Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[spiriticon]

Yeah but whether it's western Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine or anywhere in Ukraine. It's still Ukraine and NATO can't intervene directly as Ukraine sadly isn't a member of NATO.

Don't worry Russia won't be firing any missiles that veer into NATO territory. They might be a bit incompetent but they're not stupid, an incident like that would give NATO justification to intervene in this conflict and Russia certainly don't want that as they seem to be having enough problems just fighting the Ukrainians.

I don't think they will intentionally fire anything across the border. Well they might I don't know. But I'm more concerned about the unintentional accidents happening,

I'm surprised we are not even willing to defend one city and the main road to Poland, which is probably chock full of refugees, from stray missiles. But hey, what's another couple of hundred deaths when we've already watched thousands die.

I do hope our soldiers have fire extinguishers at the ready, just in case any poor sod manages to crawl over that borderline while on fire.

 

[Raoul]

Yeah, he is an absolute fraud.

As a Greek I am telling you that this guy is a complete moron. Zero substance. He only wants to grab attention to himself. He almost single-handedly destroyed the Greek economy in 2015, we were very lucky that the head of his party threw him out!

I'm beginning to see what Frostbite is talking about in the above statement.

 

[Carolina Red]

And those 40 miles should be covered by proper anti-missile defences stationed on the Polish side of the border.

I can see why we don't want to shoot planes down, but not even wanting to defend against missiles? Ugh.

I guess if accidents happen we can always move our defences a few more miles back and wag our finger ferociously at the Russians.

Bud 40 miles is a long damn way for a missile to miss by.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I'm beginning to see what Frostbite is talking about in the above statement.

I think he's right (not Frostbite). Biden's statement was ill advised. How does it help anyone (Ukrainian, American, European)? The goal for the Americans has been regime change, if possible, from the off. But why say that? Isn't that part of Putin's justification of this whole thing both internally and externally as an existential threat? Senior neoconservatives have been criticising the statement and the administration more or less retracted it, so not a controversial opinion really.



The above basically.

 

[Raoul]

I think he's right (not Frostbite). Biden's statement was ill advised. How does it help anyone (Ukrainian, American, European)? The goal for the Americans has been regime change, if possible, from the off. But why say that? Isn't that part of Putin's justification of this whole thing both internally and externally as an existential threat? Senior neoconservatives have been criticising the statement and the administration more or less retracted it, so not a controversial opinion really.



The above basically.

He's not really saying anything other than saying he doesn't understand Biden's policy, while at the same time not advocating any solutions himself.

 

[spiriticon]

Bud 40 miles is a long damn way for a missile to miss by.

A malfunction is a malfunction. These Kalibr missiles have a range of 1500 miles?

40 miles overshoot is nothing.

But as I said above. I'd argue that we should defend the 40 miles from Lviv to Poland from any missile.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

He's not really saying anything other than saying he doesn't understand Biden's policy, while at the same time not advocating any solutions himself.

I think he'd argue in favour of a negotiated peace-deal with the US making actual efforts on that front which they haven't as of yet. Might be viewed as naive, but it's a valid position for anyone who just wants an end to the conflict. The Putin regime change comment was just bad politics, even from the most cynical perspective which views the US as wanting this to endure as long as possible. It doesn't make good sense in any frame, except that it might have sounded or felt good.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Suppose, just suppose, that this was all really just about liberating the Donbass area of Ukraine, as ridiculous as that sounds in light of all the entire world has witnessed.

Why not go through the proper channels for that? Why not petition the UN for a free and fair referendum for independence? Make a show of doing it the right way; show that you genuinely care about the people who live there, regardless of their sympathies to Kyev or Moscow.

That might actually have worked. People could have had legitimate sympathy for Russia if they had even disingenuously gone down the proper channels to engineer a peaceful secession.

Instead, they have gone in all guns blazing and literally flattened entire cities; not only that, they have seemingly committed the most egregious war crimes along the way. Any credibility that they could have laid claim to before has been tossed to the four winds.

Russia's reputation as a nation is in tatters literally for generations and one idiotic fool of a man has put paid to it.

It wouldn't have worked because Putin knows full well that in a free and fair election the vote would have gone against him big time. The Ukrainians in the non-Russian- occupied Donbass know from friends and relatives in the "liberated" eastern areas how those areas are now ruled by Russian gangsters, with kidnap for ransom, murder, torture, rape, and widespread robbery having destroyed all semblance of the life enjoyed before the Russians got involved..

