back to article Russia is the advanced persistent threat that just triggered. Ready?

Stress-testing security is the only way to be sure it works. Until then, the worst security looks much the same as the best. As events in Ukraine show, leaving the stress-testing of assumptions until a threat is actually attacking is expensively useless. Yet if an untested solution is no solution at all, the problem becomes …


  1. UCAP Silver badge

    A man prepared to commit two-thirds of his armed forces to invade a democratic neighbour in the face of universal revulsion is not going to have qualms about lashing out at anything within reach on the internet.

    Reports over the weekend suggest that Putin is now threatening to invade Finland and Sweden.

    1. b0llchit Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      That would be suicide, with NATO and all.

      1. UCAP Silver badge

        Finland & Sweden are not currently members of NATO.

      2. imanidiot Silver badge

        Finland and Sweden aren't officially in NATO. While they are "friendly" with NATO forces there is no "mutual defense pact" with them and officially they are both independent and neutral (Finland considers itself to have equally close ties with Russia for instance iirc). An attack on them would thus not necessarily invoke a NATO response unless specifically requested bij either nation.

        1. MacroRodent

          NATO response (lack of)

          > An attack on them would thus not necessarily invoke a NATO response unless specifically requested bij either nation.

          As things currently stand, there would be no NATO response, period. That is why the idea of an actual NATO membership has recently gained popularity at amazing speed in both countries.

          1. DS999 Silver badge

            Out of curiousity, does anyone know

            Once they were able to complete whatever constitutional requirements they have for entering a treaty (which if it just needs a political approval rather than a vote of the population) how quickly could they become official members of NATO?

            Could that happen essentially immediately, or is there (as I expect is likely the case) a ton of process requiring a bunch of information, with built in delays since it was never envisioned someone want to join NATO overnight, or that NATO would want to welcome a new member overnight?

            I don't think Russia invading Finland, let alone Sweden, is a pressing concern given how large a percentage of his overall forces have been committed to Ukraine and how long that buildup required. But if the process of welcoming a new member takes many months / years, then maybe NATO ought to look into a way of streamlining that in certain cases, just in case.

            1. Stork Silver badge

              Re: Out of curiousity, does anyone know

              AFAIK it requires approval of all current members.

              I expect the Baltics would happily approve.

            2. Peter2 Silver badge

              Re: Out of curiousity, does anyone know

              Generally speaking, it'd take time.

              Countries wishing to join have to fulfil the entry criteria about being a democracy, free market economy, rule of law, minimum military capability, training and interoperability etc. For instance, all NATO countries use the same sorts of ammunition, ie bullets, shells and interoperable command control and communications gear.

              Ukraine was short on basically all of those areas as of 2008 and had been given an action plan towards membership which they were steadily working through.

              Finland is realistically already at a point where them joining wouldn't be an issue tomorrow morning.

              Sweden is more of a problem; while they meet most of the criteria they fail dismally on the "minimum military capability" part. NATO is supposed to be an alliance full of powerful members willing to fight for each other, not practically undefended countries wanting somebody else to garrison them so they get the defence, plus the economic benefits of the troops being based there and spending money in their economy from somebody else's tax base, as Germany has been doing from the fall of the Soviet Union until this weekend. (note their sudden doubling of their defence budget)

              Could that be ignored? Yes. Will it? Up to the politicians in charge of each country as I think you need a unanimous agreement between all NATO countries to add another member.

          2. Robert Grant Silver badge

            Re: NATO response (lack of)

            > That is why the idea of an actual NATO membership has recently gained popularity at amazing speed in both countries.

            It's a bit like saving money by waiting to buy insurance mid car crash.

        2. b0llchit Silver badge

          No, they are not NATO, but both are EU members. Many of the EU members are in NATO.

          If Russia attacks a EU country, then there would probably be a EU response, which probably would trigger a much broader conflict. NATO will most likely respond once that happens.

          1. imanidiot Silver badge

            Yes, but actually No, or more precisely: it gets very complicated.

            There is a mutual defence clause in the latest EU treaty (Lisbon, clause 42.7) but Sweden and Finland have both joined on the basis of being neutral and NOT being NATO members.The language of the article seems to make the efforts expected of a country contingent on their requirements based on NATO membership obligations:

            Article 42.7 Lisbon Treaty (EU)

            “If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

            Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.”

