Ukrainians smuggle drones hidden in cabins on trucks to strike Russian airfields Ukraine claims it launched a cunning drone strike on Sunday against multiple Russian airbases, hitting over 40 military aircraft and inflicting an estimated $7 billion in damage, in an operation dubbed "Spiderweb." According to a post on X from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the operation, which took 18 months of …
This could be the centerpiece of Britain's great rearmament project
Picture brigades of self-propelled sheds sweeping across the allotments of Eastern Europe.
The flight decks of HMS Her Maj and HMS Chuck, otherwise empty of expensive F35s, festooned with sheds.
A special force of elite Shedi-Knights battling the enemy
Interesting. What do you imagine this "late stage capitalism" to actually be? Only the term itself is nearly 100 years old, so the question is how many more centuries will this "late stage" last? All of them? Most of them?
Its the sort of term bandied about a lot by people that never seem to understand why capitalism works and socialism never does.
We have feudalistic oligarchic relationships (rent seeking), not so much "capitalist" in the sense of wage differentials (I earn a share of your labour).
Socialism is humanities natural organising pattern. Sharing stuff to get a collective result. You do it at home naturally- sharing food with your kids, partner, flatmate, friends.
In terms of running an country, if you want people to have better lives, we could direct the resources of the state towards that end.
If I want to run an operation lets say making devices - a supply chain I understand - hardware, software, delivery. I need real resources, skilled people, and capital.
For the all bar the latter, any fiscal system doesn't advantage/disadvantage the provisions of them - skilled people don't appear from thin air, and neither do real resources.
Capital now, more specifically the cost of Capital; the Government can borrow at long term rates which are unavailable to private industry. So it's possible to achieve an enormous cost differential between the state doing it collectively, or private capital funding.
The problem is not that Socialism works but that when all your needs are taken care of, people are harder to exploit.
Making everybody miserable, and afraid so that a vanishing small percentage of people can be supremely wealthy on a burning planet is not a great sell.
We don't need some hippy dippy fucking commune. I work providing gaming (sports betting mostly) so not some bleeding heart, the way that we make that money is about systemically addressing issues, to obtain a benefit by engineering, repeatable outcomes, with training, education, etc. If you want better outcomes, a Socialism/Other idealogical framing is not the reason it does/doesn't work, it's more complex.
Cuba has vastly better healthcare than we do ( Sanctions of course had no effect). Libya had free electricity, now has open-slave markets. Syria had free healthcare, now thanks to the US its run by Al-Qaeda and Healthcare is now not free.
Socialism is humanities natural organising pattern. Sharing stuff to get a collective result.
That's never been true. Not in the earliest societies or any that succeeded them. Someone always eats the most food. Someone always has the hottest cave girl / girlfriend / haram etc. Someone's always at the top - in capitalism it is more merit based than any Marxist nightmare, where its always just the party members.
For the all bar the latter, any fiscal system doesn't advantage/disadvantage the provisions of them - skilled people don't appear from thin air, and neither do real resources.
Again a total failure of understanding. It is the financial system and the rewards it provides that motivates the skilled people, incentivises the resource provision. In socialism, nobody bothers - you know it to be true.
Capital now, more specifically the cost of Capital; the Government can borrow at long term rates which are unavailable to private industry. So it's possible to achieve an enormous cost differential between the state doing it collectively, or private capital funding.
Government borrowing is totally tapped out. We spend more on debt service than most departments.
The problem is not that Socialism works but that when all your needs are taken care of, people are harder to exploit.
Socialism has never worked anywhere or at any time its ever been tried. It always ends in capitalism or communist killing fields. Why? Human nature. People respond to incentives. Its always been true. It will always be true, no matter how inconvenient socialists find it.
Making everybody miserable, and afraid so that a vanishing small percentage of people can be supremely wealthy on a burning planet is not a great sell.
Ironically you just described every implementation of socialism ever.
Cuba has vastly better healthcare than we do ( Sanctions of course had no effect). Libya had free electricity, now has open-slave markets. Syria had free healthcare, now thanks to the US its run by Al-Qaeda and Healthcare is now not free.
