Europe is supposedly hatching a “top-secret plan” to send troops to Ukraine to maintain peace after the war. The UK and France are at the helm of this hush-hush operation, though they’re keeping it under wraps to avoid tipping off Russian President Vladimir Putin. I suppose it’s not really a secret since we all know about it. 😂

The plan builds on an idea floated by French President Emmanuel Macron last year. Macron initially faced backlash but has gained support since then. European leaders met in December 2024 to discuss the plan with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The nature of the peace deal will determine the size and role of the European force. President Zelenskyy is reportedly asking for 100,000 to 150,000 troops. But it’s not just ground forces he’s after—he also wants air support. Essentially, he’s hoping NATO will step in and defend Ukraine like it’s already a NATO member. However, media reports suggest a smaller force of 30,000-40,000 troops.

Keep in mind, that the US is a key NATO member and its largest contributor, giving it significant influence over the alliance. Here are some rules the US has set: US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth stated, “Any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.” The US is clear that any force sent won’t be a NATO mission, meaning NATO’s Article 5 won’t apply. So, if these troops are attacked, it won’t trigger a response from all of NATO. No US troops will be deployed to Ukraine.

I think Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha put it perfectly on Thursday, highlighting just how much Ukraine relies on the US:

❝ Any security guarantees are impossible without the Americans. ❞

First his nose started bleeding, then he didn’t know who he was.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-12/sniper-blast-brain-injury-defence-personnel/104847586

The history of naval warfare is marked by remarkable feats of precision and firepower, and among them are the long-range hits delivered by ships’ guns. These historic long-range hits that left an indelible mark on naval warfare. Without further ado let’s dive right into the top 7 longest range hit by a surface warships Gun on the enemy’s ship to date.

ED: From my inbox thanks to Newton Reynolds

ABC Radio interview

This is an excellent interview – especially for the ABC! ….THE INTERVIEWER, hardly ever interrupted him, which is rare for the ABC.

“The Truth is Out There; we only need to read it”.

This is the most informative interview I have heard on the ABC radio.

To the best of my knowledge it has never again seen the light on any ABC or SBS TV which is interesting.  why????  because it does not fit the ABC narrative!!!

Adrian “Adi” Paterson is a South African scientist and engineer best known for his work on Pebble Bed modular reactor research and development. He was CEO of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation from March 2009 till September 2020…

Last Wednesday, nuclear advocate and 2023 Miss America Grace Stanke, alongside a team of esteemed experts, delivered a crucial parliamentary briefing in Canberra. The expert panel included Dr. Adi Paterson, Dr. Robert Barr AM, Kirsty Braybon, Lenka Kollar, and Robert Parker. This event was designed to provide Australian lawmakers with evidence-based insights into nuclear energy and its potential role in Australia’s energy future.

All members and senators were invited to attend this critical briefing. Encouragingly, a diverse range of politicians and advisors from various parties took the opportunity to hear directly from experts. However, it is deeply concerning that despite months of advance notice, neither Prime Minister Anthony Albanese nor Energy Minister Chris Bowen attended or even arranged a private meeting with our experts. Their absence raises serious questions about their willingness to engage in informed discussions on energy policy, particularly on an issue as pivotal as nuclear power.

Before the parliamentary briefing, Grace Stanke and the expert panel addressed the Canberra press gallery in a major media conference. The event was well-covered by national press and media, highlighting the importance of nuclear energy discussions in Australia’s current energy debate. However, the conference was interrupted by Senator Lidia Thorpe, who vocally opposed nuclear power, falsely claiming it would “poison us all.” Her statement contradicts established scientific data, which shows that radiation exposure for those living near nuclear plants is negligible—often lower than the radiation from consuming a single banana.

Grace Stanke, who has a degree in nuclear engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, provided clear, scientifically backed insights into the safety, efficiency, and viability of nuclear energy. As a passionate advocate, she has worked to dispel misinformation and highlight the role of nuclear power in delivering clean, reliable energy worldwide. During the briefing, she detailed how modern reactor designs and waste management solutions make nuclear power one of the safest energy sources available. She also emphasized how other nations, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and France, have successfully integrated nuclear energy into their grids to achieve low-emission, stable electricity supply.

