I find it somewhat interesting Russia is likely sabotaging these stations while Musk is limiting StarLink capabilities to Ukraine in fighting Russia. Very spy vs spy. Pick a lane!
Did he though? Tesla sales have been basically flat for the past few years -- not growing any more, but not "destroyed" either. And the market cap (which is what correlates with Musk's wealth) has roughly doubled since the 2024 election season.
Starshield uses all of Starlink's satellites and a few special ones specific to Starshield. There's been plenty of cases in Ukraine of suicide drones being configured to starlink accounts instead of military ones. In fact, that's exactly how Russia took advantage of starlink for the first 2 years.
While there might be a legal distinction between the two systems, technically speaking, it's mostly a matter of configuration.
Or that one wasn't Musk but Starlink sat2sat turns out to be mostly smoke and mirrors, and the satellites simply could not provide services without the ground station in the immediate vicinity of terminals.
He get's his bags from the DoD either way... in-fact the chaos undoubtedly is actually more profitable, make hay while the sun is up... we live in a busted reality of broligarchs that are actually DoD welfare queens. They are literally on both sides of the trade so profit is inevitable. When america elect's a clown, we get a whole 3 ring circus.
>"Bulgarian Interior Minister Ivan Demerdzhiev told parliament that additional security measures had been introduced at similar facilities, even though responsibility for their protection rested with their owners."
It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors. If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies, I am not sure what is. I understand that railways in some countries have their own police, but it is my understanding that SpaceX has not been granted such powers in any country.
> If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies,
... it means those properties are own sovereign nations, or at least autonomous zones! woo hoo, time to declare independence of People's Republic of Mars.
It is not absurd at all. You can't arrest somebody for a sabotage without letting him to execute the deed. Because if he won't execute there's nothing to arrest him for...
So to prevent a sabotage is to have several layers of security (i.e multiple fences) so you will force the saboteur to commit minor crimes like trespassing first and also slow the saboteur significantly so you can arrest him for these minor crimes.
> It is not absurd at all. You can't arrest somebody for a sabotage without letting him to execute the deed. Because if he won't execute there's nothing to arrest him for...
You can very well arrest someone for the intention of sabotaging.
So you agree "taxpayers should be on the hook for everything"?
Every place SpaceX decides to operate, regardless of what taxpayers want, the taxpayers should foot the entire security bill for their private facilities?
So where’s the line drawn? How much should taxpayers be primarily responsible for if a private company doesn’t meet established security standards?
The comments in this thread you’ve joined seem to imply a private company should be held to no standards, and that this specific company’s security should primarily be the responsibility of other taxpayers.
I’m not subject to NIS2 or CRE standards, unlike the willing operator of this facility.
I still have a gun and cameras, because I’m not a welfare queen dependent on the government to do every single thing for me. With the billions of taxpayer dollars SpaceX has, maybe they should invest in some security.
Not that different, perhaps, from Russia making businesses responsible for defending their sites against drones. Even threatening to nationalize the businesses that fail to establish adequate defenses. How a business can get ahold of military-grade anti-air defense systems is left mostly unanswered.
Demerdzhiev, Radev and their entire cabinet in general just avoid blaming Russia for some “unknown” reason as a blanket policy. Yesterday, Russia bombed two Ukrainian ships super close to Bulgaria’s waters in the Black Sea, 11 civilians died, and the PM still says we can’t make any conclusions about the perpetrators when questioned in parliament today.
I’m trying to say that the logical conclusion is to shift the responsibility explicitly to SpaceX, since otherwise you have to admit the attacks are state sponsored and you have to name the perpetrator.
They just move the burden of proof and responsibility as needed. 4 ships carrying Ukraine cargo sunk by drones in Bulgarian waters, one of the ships Ukraine owned and the crew full of Ukrainians? No evidence whatsoever on who could have done it so we don’t blame anyone. Yes yes logic says it must be Russia but we need concrete evidence, so unfortunate.
Ukraine responds to Russian attacks? Why Ukraine doesn’t want peace! Why Ukraine doesn’t just capitulate? The coalition of war(he means countries who support Ukraine militarily) is causing so much suffering.
Ukraine started the attacks on commercial shipping in the Black Sea and Caspian. A 40 day offensive to bring Russia to the negotiation table that backfired when Russia started targeting Ukranian ships and Odessa.
Ukraine innovates and Russia copies/addapts. Russia has ALWAYS been good at this game. Russia reminds me so much of the roman military in this sense, extremely good at copying and incorporating foreign military tactics/equipment.
Think of the initial long convoys ukraine destroyed, the bayraktars -- Russia addapted, the then the brilliant Eastern campaign where Ukraine managed to route the russians -- Russia adapted, that stopped working, then the indiscriminate massive artilery strikes Russia was doing -- ukraine started using better western artilery and himars, stopped the russians but the russians also addapted spread their logistics and so on; then the drones -- russia copied those even innovated with fiberoptic drones, then the Shaheds, ukraine adapted with fpv interceptors, then Russia started using jet powered interceptors, balistic missiles -- Ukraine initially stunned the world with Patriot interceptors but Russia kept firing until Ukraine ran out of interceptors, then the USV -- Ukraine had and still has great success with them, but look, Russia started using USVs also and Ukraine has no response to those.
It looks like the end will be decided by the country who just has more resources and willpower to continue.
I'm seriously scared for the next years -- the US is clearly turning hostile to Ukraine, Europe is turing far right with russian puppets everywhere.
"Those who haven't studied history are destined to repeat it". What you cited is factual and not new. Even in WW2, the Soviet army started on a bad footing against Germany. At the start of the many Finnish wars, it also looked like poor strategy would lead to the defeat of the Soviet army. Every time they adapted and ultimately achieved most of their military goals. Today too, after western proclamation of Ukrainian victory for the last 3+ years, it is clear that Ukraine is facing defeat and cannot win unless the European / NATO army join the war directly (which they cannot as it will trigger WW3).