Cuba has people trapped by its own military, wholly unable to leave or they all would. Tell me you've never been there without using any of those words. Cuba is perpetually on the brink of poverty and out with Havana, often living through it. Libya & Syria had state torture, murder squads, and poverty. Popular leaders don't die in ditches. At this point you must be trolling. You can't possibly believe what you're typing. Its fully batshit crazy and totally ignores facts, reason, and history.
Firstly the Government as the currency issuer can never run out of money, given you lack even this basic understanding of economics it's difficult to educate you in a short post.
I'll do my best; Note the British Army like all armies is run by the State since the profit motive doesn't fit for things that need to work, with exactly the same rationale underpinning the WW2 War time nationalisation of Industries - it was too important to suffer the theft.
Cuba is indeed poor, yet has more doctors per capita, than the UK. You seem unable to draw any conclusions other than an Economic system is the sole factor underpinning all things, which again exposes how limited your understanding is. Do you think the Economic Sanctions had a) some effect, or b) no effect) when considering the "perpetually on the brink of poverty" ?
The UK has no sanctions, it's people are poor, the education is appalling, otherwise you'd understand that Socialism is already here, we collectively pay for the Army, that's a socialist enterprise, collectively funded to derive an advantage to the Country, which is carried out in flagrant defiance of a profit motive, because it's beneficial for the population.
The rest of your dribble, I'll only address for a Profit - as you can see Capitalism has rendered your education incomplete.
@GNU SedGawk
"Firstly the Government as the currency issuer can never run out of money"
Except for when governments kept printing money which devalued the currency so badly they could not afford the print run for the next batch. That government can run out of money has been demonstrated through history. They struggle with finance so badly they came off the gold standard for the very reason of running out of money. Since then governments have still managed to run down the value of their currency until they couldnt print any more.
"Cuba is indeed poor, yet has more doctors per capita, than the UK."
A while ago I read that for their part of trade they would be providing rum in place of currency. They ended up going backward to a barter system because the value of their currency wasnt worth it. A place so rich they will risk life and limb just to get to the capitalist hell of the US for a substantially better life.
"The UK has no sanctions, it's people are poor, the education is appalling"
So poor that we dont really measure poverty in this country anymore because it barely exists. Instead we measure inequality in the UK. And our education is so bad that the world top 10 universities contain 3 UK universities. Almost a third or the worlds highest ranking universities are in the UK. England to be specific.
You may not wish to proclaim the arrival of socialism to the UK considering the country has gone from managed decline under the tories to out right failure of government under this lot.
Capitalism works until it doesn't. If left to its own devices it rapidly reverts to the Saturnian beasts of mercantilism, monopolism or corporatism and devours its own children
Capitalism - actual "fair and level playing field" capitalism is a very unstable and delicate state of affairs that needs a LOT of government oversight to keep things that way
It's Fascism in disguise.
We could live vastly better lives, of more ease, more happiness, less harm.
The biggest stumbling block is the huge numbers of people who cannot reason, do not engage with evidence and repeat obvious nonsense because compliance with authority is deeply socialised within our society to keep the wealthy on top, and the rest fighting over scraps from people who hate us.
What king worth of the name has people sleeping under bridges in his Kingdom.
What civilised nation sees children starve, and the elderly go without, when the coffers overflow with so much gold, you can purchase it from the country by the kilo.
We are condemn by mental walls, much higher than any physical ones, but we are all born free, and must claim our freedom, to live in the better world that is ours if only we've the courage to claim it.
Ukraine has tooled up a vast drone construction industry, building them at a rate of 10 million per year. Those who want the spread to lie that Ukraine is helpless without the US or that they're doomed to lose the war are wrong. No doubt some of the parts come from China, as almost nothing electronic can be built these days without any China content at all. But likely not directly from them, but via Europe.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/drones-are-the-new-weapon-of-modern-warfare-heres-how-ukraine-mastered-their-production-and-can-now-make-10-million-a-year-ukraine-news-russia-news/articleshow/121576197.cms
I think that's the official position. Apart from the risks that the current administration pose, this "mossad-like" act comes with plausible deniability.
But I also think that Ukraine's secret service now has better local knowledge and quite likely more than a few local agents.
Nice to see the use of "Mossad-Like" as shorthand for "Act of Terror carried out by Ukrainians".
Operations must be “necessary and proportionate” to be legally approved in this country, a European former spy chief told Israeli executives during a business conference, adding that the exploding pagers "did not meet [his] test.”
