Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]

[nutildah]

The weird thing (other than the war affects your life in no tangible way, whatsoever) is that you didn't actually articulate a single original opinion in your post. Its just a mishmash of b.s. from propaganda sources that already resonated with your brain. You're basically a human zombie tentacle of a Russian propaganda botnet. You believe you have free will and your own opinions, but your words suggest otherwise.

[paxmao]

At this point I think putin is mostly hot air when comes to the possibility of using nuclear weaponry against Ukraine, to be honest. If he does it would only be a sign of his despair to continue to hold onto power, as he is getting humiliated by each year that passes by and has not been able to take over Ukraine as he expected.
As it stands today, Russia is hoping for Trump to pressure Ukraine to give up and stop the war.

the established power in Russia needs to continuously give this image of having a strong and invincible leader to the rest of the world, specially the west, not winning the war against Ukraine would put the strength of Russia and Putin in question.
The relatively recent visit Putin had in North Korea was a sign of weakness, as well.

Whatever... Using long range missils to attack military bases and ammo deposits in Russia sounds rather fair play to me, keeping in mind the crises against humanity Russia has committed in Ukraine and against civilians.

It is just BA's land talk. There is not even the basic level of rational thinking behind any of what he has posted. Putin has nothing to win using nuclear weapons when Trump is about to take over the US in January, in his mind Putin is a pacifist, the UK (a nuclear power) won't last a week... etc.

It seems that US and UK leaders (in BA land this people know less than him) are doing exactly the opposite of what he says... but again, they do not live in BA land.

This night will be bad, there will be vampires flying, but this year it will be in both directions.

The weird thing (other than the war affects your life in no tangible way, whatsoever) is that you didn't actually articulate a single original opinion in your post. Its just a mishmash of b.s. from propaganda sources that already resonated with your brain. You're basically a human zombie tentacle of a Russian propaganda botnet. You believe you have free will and your own opinions, but your words suggest otherwise.

Not his fault, he seems to be the product of the Texas public education system.

[BADecker]

At this point I think putin is mostly hot air when comes to the possibility of using nuclear weaponry against Ukraine, to be honest. If he does it would only be a sign of his despair to continue to hold onto power, as he is getting humiliated by each year that passes by and has not been able to take over Ukraine as he expected.
As it stands today, Russia is hoping for Trump to pressure Ukraine to give up and stop the war.

the established power in Russia needs to continuously give this image of having a strong and invincible leader to the rest of the world, specially the west, not winning the war against Ukraine would put the strength of Russia and Putin in question.
The relatively recent visit Putin had in North Korea was a sign of weakness, as well.

Whatever... Using long range missils to attack military bases and ammo deposits in Russia sounds rather fair play to me, keeping in mind the crises against humanity Russia has committed in Ukraine and against civilians.

A missile goes along smoothly, pooping out hot air, until the end of its trajectory, when there is a blast. I respect the idea that Putin might be waiting for Trump. The question is, how long will he wait? Will he wait until Russia is destroyed by the West's missiles in the next two months until Trump takes office?

Russia is giving the image of a strong leader. After all, Ukraine not only has been unable to take the Black Sea Corridor back, but they are losing ground every day in the war, and they are using old guys and kids for their military because they have run out of real fighting soldiers long ago. Ukraine shooting missiles into Russia is their last fighting resort.

When you look at the history of Ukraine, Ukraine has always been a puppet country, controlled by some other country. In fact, that was part of the reason why it was set up as a country in the first place. This war is sorta like a civil war... like a sassy child pushing back against a parent. For a while it looked like the sassy child had grown up. But then it accepted Western control, and now it is going to die.... unless Trump lets Putin stabilize the area. In that case, Zelensky might be spared to go back to his old naked comedian job.

However, regarding the UK, 90% of it would be gone in one hour if Putin launched a couple of his underwater Satan II nuclear missiles Off the UK coast. The tsunami tidal wave that would follow would wash right across the UK. Yet the UK leaders want to go right on teasing Putin. Super-stupid.

[paxmao]

At this point I think putin is mostly hot air when comes to the possibility of using nuclear weaponry against Ukraine, to be honest. If he does it would only be a sign of his despair to continue to hold onto power, as he is getting humiliated by each year that passes by and has not been able to take over Ukraine as he expected.
As it stands today, Russia is hoping for Trump to pressure Ukraine to give up and stop the war.

the established power in Russia needs to continuously give this image of having a strong and invincible leader to the rest of the world, specially the west, not winning the war against Ukraine would put the strength of Russia and Putin in question.
The relatively recent visit Putin had in North Korea was a sign of weakness, as well.