            Note the second part of that: "shall be consistent with commitments under the NATO". An attack on Finland or Sweden thus puts the whole thing into entirely murky territory, because other nations do not have any commitments under NATO to provide armed forces thus doing nothing would be consistent with those commitments.

            1. b0llchit Silver badge

              I fully agree that it gets very complicated.

              That said, Sweden has had a neutrality stance for a long time, which would be violated with a Russian attack. In that situation it will be most probable that Sweden seeks assistance from its EU allies. Once that happens and one Russian foot steps the wrong way all hell happens (a wrong step defined as in real, virtual or pure propaganda to get into the fight). NATO may then be required to join.

              I do believe that Sweden will get all EU support, regardless the fine-print in the treaties. If not, then the most if not all of the EU exercise will be over. Once EU support is rolling, then you can calculate the chances of an escalating conflict. Finland's situation is slightly different, but will get the same EU support when it asks.

          2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            If Russia attacks a EU country, then there would probably be a EU response, which probably would trigger a much broader conflict. NATO will most likely respond once that happens.

            The EU is not a military alliance. There would certainly be an EU economic response, but most of the good economic sanctions are being used over Ukraine. So there's not much more to do there.

            NATO, Finland and Sweden all inter-operate and train together. They've got the readiness and the skills.

            But we're not fighting to defend Ukraine because we don't want to start WWIII. Nuclear uncertainty is uncertain. Far better to deter an invasion by using the implied nuclear threat of NATO self-defence - than to make the implied threat of intervening in a war if Russia has already started it - which might lead to Russian nuclear "self-defence".

            Also of course, Putin can't now invade Finland, because he's just bogged most of his army down in Ukraine. And they're going to be busy for a bit. And after that, they're clearly going to need some retraining. Fuck knows what their excuse for a war plan is, but they need to thinnk about sacking shooting some generals and get in some better ones. They've done a pointless parachute drop, a couple of pointless helibourne assaults and an even more pointless amphibious invasion. It's like a bad jazz band, where even the drummer has to be allowed a couple of solos...

            To be fair, the helicopter assault could have worked. If they could capture an airfield and fly in heavy weapons, to get round behind the main formations of Ukraine's army and attack Kyiv. Particularly if they had air superiority so could stop the Ukrainians moving their forces easily. You also need air supreriority to be flying tranpsort planes around, and to control sufficient perimiter round the airfield to stop them being shot down with shoulder-fired SAMs. But they don't have air superiority because they did the ground assault on day one, with only a small number of air and missile attacks, and so haven't managed to take down Ukraine's air defences. I'm guessing they don't have enough cruise missile stocks to have destroyed all the air bases (airbases are big it takes many more than just one hit) and their airforce doesn't seem to be up to the job of continuous, sustained attacks.

            What we don't know is how badly chewed up the Ukrainian army are getting in the mobile battles outside the cities. Are they just slowing the Russian advance down at heavy cost - or is it a genuine contest? But the Russian units getting into the cities so far are more lightly armed and being beaten back. There's some paratroopers (but not elite ones - I guess its uncool to have light infantry in the Russian army, so they all have to be called paras) and Rosvgardia and OMON units - who are paramilitaries more used to guarding borders and buildings or beating up protestors than actual fighting. Those poor buggers should never have been put into the front line

            I guess the Russians are short of manpower for city fighting, while the mechanised infantry are tied up fighting the war of manoeuvre to surround the cities. And because they've assumed Ukraine would be a walk-over they've been sending small columns into the cities to see what happens.

            The problem is that in the "good old days" a Red Army general could affort to be a callous bastard and reckless of human life (even his own sides'). Because the Red Army was huge, and there were loads of your own soldiers to use as cannon-fodder. That's not true in the modern Russian army. It's big, but not that big. Perhaps their generals have forgotten?

            1. S4qFBxkFFg

              "their airforce doesn't seem to be up to the job of continuous, sustained attacks"

              The theories I read say they can't rely on the mobile SAM launchers in the field being able to reliably distinguish between hostile/friendly aircraft, and shortages of precision munitions (quite a lot already having been spent on keeping Assad in his current position). If Putin decides he can tolerate the unintended damage associated with unguided weapons, expect that to change.

              They're probably also not too happy at how many NATO surveillance aircraft are flying racetracks in Romanian airspace, the data probably going, without much detour, to Ukrainian air defence.