>Today too, after western proclamation of Ukrainian victory for the last 3+ years, it is clear that Ukraine is facing defeat and cannot win
It was equally clear - also to me - that Ukraine is facing defeat in two or three days after the start of large scale invasion. And yet here we are, three years later.
They're doing great. Even if they surrendered today, they exceeded my initial expectations like 300 times already.
They've lost around 20% of their territory with no hope of getting it back because they don't have the required number (or armaments) to wage a proper counter offensive. They've lost around 1/4th of their armed force personnels and are now earning the ire of their citizens who are being forcefully conscripted to fight a war they don't want to fight. Huge number of their citizens have migrated to other countries. Their economy is totally devastated. They cannot re-build their country without the mercy, charity and exploitation of foreign powers. As the war drags on, they are getting to the point of no return from where they will not be able to recover from the destruction - population, territory, economy ...
Sure, those who hate the Russians can enjoy how much the war costs them and weakens them. But only racist Europeans have a vested interest in cheering Ukraine's leader to keep fighting an unwinnable war, while they cleverly stay out of it, because they don't care about Ukraine too - Slavs fighting Slavs is good politics for them.
> They've lost around 20% of their territory with no hope of getting it back.
I don't think that's the winning end game for Ukraine, but I also don't see there being a realistic winning end game.
One scenario would be that Russia f..ks of with that 20% taken and calls it a success (though strategically it is an enormous blunder), like they did in Finland and leaves Ukraine alone after that -- but is this realistic to happen?
Or Russia collapses internally and Ukraine does take back all the theritory.
Or the world steps in and secures a lasting peace for Ukraine.
Or Russia realizes Ukraine will outlast it because of external support and realizes how stupid and lose-lose this war is.
Or Ukraine collapses and Russia takes an even larger chunk and installs a puppet regime in Kiev.
But Russia seems unwilling to fuck off and call it quits because it's backed by China and has extended its influence in the USA and EU so it bets it can outlast Ukraine.
In WWII, it took the USSR 14 months to fight against Germany all through Ukraine, for about 1.4 million killed. The current Russian war against Ukraine is in its 56th month, losses are ~0.6 million killed and Russia holds about 19% of Ukraine, having gained 0.3% over the past year with ~140k killed.
> ... having gained 0.3% over the past year with ~140k killed.
Don't forget, against a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed army.
Also, if one assumes that capturing territory is their only military goal, that does sound bad. It isn't though, right? With Ukraine, their major goal is to ensure that it remains a neutral state whose army and territory can't be used to economically or militarily threaten Russia ever. And their military goals have focused on this task - dismembering the country (which, as you pointed, they have done so by capturing around 20% of its territory, with maybe another 5% still to be occupied?), destroying their economic infrastructure (the captured territory had an impact on Ukraine's GDP loss, 75-80% of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has already been decimated, and their only port was targeted this year - if the war continues, Russia plans to capture Odessa too and convert Ukraine into a land-locked country), destroying Ukraine's military infrastructure (Russia destroyed most of their local missile and drone manufacturing units this year), and by destroying Ukraine's army through attritional warfare (nearly a quarter of Ukraine's army has been killed or injured - sure, way less than that of Russia, but unlike Russia Ukraine can't afford to lose its people).
(In other words, Russia is in no hurry to capture the remaining 4-5% of territory it seeks, because dragging the war helps it focus on achieving its other military goals it has in mind).
But ofcourse, why should Europeans care if Ukraine is destroyed, as long as they kill as many Russians as possible?
> Don't forget, against a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed army.
Nope. The credit goes mostly to Ukrainian drone manufacturers and drone crews, who cause about 80% of all battlefield deaths. NATO countries have no comparable expertise nor gear.
> Russia has destroyed most of Ukraine's local missile and drone manufacturing units this year
The rest must be doing overtime then, because the monthly Russian casualties in September were the highest of 2026, climbing from 32k in January to 46k in September.
> With Ukraine, their major goal is to ensure that it remains a neutral state whose army and territory can't be used to economically or militarily threaten Russia ever.
The only place where I see such narratives besides the dead comments on HN is Russian state TV. Elsewhere, even among the Russian domestic experts, taking these propaganda narratives seriously is a quick way to discredit oneself.
Let me know when you Europeans are ready to fight alongside the Ukrainians, so that they can actually win the war. Then we'll find out who is a "Russian apologists" or a "western troll" here ...
It is a fact that Russia is fighting a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed Ukrainian army. (Otherwise, why is Zelensky worried that the US might cutoff intelligence access to it?). And it is a fact that western superpowers don't like this fact to be highlighted because it reminds the rest of the world (the Global South) of the callousness of the superpowers in using other countries for their own political games. While most Europeans might be ignorant about it, the rest of the world recognizes the simple fact that this is actually a proxy war between western superpowers and Russia (+ China), where neither side actually cares much about Ukraine and sees it as a pawn. And the blame for this lies squarely on the inept and corrupt leadership of Ukraine for not understanding this.
It is common knowledge that Ukraine moved most of their Air Force assets to other countries, to prevent its destruction. It was the right move, but also makes them less useful as it isn't immediately available when needed. And it is also factual that Russia has targeted and destroyed most of the local military infrastructure, including drone manufacturing units this year, so that Ukraine now depends on its manufacturing units abroad or foreign imports for its needs. Again, a smart move, which also has its drawbacks.
All these battle tactics, and some battle victories, doesn't change the basic maths of warfare though - even with the limited support from allies, Ukrainian military is outnumbered and outgunned by the more powerful Russian military and thus cannot defeat it alone. That is why they are losing - they have lost soldiers, territory, their citizens, their economic infrastructure and economy incapacitated to the point of no return.
It is also a fact that the cowardice of Europeans is apparent in that they can only offer Ukrainians keyboard warriors who cheer them to fight on with fake propaganda and platitudes, while putting down anyone else as "Russian apologists" for talking common sense. (Comparing Putin to Hitler is laughable. It's also a typical westerner attitude to politics to think in "black and white" - if you are not with me, you are against me and thus my enemy, your reasons be damned!).