Whatever... Using long range missils to attack military bases and ammo deposits in Russia sounds rather fair play to me, keeping in mind the crises against humanity Russia has committed in Ukraine and against civilians.

A missile goes along smoothly, pooping out hot air, until the end of its trajectory, when there is a blast. I respect the idea that Putin might be waiting for Trump. The question is, how long will he wait? Will he wait until Russia is destroyed by the West's missiles in the next two months until Trump takes office?

Russia is giving the image of a strong leader. After all, Ukraine not only has been unable to take the Black Sea Corridor back, but they are losing ground every day in the war, and they are using old guys and kids for their military because they have run out of real fighting soldiers long ago. Ukraine shooting missiles into Russia is their last fighting resort.

When you look at the history of Ukraine, Ukraine has always been a puppet country, controlled by some other country. In fact, that was part of the reason why it was set up as a country in the first place. This war is sorta like a civil war... like a sassy child pushing back against a parent. For a while it looked like the sassy child had grown up. But then it accepted Western control, and now it is going to die.... unless Trump lets Putin stabilize the area. In that case, Zelensky might be spared to go back to his old naked comedian job.

However, regarding the UK, 90% of it would be gone in one hour if Putin launched a couple of his underwater Satan II nuclear missiles Off the UK coast. The tsunami tidal wave that would follow would wash right across the UK. Yet the UK leaders want to go right on teasing Putin. Super-stupid.

Ukraine is using the corridor since months ago BA, it is open and in full business since two years ago. Putin is giving the image of a leader that does not care about loses and his only strategy has been doubling down on every mistake.

If you look at the history of Ukraine you will see that Lithuania, Ukrainia and Moscow have swaped positions of power and control many times.

You are confusing the so called Satan with a theoretical nuclear torpedo, but it is a well debunked myth that tsunamis can be produced with it.

All you have posted here is pure shit BA. Your head is not empty, it actually contains a unique powerful magnets that attracts cow shit like Trump attracts moths.

[tvbcof]

The weird thing (other than the war affects your life in no tangible way, whatsoever) is that you didn't actually articulate a single original opinion in your post. Its just a mishmash of b.s. from propaganda sources that already resonated with your brain. You're basically a human zombie tentacle of a Russian propaganda botnet. You believe you have free will and your own opinions, but your words suggest otherwise.

The concept of analyzing current events and using the analyses to make predictions about future events is, I've found, nearly impossible to explain to normies.  That's one of the reason why most normies never get anywhere financially or in almost any other way.  They live their lives pay-check to pay-check and are typically plowed under before their expected lifespan after being damaged by elements of the corp/gov plantation system never having the foggiest clue about what's going on...and never giving a damn anyway.

Nobody I can think of is competent for me to listen to about almost anything, and certainly not something as complex as the geo-politics surrounding the Russian SMO.  Sure, I've got sources who I pay more attention to in order to understand objective reality.  On the other end of the spectrum there is an ocean of propaganda which is also worth paying some attention to so I know what is going on in hive mind of the low-info classes (e.g., nutildah).  That information is also valuable in formulating predictions to make use of in structuring my own life.

It blows me away that the typical mainstream media sources who, several years ago, were circulating stories about the Russians fighting with shovels are still credible to people like yourself.  But there it is.  Shrug.

[BADecker]

At this point I think putin is mostly hot air when comes to the possibility of using nuclear weaponry against Ukraine, to be honest. If he does it would only be a sign of his despair to continue to hold onto power, as he is getting humiliated by each year that passes by and has not been able to take over Ukraine as he expected.
As it stands today, Russia is hoping for Trump to pressure Ukraine to give up and stop the war.

the established power in Russia needs to continuously give this image of having a strong and invincible leader to the rest of the world, specially the west, not winning the war against Ukraine would put the strength of Russia and Putin in question.
The relatively recent visit Putin had in North Korea was a sign of weakness, as well.

Whatever... Using long range missils to attack military bases and ammo deposits in Russia sounds rather fair play to me, keeping in mind the crises against humanity Russia has committed in Ukraine and against civilians.

A missile goes along smoothly, pooping out hot air, until the end of its trajectory, when there is a blast. I respect the idea that Putin might be waiting for Trump. The question is, how long will he wait? Will he wait until Russia is destroyed by the West's missiles in the next two months until Trump takes office?