 

[Carolina Red]

A malfunction is a malfunction. These Kalibr missiles have a range of 1500 miles?

40 miles overshoot is nothing.

But as I said above. I'd argue that we should defend the 40 miles from Lviv to Poland from any missile.

Right. I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense. It’s a satnav guided cruise missile.

 

[Raoul]

I think he'd argue in favour of a negotiated peace-deal with the US making actual efforts on that front which they haven't as of yet. Might be viewed as naive, but it's a valid position for anyone who just wants an end to the conflict.

Not very likely given that neither side are remotely interested in the conditions the others are offering. The US policy should be to remove Putin from power so we don't go through this every few years. Thus the sanctions should remain in place to penalize Putin for this and slowly squeeze the life out of his brutal regime.

 

[spiriticon]

Right. I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense. It’s a satnav guided cruise missile.

I don't think you're getting the point of the word 'malfunction'. Satnav no work.

 

[frostbite]

Biden, by saying 'Putin cannot remain in power' was talking to the people *around* Putin:

"Guys, one way or another, Vlad is going down. Do you really want to go down with him?"

 

[Carolina Red]

I don't think you're getting the point of the word 'malfunction'. Satnav no work.

Whatever you say bud. I don’t think you’re getting the point that if a Russian Kalibr hits Poland, it isn’t a malfunction. Cruise missiles have backup navigation systems specifically in case of gps jamming.

 

[GlastonSpur]

I think he's right (not Frostbite). Biden's statement was ill advised. How does it help anyone (Ukrainian, American, European)? The goal for the Americans has been regime change, if possible, from the off. But why say that? Isn't that part of Putin's justification of this whole thing both internally and externally as an existential threat? Senior neoconservatives have been criticising the statement and the administration more or less retracted it, so not a controversial opinion really.



The above basically.

I don't agree. First of all, Biden's comments weren't some off-the-cuff remarks. They were aimed at those people in Russia - outside of Putin's hardcore cronies - who still have some power and influence He's telling them that there is no way back from Russia's rapid decline short of them finding a way to remove Putin.

Secondly, we actually are now in an existential struggle, world-wide, between the democracy and freedom (not the fake "freedom" proclaimed by Trumpian neo-fascists) versus the forces of dictatorship and oppression (principally Russia and China, but not just them).

We need to face this square on: ultimately it is about regime change in Russia, however long it takes, because there will never be peace as long as Putin remains.

 

[spiriticon]

Whatever you say bud. I don’t think you’re getting the point that if a Russian Kalibr hits Poland, it isn’t a malfunction.

With the state of the Russian equipment, I don't rule anything out.

But regardless, I feel we should defend the skies around Lviv from missiles only because we have the capability, we don't technically have to put a single boot on the warground and the area is fully populated with refugees.

No Russian soldiers are killed or wounded with us targeting missiles.

 

[Raoul]

I don't agree. First of all, Biden's comments weren't some off-the-cuff remarks. They were aimed at those people in Russia - outside of Putin's hardcore cronies - who still have some power and influence He's telling them that there is no way back from Russia's rapid decline short of them finding a way to remove Putin.

Secondly, we actually are now in an existential struggle, world-wide, between the democracy and freedom (not the fake "freedom" proclaimed by Trumpian neo-fascists) versus the forces of dictatorship and oppression (principally Russia and China, but not just them).

We need to face this square on: ultimately it is about regime change in Russia, however long it takes, because there will never be peace as long as Putin remains.

Spot on. Biden knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Raoul]

Hans Zimmer interupts his own show in London to show the kid in Lviv playing the Inception theme - ignoring air raid sirens blarring in the background, then plays it himself LIVE after.

 

[GlastonSpur]

This YouTube channel is worth watching re. the unfolding military situation in Ukraine. The guy clearly puts in some effort to keep abreast of things as best as any outsider can, with updated maps and news.

His latest is that that Russians NW of Kyiv - a very sizeable force - may well be in big trouble.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I don't agree. First of all, Biden's comments weren't some off-the-cuff remarks. They were aimed at those people in Russia - outside of Putin's hardcore cronies - who still have some power and influence He's telling them that there is no way back from Russia's rapid decline short of them finding a way to remove Putin.