One official said it set a dangerous precedent that non-state actors, such as terrorists or criminals, might use. Another concern was how the explosive-packed pagers were smuggled across Europe and the Middle East, posing a danger to property and human life along the route.
A 'form of terrorism,' what 'the Russians would do'
Leon Panetta, former head of the CIA, even described the pager attack in a television interview as a “form of terrorism.” Some officials even nicknamed the attack “Operation Grim Beeper.”
“It was just the sort of operation the Russians would do,” said a former intelligence chief. “I don’t think any other Western intelligence service would even consider that sort of operation, maiming thousands of people.”
https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1441487/a-form-of-terrorism-pager-attack-triggers-debate-among-western-security-chiefs-ft.html
Amazing how many times I've made the point that using a civilian as an unwilling suicide bomber is the problem.
Well, you've tried to make out that an unharmed civilian used as an unwitting driver was somehow a suicide bomber, but no-one with any brains believes you.
Maybe you should try calling them "martyrs", that usually gets a good response from sycophants.
I didn't see anything at all in the article indicating that the unwitting civilian (the truck driver) was killed. The sheds opened, the drones flew out, they flew to their targets, THEN blew up. In fact, according to the Russian Defense Ministry as quoted in the article: "No casualties were reported either among servicemen or civilians."
So stop trying to claim that Ukraine used "a civilian as an unwilling suicide bomber". It's not true.
So stop trying to claim that Ukraine used "a civilian as an unwilling suicide bomber". It's not true.
There's been a lot of 'reports' and many, many claims. I thnk the basic principle remains. Civilians were unwillingly or unknowingly roped into these attacks, and placed at risk. One claim I've seen suggested a police officer was killed when they looked inside a truck, or there was the failed attack where the truck blew up or burned on the way to the target. That that happened seems reliable, whether the driver was killed or injured hasn't been confirmed.
What is more certain is that Ukraine dropped a bridge on a train, killing and injuring multiple civilians. Whether that was intentional or not isn't clear, ie it may just have been bad luck that the train was hit. But Russia is treating that as a terrorist attack, along with the other bridge & rail attacks. It could be argued those were legitimate dual-use targets, but that doesn't really matter when it comes to Russia responding to that escalation. Especially given the timing.
"What is more certain is that Ukraine dropped a bridge on a train"
Which as we have already discussed is an allegation from the Russians who have provided not a single shred of evidence that the Ukrainians were responsible (so therefore probably a lie), whereas there is a credible mechanism of failure caused by repeated overloading and lack of maintenance, leading finally to collapse under heavy load, the last part of which is proven by the visual evidence of trucks on the bridge at the time of failure.
Which as we have already discussed is an allegation from the Russians who have provided not a single shred of evidence that the Ukrainians were responsible (so therefore probably a lie), whereas there is a credible mechanism of failure caused by repeated overloading and lack of maintenance, leading finally to collapse under heavy load, the last part of which is proven by the visual evidence of trucks on the bridge at the time of failure.
Whatever you're smoking, you should probably stop now. Trucks on a bridge is proof of repeated overloading? Wow! You better tell the press and the US Transport Secretary to ban all lorries from bridges because every road bridge that isn't closed to cars is about to suffer spontaneous and simultaneous structural failure. It was the excessive movement of strawmen that broke the bridge's backs! Multiple bridges, all close to expected Russian axes of attack, and all at the same time.
But Russia has since reported they've found traces of explosives, Russia has declared it a terrorist attack, and it was mentioned during the Trump-Putin call. Which prompted an uncharacteristicly subdued tweet from Trump that didn't include the overuse of caps. Just that there were no prospects for peace any time soon, Putin is rather unhappy and Ukraine can expect an official response to Russia. So basically Kiev have made their own bed, and now they get to lie in it. Another excuse for the US to walk away and claim that Ukraine is out of control.