Russia is giving the image of a strong leader. After all, Ukraine not only has been unable to take the Black Sea Corridor back, but they are losing ground every day in the war, and they are using old guys and kids for their military because they have run out of real fighting soldiers long ago. Ukraine shooting missiles into Russia is their last fighting resort.

When you look at the history of Ukraine, Ukraine has always been a puppet country, controlled by some other country. In fact, that was part of the reason why it was set up as a country in the first place. This war is sorta like a civil war... like a sassy child pushing back against a parent. For a while it looked like the sassy child had grown up. But then it accepted Western control, and now it is going to die.... unless Trump lets Putin stabilize the area. In that case, Zelensky might be spared to go back to his old naked comedian job.

However, regarding the UK, 90% of it would be gone in one hour if Putin launched a couple of his underwater Satan II nuclear missiles Off the UK coast. The tsunami tidal wave that would follow would wash right across the UK. Yet the UK leaders want to go right on teasing Putin. Super-stupid.

Ukraine is using the corridor since months ago BA, it is open and in full business since two years ago. Putin is giving the image of a leader that does not care about loses and his only strategy has been doubling down on every mistake.

If you look at the history of Ukraine you will see that Lithuania, Ukrainia and Moscow have swaped positions of power and control many times.

You are confusing the so called Satan with a theoretical nuclear torpedo, but it is a well debunked myth that tsunamis can be produced with it.

All you have posted here is pure shit BA. Your head is not empty, it actually contains a unique powerful magnets that attracts cow shit like Trump attracts moths.

Lol. Where have you been? All anybody need do is look at a war map to see who controls what part of the Black Sea Corridor.

You are right. I mixed the two up. It is the Poseidon torpedo, which is a reality, and could take the UK out any time Putin wanted to use it.

The thing you like to do is focus on tiny points to take people's eyes off the whole picture. Ukraine is like the mouse, cornered by the cat (Russia) and has almost no strength left to fight. Russia is just playing with Ukraine.

[DaRude]

At this point I think putin is mostly hot air when comes to the possibility of using nuclear weaponry against Ukraine, to be honest. If he does it would only be a sign of his despair to continue to hold onto power, as he is getting humiliated by each year that passes by and has not been able to take over Ukraine as he expected.
As it stands today, Russia is hoping for Trump to pressure Ukraine to give up and stop the war.

the established power in Russia needs to continuously give this image of having a strong and invincible leader to the rest of the world, specially the west, not winning the war against Ukraine would put the strength of Russia and Putin in question.
The relatively recent visit Putin had in North Korea was a sign of weakness, as well.

Whatever... Using long range missils to attack military bases and ammo deposits in Russia sounds rather fair play to me, keeping in mind the crises against humanity Russia has committed in Ukraine and against civilians.

The biggest issue with such logic is that you're (either intentionally or naively) ignoring the consequences. What you're essentially saying is that you're ok with a global precedence where a nuclear power can provide advance weaponry and advisors/support team to provide targeting, to a third country to attack another nuclear power. Are you sure that you've completely thought this through and are ok with what the possible consequences of this in the future? From top of my head, why wouldn't RU send ballistics to Syria and Yemen, who's gonna stop them, and how, threaten RU back with nukes so that they don't? Idiots are getting us to a point of both sides threatening each other with nukes, and then the other idiots on both sides are cheering this.

Sucks, but can't say it's unexpected, history shows that we have to once again reach a pinnacle in escalation before we realize that we'll kill each other and can deescalate.

What possible upside do you expect to see out of this decision at this point in the game?

The Army also fired more than 400 of the bomblet-carrying tactical missiles in Operation Iraqi Freedom
...
As a result, Ukraine has been low down the list. Although no figures have been supplied by the Pentagon, it’s believed the Kyiv government has only about 50 missiles [ATACMS] at this point.

[tvbcof]

Dnipro is purported to be the site chosen for Russia's 'ICBM' demonstration, though I personally am a ways from considering any of the various reports so far to be representative of objective reality.

Dnipro would be an interesting choice since for years the idea of 'Heavenly Jerusalem' have been floating around, and Dnipro is purported to be the center of the center.  In my quick scan this is the first map I pulled up:

  https://x.com/SamuelSokol/status/1704002720082928032

I would again call attention to the interesting observation that very early in the 'SMO' at the latest, plans for funding the reconstruction of 'Ukraine' had been put forward: the goyim pay, of course, and the cost is projected to be measured in $1,000,000,000,000's.  Obviously this is on top of the $1,000,000,000's we paid to destroy it first.  Explains why buying big chunks of Ukraine was a compelling 'investment' for read-in players such as Fink/Blackrock.