Secondly, we actually are now in an existential struggle, world-wide, between the democracy and freedom (not the fake "freedom" proclaimed by Trumpian neo-fascists) versus the forces of dictatorship and oppression (principally Russia and China, but not just them).

We need to face this square on: ultimately it is about regime change in Russia, however long it takes, because there will never be peace as long as Putin remains.

I respect your point of view but I'm not part of any "we" that wants to use Ukraine so the US can fight a war of regime change and risk nuclear annihilation. He's 69 years of age, he has about five years left before he's removed by some internal mechanism anyway.

Not very likely given that neither side are remotely interested in the conditions the others are offering. The US policy should be to remove Putin from power so we don't go through this every few years. Thus the sanctions should remain in place to penalize Putin for this and slowly squeeze the life out of his brutal regime.

That is (and has been) their policy. I don't agree with it as a matter of diplomatic resolution. A geriatric Putin who shuffles off the stage by internal demand is preferable to this Putin being forced into a nuclear corner by US escalation. The point he makes is also true, the US has a terrible track record of regime change. Not in the moral sense, but in the sense of it actually going to plan. Look at Maduro whom the US have now had to recognise. If I thought this would without fail end in a flawless removal of Putin from office, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My problem is that I'm fairly certain it will not work and will prolong the war plus risk serious escalation from which there will be no return.

This has obviously been very serious from the beginning, but someone said there was a 0.01% chance of nuclear usage. That figure should be steadily revised upward after today.

 

[Dante]

Suppose, just suppose, that this was all really just about liberating the Donbass area of Ukraine, as ridiculous as that sounds in light of all the entire world has witnessed.

Why not go through the proper channels for that? Why not petition the UN for a free and fair referendum for independence? Make a show of doing it the right way; show that you genuinely care about the people who live there, regardless of their sympathies to Kyev or Moscow.

That might actually have worked. People could have had legitimate sympathy for Russia if they had even disingenuously gone down the proper channels to engineer a peaceful secession.

Instead, they have gone in all guns blazing and literally flattened entire cities; not only that, they have seemingly committed the most egregious war crimes along the way. Any credibility that they could have laid claim to before has been tossed to the four winds.

Russia's reputation as a nation is in tatters literally for generations and one idiotic fool of a man has put paid to it.

It won't be. Russia also needs to secure water access for Crimea as a major priority.

The Ukrainians have been blocking the flow of the canal (red line) and thereby limiting access to the only fresh water supply for the peninsula since 2014. At the very least, Putin will want to seize that route so he can ensure the viability of Russian Crimea.

 

[Raoul]

I respect your point of view but I'm not part of any "we" that wants to use Ukraine so the US can fight a war of regime change and risk nuclear annihilation. He's 69 years of age, he has about five years left before he's removed by some internal mechanism anyway.


That is (and has been) their policy. I don't agree with it as a matter of diplomatic resolution. A geriatric Putin who shuffles off the stage by internal demand is preferable to this Putin being forced into a nuclear corner by US escalation. The point he makes is also true, the US has a terrible track record of regime change. Not in the moral sense, but in the sense of it actually going to plan. Look at Maduro whom the US have now had to recognise. If I thought this would without fail end in a flawless removal of Putin from office, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My problem is that I'm fairly certain it will not work and will prolong the war plus risk serious escalation from which there will be no return.

This has obviously been very serious from the beginning, but someone said there was a 0.01% chance of nuclear usage. That figure should be steadily revised upward after today.

You don't know whether he is already prepared to use nukes now, so there's no value in pretending to create a fake agreement that neither side are prepared to abide by. Second, there was nothing in Biden's statement that would incentivize Putin to use nukes, unless he was already prepared to do so before.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

You don't know whether he is already prepared to use nukes now, so there's no value in pretending to create a fake agreement that neither side are prepared to abide by. Second, there was nothing in Biden's statement that would incentivize Putin to use nukes, unless he was already prepared to do so before.

That's true, but if I had to guess I would guess that he is prepared to use them. He's an aging autocrat who everyone is convinced has lost something of his wits of late with the Covid isolation and reducing his advisors to a smaller and smaller atomized circle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/world/europe/us-russia-ukraine-war.html

When the Russians and the Americans engaged in a proxy-proxy war for a few months, basically a dry-rehearsal for what would happen in the event of a full on exchange, you got the sense that it was serious but not necessarily "nuclear" serious. I can only go by what it looks like, and it looks like the US has committed to a position they cannot easily retreat from which only seems to have escalatory potential. The article above is an interesting read either way, maybe more in retrospect.