> It is a fact that Russia is fighting a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed Ukrainian army.
The idea that Russia is fighting the entire collective might of NATO is a popular and a convenient excuse for in Russia its own failures, but that's very far from the truth. The most powerful member of NATO, the United States, accounts for about 60-65% of the combined military spending of all NATO members, but its support for Ukraine since the end of 2024 barely registers on charts: https://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmin/_processed_/1/5/csm_mi...
The actual body that coordinates military aid to Ukraine is the semi-formal contact group that consists of 57 countries, about half of whom are not members of NATO, and there are further countries beside them that provide aid through direct contacts. For example, Sudan has supplied ammunition for mortars in exchange for Ukraine's drone crews showcasing their skill on Russian mercenaries operating in Sudan.
> Otherwise, why is Zelensky worried that the US might cutoff intelligence access to it?
The bulk of operational intelligence provided by foreign countres already comes from sources other than the US. Japan, for example, has sent people to coordinate access to Japanese satellites. A few days ago, the French foreign minister said that about 2/3 of the total foreign intelligence flow comes from Europe, in large part from France, which has a strong aerospace sector.
Cutoff from US sources is very painful, because the US has the best early warning system for detecting ballistic missile launches and loss of access to it leaves Ukrainian civilians without a chance to seek shelter before the missiles hit, but the military value of revenge attacks on Ukrainian cities is near-zero.
> While most Europeans might be ignorant about it, the rest of the world recognizes the simple fact that this is actually a proxy war between western superpowers and Russia (+ China), where neither side actually cares much about Ukraine and sees it as a pawn.
That's another popular Russian propaganda trope that falls apart at closer inspection like they always do. Here's how the vote went on a UN resolution that condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a violation of UN's charter and demanded a full and unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
Likewise, popular opinion of Russia has also sharply fallen. South America saw especially sharp drop, scroll down for "Changes in Disapproval of Russia's Leadership Between 2021 and 2022" chart: https://news.gallup.com/poll/474596/russia-suffers-global-re...
Researchers summarised: "Despite significant Russian efforts to spread disinformation about the conflict, the massive shift in attitudes toward Russian leadership demonstrates that the geopolitical significance of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is not lost on most of the world’s population."
> It is common knowledge that Ukraine moved most of their Air Force assets to other countries, to prevent its destruction. It was the right move, but also makes them less useful as it isn't immediately available when needed.
Interesting way to gloss over the fact that the Ukrainian Air Force never had the 674 aircraft and 284 helicopters that the Russia...
You should be aware that this discussion has been shadow banned by the HN moderators. So only the 2 of us can see it, and it isn't available for the public. So you can cut down the propaganda and discuss facts if you are really interested in having a discussion on it. For me, it is a fact that this is a proxy war between NATO superpowers and Russia (+China). Ukraine is a victim here. Everything I say is based on that fact. If you disagree with that, then disapprove that or end the discussion.
> In other words, 2/3 of NATO (by expenditure) is not participating in supporting Ukraine.
In other words, over a period of 4+ years now, various NATO members have trained, armed, supported and financed Ukraine's army to fight the Russians. So, to repeat myself again - it is a fact that Russia is fighting a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed Ukrainian army. And without NATO support, it is apparent that Russia would have achieved all its military objectives in Ukraine a long time ago. That support for Ukraine, within NATO, is also declining is simply because Russia now has the upper-hand in this war, and NATO members are divided on whether it is beneficial for them to continue this proxy war.
> Cutoff from US sources is very painful ...
Yes, cutoff is painful because Ukraine cannot fight the Russians without NATO support, of which the US is the most militarily powerful member. The cutoff also highlights how dependent Ukraine is on NATO members to fight the Russians. And how NATO countries are supporting Ukraine against Russia. So stop arguing or pretending as if you aren't aware that that NATO is involved in this war when you know it very much is.
> Military value of such revenge attacks is near-zero. It is just pure terror against the civilian population ...
That's just normal wartime propaganda - both sides have claimed that civilians are being deliberately "targeted". Sift through this propaganda and you find that both sides are targeting what they believe to be military targets and both sides are dismissive of the collateral damage. Ukraine being the military weaker country is obviously facing the worse end of this war. Zelensky has proved to be a poor leader for Ukraine. In this case, in failing to understand the concept of "escalation dominance" while being manipulated by the Europeans (mainly French, British and German in this case) to pointlessly escalate the war when they were already losing the war.
> Trump's temper tantrums over his inability to force Ukraine to do what he wants clearly disprove the "proxy war" narrative ...
The Trump administration realises that all the benefits of the proxy war that they could get has been derived and, as Russia cannot be economically or militarily defeated, it is best to end the war before Russia starts to benefit from it now.
> here's how the vote went on a UN resolution that condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine..
And how many of those from the Global South has offered anything more substantial than words in this war? We in the Global South understand that this is a proxy war between superpowers, it is dangerous for us to get dragged into it and as it happened because of the foolishness of Ukraine's own leader, it is their own hard political lesson to learn from.
> Likewise, popular opinion of Russia has also sharply fallen. South America saw an especially sharp drop ...
South American countries swing between left and right, and whenever the US backed right- come to power, obviously negative opinions against Russia increases.
> Interesting way to gloss over the fact that the Ukrainian Air Force never had the 674 airplanes and 284 helicopters that the Russian Ministry of Defence claims to have destroyed.
I obviously have no idea where you plucked those numbers from as I have never read anything similar. The sources I have read claim that whatever the Ukrainian Air Force couldn't get ...
> And without NATO support, it is apparent that Russia would have achieved all its military objectives in Ukraine a long time ago.
Let me guess, in three days?
The invasion plan crumbled before Ukraine got any foreign aid worth mentioning. The airborne attack of Hostomel airport was successfully repelled, leading to failure to capture Kyiv, leading to failure to decapitate the military command structure, leading to successful coordinated counterattacks on the overstretched invasion force.
