News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
Well, I'm sure the US military complex is excited to test whether they can swat these out of the sky with their expensive toys. Now they have a chance to try.
And the more Russia launches, surely that technology will improve
So this is confirmation then that the storm shadow strike hit someone important?
How do we know this is the first and not just the first successful launch?
ruzzia is running out of everything and using its last reserves.
EU and NATO need to pool together every resource to bankrupt this rotten state and drive it from Ukrainian soil. The defeat has to be so harsh that the ruzzkis won't be able to cross any border forever. Confine them to their own country, period.
America here.....heh. We're gonna be useless come January!
Actually we might even be working against the cause. It would not surprise me to see trumps cabinet do shitty things like sending russia weapons and money.
In fact, I'm basically expecting it.
Just know that it's not ALL America. Just like 52% of us......or, I should say 52% of the 2024 voting public.
…or, I should say 52% of the 2024 voting public.
No. I hold those who didn't vote accountable too.
The moment the Democrats lost the election was the one when Harris was asked what she would do differently than Biden and her answer was basically "nothing". If you ever run for president and are asked that question, just pick something at random and say "Biden does not enough for X. I would make sure that X would be a priority issue!"
This level of stupidity is not the voter's (or non-voter's) fault. Dems made their bed rock and now everyone has to lie in it.
The non-voters tacitly agreed to let fascism happen. I totally get that people weren't happy about voting for Harris, I certainly wouldn't have been. But if I have choice between a carbuncle on my ass on the one hand, and AIDS, Ebola, testicle cancer and leprosy combined on the other hand, the choice is easy.
Dude listen to yourself .
Harris was literally up against a fucking emperor wannabe who already fucked the countey in incredibly short order, backed by a batshit party openly admitting they wanted to implement project 2025.
This is not a situation where you go "hmm, well she didn't quite tickle my balls enough, so I guess i'll let the fascists win". And if you do, you are complicit. You got the chance to stand up and instead you shoved your head up your own arse
You also underestimate the stupidity of the average voter/person. Most people vote on vibes, not policy, and don't pay that much actual attention to politics.
The mistakes of the Harris campaign are not the fault of the non-voters.
The fact that voters didn't turn out to vote against literal and clearly fucking stated fascism is the fault of the non-voters.
Exactly. Nonvoters didn't vote against insane evil, that is fully on them no matter how they spin it.
Actually we might even be working against the cause.
That would mean destruction of NATO. No European country can be in a defense alliance with a country that actively support an invasion by Russia in Europe.
Trump doesn't care about the NATO. He thinks it's a big US-led charity organization that protects the weak, poor other countries who rally under the umbrella because murricah is just so superior and cool. I don't think he actively seeks to destroy it, but if his actions lead to its downfall, he would not be upset at all.
That would mean destruction of NATO.
IIRC that's an explicit Project 2025 goal, but maybe I misremember.
Yep, he's probably ending nato. Or at least he keeps promising to do that, and there's nothing that will stop him, so.... Good luck! We'll all fucking need it!
If Trump continues the policies of his first term, but dial it up as many say he will. He will destroy not only NATO, but American international influence in general, because nobody can trust USA. That will do a lot of harm to American economics especially over time, USA has essentially decided the terms for international trade since WW2, helped by their many allies, ending that will be very costly for USA.
It's not even 52%, in the end it's ended up being 50% VS 48.3%. He barely got half of all votes with the overall gap only being 2.6 million votes. That's razor thin, the only reason it worked out the way it did (apparent "easy win") is because of the electoral college system, which is a bit biased towards conservatism anyway by giving quite a bit of power to smaller, less populated states.
Besides that, I do agree that it's a bit of a question what will happen. I've seen people say that Rubio and Waltz appear to indicate a slightly different course but no one really knows besides the coming government.
Russia has that black poop from the ground which is a valuable enough resource to be bought by someone for something .
It goes bankrupt if suddenly oil consumption drops 3 times. Or something like that. But not immediately even then, because it has reserves.
EU and NATO are not interested in Russia imploding. They are showing very clearly that their intention is to softly bleed it so that it wouldn't be too aggressive, but also to preserve its current regime, because that regime is convenient.
It's just the sad truth.
As to why Western countries always supported said regime, since Yeltsin usurping power in 1993, - I just don't know.
The said regime is also happens to be backed nearly universally by the russian population and is the core source of its power.