But threats and bluffs work best when they are backed up by action, increasing the risk of a war that neither side may truly want.

And these efforts are complicated by each side’s need to persuade multiple audiences of contradictory things.

The war having already started, the above takes on new meaning.

 

[RedSky]

I respect your point of view but I'm not part of any "we" that wants to use Ukraine so the US can fight a war of regime change and risk nuclear annihilation. He's 69 years of age, he has about five years left before he's removed by some internal mechanism anyway.


That is (and has been) their policy. I don't agree with it as a matter of diplomatic resolution. A geriatric Putin who shuffles off the stage by internal demand is preferable to this Putin being forced into a nuclear corner by US escalation. The point he makes is also true, the US has a terrible track record of regime change. Not in the moral sense, but in the sense of it actually going to plan. Look at Maduro whom the US have now had to recognise. If I thought this would without fail end in a flawless removal of Putin from office, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My problem is that I'm fairly certain it will not work and will prolong the war plus risk serious escalation from which there will be no return.

This has obviously been very serious from the beginning, but someone said there was a 0.01% chance of nuclear usage. That figure should be steadily revised upward after today.

Who says we're using Ukraine? I'm pretty sure Ukrainians would also very much welcome Putin being removed from power. With Putin in charge every country bordering Russia is under threat of war.

I would agree with the above posts, his comments were designed to provide an olive branch of sorts to those below Putin. Making it crystal clear that there's no reset button, that Putin has gone too far and the majority of the world acknowledges that. We can't fight Russia directly, but we can put them under severe domestic pressure by hitting those with the money and trying to get through to the general public. It's clearly a different strategical approach and it wasn't some unplanned out burst.

There's no way Russia can move forward with Putin remaining, there's too much bad blood and too many bridges burned.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Who says we're using Ukraine? I'm pretty sure Ukrainians would also very much welcome Putin being removed from power. With Putin in charge every country bordering Russia is under threat of war.

I would agree with the above posts, his comments were designed to provide an olive branch of sorts to those below Putin. Making it crystal clear that there's no reset button, that Putin has gone too far and the majority of the world acknowledges that. We can't fight Russia directly, but we can put them under severe domestic pressure by hitting those with the money and trying to get through to the general public. It's clearly a different strategical approach and it wasn't some unplanned out burst.

There's no way Russia can move forward with Putin remaining, there's too much bad blood and too many bridges burned.

I think it's clear we're using Ukraine but not in the sense of "Ukraine is being used without any agency or say in the matter". It's a mutually beneficial relationship. NATO/EU is providing Ukraine with the military assistance they want and is, in turn, trying to exact as much possible damage to Putin's Russia as possible. I didn't mean "use" like a puppet master, but use like "proxy".

For the bold. Yep, it was definitely a clearly defined strategical position. I have no doubt there. I just think it was the wrong position.







To my mind, Haass, of all people, is speaking absolute sense. Regime change is likely to be beyond US capability and only makes a bad situation worse.

 

[GlastonSpur]

I respect your point of view but I'm not part of any "we" that wants to use Ukraine so the US can fight a war of regime change and risk nuclear annihilation. He's 69 years of age, he has about five years left before he's removed by some internal mechanism anyway.


That is (and has been) their policy. I don't agree with it as a matter of diplomatic resolution. A geriatric Putin who shuffles off the stage by internal demand is preferable to this Putin being forced into a nuclear corner by US escalation. The point he makes is also true, the US has a terrible track record of regime change. Not in the moral sense, but in the sense of it actually going to plan. Look at Maduro whom the US have now had to recognise. If I thought this would without fail end in a flawless removal of Putin from office, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My problem is that I'm fairly certain it will not work and will prolong the war plus risk serious escalation from which there will be no return.

This has obviously been very serious from the beginning, but someone said there was a 0.01% chance of nuclear usage. That figure should be steadily revised upward after today.

It's not a question of "using" Ukraine. Putin invaded Ukraine out of choice - nobody forced him into it. And now the West is doing its best to help Ukraine survive short of NATO troops engaging directly against Russian forces.

And now also, the West has belatedly realised that absolutely nothing Putin says can be trusted, that he's simply a brutal dictator intent on snuffing out freedom and democracy, and that there will never be peace as long as he remains in power. There is no way around this basic truth.