Five years and 1.5 million casualties later, Russia has still not managed to recover where it was a few weeks into the war, because it had no realistic plan B after the surprise attack failed.
> That's just normal wartime propaganda - both sides have claimed that civilians are being deliberately "targeted".
Russian terror on Ukrainian civilians is widely documented. Eg, in Kherson, where Russian attacks are known as "human safari" UN: "From July 2024, Russian forces have recurrently killed and injured civilians in an area stretching over more than 100 kilometres along the right bank of the Dnipro River in Kherson Province. The drone attacks have been widespread, systematic and conducted as part of a coordinated state policy. /---/ The circumstances of the attacks, the videos, and the explicit threatening text posts demonstrate that Russian armed forces and those supporting them have committed acts or threats of violence for the primary purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population, in violation of international humanitarian law." https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/05/un-commissio...
> And how many of those from the Global South has offered anything more substantial than words in this war?
Morocco provided tanks, Cambodia sent military specialists to teach demining, Sudan provided mortar ammunition, etc. The "South-vs-North" dichotomy is artificial and mainly lives as yet another Russian propaganda trope. The territorial integrity of sovereign states is such a fundamental principle that it is understood and valued around the world.
> I obviously have no idea where you plucked those numbers from as I have never read anything similar
Stated by the Russian MoD, widely circulated by all major Russian news outlets, including the state-owned TASS: https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/28046063
Russian war correspondents openly ridicule such statements, as well as comments like yours, according to which everything in Ukraine has already been blown up five times over. Yet the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. Russian official recruitment target is 34k soldiers per month, of which about 29k gets filled. Losses have been 37k this month, expected to reach 50k by the end. Territorial gains since the start of the summer, the most advantageous time of the year, have been 180 sq km in total, which is a rounding error in a country of 603 000 sq km.
> The only reason Finland retains its independence, government and armed forces is because the pragmatic Finnish leaders capitulated to Russian security concerns, agreeing to all their terms.
Not quite so. In the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of August 1939, Hitler and Stalin agreed how to divide Eastern Europe. Germany was given a free hand to invade Poland, Russians were expected to attack at the same time from east, but stalled and attacked Poland a few weeks later. After Germans and Russians had held a victory parade over Poland, Russians set their sights on Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which Germans had left to them with the...
- The invasion plan crumbled before Ukraine got any foreign aid worth mentioning.
Another propaganda which doesn't stand up to scrutiny - NATO members were already preparing for the proxy war with Russia by sabotaging diplomatic negotiations (the Minsk agreements) to delay the war they knew would eventually happen if Ukraine didn't address Russian security concerns. This period was used to train Ukraine's military by NATO members.
> Merkel: ... Thinking back to 2014, and the beginning of 2015, when Minsk II was negotiated: If we had done nothing, Putin could have caused tremendous damage to Ukraine, and those 7 years were crucial for the evolution of Ukraine. In spite of that, this terrible situation still came to occur. But back in 2008, when the NATO membership action plan discussed, my opinion (which you don't have to share, but it is my opinion) is that it would have happened even more rapidly. Back then, Ukraine was even further from being able to offer the degree of resistance it can offer today .... Secondly, I was certain that Putin would not allow this to happen. From his perspective, this would have been a declaration of war. (https://youtu.be/hiwnD00kV0w?t=2144 )
> The Kyiv Independent: Do you also believe that the negotiations in Minsk were intended to delay Russian advances in Ukraine? ... French President François Hollande: Yes, Angela Merkel is right on this point. The Minsk agreements stopped the Russian offensive for a while ... Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity. ( https://kyivindependent.com/national/hollande-there-will-onl... )
> Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko: ... what is the result of the Minsk agreement? We win 8 years to create the army. We win 8 years to restore the economy. We win 8 years to continue the reforms and move to the European Union ... ( https://youtu.be/YgpZ9mQ8p18?t=426 )
As for Russia's initial battle loses ... Russia had surrounded Kiev, and the only reason it stopped was because Zelensky and the EU superpowers offered to negotiate with them. And one of the terms of the negotiations was to stop their military advance. Russia, in its arrogance, was fooled to believe that they had achieved political success and asked its army to stop advancing, and even retreat in some places in the frontline to defensive positions. This period was then used to provide intelligence to Ukraine on Russian positions and plan a counter attack on Russia, which was successful because the Russians were unprepared for the deception and the newly trained armed forces of Ukraine.
Once they recovered from it, they revised their plan and decided to retreat and create defensive stronghold on all the areas of Eastern Ukraine they planned to annex and execute all their other objectives militarily. (Western propaganda of course prematurely touted this tactical retreat by the Russians as Ukraine wining the war).
- ... it had no realistic plan B after the surprise attack failed.
Only those who buy NATO propaganda believe that because they are ignorant of Russia's military objectives in Ukraine. NATO propaganda paints it as simple "land grab" (which you seem to believe too), when it was never about that. It is about securing Russian security interests in both Ukraine and with Europe / NATO. From that perspective, Ukraine is losing the war and Russians are quite close to achieving all their political goals militarily.
> NATO members were already preparing for the proxy war with Russia by sabotaging diplomatic negotiations
The only proxy forces in this war have been the "people's militias" of the fictious and short-lived Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics, which compromised of unmarked members of Russian armed forces, security services, and people under their direct control. Nothing else comes close.
> As for Russia's initial battle loses ... Russia had surrounded Kiev, and the only reason it stopped was because Zelensky and the EU superpowers offered to negotiate with them.
The assault on Kyiv failed because the airborne assault did not manage to establish a usable bridgehead that the ground forces were supposed to link up with. Instead of a rapid advance toward Kyiv, Russian ground forces were met by fierce Ukrainian resistance and ran out of fuel, food and ammunition, because they had brought supplies for only a few days. After resupply efforts failed, Russian forces became sitting ducks and had to withdraw or face wipeout.