Note that the destruction of parts of Dnipro by the Russians in no way indicates that they would not be involved in the putative Heavenly Jerusalem Project plan.  More likely the opposite given that reconstruction is already planned out.  Only time will tell what Russia's actual disposition happens to be.  I'd make a weak-ish bet that 'peace', when it finally comes, involves Russia's generous granting of most of the lands that the 'chosen' ones desire.  Time will tell.

[paxmao]

Dnipro is purported to be the site chosen for Russia's 'ICBM' demonstration, though I personally am a ways from considering any of the various reports so far to be representative of objective reality.
[...]

Yes, apparently Ruzzia has used an ICBM, with no nuclear warhead of course. I guess that is to showcase that they have... ICBMs, a technology from the 50s and can launch them... like everyone knows they can since the 50s. Only difference here, these can be detected much more easily than cruise, albeit they are quite difficult to intercept.

There are some claiming that it was not the case though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_P8aYIMNBg

However, vampires flew in both directions as expected and Ukraine hit an military near "Putin's palace" with at least one cruise missile.

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-war-trump-putin-zelenskyy-latest-12541713?postid=4536299

https://www.barrons.com/news/russian-envoy-claims-uk-now-directly-involved-in-ukraine-war-77f9cdfd

Russian Envoy Claims UK 'Now Directly Involved' In Ukraine War

Well, my guess is that UK and the rest of Europe have been involved in the war since Ruzzia interfered with elections, referendums, ... not to mention the continuous cyberattacks to official organisations. I guess UK could perfectly claim that Iran and Norht Korea are "directly involved" in the war.

[Branko]

Dnipro is purported to be the site chosen for Russia's 'ICBM' demonstration, though I personally am a ways from considering any of the various reports so far to be representative of objective reality.
[...]

Yes, apparently Ruzzia has used an ICBM, with no nuclear warhead of course. I guess that is to showcase that they have... ICBMs, a technology from the 50s and can launch them... like everyone knows they can since the 50s. Only difference here, these can be detected much more easily than cruise, albeit they are quite difficult to intercept.

There are some claiming that it was not the case though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_P8aYIMNBg

However, vampires flew in both directions as expected and Ukraine hit an military near "Putin's palace" with at least one cruise missile.

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-war-trump-putin-zelenskyy-latest-12541713?postid=4536299

https://www.barrons.com/news/russian-envoy-claims-uk-now-directly-involved-in-ukraine-war-77f9cdfd

Russian Envoy Claims UK 'Now Directly Involved' In Ukraine War

Well, my guess is that UK and the rest of Europe have been involved in the war since Ruzzia interfered with elections, referendums, ... not to mention the continuous cyberattacks to official organisations. I guess UK could perfectly claim that Iran and Norht Korea are "directly involved" in the war.

I think you missed the fact that, for example, UK could not successfully do ICBM launch for decades, and also most
western analysts said Russian ones are equally bad. But:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/nwSOOztYs73F

[LTU_btc]

Yes, apparently Ruzzia has used an ICBM, with no nuclear warhead of course. I guess that is to showcase that they have... ICBMs, a technology from the 50s and can launch them... like everyone knows they can since the 50s. Only difference here, these can be detected much more easily than cruise, albeit they are quite difficult to intercept.

According to Putin, it was mid range ballistic missile, not ICBM:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-launches-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-attack-ukraine-kyiv-says-2024-11-21/
It was response after Ukraine's attack in Russian territory using Western missiles. It's supposed to be a warning, showing what Russia can do. But INO, we didn't saw anything what we didn't saw before. Most of their missiles like Kinzhal or Iskander can carry nuclear warheads

[Branko]

Yes, apparently Ruzzia has used an ICBM, with no nuclear warhead of course. I guess that is to showcase that they have... ICBMs, a technology from the 50s and can launch them... like everyone knows they can since the 50s. Only difference here, these can be detected much more easily than cruise, albeit they are quite difficult to intercept.