You may well be right that Putin won't be removed from power and that we'll have to wait until he dies of old age. But until then, Russia must be relentlessly squeezed economically until the pips squeak and Russia is simply unable to adequately replace the the huge losses of equipment and weapons it is now experiencing.

If Putin wants to threaten a nuclear attack as a result, then so be it, because if he'd willing to do actually fire off nukes it for this, then he'd be willing to do it for any number of other reasons ... and there's a limit to how much we can keep worrying about the potential actions of someone that crazy (if he is actually that crazy).

 

[Raoul]

I think it's clear we're using Ukraine but not in the sense of "Ukraine is being used without any agency or say in the matter". It's a mutually beneficial relationship. NATO/EU is providing Ukraine with the military assistance they want and is, in turn, trying to exact as much possible damage to Putin's Russia as possible. I didn't mean "use" like a puppet master, but use like "proxy".

For the bold. Yep, it was definitely a clearly defined strategical position. I have no doubt there. I just think it was the wrong position.







To my mind, Haass, of all people, is speaking absolute sense. Regime change is likely to be beyond US capability and only makes a bad situation worse.

I don’t think Biden called for regime change today (despite it being interpreting as such). He just said Putin shouldn’t be in power, which is very different than saying it’s US policy for regime change in Russia. I think his comment was deliberately made to destabilize Putin’s legitimacy and dress him down on the global stage for his invasion of Ukraine, which is something most people in the west would agree with.

 

[GlastonSpur]

... To my mind, Haass, of all people, is speaking absolute sense. Regime change is likely to be beyond US capability and only makes a bad situation worse.

I'm sorry, but people - Hass and everyone else - needs to realise that talk of future diplomatic agreements with Putin are pure fantasy. We now know beyond any doubt that absolutely nothing Putin says can be trusted. There is no going back to some imagined "real politik" with him. He's burnt those bridges way beyond any repair.

He's a liar, a gangster, a war criminal, a mass murderer, a brutal dictator. There is no way forward with him. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

And now also, the West has belatedly realised that absolutely nothing Putin says can be trusted, that he's simply a brutal dictator intent on snuffing out freedom and democracy, and that there will never be peace as long as he remains in power. There is no way around this basic truth.

He's a brutal dictator but you can deal with brutal dictators when you have to. We've done that in the West since the beginning of the Cold War. You don't do it because you like the person or want to help them but because it's in everyone's interest to not escalate beyond a point of no return. Every Soviet General Secretary would meet the definition except maybe Gorbachev.

It might just be Biden posturing for a number of reasons. Russians scaling back their war aims maybe gave him a chance to push with the benefit of an immediate retraction from the WH. So might be more is being made of it than ought to be.

I don’t think Biden called for regime change today (despite it being interpreting as such). He just said Putin shouldn’t be in power, which is very different than saying it’s US policy for regime change in Russia. I think his comment was deliberately made to destabilize Putin’s legitimacy and dress him down on the global stage for his invasion of Ukraine, which is something most people in the west would agree with.

Yeah I was just thinking this, and it's the best possible frame from which to view it imo.

 

[sglowrider]

Its the old good cop/bad cop strategy. Not sure why these guys don't see it? The people at the negotiation table are the 'good guys' and the sales 'manager' are the bad cop.

 

[sglowrider]

Right. I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense. It’s a satnav guided cruise missile.

Blame it on the algorithms -- it fecked the missile up from being sub-metre accuracy to sub-40 miles off.

 

[Carolina Red]

Blame it on the algorithms -- it fecked the missile up from being sub-metre accuracy to sub-40 miles off.

“It can be flown through a window. Any window. Anywhere. It’s a surprise!”

 

[sglowrider]

“It can be flown through a window. Any window. Anywhere. It’s a surprise!”

Must have been based on Windows Vista? It may explain a few things.

 

[GlastonSpur]

He's a brutal dictator but you can deal with brutal dictators when you have to. We've done that in the West since the beginning of the Cold War. You don't do it because you like the person or want to help them but because it's in everyone's interest to not escalate beyond a point of no return. Every Soviet General Secretary would meet the definition except maybe Gorbachev.

It might just be Biden posturing for a number of reasons. Russians scaling back their war aims maybe gave him a chance to push with the benefit of an immediate retraction from the WH. So might be more is being made of it than ought to be. ...