Ukrainians pretty much all speak Russian natively and can pass for Russian. There were enough East Asians dumped in Ukraine by Stalin that Korean, or passing for Eastern Russian isn't a problem either
On the other hand, Russians speaking Ukrainian tend to do so with a marked accent that Ukrainians find extremely easy to weed out
We know that Russia seeded critical Ukrainian government role with their own people (and got detected). Ukraine is repaying the favour with interest and it only takes a few hundred to sow chaos across all of Russia
If Russia actually "won" and occupied Ukraine, it would have 43 million people (1/4 of the Russian population) with an axe to grind and the ability to grind it
There's also the issue that Russian oblasts east of the Urals have always been treated as "occupied territory" and most aren't that happy about being ruled from Moscow. Siberia managed to break away in 1917 for a couple of decades and that secessionist feeling never went away even through the Soviet days
I predicted that one of the outcomes of the Ukraine invasion would be another 2 dozen flags outside UN headquarters and that's still on the cards. The location of UN headquarters may be a different matter
A shibboleth is any custom or tradition, usually a choice of phrasing or single word, that distinguishes one group of people from another.
Leaving aside that Russia won already, that all we are witnessing is western leaders line their pockets with arms contracts, for as long as Ukrainian lives can be spent for PR.
If Russia actually "won" and occupied Ukraine, it would have 43 million people (1/4 of the Russian population) with an axe to grind and the ability to grind it has a good point neatly rebutting the farcical idea of Russian desires to "rule" Ukraine, not prevent Ukrainian Nazis exterminating anybody they see as not Racially pure.
The cognitive dissonance required to support Ukraine in oppressing Ethnic minorities, while supporting US Backed Zionist State Terrorist group's Genocide in occupied Palestine on full display.
Even better, no evidence is ever rebutted, it's just ignored. George railed against the theft of Palestine in 1948.
Orwell, 1984.“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote: Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
Ukrainians pretty much all speak Russian natively and can pass for Russian. There were enough East Asians dumped in Ukraine by Stalin that Korean, or passing for Eastern Russian isn't a problem either.
Are you sure about that? Or is it part of the casual racism that helped fuel some of the 'N.Korean' propaganda? But possible, after all Russia kinda bridges Europe and Asia, so not very suprising to see 'Korean' looking Russians. Less common in the west of Ukraine, but that's partly due to the Banderites and their German allies massacring people they regarded as subhuman. And that desire hasn't really changed, ie the Kiev regime including their 'head of comedy'.. I mean 'state' referring to their slavic bretheren as 'orcs'. Live the perfect, idealised Arya.. I mean Ukrainian ideal, or else. How history repeats itself.
If Russia actually "won" and occupied Ukraine, it would have 43 million people (1/4 of the Russian population) with an axe to grind and the ability to grind it.
Ah, well.. Nope. But again you're missing the point regarding the coup and civil war. Prior to that, ie 2014-ish, Ukraine maybe had 43m people. Now, it's more like 30m and falling. A few million fled once the Banderites started bombing the Donbas, millions more after the SMO started. But quite a lot of those fled to Russia, and some have since returned. So it's more like 1/4 of the Ukrainian population either being Russian, or identifying with Russia. So simple stuff that the EU requires, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from discrimation.. All of which rather goes against the Banderites vision for Ukraine, and Ukrainians. Which is also why partitioning Ukraine along the Dnipr because that pretty much splits political and ethic divisions. Sucks a bit as it did with the partitioning of India, but if people are free to choose which side of the line they live on, it's workable.
Or perhaps not. After all most of Ukraine's resources, industry, economy and population are east of the Dnipr. Especially if Russia decides to recapture Odessa, which it'll probably do much the same way as it did the last time it expelled the Nazis from Ukraine. Land bridge to Moldova, Romania, Hungary and Poland get their territory back, and Ukraine goes the way of Yugoslavia. Just another 'failed state', helped to fail by the glorious West. Especially if the Ukrainians who've fled into the EU, UK, Monaco and Dubai don't actually want to go back to the rump of Ukraine either.
So Russia would have far fewer partisans and terrorists to deal with. Which it could do much the same way as it did with the Banderites after the Nazis were pushed out of Ukraine and then WW2 ended.. And they weren't exactly gentle, which is again one of the problems behind this conflict. Maybe some of their neo-nazis will again flee to Canada, and maybe some with be given a standing ovation by the Canadian parliament. That was suprising and depressing when a Ukrainian volunteer who'd fought against Russians in WW2 got such adulation from a bunch of politicians who didn't twig that that put the SS volunteer rather firmly on the wrong side of history. Expecting the EU to welcome a wave of neo-nazi asylum seekers could also be amusing to watch.