The "west is to blame" narrative is typical russian victim-hood polemics.
The said regime is also happens to be backed nearly universally by the russian population and is the core source of its power.
No it's not. I don't think you have even been to Russia.
There is a sizeable proportion of population not yet penetrated by the whole idea of democracy, but those would back any "current" regime.
The “west is to blame” narrative is typical russian victim-hood polemics.
In real life everybody is to blame, it's just a question of proportions.
There is a sizeable proportion of population not yet penetrated by the whole idea of democracy, but those would back any “current” regime.
You're infantilizating the russian population. Political satirical TV shows in the 90s (remember this was before the internet) easily rivaled what you would see even on current US TV. Yet most russians were happy to accept a clampdown on independent TV and reelected putin in 2004 (generally considered a free and fair election). And they were OK with the comical medvedev seat warming exercise in 2008, not to mention putin's formal return in 2012.
The russians would never back any political force that would reject imperialism or even acknowledge russian crimes. Even the alleged "opposition" in the form of Navalniy's gang is deeply committed to imperialism.
In real life everybody is to blame, it’s just a question of proportions.
This is a non-sequitur. The ultimate responsibility for the state of russian politics lies on the russians themselves.
It's about the choices they make. There is nothing inherent to russian society/culture that would justify such a state of affairs.
I’m curious how the allies know an ICBM isn’t a nuke
Until it explodes, you don't.
You wait till it explodes and check the NDDS.
Dyatlov: What does the dosimeter say?
Akimov: 3.6 roentgen. But that's as high as the meter...
Dyatlov: 3.6 - not great, not terrible.
Seems like a bit of a waste to launch an intercontinental missile at a country next door, on the same continent. Isn't Russia supposed to have plenty of short and mid range ballistic missiles? I guess they must be running low.
I was under the impression that ICBMs weren't all that great for conventional warheads. Their payload capacity isn't enormous and their accuracy tends to be relatively low- which matters not a jot if you're firing nukes (which do a lot of bang per kilo, and where a few hundred metres either way isn't likely to be critical), but not so great for dropping normal munitions.
I suspect the use of an RS-26 was meant to serve as a provocation/response to the recent ATACMs strikes.
I posted elsewhere about the rumour Russia was going to fire an RS26.
I got called a liar and warmonger.
Well, my next prediction remains the same: Russia WILL eventually use nukes. Because there will come a moment of "use it or lose it", and Russia prefers a destroyed world over an intact one without Russia.
Russia prefers a destroyed world over an intact one without Russia.
That much is true, but none of this is existential. If the Russian military packs up and heads home, Russia continues to exist. They don't want to do that ofc, but obviously Russia prefers an intact world with Russia compared to a destroyed world.
There's still a few steps left on the escalation ladder.
Conceivably I can see them detonating a nuke somewhere over the blacksea at a high enough altitude to minimise fallout as a demonstration that they are serious and have the capability.
I think they would use a tactical one in Kursk since it's "their" territory.
This missile is only "Intercontinental" if you launch it from the edge of a continent. It's got about 6000km of range, which is a lot, but these are obviously meant for use in Europe. They were probably thinking of London and Paris when designing them though.
These missiles are designed with Western Europe in mind. Specifically, to deter them from coming to help Eastern Europe.
IMHO they might be just making a threat this way. Kremlin folks think that's the way diplomacy works. See, we've launched a missile that can be used to send nukes. That's our very subtle and diplomatic warning. We both understand what that means, yes? Let's look very smart and diplomatic.
They may think that looks cool.
Intressting. So by delivering more of them to Ukraine we lower Russias arsenal.
Ukraine has not received ICBMs, articles stating Ukraine has received long range missiles are wrong, Ukraine has only received SHORT ranged missiles. up to 300 miles. It's longer range than artillery, but not long range missiles. Long range missiles have several thousand miles range.
Obviously. ICBMs are pretty much useless to Ukraine and without nukes to Russia as well. They are acurate enough to destroy something using a nuke. So missing by a few hundret meters is fine. With conventional explosive that is however pretty much useless.
This is most likely the answer for Biden allowing the use of those short range system and it would be wonderfull to see Russia blow up its nuclear missiles for nothing.
Obviously. ICBMs are pretty much useless to Ukraine
Absolutely.
That's interesting.
Video of impacts (supposedly)
I'll wait for a non-twitter source
Ok, thanks for sharing.