Yes, we can make deals with brutal dictators when we have to, but there's a limit to this that Putin has now crossed big time. No previous Russian/USSR leader since the end of WWII has invaded and waged war on a sovereign European country, razing entire cities to to ground in the process. There were previous crushings of uprisings within the USSR - e.g. the Hungarian uprising of 1956 - but these were nothing like what we're now seeing, and the countries concerned were not at the time free and independent states.

This is a watershed event. It needs to be recognised as such. There can be no return to diplomatic deals with Russia until regime change occurs.

 

[ooeat0meoo]

 

[Rajma]

He's a brutal dictator but you can deal with brutal dictators when you have to. We've done that in the West since the beginning of the Cold War. You don't do it because you like the person or want to help them but because it's in everyone's interest to not escalate beyond a point of no return. Every Soviet General Secretary would meet the definition except maybe Gorbachev.

It might just be Biden posturing for a number of reasons. Russians scaling back their war aims maybe gave him a chance to push with the benefit of an immediate retraction from the WH. So might be more is being made of it than ought to be.


Yeah I was just thinking this, and it's the best possible frame from which to view it imo.

It’s basically sending a clear message to Russia that sanctions will remain while current regime is in place.

 

[Gehrman]

I would for missiles targeted at Lviv. If the precision guidance on those missiles has a malfunction, then the refugees and NATO soldiers at the Polish border are going to have a very bad day.

If it's a Kinzhal then fair enough, nothing you can do about that.

It's just like the cold war. US arming the muhajedeen etc. Ukraine aren't part of NATO so they don't get the benefits, but the west is doing all it can apart from direct confrontation.

 

[Rajma]

That’s a very good idea and should be implemented immediately.

 

[tomaldinho1]

A malfunction is a malfunction. These Kalibr missiles have a range of 1500 miles?

40 miles overshoot is nothing.

But as I said above. I'd argue that we should defend the 40 miles from Lviv to Poland from any missile.

This just doesn’t make sense. Why not 50 miles? Why not 100?

So far, as much criticism and pressure there has more been to ‘close the skies’ etc. NATO’s stance has been correct - stay completely on the sidelines but help as much as possible indirectly. Ukraine is having successes, far more than most thought possible, and Russia is already changing its Rhetoric about the war’s goals because of this.

Also modern missiles aren’t going to overshoot by 1 mile, let alone 40.

 

[Interval]

Suppose, just suppose, that this was all really just about liberating the Donbass area of Ukraine, as ridiculous as that sounds in light of all the entire world has witnessed.

Why not go through the proper channels for that? Why not petition the UN for a free and fair referendum for independence? Make a show of doing it the right way; show that you genuinely care about the people who live there, regardless of their sympathies to Kyev or Moscow.

That might actually have worked. People could have had legitimate sympathy for Russia if they had even disingenuously gone down the proper channels to engineer a peaceful secession.

Instead, they have gone in all guns blazing and literally flattened entire cities; not only that, they have seemingly committed the most egregious war crimes along the way. Any credibility that they could have laid claim to before has been tossed to the four winds.

Russia's reputation as a nation is in tatters literally for generations and one idiotic fool of a man has put paid to it.

You mean do it in a civilised way? How will the 70yr old out of touch dictator man wave his dick and show the world his large balls that he assumes is a way of showing how Russia is still a bear that cannot be poked? These cnuts have developed a massive following in many countries from an increasing disenfranchised electorate who are made to believe that the only way to stop their) inequality and feel powerful again is to invest themselves in rabid nationalism, religion and sectarianism. They wrongly miss the economic inequality and dwindling resources as the route of the problem and instead are made to focus by these whackos on other issues through disinformation.

Believe me, it’s Russia today. China/ Pakistan/ India/ Brazil/ USA/ UK tomorrow.

Apologies if I’ve missed your country in the shit list

 

[sglowrider]

This just doesn’t make sense. Why not 50 miles? Why not 100?

So far, as much criticism and pressure there has more been to ‘close the skies’ etc. NATO’s stance has been correct - stay completely on the sidelines but help as much as possible indirectly. Ukraine is having successes, far more than most thought possible, and Russia is already changing its Rhetoric about the war’s goals because of this.

Also modern missiles aren’t going to overshoot by 1 mile, let alone 40.

Mil spec GPS is accurate to sub-metre