> Cambodia rejects the use or threats of force and does not side with any of the parties in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Prime Minister Hun Sen has declared. The premier stated that support for any party in what he believed had evolved into a proxy battle between the former USSR and US-led NATO countries would violate the Kingdom’s own policy of non-alignment with military blocs.
He changed his position soon thereafter:
Prime Minister Hun Sen has reiterated that Cambodia does not support the forceful occupation of one country by another, in comments that apparently referred to the Russian-Ukraine conflict as an “invasion”. “We don’t support the invasion of one country by another. This is our absolutely firm position,” he said while presiding over the inauguration of National Road 21 connecting Kandal province to the Cambodia-Vietnam border. “This is not a small issue because it creates a bad habit for the world: the stronger nation attacking the weaker one. So, if the stronger nation attacks the weaker one, will they attack us [Cambodia]? Then who will help us? This must be clear-cut. This is why we must have a clear position,” he explained.
Good of you to mention bullying. He spoke about that too:
Cambodia was one of 141 countries to co-sponsor the draft resolution of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on March 2 condemning Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine. Hun Sen revealed recently that there were countries that allegedly lobbied for Cambodia to abstain on the Russia-Ukraine vote, but did not state which ones.
> This is what the Russian media recently claimed - https://rt-english.com
RT is trash-tier propaganda outlet, on the same level as Breitbart and Infowars. It deserves no attention.
> And when you mention that it is only prudent to also mention that Soviet Russia made that pact only because the French and British refused to make a pact with USSR, against Hitler, in the first place.
It's also prudent to mention the reason for refusal. Russia demanded the right to place troops into Poland and expected the French and the British to coerce the Polish government into accepting it, yet again under "security concerns". Poland was naturally opposed to the presence of foreign soldiers on their soil, out of fear that the troops would never leave. History proved them correct. The forces that entered Poland during WWII remained in Poland until 1993 and were instrumental in establishing and sustaining the Russian-controlled communist dictatorship.
Stalin was simply shopping around for a way to explo...
- The only proxy forces in this war have been the "people's militias"
I partly agree with you - what you mentioned were the Ukrainian proxy backed by the Russians. The west had their own Ukrainian political leaders that they backed who also worked to divide the country. This is why I blame the Ukrainian leaders, first and foremost, for this mess - they couldn't unite their country, and allowed foreign meddling. One leader sought help from Russia, one from UK / NATO and now from US / EU to consolidate power. In the Angela Merkel interview that I have shared above, she too points this out:
> Merkel: First, Ukraine wasn't the Ukraine we know now. Politically, Ukraine was deeply divided between Yanukovych and Yushchenko, and even the reformers Tymoshenko and Yushchenko didn't like each other ...
When a nation is not united, it is easy to exploit it, and that is what the western superpowers and Russia did in Ukraine. The west was more successful here as the western backed coup managed to overthrow the democratically elected Russian friendly (I wouldn't call him a Russian stooge) leader. They then immediately branded all parties and leaders perceived as anti-west as "enemies" and either banned them, jailed them or exiled them. Then, after eliminating all competition, they held an "democratic election" which was hailed by the west as the "most democratic" in Ukraine's history while it created a permanent schism between the East Ukraine and West Ukraine.
Russia recognized the coup for what it was - a foreign backed coup - and so immediately annexed Crimea (to protect its own military interests).
Zelensky was elected on a platform to unite the people. He too failed, partly due to his inexperience and also because he followed the same destructive policies (guided by the west to whom he is beholden), like his predecessors that ignored Ukraine's history and culture and trying to end multiculturalism. He in fact exacerbated the issue by using violence against East Ukrainians, triggering a civil war. As Putin saw Zelensky's political actions were increasingly guided by the west, and increasingly militant, and he had no interest in a rapprochement with Russia, he escalated, which finally resulted in the illegal invasion of Ukraine.
(And now West Ukraine has a militia compromised of unmarked members of western armed forces, security services, and people under their direct control, with whom Zelensky too has to contend).
- Instead of a rapid advance toward Kyiv, Russian ground forces were met by fierce Ukrainian resistance ...
I agree that the initial Ukrainian resistance was good, and completely unanticipated by the Russians. The direct intelligence provided by NATO was also very helpful to slowdown the Russian invasion. All that said, a major reason for Russians dropping the advance towards Kiev, and later tactically withdrawing,, was because of request for urgent negotiations by the west and Ukraine. Remember that the first diplomatic negotiation took place just 4 days after the war, and one of the western pre-conditions to this was that negotiations shouldn't happen with the barrel of a gun to the face (i.e. Kiev surrounded) and asked them to withdraw, which the Russians complied with because they arrogantly and foolishly thought the negotiations would happen in good-faith and in their favour.
- Good of you to mention bullying ...
Oh, I am not defending Russia when it comes to such things. Even my own country gave in to the Russian demands to not vote in the UN resolution. (That was a cowardice on the part of the Modi government - the Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal, by international laws, and India should have upheld that principle). My point remains that western superpowers are no different from Russia or China in this, and so the west does not have any moral ground to claim superiority here.
> The west was more successful here as the western backed coup managed to overthrow the democratically elected Russian friendly
There was no coup in Ukraine. Coup is commonly defined as an illegal takeover of power by a small group of people. In Ukraine, the national parliament voted to hold early elections and the next president was elected by 18 million voters soon thereafer.
> Russia recognized the coup for what it was - a foreign backed coup - and so immediately annexed Crimea (to protect its own military interests).
Can't be true. The Russian military campaign medal "For the Return of Crimea" issued to the participants inscribes the start of the campaign as 20 February 2014. The public tender for manufacturing them was issued 17 December 2013. That was months before the "coup". Photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Medal_Fo...
> Zelensky was elected on a platform to unite the people /---/ He in fact exacerbated the issue by using violence against East Ukrainians, triggering a civil war.
I honestly don't know what "civil war" you are talking about. By the time Zelensky was voted into office in 2019, the fighting in Eastern Ukraine between Ukrainian and Russian forced had virtually ceased and did not restart until the full-scale invasion in February 2022.