            2. Robert Grant Silver badge

              > The EU is not a military alliance

              Not solely, no. But there is the EU Common Security and Defence Policy which involves pooling military personnel and assets. E.g. it holds the third largest number of nukes after the US and Russia.

        3. Danny 2 Silver badge

          Finland and Sweden...are both independent and neutral

          5,000 anti-tank weapons of the model “Pansarskott 86”, a single-use anti-tank launcher known internationally as Bofors AT-4, would be sent to Ukraine...

          Sweden officially abandoned its stance of neutrality at the end of the Cold War but remains officially “non-aligned” and outside military alliances.

      3. Tail Up

        Dismissed, possibly, NATO will be...

    2. imanidiot Silver badge

      Because attacking Finland worked so well for them last time...

      --> The thick fur lined one with the fur hood and mitts please -->

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Between that

        And the multiple failed attempts over the past couple centuries at invading Russia, it is almost as if invading a country with harsh winters and short hours of daylight during those harsh winters is a bad idea no matter who is doing the invading.

        I wonder if that's why Putin waited until spring was around the corner to take on Ukraine, because it sure would have been harder for the west to get Germany on board with harsh sanctions if this happened when they were at the start of winter heating season rather than at the tail end of it...

        1. Denarius Silver badge

          Re: Between that

          @DS999. An excellent and often unrealised point. About 20% of USA gas (the real vaporous stuff) comes from Russia now, thanks to you know who on accession. Europe is in an even worse state, with Angela obeying her controllers orders to defuel and de-industrialise Germany with the help of useful idiots. Likewise other states such as Nederlands, UK shutting down their own gas fields so they now have to buy Russian gas or freeze in winter. Situation strategy model fits a long information warfare disinformation campaign that benefits only two countries. Did I mention that most devout green leadership historically have a marxist background and so feel a natural affinity for Marxs two holy lands ?

          No need for conspiracy, because mere stupidity, expressed as a decades long focus on quarterly financial results is sufficient explanation for how a low level strategic misinformation game can win against an initially more powerful foe.

          Mines the bright silver flame coat with the body armour inside

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: Between that

            "About 20% of USA gas (the real vaporous stuff) comes from Russia"

            Bullshit. Almost all of the US's natural gas imports come from Canada. About 98%, in fact. Almost all the rest comes from Trinidad and Tobago. Absolutely none of it comes from Russia.

            With that said, the vast majority of natural gas consumed in the US is produced here, in the US.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Between that

            Did I mention that most devout green leadership historically have a marxist background and so feel a natural affinity for Marxs two holy lands ?

            May I presume you mean Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson?

          3. Loyal Commenter

            Re: Between that

            Who's this Angela you speak of? You do know Germany's Chancellor is some guy called Olaf, and has been for a little while now, right?

            As for your "all greens are Marxists" idea, there's a number of quite big leaps you've made there from environmentalism to leftism to Marxism to fraternity with historical Marxists, none of which is likely to survive any actual scrutiny from anyone with a working brain, so this rings some pretty big "far-right-conspiracy-theory-nutjob" alarm bells.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Between that

              While not seeking to defend Denarius in general, it is fair to note that the name 'watermelon' (*) has been applied to the green movement for >40 years, reflecting the opinion (held only by some, obviously, but quite widely held for all that), that much (much, not all) of the green movement is actually driven by hard-left ideology, which is masked by a concern or pretence of a concern for environmental matters.

              (*)a watermelon has a thin green skin covering the more voluminous red core.

              1. Loyal Commenter

                Re: Between that

                Has it? It's not a term I've ever heard used. This might just be because I don't hang around with the sort of people who are likely to use it, who I suspect will be the right-wing corporatist types, who have a vested interest in undermining environmentalism, and for whom slinging mud of this sort probably has its own cost-centre in their chart of accounts.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Between that

                  (The AC that posted the 'watermelon' comment)

                  "who I suspect will be the right-wing corporatist types,"

                  Well, the people I heard it from (~30 years ago) were professional (and properly academically / professionally qualified) Environment scientists / risk assessors, whose day job was technical due diligence on industrial plants, cleaning up polluted soil and groundwater and such.

                  So the 'right-wing types' may well use it, but so do people that actually know something about protecting the environment.

                  1. Loyal Commenter

                    Re: Between that

                    In that case, it may well be industry slang for those who pretend green credentials to hide a radical leftist agenda, but I don't reckon it's in common parlance, or that there are a lot of people of that ilk.

