• Why it's so hard to make progress fighting right-wing domestic terror CNN

Why is it so hard to make progress when it comes to right-wing domestic terror? It's not that experts haven't developed ideas or suggestions. They've mapped out the networks, identified vulnerable communities, made policy recommendations for government and media companies and created resources for deradicalization, including guides for parents worried about their children encountering extremist networks online. But what they haven't done -- what they likely cannot do -- is disincentivize the wide range of actors who are invested in thwarting anti-extremism efforts.

If the left did anything like this, it would be crushed ruthlessly and without a hint of remorse.

• The European Union needs its own army WaPo

That's... that's just NATO.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced leaders of the European Union to confront an uncomfortable reality: Europeans have neglected their own security for far too long. Europe has for decades been content to be a soft-power superpower — focusing on peacekeeping, democracy and prosperity within the union. It has been all too comfortable delegating its security concerns to the United States, which provides military cover through its NATO commitment.

First, and most important, establishing an E.U. armed forces would provide a degree of security independence from the United States — all the more important, given recent political trends in America.

What exactly would a theoretical EU army provide that NATO currently does not? Like, what, is it gonna go invade even more places that NATO doesn't?

The second argument concerns efficiency. Currently, the 27 member states of the E.U. can field an impressive 1.3 million active-duty military personnel, roughly on par with the size of the U.S. armed forces (approximately 1.4 million) and significantly bigger than Russia’s military (850,000). The combined military expenditure of the E.U. states is an impressive $225 billion, more than twice the size of Russia’s military budget of a little over $100 billion and roughly three-quarters of China’s $290 billion.

GDP the size of Italy, yet it has hypersonic missiles while the West does not. Interesting.

The third argument concerns responsiveness. When the Afghan government collapsed last summer, NATO states scrambled to get their citizens and Afghan allies out of the country. Only the quick and determined deployment of some 6,000 U.S. troops prevented an already catastrophic situation from becoming even worse. And while some European countries sent their own small troop contingents to evacuate citizens, Europeans largely acknowledged their inability to run such an operation on their own. This assessment was shared by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who remarked, “Only the United States could organize and execute a mission of this scale and this complexity.”

Yeah, that operation was a marvel of organization.

Such emergencies are sadly likely to recur, so the E.U. would do well to increase its own capabilities for rapid response on a large scale.

Likely to recur where, exactly? Surely you're not occupying any other countries that might decide they wouldn't want to be under Western rule and occupation - that sounds like an imperialist thing to do, which is what Putin does!

The last argument concerns the development of a European identity. The E.U. prides itself on its diversity of languages, cultures and histories.

The whole spectrum from white to caucasian.

This heterogeneity does come at a price, though. Most E.U. citizens define themselves by their country of birth first; few consider themselves Europeans primarily. What’s more, roughly 40 percent of E.U. citizens have never left their home country. The E.U. armed forces could foster the formation of a European consciousness, a necessary condition for a more confident European stance in geopolitics. This would especially be true if there were a period of mandatory service — perhaps six to nine months — for citizens ages 17 to 26. (Many E.U. countries had mandatory military service of some kind during the Cold War.)

Okay, whatever, I'm not reading this clown shit anymore.

• Zelenskyy says Donbas region completely destroyed; Russia likely to swiftly redeploy Mariupol forces CNBC

Any time Zelensky says that something has been completely destroyed, he's secretly saying that it's taken or being taken by Russian forces, but wants to make it seem like Russia isn't really conquering anything of worth when the news comes out about it.

• The Russians Are Throwing Everything They’ve Got At One Ukrainian Garrison Forbes

That "one Ukrainian garrison" is the city of Severodonetsk.

The three or so Ukrainian brigades in and around Severodonetsk include 5,000 or more troops. They’ve dug in and blown bridges leading into the city. Still, they’re vulnerable.

Just one main road threads through the town of Bakhmut across the pocket to Severodonetsk. It’s along this route that the main Ukrainian army pushes supplies to the city’s garrison.

The westward Russian thrust from Popasna might be aiming for Bakhmut, 13 miles away. The northern thrust could be attempting to complete the encirclement of Severodonetsk, 17 miles away.

It’s fair to say the Kremlin has concentrated its best remaining forces along the Popasna axis for this offensive. Airborne units, possibly reinforced by Chechen troops and mercenaries from the Wagner Group, are fighting alongside armored units with the latest T-90 tanks and BMP-T fighting vehicles.

Inasmuch as the Russian army has suffered extensive casualties after attempting to roll across Ukraine along three fronts—northern, eastern and southern—and ultimately abandoning the northern front, the Battle of Severodonetsk might represent Moscow’s best opportunity for a near-term win.

A win that could allow Russian president Vladimir Putin to declare a sort of victory in Ukraine. Even if that victory is modest compared to the Kremlin’s original goal of capturing Kyiv, destroying the Ukrainian armed forces and cutting off Ukraine from the sea.

What happens over the next few days could be critical—and should set the conditions for the next few weeks of fighting. If the Russians cut the road through Bakhmut and encircle Severodonetsk, the ensuing urban fighting could be brutal for the Ukrainian garrison.

They eventually would run out of food, fuel and ammunition. Barring a breakthrough by Ukrainian forces outside the pocket, Severodonetsk’s fall might be only a matter of time under those circumstances. Kyiv could lose several thousand troops and a key strongpoint in Donbas.

If the Russians fail to cut the road, they could end up expending their last reserves of combat strength trying to starve a small portion of the Ukrainian army in one small city.

The Russian offensive already is partially compromised. The original plan apparently was to attack from the north and south. But to do that, Russian battalions needed to erect pontoon bridges across the Seversky Donets River, northwest of Severodonetsk.

Ukrainian artillery earlier this month caught a whole brigade on the riverbanks and wiped it out, destroying the better part of two BTGs and killing as many as 400 Russians. If the Russian army completes its encirclement, it’ll have to be from the south.

That Ukrainian artillery brigade that killed 600 Russians is so brave. Truly, the killing of 1000 Russian troops in a single attack should be put in the history books. I hope every Ukrainian who took part in slaughtering those 3500 Russians is given a medal.

The situation is fluid. As recently as Wednesday, the Ukrainian armed forces’ general staff noted Russian attacks from Popasna but insisted the Russians “had no success.” But the main assault apparently began on Thursday.

The best part of this article is like - the mainstream media is repeatedly reporting on how Russia is losing, dying, already lost no matter what, and now, these people have to sort of maintain that charade while also being like "Oh yeah, and Russia has made some advances - not "significant, of course - but they face a challenging future" while not questioning at all why the area of Ukraine occupied by Russia is getting larger and larger. If Russia really did annex all of Ukraine, I would totally expect there to be articles like this being like "Russia faces a tremendous challenge with its extremely weakened military taking Lviv, a massive city and stronghold for Ukraine" right up until the Russians and Poles are staring at eachother across the border. All western journalists are just given 3 or 4 points to report on today by the Ukrainian government and you don't think or write about why Ukraine continues to lose territory if like half the fucking Russian troops are dead because every day is an entirely discrete unit which has no relations to the previous day and no trends or patterns are allowed to be drawn aside from those which make Russia look bad.

And if America was invading, like, Mexico, and it was going identically to how this war is going (which it wouldn't because the US relies more on rapid strikes and aircraft and not necessarily drawn-out artillery barrages, but just for the sake of argument), then every single journalist would be like "IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT TODAY/THIS WEEK/THIS MONTH DIDN'T GO WELL, LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE, WE'RE STILL OBVIOUSLY WINNING, WE HOLD A QUARTER OF THEIR TERRITORY, USA! USA! USA!"