According to Putin, it was mid range ballistic missile, not ICBM:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-launches-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-attack-ukraine-kyiv-says-2024-11-21/
It was response after Ukraine's attack in Russian territory using Western missiles. It's supposed to be a warning, showing what Russia can do. But INO, we didn't saw anything what we didn't saw before. Most of their missiles like Kinzhal or Iskander can carry nuclear warheads

A medium-range missile can travel between 1,000 kilometers and 3,000 kilometers (620 miles to 1,860 miles), according to the Center for Arms Control and Anti-Proliferation.

Distance from Kaliningrad to London is 1500km, Berlin 500km, Paris 1400km

[DaRude]

Yes, apparently Ruzzia has used an ICBM, with no nuclear warhead of course. I guess that is to showcase that they have... ICBMs, a technology from the 50s and can launch them... like everyone knows they can since the 50s. Only difference here, these can be detected much more easily than cruise, albeit they are quite difficult to intercept.

According to Putin, it was mid range ballistic missile, not ICBM:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-launches-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-attack-ukraine-kyiv-says-2024-11-21/
It was response after Ukraine's attack in Russian territory using Western missiles. It's supposed to be a warning, showing what Russia can do. But INO, we didn't saw anything what we didn't saw before. Most of their missiles like Kinzhal or Iskander can carry nuclear warheads

Don't you find it interesting that more than half of Ukrainians want negotiations, to end the war as soon as possible. But instead they are told to continue and escalate with ATACMS and then they need to brace for retaliation with ICBMs or medium range ballistics. It's like no one really cares what Ukrainian people want, others know better than them, and Ukrainians are just playing their roll in all of this. Not like they can even vote now

[paxmao]

Yes, apparently Ruzzia has used an ICBM, with no nuclear warhead of course. I guess that is to showcase that they have... ICBMs, a technology from the 50s and can launch them... like everyone knows they can since the 50s. Only difference here, these can be detected much more easily than cruise, albeit they are quite difficult to intercept.

According to Putin, it was mid range ballistic missile, not ICBM:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-launches-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-attack-ukraine-kyiv-says-2024-11-21/
It was response after Ukraine's attack in Russian territory using Western missiles. It's supposed to be a warning, showing what Russia can do. But INO, we didn't saw anything what we didn't saw before. Most of their missiles like Kinzhal or Iskander can carry nuclear warheads

Don't you find it interesting that more than half of Ukrainians want negotiations, to end the war as soon as possible. But instead they are told to continue and escalate with ATACMS and then they need to brace for retaliation with ICBMs or medium range ballistics. It's like no one really cares what Ukrainian people want, others know better than them, and Ukrainians are just playing their roll in all of this. Not like they can even vote now

I find it logical. After three years of war Ukrainians want to leave in peace. Now, what each of them understand as a negotiated peace may be quite different from what you think is a negotiated peace. I am not surprised, Trump is signalling that he is either less supportive or not supportive at all of continuing to help Ukraine and Ukraine on its own cannot match the numbers of Ruzzia. I guess that if the US were promissing unlimited and prompt support this would be looking very different.

And now... lets look a the Ruzzian polls... you would not want to cherry-pick right? You would never do that?

https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/poll-majority-russians-would-oppose-returning-land-even-if-putin-decides-return-it-part-peace

A majority of Russians would support ending hostilities and launching peace negotiations

The funny thing is that they want peace, but not giving anything for it. Still in their national supremacist mindset.

respondents favoring an end to Russia’s so-called special military operation and launching peace negotiations (54%) is greater than that of those who support continuing the operation (38%). However, when asked whether Russia should make concessions to Ukraine to end the military operation and sign a peace agreement, the share of those who answered “definitely or probably yes” was 20% in September 2024. In contrast, 70% were opposed, after fluctuating in the range of 70%–73% last year.

But we all know this does not matter in Ruzzia, you only need to poll one individual.

Dnipro is purported to be the site chosen for Russia's 'ICBM' demonstration, though I personally am a ways from considering any of the various reports so far to be representative of objective reality.
[...]

Yes, apparently Ruzzia has used an ICBM, with no nuclear warhead of course. I guess that is to showcase that they have... ICBMs, a technology from the 50s and can launch them... like everyone knows they can since the 50s. Only difference here, these can be detected much more easily than cruise, albeit they are quite difficult to intercept.

There are some claiming that it was not the case though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_P8aYIMNBg

However, vampires flew in both directions as expected and Ukraine hit an military near "Putin's palace" with at least one cruise missile.