                    Of course, one person's moderate left-of-centre activist is another's far-left radical, and the rather simplistic left-right spectrum is open to wild distortions from those on "both sides". Just remember that a lot of the press in this country is owned by oligarchs billionaires whose own political outlook is rather far to the right of that centre ground.

                    1. jake Silver badge

                      Re: Between that

                      For the record, the only place I've seen "Watermelon' used in that way is from my Finnish relatives. It's certainly not used here in California, the traditional ancestral home of the folks it is applied to.

                  2. bombastic bob Silver badge

                    Re: Between that

                    it is worth pointing out that MOST people seem to believe that pollution and environmental damage are bad, that environmental cleanup is good, and that clean air, clean water, etc. are all very very good things.

                    The assumption that "the right wing" wants dirty air, dirty water, and gross pollution everywhere is as bad as assuming that all environmentalists are commies.

                    However it seems that those at the front of the 'green' movement, with their shrill anti-scientific claims about various aspects of their movement [that I shall not enumerate at this time], ARE generally the 'watermelon' types, at least In My Bombastic Opinion, especially when you look at the SOLUTIONS to the alleged problems that they have proposed...

                    1. Binraider Silver badge

                      Re: Between that

                      $DEITY forbid centrist policies founded on common interests be on the table!

                      30 years of branding everything as XXXTREME or SEXXXY to generate interest rather than objective is of course party responsible.

                      Nasty times lead to extreme views taking root. It's not good for anyone. When was the last time you heard an actual debate in parliament instead of rhetoric. The folks that actually write the details of bills are far removed from the front line of politics.

                2. Denarius Silver badge

                  Re: Between that

                  my point precisely. You dont get out of your echo chamber. Try talking to farmers dealing with bureaucrats who know how to run a property from an air-conditioned office.

            2. Denarius Silver badge

              Re: Between that

              Did you notice I wrote of long time span, not last year ? Merkle hung around for how long ? As for young Jake, true in recent history, not in last 6 month and probably a brief anomaly. As for watermelons, an old term. You youngun's dont read much, do you ?

              Continuing to corporates and the collectivists, have any of you noticed both dislike free independent citizens and nation states ? Both want surveillance dystopias for their own reasons and both will try to use the other. It happened last century in Germany. If you dont study history over centuries, you dont understand the present as someone said.

              1. jake Silver badge

                Re: Between that

                You wrote "About 20% of USA gas (the real vaporous stuff) comes from Russia"

                I replied "Bullshit. Almost all of the US's natural gas imports come from Canada. About 98%, in fact. Almost all the rest comes from Trinidad and Tobago. Absolutely none of it comes from Russia."

                You come back with "true in recent history, not in last 6 month and probably a brief anomaly."

                Horseshit. Facts here. Data on that web page goes back to 2016, but a downloadable spreadsheet goes back to 1973. It shows no trade in natural gas from Russia at all.

                I don't know where you get your "facts", but you might consider vetting them a trifle more thoroughly. It would seem they are a trifle confused.

                I've been following the so-called "greens" since Palo Alto started started brainwashing teaching kids about recycling in schools in the mid 1960s. If that makes me young, I can live with the moniker. I still have only heard the "watermelon" term in that context from my Finnish relatives, until this thread.

            3. Denarius Silver badge

              Re: Between that

              Did I say all greens are marxists ? Straw man attack. Nope, just many of them seem to think from that world view and sound like marxists. Unless you are one, in which case you cant hear how like utopian materialists they sound. Sometimes people have ideas, sometimes ideas have people. In my experience most greens are useful idiots with good intentions and little knowledge of the actual environment issue they feel a concern over in last two decades. Useful for political influence.

              In short, EU and pals will have get along with Russia on Russian terms because they have to. Wont change until there is a return to energy independence in EU or there is another Russian revolution or collapse. Perhaps China will want the territory it lost to Russia in 19th century back.

              1. Loyal Commenter

                Re: Between that

                I think the general observation to be made here is that a lot of politically active people are also quite naïve. The world works in a certain way, and contains people who are saintly altruistic and conscientious and also complete selfish arseholes, and everyone else in between.

                Utopian ideals are a noble goal, but it is not possible to flip a switch and go from where we are now to peace and equality for all, the best we can do is gradual change, and to push to make that change happen as fast as possible.

                It's worth noting, as well, that although for some, a Marxist world is their idea of Utopia, it's certainly not a view shared by most on the left, in the same way that a corporatist world with all the wealth hoarded by a very few individuals is not the idea of Heaven for most on the right.