> All that said, a major reason for Russians dropping the advance towards Kiev, and later tactically withdrawing,, was because of request for urgent negotiations by the west and Ukraine.
Sour grapes.
> As is any media outlet, funded by the government, like the BBC, NPR, DW or PressTV.
BBC, NPR and DW are not under the editorial control of their respective governments, as can be witnessed from their coverage, which is often unfavorable, especially NPR of Trump. RT has no such independence. RT's editorial decisions are taken by Alexey Gromov, the first deputy chief of staff of the Putin's presidential administration. Unlike Trump, notice how Putin, Lavrov, et al never complain about the press being unfair, because they are the press. Don't like an article? Pick a phone and the article disappears, sometimes with its author.
> Stalin's main concern was always Hitler and Germany, for historical reasons.
Stalin infamously misjudged Hitler's intentions and dismissed mounting warnings that Germany was preparing to attack the USSR, which caused catastrophic losses when Germany did finally attack. Entire armies vanished into thin air, millions of soldiers were taken prisoner in a few months. Stalin was paralyzed by disbelief and issued a flood of nonsensical orders that made things only worse. Stalin expected the fruitful cooperation to last at least until Germany had defeated the UK. During this period, Russians were providing strategic products like oil in huge quantities to Germany. Cargo trains carrying grain were arriving at border stations even on the morning of the German attack.
> No one can confidently say that if Poland had acquiesced to Russian terms to provide right of way to the Russian military, and for a stage hold territory, backed by British and the French guarantees of sovereignty, Soviet Russia would not have withdrawn after defeating the Germans.
There is literally a counterexample in the neighboring Lithuania. Lithuanian government accepted all demands, and Russian forces did not leave until 1994, causing enourmous amounts of suffering over 50 years of occupation. This happened all across Europe. Most of Central and Eastern Europe was covered by communist dictatorships under Russian control until the USSR collapsed in 1991, and military forc...
Ofcourse, those who support the "revolution" obviously don't like when it is labelled a coup. I am sure it is the same with the "revolutionaries" in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal too, who, like the west-backed Ukrainians, violently overthrew their democratically elected leaders. (And, again, like the Ukrainians, these so-called "revolutionaries" then attacked or banned or jailed or exiled all their opponents and then held the farce of a "democratic election" without any opposition. Wait a minute - isn't this the kind of "communist revolution" that the west often derides and believes is undemocratic!? But, I guess it's ok when "your guys" do it ...).
And we also have the embarrassing leaked tapes of one of the brains behind the "revolution" discussing how to install the "right" Ukrainian leaders (aka western puppets) - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 ... Ofcourse, once the opposition had been decimated violently, and the west's open role in the coup revealed, that was quite easy to do so - all the "surviving" Ukrainian leaders knew that they had to submit to the western superpowers to politically survive in Ukraine. And they did so openly and blatantly.
- Can't be true.
The medals, the manufactured controversy over the dates are all irrelevant. It has always been public knowledge that for Russia, not losing Crimea and its naval base has always been the primary goal in negotiations with Ukraine. Even the unrest in Crimea, involving a referendum against the Ukrainian government, demanding independence / autonomy was supported by Russia. And if Ukraine was unwilling to renew its lease of Crimea to Russia, annexation was always the plan. Nearly 2+ decades back, Putin had publicly said that if Ukraine joins NATO, Ukraine would do so without Crimea and the Eastern regions. In other words, the political and military plan was always ready (if negotiations failed) as Plan B, and the western backed coup was one of the "red lines" that triggered Crimea's quick annexation.
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has publicly stated in an interview that he took a message from Putin to Zelensky that Russia would not invade Ukraine if he publicly committed to not join NATO. Zelensky was willing. But all subsequent negotiations (before and during the war) failed because the western superpowers always dissuaded him from signing and committing to "permanent neutrality" - the original condition on which the USSR had granted independence to the Ukrainians, and the condition on which the Russians had guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty.
- I honestly don't know what "civil war" you are talking about.
Lookup on the failures of the Ukranian side to uphold the Minsk treaties (which, as I have already shared, has now been acknowledged by the leaders of the west, and Ukraine, as a ruse that they didn't have any intention to honour, but were only using to buy time, especially after the coup).
- Stalin infamously misjudged Hitler's intentions ...
Not exactly. You again deliberately ignore that the first parties he approached for an alliance were the British and the French, because Germany and Russia have a history of animosity. Stalin knew that a German invasion would inevitably happen, and he wanted to buy time because he knew the Soviet economy and military wasn't ready to face any western superpower, alone. (The experience of fighting the Germans, with an impoverished army, during WW1 were still fresh for the Russians). That is why he reluctantly joined hands with Hitler, who, again, was never his first choice, to buy time to strengthen Soviet military positions. It was always an uneasy alliance where both were prepared for the other to turn against the oth...
> Ofcourse, those who support the "revolution" obviously don't like when it is labelled a coup
A legislature voting to hold early elections is not a coup by any common definition.
> The medals, the manufactured controversy over the dates are all irrelevant
No, they're not. The official campaign medal says that the invasion of Crimea began on 20 February 2014. The first Russian troop movements (810th marine brigade) were observed on the same date. That's the difficult thing with lying: you have to have a really good memory to cover all the ways that the truth can slip out.
> Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has publicly stated in an interview that he took a message from Putin to Zelensky that Russia would not invade Ukraine if he publicly committed to not join NATO.
This is another factually incorrect statement. Benett met Putin on 5 March 2022, nine days after the invasion had started, so this claim is anachronistic and could not have happened the way you describe it. All these Russian narratives depend on the listener being lazy and not checking basic facts like the order of events.
> Zelensky was willing. But all subsequent negotiations (before and during the war) failed because the western superpowers always dissuaded him from signing and committing to "permanent neutrality" - the original condition on which the USSR had granted independence to the Ukrainians
Ukraine was not "granted" independence by anyone, but USSR's central institutions imploded and Ukrainian SSR's parliament declared Ukrainian SSR independent from the USSR, prepared legislation for handing power over to a new state with new institutions, and held a referendum to gain a mandate for that. Ukraine did not sign any treaties that place an obligation of neutrality as a precondition for independence.