Dr. Adi Paterson, former CEO of ANSTO, reinforced this message by explaining Australia’s existing nuclear capabilities, particularly in medical isotopes, and how this expertise could be leveraged for energy production. Dr. Robert Barr AM, a distinguished engineer, provided technical insights into the feasibility of nuclear power in Australia’s unique energy landscape, while Kirsty Braybon and Lenka Kollar outlined policy frameworks and industry trends shaping nuclear energy worldwide.

The briefing underscored a growing frustration among industry experts and energy professionals regarding the Albanese government’s rigid opposition to nuclear energy. While other nations embrace nuclear to achieve net-zero goals, Australia remains locked in a political stalemate, largely due to ideological resistance rather than scientific reasoning. The absence of key decision-makers at this important briefing only reinforces the perception that the government is unwilling to consider all available options for securing Australia’s energy future.

With energy security and emissions reduction at the forefront of policy discussions, it is imperative that all avenues, including nuclear power, be given due consideration. The refusal of the Prime Minister and Energy Minister to engage with experts does a disservice to the Australian public, who deserve informed and balanced energy policies based on science rather than political dogma.

As discussions on nuclear energy continue to gain momentum, the question remains: will Australia’s leaders step up and engage in evidence-based policymaking, or will they continue to ignore expert advice at the nation’s expense?

14 February 2025

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) continues to process outstanding claims as quickly as possible, to deliver much needed help to veterans and families sooner.

As part of our commitment to routinely, publicly, and meaningfully reporting on claims processing progress, each month DVA releases updated data via the claims processing page.

A snapshot of January 2025:

• DVA received 7,187claims in January bringing the total for the financial year to date (FYTD) to 56,462 claims – 19.8 per cent higher than the same period last year.
• DVA made 7,468determinations and has finalised 55,983 claims in the FYTD, 0.7 per cent more than the equivalent period last year.
• 75,600claims were with an officer for processing and 6,056 claims were yet to be allocated for processing.
• The average time taken to process a MRCA IL claim was 296 days in the 2024-25 FYTD (1 July 2024 to 31 January 2025), compared to 391 days in the corresponding 2023-24 FYTD.

Please contact us or an advocate if you have any questions about submitting a claim. More information about making a claim for a service-related condition and eligibility for benefits and payments is available on the DVA website.

From 1945 website

The Northrop McDonnell-Douglas YF-23, a stealthy and advanced prototype, competed against the Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22 in the 1991 Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) fly-off. While the YF-22 won, evolving into the F-22 Raptor, the YF-23 quietly faded into history, until now.

With renewed interest in next-generation fighters, many are revisiting the YF-23’s design. It was faster, had superior stealth, a higher ceiling, and better range. However, the YF-22 was more agile and demonstrated aggressive manoeuvrings and missile launches, impressing the Air Force. Ultimately, the YF-22’s performance and “fighter pilot’s appeal” won the contract.

Test pilot Paul Metz, one of the few to fly both aircraft, noted that Northrop’s engineers focused on technical excellence, while Lockheed excelled in marketing and showmanship. The YF-22’s flashier demonstrations may have tipped the scales in its favour.

The ATF program sought a stealthy, survivable fighter, yet the decision reflected a bias toward dogfighting instincts. Some argue that the YF-23’s innovations deserve another look, especially as modern air combat evolves. Though overshadowed, its legacy may still influence future designs.

Would the YF-23 have been the better choice? That debate continues today.

China’s aggressive military actions continue to challenge Australia’s national security, with the latest incidents putting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s approach to relations with Beijing under intense scrutiny. A powerful Chinese naval flotilla operating close to Australia underscores the growing threat posed by China’s military expansion.

On 11 February, a Chinese J-16 fighter released flares just 30 metres in front of an Australian P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft in what the Department of Defence has described as an ‘unsafe and unprofessional’ act. This marks the fifth known incident of dangerous Chinese military behaviour towards Australian forces since 2022, highlighting a pattern of escalating provocation.