                As for environmentalism? Well, it makes sense that we should make best endeavours to not cause our own extinction. Most people will agree that AGW and pollution are real problems that we genuinely need to tackle, although you'll find plenty of whackjobs hiding under rocks if you go looking for them who will argue otherwise, until their elderly parents start shouting at them to get out of the basement and find a job.

                Environmentalism naturally sits somewhere to the left of the "political spectrum", so it's hardly surprising to find some proper radical Marxist types extolling its virtues, however, I think you'll find that the number of genuine full-on Marxists is very small, and the vast majority of leftists sit comfortably in the "lets be reasonable" ground of the centre-left, which is also the home ground of environmental concerns.

            4. Binraider Silver badge

              Re: Between that

              Indeed, for those that follow German politics, their Green party has been amongst the most hardline (by modern German standards) on promoting the recent shift in the Bundestag to up the military budget to 100bn/year.

              There are other blockers to making that happen, but the idea that all greens are Commies is ludicrous.

          4. DS999 Silver badge

            Re: Between that

            The US is a net exporter of natural gas, and they certainly don't import anything from Russia. Where do these clueless people come up with their so wrong they clearly know nothing about anything facts?

    3. wolfetone Silver badge

      "Reports over the weekend suggest that Putin is now threatening to invade Finland and Sweden."

      They can't even give the young men they sent to Ukraine enough petrol to run the tanks or food to sustain themselves (leading to looting by the young Russian conscripts). They're not going to have the fuel, weapons or resources to have a pop at another country.

      1. Danny 2 Silver badge

        They can't even give the young men they sent to Ukraine enough petrol to run the tanks or food to sustain themselves

        Russia had to invade or withdraw because they sent their troops to invasion positions too early. Those troops were tired, cold and hungry by the time they were ordered in. A local in Belarus reported the camp near him was drunk on vodka that they bartered for with diesel fuel. The troops going in now will be better rested but hopefully more aware of the true situation.

      2. MachDiamond Silver badge

        "They can't even give the young men they sent to Ukraine enough petrol to run the tanks or food to sustain themselves"

        I don't know about fuel, but in the case of food it might not be a matter of soldiers getting enough food, but whether they'd rather acquire something other than MRE's for a change. One article stated that Russians soldiers were "asking" for lard and alcohol. I expect that the Russian army isn't supplying alcoholic drinks to their troops in the field. The lard? What's the take on deep frying MRE's?. Perhaps Big Clive will take on the challenge.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Lard is a compact, high energy food source. It is especially tasty in US-style biscuits[0], which make for an easily cooked bread substitute. I've cooked this in an engine bay before, and also in a hastily constructed rock oven.

          The Alcohol speaks for itself. If I were a young Russian kid forced to join in on this miserable and utterly useless agenda, I'd probably turn to booze, too.

          [0] 2 cups AP flour, 1 Tbs baking powder, 1 tsp salt, 1/3 cup lard, 1 cup water (or milk). Can add about 1/2 tsp baking soda to change the pH for additional browning, but it's not necessary. Mix the dry ingredients, cut in the lard (rub the lard into the flour with your fingers), then quickly stir in the liquid (do not over mix, or they get tough). Drop by the heaping tablespoonful onto a baking sheet, pop into a 450F oven for 12-15 minutes, turning the sheet once. Makes about a dozen.

          1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

            That's crackers!

            Or, as I call it, hot water crust pastry (minus the baking powder). 10oz flour, 3oz lard, 1/4 pint of milk or water. A pinch of salt. Lard and milk/water brought to the boil and mixed in with flour and then kneaded through. It's left to cool.

            That which is not used for the pie will be folded over several times, like puff pastry, to trap air, cut up and cooked as pastry biscuits. To a British audience, they look and taste like cream crackers.

          2. Loyal Commenter

            Exactly, if you're fighting (or trying to do pretty much anything for any amount of time) in sub-zero temperatures, you need a high-energy food source. That means lard or other similar fats. There's a reason arctic peoples eat seal blubber, and I doubt it's for the taste.

          3. MachDiamond Silver badge

            I put in the baking soda myself, but use vegetable shortening rather than lard.

            I'm still really curious about a deep-fried MRE, but would rather somebody else try it first.