"Those who want the spread to lie that Ukraine is helpless without the US or that they're doomed to lose the war are wrong."
Quite.
Trump: "‘I’ve been watching for years, and I’ve been watching Zelensky negotiate with no cards. ... He has no cards. And you get sick of it."
Zelensky: "You mean this card?" [Plays King of Drones]
Has the US even said thankyou? For eliminating 30% of Russia's nuclear-capable strategic bomber fleet?
Has the US even said thankyou? For eliminating 30% of Russia's nuclear-capable strategic bomber fleet?
Or 15%. Or the US might not want to thank Ukraine, other than giving them the perfect excuse to walk away from supporting Ukraine after this major escalation that invites a harsh response. Trump may also have given the game away when he claimed that only Trump was preventing more serious consequences for Russia. If the US, NATO or EU seriously think that Russia is going to roll over and agree to Kellog's '22 point peace plan', then they're seriously deluded. Russians are calling for a harsh response, and one possibility given another attack on their nuclear triad, that could mean Russia calling a UN session and declaring war on Ukraine.. Which wouldn't be good for anyone, least of all the Ukrainians that are about to die when Russia responds to this escalation.
Which would change things IN Russia dramatically from the population's point of view and not in a way favourable to Putin's continued tenure.
That's why this was an insane move by Kiev. Nice PR stunt. Useful idiots in the West cheering, useful idiots in Russia demanding Putin hits Ukraine hard. Public opinion in Russia can be that Putin is being too soft on Ukraine so would probably support a war declaration. Which probably wouldn't actually change things very much IN Russia, unless they'd need to conscript more people. Which is one of those dumb 'expansionist Russia' memes. Russia's Constitution doesn't allow it to deploy a lot of it's forces outside Russia in peace time. Currently it's still recruiting a lot of volunteers who can be used in an SMO. If that's upgraded to war, then Ukraine might see what a 'full scale invasion' actually looks like.
And the twats in Kiev have given Putin all the excuse he needs, should he decide to take the gloves off. But one of the most bizarre things about our determination to do the regime change thing. The replacement for Putin might be even worse. Medvedev is just a tad hawkish, then there's the actual Russian opposition party, which never was Navalny's crew but the good'ol Communists who would actually be quite happy to see the restoration of the Soviet Union. So a bit like the situation in Syria. Yey! Assad is gone! Rejoice that there's now an Al Qaeda chappy in charge.
It's a "special military operation" for a reason
Yep, I know. Hence why I sometimes mock the afflictled that complain when I call it an SMO, which is rather different to a declaration of war.
Russia has already had to start conscription in limited ways; they have close to 1 million casualties, and you don't replace that many with volunteers, unless people are being voluntold.
Many initial volunteers were from the Wagner Group, and Putin imploded that.
So with nigh on .7% of the population being killed, there is starting to be a significant part of the population that knows of someone who has been killed.
tie this with the treasury emptying fast, and the PR hit from this attack, and no amount of accidental falls from the 7th floor will be able to silence the opposition.
"and you don't replace that many with volunteers, unless people are being voluntold."
There was a very interesting documentary on BBC Radio 4 a few weeks ago detailing how it works, and interviewing families of volunteers. They get well paid by their standards, a decent signing bonus and a multiple "death" bonuses from state and local government totalling more they would normally earn in a lifetime. For many, especially in the outlying regions, they see it as a way to provide for the families for the rest of their lives, whatever the outcome for the new recruit. How long they can keep up this level of spending is another matter, but for now, it does seem to be sort of attracting the numbers. Likewise whether the economy can sustain the war-footing and how the inevitable inflation afterwards might eat into those families "bonuses". But the new recruits are only seeing the very large number of Roubles providing for their families in the hear and now (and from the here-after)
Hence why I sometimes mock the afflictled [sic] that complain when I call it an SMO, which is rather different to a declaration of war.
"Special military operation" is nothing more than a made-up propagandistic term. As such, it's meaningless- or in your case, disingenuous- to argue as if there's any established and accepted meaning to judge against.
The only relevant thing is what the Russians wants to *pretend* it means and what they hope to achieve by using it. In this case, it's to maintain the pretence that the invasion isn't a war, and to avoid the consequences of formally declaring war.