The same day, the Department of Defence confirmed the presence of a Chinese naval task group operating in Australia’s northeastern maritime approaches. The flotilla included a Jiangkai-class frigate, a Fuchi-class replenishment vessel, and, most concerning, a Type 055 Renhai-class cruiser. The Renhai-class warship, one of the most formidable in China’s arsenal, is armed with 112 vertical-launch missile cells capable of carrying anti-ship, surface-to-air, and anti-submarine weapons. This marks the first known instance of a vessel of its class operating so close to Australia.

While these ships are legally in international waters, their presence sends a clear message: China is projecting its military power into Australia’s backyard. The Chinese navy has increasingly extended its operations beyond the First Island Chain, with warships appearing off the West Australian coast, transiting through the Torres Strait, and monitoring Australian military exercises. These moves suggest Beijing is intent on demonstrating its ability to challenge Australia’s security.

Moreover, China’s military is extending its unsafe and coercive tactics beyond the South China Sea. The RAAF must now anticipate further aggressive encounters with Chinese aircraft while patrolling international airspace. Given Beijing’s track record, Australia’s Defence Force must prepare for potential scenarios in which an aircraft is forced down or worse.

Despite these provocations, the Australian government’s response remains cautious. Defence Minister Richard Marles has reaffirmed that Australia respects freedom of navigation and expects other nations to do the same. However, this diplomatic stance appears ineffective in deterring Chinese aggression.

The question remains: What is the Albanese government doing to address this growing threat? While the government has committed to AUKUS and increasing defence spending, Australia must take a firmer stand. Strategic deterrence, stronger alliances, and a clear response to repeated military intimidation are necessary.

China’s actions make it clear that polite diplomatic statements are not enough. If Beijing is willing to apply pressure on smaller nations while cautiously engaging the United States, Canberra must rethink its strategy. Otherwise, Australia risks becoming an easy target in China’s broader geopolitical ambitions.

eWise Blog

The recent controversy surrounding a group of Sydney-based nurses accused of making anti-Israeli threats has sparked widespread debate over the application of hate speech laws and the effectiveness of law enforcement in handling such cases. The case has led to growing concerns that there may be a double standard in how these laws are enforced, depending on the individuals involved.

In a widely circulated video, several nurses, allegedly of Middle Eastern background—were caught on camera making threats against Israeli citizens and reportedly boasting about past violent actions. Despite clear footage and public outrage, NSW Police have stated that they require further evidence before pursuing charges.

This hesitancy contrasts sharply with other high-profile incidents where individuals have faced immediate legal consequences for hate speech. Many point to cases where racially charged comments made against Indigenous Australians, such as AFL star Adam Goodes, resulted in swift legal repercussions, even when the perpetrator was a minor. Critics argue that the disparity in police responses fosters a perception of a two-tiered justice system, where certain groups appear to receive preferential treatment.

The slow police response has fuelled frustration among Australians who see this as another example of failed multicultural integration. There is increasing sentiment that selective enforcement of hate speech laws undermines social cohesion and erodes public trust in the legal system. Many Australians feel that if similar threats had been made by white nurses against ethnic groups, authorities would have acted with far greater urgency.

Additionally, concerns have emerged over the male nurse in question allegedly misrepresenting himself as a doctor, raising potential issues of professional misconduct and fraud. If proven, this deception could have serious legal consequences beyond the hate speech allegations.

Critics of the handling of this case are calling for a thorough investigation into the professional conduct of the accused nurses, particularly regarding any patient care outcomes during their tenure. If proven guilty, many believe that if citizenship has been previously granted their Australian citizenship should be revoked and they should be deported to their country of origin, arguing that individuals who engage in hate speech and incitement to violence have no place in the nation’s healthcare system.

Furthermore, there is growing demand for the Immigration Minister to intervene in cases where individuals granted Australian citizenship demonstrate behaviour that threatens social harmony and public safety. Such actions would send a strong message that Australia takes its values of equality and respect seriously, regardless of cultural or religious background.

This case has reignited debate over whether multicultural policies have effectively integrated all communities into Australian society. While diversity has enriched the nation in many ways, instances like this raise concerns about whether certain groups remain disconnected from broader Australian values.

NSW Police now face a critical decision. If they fail to act decisively, public perception of bias and leniency in law enforcement could deepen, leading to further social divisions. Australians deserve equal application of the law, and this case will be a litmus test for whether justice is truly blind or selectively enforced.