            1. jake Silver badge

              Try the lard. It's healthier than Crisco, and contains no palm oil (which is heavily contributing to the destruction of the environment). And it's a lot tastier, too. If you don't render your own, the best of the supermarket brands seems to be Armour ... at least according to the kitchens of my friends.

              You can keep the MREs, deep fried or not. I'd rather live off the land.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Why stop there.... why not CONQUER THE WORLD WITH HIS MIGHTY RUSSIAN ARMY AND WEAPONS SO FIENDISH THAT ENEMIES WILL CRUMBLE BEFORE HIS GREATNESS! Putin's not delusional, he's hoping they're gullible and he can buy time with some bluster.

      Georgia is eyeing up Volgograd. It could take the whole peninsular, dominate Azov and Caspian seas, and whose to stop them? The MIGHTY Russian army???! The one that needs Belarussian help to save them??

      He's doing "peace talks" , i.e. stalling while he resupplies his military because he didn't plan for this. Well yeh, but he gets that Europe is sending Ukraine a fookton of the most advanced weaponry right? Those US missiles are coming from German stockpiles not shipped across the ocean. His APC's drive down a road, they're tracked on satellite, Ukrainians pop out of a hole, shoot it with a missile and his men are all dead. For what?

      He loses that fight no matter what, he retreats, suffers decades of sanctions, Iraq style, struggles to hold power with an ever diminishing army he can fund. Dies, is airbrushed out of history. This is the best scenario for him here.

      I don't even think the cyber angle comes into it, the West has the most detailed of data on his army, even conversations between Putin and his top generals, suggesting vast intel superiority.

      The hackers in Russia, they would be better off in a democratic Russia too, they can just phone in the hours, not work hard, what do they personally care if Putin loses and his regime crumbles, they can get proper IT security jobs in a modern democracy once he's gone.

      It's better for them personally, to let Putin fail.

      1. lglethal Silver badge

        I'm actually super surprised Georgia hasnt already moved to retake South Ossetia. Moldova could certainly also move on Transnistria, Japan on the Kuril Islands, anyone else in the 'Stan's with a bit of a historical grudge about the border location. NOW is your time to shine!

        For all Russia's talk, they have seriously weakened their own position. It will be interesting to see what develops, but here's hoping Russia runs home with it's tail between it's legs, and Ukraine gets the compensation it seriously deseves...

        1. Jedit Silver badge

          "NOW is your time to shine!"

          If by "shine" you mean "with the fire of an earthbound Sun" or "glow in the dark for the next 10,000 years", perhaps. It's one thing to expect Putin to show restraint with the Armageddon dildos when he gets his nose bloodied in Ukraine, and quite another to suggest that he would hold back if Russia should be invaded on multiple fronts.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "NOW is your time to shine!"

            There's no viable target that can save him. No place he can nuke that could stop him losing control of Russia. Where does Putin nuke that can save Putin and wouldn't actually hasten his own end? There isn't such a place.

            It's funny/sad, Belarus is saying "nukes will be stationed in Belarus". Luschenko trying to pretend he is a nuclear threat, as if he would control those nukes! Luschenko can clearly see the end there. Trying to puff himself up. He needed Russian military help to suppress the pro-democracy movement there, yet he proposed to send troups to help the Russians take Ukraine??? And when they die, who will keep him in power in Belarus? So he pretends nukes can save him. Nukes that wouldn't be controlled by him! Where does "he" nuke? Minsk?

            Where *does* a failed dictator flee? Viktor Yanukovych (the Russian puppet that Paul Manasfort put in power in Ukraine) fled to Russia. Donald Trump (the Russian puppet that Paul Manasfort also put in power) fled to Mar-a-Lago, and perhaps to Moscow later if those prosecutions get too close.

            But where would Putin get sanctuary? Maybe the Chinese would let him live there? A fake beard and a poncho and live in Venezula perhaps???

            And who would give him sanctuary if he ever fired a nuke? No-one, he'd be safe nowhere. None of his people would be safe, they'd know their death is imminent and painful, and their only hope is to behead Putin and make gory Tik-toks about how they made his last seconds a living hell as proof of their repentance for his attack.... "Please don't kill me and my family and my people, look here, we plucked out his eyeballs and fed them to him, we are truely truely sorry for what he did"

            1. Denarius Silver badge

              Re: "NOW is your time to shine!"

              As usual AC, wrong way round. A part of the disinformatioin campaign. Old man and Hilarious were influenced by by links to Russia and the other place


POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like