Well you do see a couple of drone boats one of them getting close to starboard and the other to its stern likely causing damage. Lets see how long it stays in port.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
Well you do see a couple of drone boats one of them getting close to starboard and the other to its stern likely causing damage. Lets see how long it stays in port.
More details from Russian media on Russia's grain deal renewal, quoted by Sputnik:
Putin is giving Ukraine a second chance, but reserves the right to withdraw again from the grain deal if Ukraine does not fulfill the guarantees it has given:
And in 2023 Ukraine will hardly have any grain to export according to this article:
Putin is giving Ukraine a second chance, but reserves the right to withdraw again from the grain deal if Ukraine does not fulfill the guarantees it has given:
And in 2023 Ukraine will hardly have any grain to export according to this article:
Dude needs to stop giving them "second chances", given that should the tables be turned, they won't be giving Russia any second chances.
Ukranians recording themselves using ambulances as troop transports, again
We have known for some time that US personnel are in Ukraine in combat operations embedded with Ukrainian units, as 'mercenaries, now it appears that the USG has admitted to having 'boots on the ground' in 'making sure the weapons are accounted for'. This is a slippery slope to sending in more troops in vast numbers.
We can look to the historical example of the Quagmire of Vietnam to see how mission creep affected US Policymakers; like current war profiteers in Congress/USG, the 'bean counters' of R. McNamara considered Vietnam 'not much of a war, but the only war we've got'. And like the USG of the 60s who wanted to re-assert their power and authority after Korea, the current USG needs to re-assert its authority in the face of its decline against a rising China and the debacle of Afghanistan.
However, i don't believe the USG will start actively sending in its own troops on the order of The Surge in Iraq 2006- this was too politically unpopular even back in the 60s-70s when americans were drafted. The current USG prefers to force its allies to carry the burden, as President Obama put it 'lead from behind'; we would be far more likely to see the Balts and Finland instigating conflict with Russia eg Finland putting nukes aimed at Russia on its soil, with the ultimate aim of overextending Russian forces and forcing Moscow itself to implement a far more comprehensive draft.
Throughout all of this, i don't see the USG invoking Article V; yes, they want war with Russia but they don't want nuclear war; i hypothesise that given the Elite Capture by the US (Finnish PM Sanna Marin is a WEF alumni), the aim will be to create many, many, more Ukraines out of the Baltics and Finland, supplied with US arms (to US profit) and then when Russia is sufficiently weakened, the US will performatively reluctantly claim 'we can no longer ignore the Russia threat', invoke Article V and will ride in like 1917 again, to declare victory.
We can look to the historical example of the Quagmire of Vietnam to see how mission creep affected US Policymakers; like current war profiteers in Congress/USG, the 'bean counters' of R. McNamara considered Vietnam 'not much of a war, but the only war we've got'. And like the USG of the 60s who wanted to re-assert their power and authority after Korea, the current USG needs to re-assert its authority in the face of its decline against a rising China and the debacle of Afghanistan.
However, i don't believe the USG will start actively sending in its own troops on the order of The Surge in Iraq 2006- this was too politically unpopular even back in the 60s-70s when americans were drafted. The current USG prefers to force its allies to carry the burden, as President Obama put it 'lead from behind'; we would be far more likely to see the Balts and Finland instigating conflict with Russia eg Finland putting nukes aimed at Russia on its soil, with the ultimate aim of overextending Russian forces and forcing Moscow itself to implement a far more comprehensive draft.
Throughout all of this, i don't see the USG invoking Article V; yes, they want war with Russia but they don't want nuclear war; i hypothesise that given the Elite Capture by the US (Finnish PM Sanna Marin is a WEF alumni), the aim will be to create many, many, more Ukraines out of the Baltics and Finland, supplied with US arms (to US profit) and then when Russia is sufficiently weakened, the US will performatively reluctantly claim 'we can no longer ignore the Russia threat', invoke Article V and will ride in like 1917 again, to declare victory.
in a way though the US is no stranger to this threat, as it is quite similar to the USS Cole attack.
Well, not sure about the Russian RoE here, but in USS Cole attack, regardless of the observablility of the attackers, RoE prevented them from even defending themselves (because there weren't "being shot at"). So, it's not quite the same thing.
Nowadays a cargo ship will do, they'll just ram themselves right into it.
NYT opinion piece on why Ukraine and Russia should be forced to negotiate. Basically "Ukraine is totally winning right now, but winning too much might risk an all-out war with NATO so the US really needs to reign in Ukraine and even if we let Russia keep Donbas and Crimea, Russia lost anyway".
Last edited:
Loitering munition destroying a couple of Ukrainian S-300 launchers.
Isn't this an old video from a few weeks ago?
It is, the one who had a MANPAD launch that completely missed the drone.