> Nearly 2+ decades back, Putin had publicly said that if Ukraine joins NATO, Ukraine would do so without Crimea and the Eastern regions.
He has made no such public statements. The statement alone would've been a severe violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.
> And ofcourse, this is again something to be seen in isolation, and we should all ignore the development of the cold war, right? Selective picking of a political event without the underlying context is easy to twist to fit some narrative. Post WW2, as Russia supported the independence of western colonies, and communist revolutions everywhere, the western superpowers again turned hostile towards USSR.
There's nothing to twist. The governments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania did everything the Russians asked of them, for which Russians thanked them with tremendous suffering over 50 years. WWII had not yet ended and the Cold War had not yet begun, when Russians were already carrying out mass deportations of civilians to Siberian labour camps. The first major action was in 1941. The goal was to exterminate the professional class (managers, merchants, politicians, doctors, teachers, etc) who were authority figures in the society and could pose a challenge to the communist dictatorship that Russians set up.
> In other words, Russia as a superpower is not doing anything different to what western superpowers do (or have done).
As I said, this is false. Since the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, Russia is the only country to have invaded another European country by force and declared its territory to be its own.
- A legislature voting to hold early elections is not a coup by any common definition.
Any political action under violence, and then the threat of violence (whether it be by so called "revolutionaries" or an army) resulting in the opposition capturing power undemocratically is exactly that - a coup ... that they made it "legal", after eliminating their opposition, has no bearing on this. Otherwise you should have no problem in accepting the referendum in Crimea or in Eastern Ukraine where the people also voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.
- ... 20 February 2014. The first Russian troop movements (810th marine brigade) were observed on the same date.
Again deliberately avoiding the context with selective facts that are irrelevant. I am saying Russia was always prepared to annex Crimea - Putin had declared that 20+ years ago, and repeatedly told this to every western leaders he met during this period, subsequently. That is why Russia has always had agents in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. The coup, and the elimination of Ukrainian politicians that were either pro-Russian or weren't pro-west, was the trigger for the Russians annexing Crimea. That they were in Crimea in February 20 is irrelevant here because recall that the "revolution" began with protests in November 2013. Russian intelligence were keeping close tabs on it (remember the tape leak about the US planning who to install in Ukraine?), and prepared for any eventuality. As it became clear that the West supported the right-wing extremists against President Viktor Yanukovych, and they too were pressuring him to resign and hand over power to the Western backed "revolutionaries" the Russians asked him to sign the transitional plan, offered him asylum in Russia (as he feared he may be assassinated) and activated their plan to annex Crimea ( https://www.politico.eu/article/yanukovych-signs-transition-... ) as it had become clear that Ukraine would no longer be neutral to Russia:
> In late February, a few days after Ukraine’s pro-Moscow president was ousted from power, strange bands of armed gunmen began seizing government buildings in Crimea. Some Crimeans held rallies to show support for the ousted president and, in some cases, to call to secede from Ukraine and re-join Russia. The bands of gunmen grew until it became obvious they were Russian military forces, who forcefully but bloodlessly brought the entire peninsula under military occupation. On March 16, Crimeans voted overwhelmingly for their region to become a part of Russia. ( https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/18088560/ukraine-everything-you... )
Even those in the west now publicly acknowledge that what happened in Ukraine is perceived as a coup by many - A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War - https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia... ).
- This is another factually incorrect statement. Benett met Putin on 5 March 2022, nine days after the invasion had started...
I am repeating what he said. Note that he has met Putin before the war too, where he informed Putin that Zelensky wanted to meet him and talk to him. Putin conveyed he wasn't interested. Benett also points out that Zelensky did publicly renounce Ukraine joining NATO. Benett has also said that all the negotiations were very carefully coordinated with the US, Germany, France and UK. And once Putin and Zelensky compromised and agreed to a deal and a ceasefire, the West then blocked it because they w...
> Russia is in no hurry to capture the remaining 4-5%.
The grapes are sour.
Russia is absolutely in a hurry because the war is hurting it tremendously, it simply is unable to do so at the moment, but it hopes it can undermine Ukraine's external support, which is indeed going much better than its campaign on the ukrainian front.
You are basing this on the assumption that the war will end if Russia captures this last 5% of territory. Why do you think so? Do you believe that Ukraine will suddenly stop fighting and agree to all of Russia's terms of surrender if Russia manages to occupy this last 5% territory? No. Do you think Russia will stop fighting? No, because Russia doesn't want a ceasefire (a stalemate). Remember, territorial occupation is just one of its military goals. If Ukraine is not willing to reduce the size of its military, through diplomatic treaties with Russia, then the Russians will strive to achieve this militarily. And for that it needs them to keep fighting. From my perspective, that's just a tragedy because there is no point in fighting a war you cannot win, and one that actually benefits your opponent.
I think more precise language is important here. It is my perception that a small faction that currently controls the federal US government is hostile to Ukraine. A large majority of the general population of the US seems to support Ukraine.
You might argue that this distinction doesn't change the reality for Ukraine's prospects, but I disagree. The small anti-Ukraine faction in the US is becoming increasingly unpopular within the US. It is doubtful its dominance of the US executive branch will survive the next general election in two years. Its total control of the US government may not survive another month.
The willpower of Ukraine has been underestimated throughout this conflict. It seems a cinch it will hold strong for three more weeks. Then the US campaign for President begins in earnest and it would not be surprising for many US politicians to press against the anti-Ukraine faction in a bid for control of the US Presidency. The US Congress may try to remove itself from under the thumb of the current president and you might see sweeping changes in as little as three months. Or you might not.
Take courage. I think Ukraine's resolution to survive will outlast the influence of Putin fans who happen to have an outsized influence in US politics at the moment.