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-war-trump-putin-zelenskyy-latest-12541713?postid=4536299

https://www.barrons.com/news/russian-envoy-claims-uk-now-directly-involved-in-ukraine-war-77f9cdfd

Russian Envoy Claims UK 'Now Directly Involved' In Ukraine War

Well, my guess is that UK and the rest of Europe have been involved in the war since Ruzzia interfered with elections, referendums, ... not to mention the continuous cyberattacks to official organisations. I guess UK could perfectly claim that Iran and Norht Korea are "directly involved" in the war.

I think you missed the fact that, for example, UK could not successfully do ICBM launch for decades, and also most
western analysts said Russian ones are equally bad. But:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/nwSOOztYs73F

Branko, Branko... you seem so eager to glow green in the dark, and always looking for "the right sources"... Well it would be quite difficult to test a UK ICBM:

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms-control-and-proliferation-profile-united-kingdom#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20does%20not%20poss

Delivery Systems

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM)

The United Kingdom does not possess ICBMs.

[...]

British nuclear warheads are only deployed on submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
The United Kingdom maintains one type of ballistic missile system in its arsenal for delivering nuclear warheads: the U.S.-leased Trident II (D5) SLBM, which has an estimated range of roughly 7,400-12,000 kilometers.

The missile that hit a command center today is a Stormshadow. It carries a technology that is 40 years more advanced and more difficult to put together than an ICMB. So.... yes... just trust that UK cannot answer. Oh, and trust that the US nor France won't answer... you know... that NATO thing ... article 5.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-qGLb003t4

[DaRude]

Yes, apparently Ruzzia has used an ICBM, with no nuclear warhead of course. I guess that is to showcase that they have... ICBMs, a technology from the 50s and can launch them... like everyone knows they can since the 50s. Only difference here, these can be detected much more easily than cruise, albeit they are quite difficult to intercept.

According to Putin, it was mid range ballistic missile, not ICBM:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-launches-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-attack-ukraine-kyiv-says-2024-11-21/
It was response after Ukraine's attack in Russian territory using Western missiles. It's supposed to be a warning, showing what Russia can do. But INO, we didn't saw anything what we didn't saw before. Most of their missiles like Kinzhal or Iskander can carry nuclear warheads

Don't you find it interesting that more than half of Ukrainians want negotiations, to end the war as soon as possible. But instead they are told to continue and escalate with ATACMS and then they need to brace for retaliation with ICBMs or medium range ballistics. It's like no one really cares what Ukrainian people want, others know better than them, and Ukrainians are just playing their roll in all of this. Not like they can even vote now

I find it logical. After three years of war Ukrainians want to leave in peace. Now, what each of them understand as a negotiated peace may be quite different from what you think is a negotiated peace. I am not surprised, Trump is signalling that he is either less supportive or not supportive at all of continuing to help Ukraine and Ukraine on its own cannot match the numbers of Ruzzia. I guess that if the US were promissing unlimited and prompt support this would be looking very different.

And now... lets look a the Ruzzian polls... you would not want to cherry-pick right? You would never do that?

https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/poll-majority-russians-would-oppose-returning-land-even-if-putin-decides-return-it-part-peace

A majority of Russians would support ending hostilities and launching peace negotiations

The funny thing is that they want peace, but not giving anything for it. Still in their national supremacist mindset.

respondents favoring an end to Russia’s so-called special military operation and launching peace negotiations (54%) is greater than that of those who support continuing the operation (38%). However, when asked whether Russia should make concessions to Ukraine to end the military operation and sign a peace agreement, the share of those who answered “definitely or probably yes” was 20% in September 2024. In contrast, 70% were opposed, after fluctuating in the range of 70%–73% last year.

But we all know this does not matter in Ruzzia, you only need to poll one individual.
...

It's logical that people in control of this continue escalations despite the will of the majority that has to bear the consequences, and they have no legal leverage to do anything about it? What the percentage of people must want negotiations and be ready to territorial concessions, for these escalations to become illogical for you?

Are you saying you were supporting all these sacrifices that Ukraine people had to endure, based solely on your hope of "unlimited and prompt support of US", really and that's after Afghanistan?

But we all know that once this stops, real losses have to be released on both sides, and people will start asking tough questions like who's responsible for this all, and what was the point of ignoring Russia's security concerns and why UA's government volunteered it's population for this exercise While the contents of the Western responses were not released, U.S. and NATO leaders were clear that their responses did not make any concessions on several core Russian demands — such as blocking Ukraine from NATO — even if they are willing to discuss other concerns. Would you be interested in one side declassifying Russia security demands, and US and NATO's written responses in 2021?