"Special military operation" is nothing more than a made-up propagandistic term. As such, it's meaningless- or in your case, disingenuous- to argue as if there's any established and accepted meaning to judge against.
Except it's defined in Russian law. As is the more traditional 'war'. But on that point
Falklands War
Gulf War (parts 1 and 2)
War on Terror
Afghanistan War
War in Syria
Yugoslav War
Which of those were.. actually accompanied by any formal declaration of war? Sadly wars just aint what the used to be, especially when combined with doctrines like 'pre-emptive self-defence' that can be used to justify killing or displacing millions with a lot less paperwork or legal oversight. So if we can practice that kind of lawfare, why can't Russia? You don't think that might be just a tad hypocritical?
that could mean Russia calling a UN session and declaring war on Ukraine..
That really is the most tragically hilarious piece of shit I've seen in a while written about this conflict.
Apart from the fact that it's the line of the wife-beater or bully everywhere: "Look what you made me do! Don't make me angry or I'll do it some more."
Worse, it's fucking pathetic.
There isn't much room for escalation here, except for Russia to go nuclear. And you don't call a UN meeting do do that. The reason Russia hasn't already gone nuclear is the same reason they won't do it in response for this. The consequences are horrifcially dangerous. From global anti-Russian economic sanctions at the lower end, to the end of the world at the high end.
You also don't call a UN meeting to declare war. Unless you're calling for support from others. Especially not when you've been fucking fighting one for 11 years. Although if you want to ignore the undeclared hostilities from 2014-2022 (which were much less intense) - then we can say since 2022. And although it's not legally a war in Russia, Putin still made a TV announcement in advance of it - even if he called it a special military operation. That's as much of a declaration of war as you get nowadays. The formal declaration went out of fashion decades ago.
Again, we also come back to the "Russia strong!" meme. Russia is winning this war, the only reason they haven't won it already is that they're displaying such awesome restraint. Sure they failed to capture Kyiv in the first week, but that's because Russia sent its weakest troops. Putin is playing 5d chess, while Biden is playing snakes and ladders. The only reason that Russia have shown restarint in this war - is if there's a reason for it. They've used thermite cluster munitions on cities. they did it on day 1 of the war.
The reason Russia hasn't mobilised is because the risks of mobilising to Putin's regime are higher than the risks of not mobilising and fighting a 3 year bloody stalemate. Otherwise they've have mobilised, sometime around Summer 2022 - when it was obvious they couldn't easily win. It's a risk for Ukraine - because Russia is a big country and has a lot of people. Although mobilising now, would be much harder, given Russia has burned through so much of its stocks of old Soviet weapons.
Russian propaganda also persistenlty undermines the very powerful "Russia strong" meme - whenever they deploy the "poor Russian victim" meme. Sure you got your nuclear bombers blown up. So were you using them to launch cruise missiles at Ukraine? Yes. Well then. That's what happens. You fight a war, the other side gets a vote too. Don't want your shit blown up, don't use it to invade people. Giving aggressors safe zones, where they can hide their forces and keep attacking you with impunity, that's how you lose wars. Whining pathetically because the bully got punched back makes everyone laugh.
Actually that is a risk. This is too serious for laughing. Miscalculations are what often cause wars. And Putin's regime are the boy who cried nuke wolf. Which means we might miss the signal that actually does cause them to do it. But Ukraine are fighting a war for survival now. Escalating would be hitting the nuke manufacturing/storage sites or SSBNs up North. Otherwise shooting down an Iskander missile is nuclear escalation, seeing as they're also part of Russia's nuclear triad. Actually this is why I don't believe we should have nuclear capable tactical assets. If we want nukes, it should be a special weapons system. That we can ostentatiously deploy for signalling purposes. So the enemy know with confidence that if we fire an air launched cruise missile or tactical ballistic missile at them, that it's conventional.
Serious moron.
Russia has called it a SMO because that is less than a War - the appearance of Gaza is what you seems to be clamouring for. Yet after nearly three years of Russian involvements, the Coked-up Nazi Dwarf is still begging for more drugs in occupied Kiev.
You seem to really want them to harm Ukraine, so they can fulfil your sick projections.
What can you expect from your sort, twisted, ignorant, and secure in your delusion, unable to cite a primary source, or understand that objective facts are a thing, that it's clearly falsifiable the nonsense you endorse.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
