth's totally expected statement to the effect that the US must have the strongest force in the world--he must say things like that. Needless to say, to elaborate on this issue as well as to explain why it is impossible may require a rather thick book, half of which will be bibliography and references, the other half--REAL military history and data related to operations from WW II to today. The US will, of course, remain the strongest Army in Americas and will continue to have a formidable Navy with nuclear deterrent increasingly moving to submarines (granted USS Columbia will come out without already significant troubles).
But other than that, especially considering the experience of the SMO--the largest continental war since 1945--which is already being summarized and generalized, we need to clearly understand that technological dimension of modern war changed so dramatically (in fact--revolutionary way), that, as I state ad nauseam, it is almost impossible to relate the US Armed Force TOE and experiences to it, other than discard wholesale the whole idea behind US military in the XX century. Per XXI century, well ... long long story. Pentagon is not ready for this, but its children will love it (c)