We should make a poll, whether Zelenskiy will run to US or UK after negotiations?

[Branko]

Branko, Branko... you seem so eager to glow green in the dark, and always looking for "the right sources"... Well it would be quite difficult to test a UK ICBM:

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms-control-and-proliferation-profile-united-kingdom#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20does%20not%20poss

paxmao, paxmao...always badly informed:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68355395

SLBM is just subset to ICBM

Even chatGPT knows that:

"Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) are categorized based on their launch platforms. Here are the primary types:

1. Land-based ICBMs
These are deployed in fixed, often heavily protected silos or mobile platforms on land.
Examples:
Silo-based ICBMs: Installed in reinforced underground silos to enhance survivability (e.g., Minuteman III in the U.S.).
Mobile ICBMs: Mounted on road or rail-mobile systems for increased mobility and survivability (e.g., Russia’s RS-24 Yars, China’s DF-41).
Advantages: Cost-effective to maintain, can remain on alert for extended periods.
Disadvantages: Fixed silos are vulnerable to preemptive strikes unless mobile.

2. Submarine-launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs)
These are launched from ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), enabling stealthy, mobile deterrence.
Examples:
U.S. Trident II (D5) SLBMs, deployed on Ohio-class submarines.
Russia’s R-30 Bulava, deployed on Borei-class submarines.
Advantages: Highly survivable due to mobility and stealth; harder to target.
Disadvantages: Submarine maintenance and operation are expensive and complex.

3. Air-launched Ballistic Missiles (ALBMs)
These are launched from strategic bombers or other aircraft.
While not traditionally classified as ICBMs, similar concepts exist for medium-range ballistic missiles deployed from the air.
Examples:
Experimental or conceptual designs (no operational systems widely deployed as ICBMs).
Advantages: Flexibility in deployment locations.
Disadvantages: Limited payload size and less survivability compared to other platforms.

4. Space-based or Orbital Launch Platforms (Hypothetical)
These involve launching missiles from orbital platforms or space vehicles, often speculative and not in active use.
Advantages: Global reach with short reaction times.
Disadvantages: High cost, potential treaty violations, and destabilization concerns.
Key Considerations
Each type is suited to different strategic needs, with land-based systems forming the backbone of nuclear deterrence and SLBMs providing second-strike capabilities."


You're welcome

[paxmao]

Yes, apparently Ruzzia has used an ICBM, with no nuclear warhead of course. I guess that is to showcase that they have... ICBMs, a technology from the 50s and can launch them... like everyone knows they can since the 50s. Only difference here, these can be detected much more easily than cruise, albeit they are quite difficult to intercept.

According to Putin, it was mid range ballistic missile, not ICBM:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-launches-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-attack-ukraine-kyiv-says-2024-11-21/
It was response after Ukraine's attack in Russian territory using Western missiles. It's supposed to be a warning, showing what Russia can do. But INO, we didn't saw anything what we didn't saw before. Most of their missiles like Kinzhal or Iskander can carry nuclear warheads

Don't you find it interesting that more than half of Ukrainians want negotiations, to end the war as soon as possible. But instead they are told to continue and escalate with ATACMS and then they need to brace for retaliation with ICBMs or medium range ballistics. It's like no one really cares what Ukrainian people want, others know better than them, and Ukrainians are just playing their roll in all of this. Not like they can even vote now

I find it logical. After three years of war Ukrainians want to leave in peace. Now, what each of them understand as a negotiated peace may be quite different from what you think is a negotiated peace. I am not surprised, Trump is signalling that he is either less supportive or not supportive at all of continuing to help Ukraine and Ukraine on its own cannot match the numbers of Ruzzia. I guess that if the US were promissing unlimited and prompt support this would be looking very different.

And now... lets look a the Ruzzian polls... you would not want to cherry-pick right? You would never do that?

https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/poll-majority-russians-would-oppose-returning-land-even-if-putin-decides-return-it-part-peace

A majority of Russians would support ending hostilities and launching peace negotiations

The funny thing is that they want peace, but not giving anything for it. Still in their national supremacist mindset.

respondents favoring an end to Russia’s so-called special military operation and launching peace negotiations (54%) is greater than that of those who support continuing the operation (38%). However, when asked whether Russia should make concessions to Ukraine to end the military operation and sign a peace agreement, the share of those who answered “definitely or probably yes” was 20% in September 2024. In contrast, 70% were opposed, after fluctuating in the range of 70%–73% last year.

But we all know this does not matter in Ruzzia, you only need to poll one individual.
...

It's logical that people in control of this continue escalations despite the will of the majority that has to bear the consequences, and they have no legal leverage to do anything about it? What the percentage of people must want negotiations and be ready to territorial concessions, for these escalations to become illogical for you?

Are you saying you were supporting all these sacrifices that Ukraine people had to endure, based solely on your hope of "unlimited and prompt support of US", really and that's after Afghanistan?

But we all know that once this stops, real losses have to be released on both sides, and people will start asking tough questions like who's responsible for this all, and what was the point of ignoring Russia's security concerns and why UA's government volunteered it's population for this exercise While the contents of the Western responses were not released, U.S. and NATO leaders were clear that their responses did not make any concessions on several core Russian demands — such as blocking Ukraine from NATO — even if they are willing to discuss other concerns. Would you be interested in one side declassifying Russia security demands, and US and NATO's written responses in 2021?

We should make a poll, whether Zelenskiy will run to US or UK after negotiations?

He may, as far as I know he does not have an International Court of Justice order that would prevent him from going to any of these countries.

Ruzzia will never release real losses.

I think that if Ukrainians want to negotiate a peace, it should be negotiated, but that is not what you are saying I am afraid. You have a long history in this thread and every time you speak of peace and negotiation you are meaning surrender and when you say concessions you mean... surrender. It is basically the only thing you have been promoting until now.

I have not seen any poll saying that Ukraine should cease to exist and become Ruzzia's garden (thanks Branko for the name) and "territorial concessions" may simply be recognising that, as of today, it is not possible to recover Crimea. So back to 2014 illegal borders and bye.

So the problem is not negotiating, which has to eventually happen, the question is what is going to be negotiated. For example, you ask Ruzzians they tell you they want to negotiate by not giving anything. I wonder if some Ukrainians think that they should negotiate under those same terms.

Now, the time for negotiation will be after Trump starts governing (or doing Trump's version of governing). He said he would finish the war and I would like to see what is the magic plan. Do not take for granted it will be pleasant for Putin and do not take for granted there will not be an armed and protected country called Ukraine after whatever "negotiation".

Branko, Branko... you seem so eager to glow green in the dark, and always looking for "the right sources"... Well it would be quite difficult to test a UK ICBM:

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms-control-and-proliferation-profile-united-kingdom#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20does%20not%20poss

paxmao, paxmao...always badly informed:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68355395

SLBM is just subset to ICBM

[...]

You're welcome

Again, you may want to ask the people who are experts on the topic, rather than an AI known to hallucinate.

The Arms Control Association, founded in 1971, is a national nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms-control-and-proliferation-profile-united-kingdom#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20does%20not%20poss

Delivery Systems

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM)

The United Kingdom does not possess ICBMs.

[...]

British nuclear warheads are only deployed on submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
The United Kingdom maintains one type of ballistic missile system in its arsenal for delivering nuclear warheads: the U.S.-leased Trident II (D5) SLBM, which has an estimated range of roughly 7,400-12,000 kilometers.

Again, you are looking into the wrong sources. Everybody knows there were two Trident tests failed - it is the thing about public TV just as...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-icbm-test-launch-failed/

World Russia's test launch of ICBM known as Satan II appears to have failed

Again, keep displaying numbers... it is irrelvant. Either you risk it or not, either you think article 5 does not trigger or it does, either you think the US will not honour the part of their nuclear policy that clearly includes "... their allies" or not....

If somehow you are trying to scare the West into inaction, that ship has sailed and sunk.

[magistrator]

Putin's new "Oreshnik" turned out to be a fake, new fairy tales for Russians.

[paxmao]

Putin's new "Oreshnik" turned out to be a fake, new fairy tales for Russians.

Apparently a relatively common Rubezh, mid-range and not terribly new.

To be honest, ICBMs do reach more than hypersonic speeds, match 24 and the like, but what would make the hypersonic a clearly unstoppable system is the ability to manoeuvre at such speed and evade interception systems. Whatever Ruzzia claims about their technical capabilities has to be interpreted under Tsun-Tzu's advice:

Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.

There are some news on regards to the Ukrainian strike pointing to the North Korean commanders being in the bunker attacked with the Stormshadow.

[liebefreund]

I think Ukraine needs to respond to this Russian missile.