> large majority of the general population of the US seems to support Ukraine
“61% of Americans sympathize more with Ukraine, compared to only 3% who sympathize more with Russia; 22% who take neither side” [1]. (45% of MAGA supporters, 63% of GOP.)
Well, yes, the deal was supposed un-block its own food and fertilizer exports, but they were still sanctioned. It was idiotic to agree to that deal without first getting the sanctions removed. The UN "committed to help facilitate and remove obstacles to unimpeded global exports of Russian food and fertilizers" - something which never materialized.
Completely irrelevant as well as ridiculous. Russia is 100% responsible for any ships being sunk in the Black Sea. Making silly demands when things don’t work out the way they hoped does not shift the blame in any way whatsoever.
Russia can stop the war (and thus sanctions) whenever they choose to. Ukraine does not have that option.
How is it "irrelevant" when there was a deal struck but its terms were violated ? Are all Western deals this way ? No wonder Minsk broke down. How is Russia 100% responsible for any ships being sunk in the Black Sea when Ukraine has sunk >100 vessels in the black sea? Try and separate basic logic from partisan emotion please.
First, this thread is about refuting GPs claim about how this is in response to Ukraine attacking Russian vessels first, which is obviously bullshit.
Second, EU and US were not signatories to any deal between Russia and Ukraine, so any sanction relief was never on the table as part of the grain deal. Russia may have asked for it, but it was not offered or implied it in any way by anybody. And yes, this is typically how deals work everywhere.
Third, any ship that Ukraine sinks is 100% on Russia because they’re the reason any ships need to be sunk in the first place. Again, Russia could stop the war today and no further violence would be necessary.
Ukraine started attacks against Russian shipping in the Sea of Azov and Black Sea on 6th July 2026, as part of the 40 days day sinking over 100 commercial ships.
Who cares? Russia's been targeting Ukrainian vessels and shipping infrastructure since 2022, as we've established above. Just because Ukraine has chosen to respond in kind is irrelevant, the responsibility lies squarely with Russia.
It was the Ukrainians the ones who started sinking civilian ships, sometime last year at the same time (or maybe even earlier, too lazy to check on arr UkraineRussiaReport). It was a very bad move for them and it was also a very move for us, the other countries bordering the Black Sea (I live in Romanian myself, I'm about to go to Constanta this very weekend), but here we are. Our political leaders from back then (both from Romania and Bulgaria) didn't tell the Ukrainians anything like "hey, stop with this shooting war at civilian shipping in our shared sea!", and we, their unlucky slaves, now have to bear the consequences. Such is life when one's ruled by comprador leaders in a neo-colonial system.
> They just move the burden of proof and responsibility as needed. 4 ships carrying Ukraine cargo sunk by drones in Bulgarian waters, one of the ships Ukraine owned and the crew full of Ukrainians? No evidence whatsoever on who could have done it so we don’t blame anyone
Well, the official stance of the EU a couple of years ago, when the Nordstream pipeline was attacked, was that it was Russia (even though it was against its interests). So we can have something similar here, right? That it was Ukraine that sunk those vessels. I understand the Bulgarian PM, he's just trying to be a standard EU politician.
> They just move the burden of proof and responsibility as needed. 4 ships carrying Ukraine cargo sunk by drones in Bulgarian waters, one of the ships Ukraine owned and the crew full of Ukrainians? No evidence whatsoever on who could have done it so we don’t blame anyone
Well, the official stance of the EU a couple of years ago, when the Nordstream pipeline was attacked, was that it was Russia (even though it was against its interests). So we can have something similar here, right? That it was Ukraine that sunk those vessels. I understand the Bulgarian PM, he's just trying to be a regular EU politician.
> It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors.
SpaceX is actively meddling in foreign-state wars picking whichever side they choose to support on which day. They made their bed.
In the most corrupt administration of all time, American law doesnt really get considered at these levels. There are many things Musk and his companies should legally not be doing but not much really happening there. Especially after DOGE killed most the groups looking into these things and the AG is run by Trumps personal attorneys.
> SpaceX is actively meddling in foreign-state wars
Starlink is banned, by the US government, from operating in a military context, and cannot be used for military purposes. Do you have a reference for them meddling/supporting wars, or a hint at what you're referring to for someone out of the loop? This is not allowed by very many laws and policies that have been in place since the company started operating.
"Motives" section being the important bits, for why it had to go to the government StarShield system.
Maybe this is the recent disruption referenced?
> On 14 October 2026, Musk said the Ukrainian military was using the US government owned and controlled Starshield system, not Starlink, and the recent change to restrict operational user terminals to those travelling at less than 100 mph (160 km/h) was a US government decision and not his decision.[87]
Not exactly - Starlink is civilian. Starshield is their service for the US military. According to what Musk said recently, it is apparently under the control of the US military (he said he didn't know anything about service being disrupted for the Ukrainian military recently because the US military fully controls it). But yes, I can understand why it could still be considered a potential target. War is ugly, and associating with it in any manner is bound to tarnish one's reputation.
I don't know why it should be the governments job to secure private properties of corporations against vandalism/arson. It sounds much more absurd to me.
Starlink providing services to a customer (which made them a target in this case) is not a matter the local government of that site needs to protect them against.
--> Is it a local governments' job to secure the local properties of e.g. Lockheed, or the job of Lockheed as a for-profit supplier to the military?
Depends on the infra, and the level of anxiety generally and specifically.
Petty vandalism no, but I’ve worked at a few and know more completely non-military business premises that absolutely have “military barricade” or the like quietly in their contingency plans.
Funny thing is, a bit of arson is kind of normal on their estates. But usually it’s just stolen cars.
It's absolutely the role of the security agencies to protect against foreign attack. Are Oil tankers and Cargo ships supposed to have air defense? What about the World Trade Centers? Otherwise there is no purpose to having a military if you won't defend your sovereignty.
That doesn't absolve the orgs responsibility, but the questions should be directed at both.
I'm certain there will be investigations from the government, but not only due to the suspicion of a foreign state attack, but also on the grounds of Starlink not sufficiently securing their premises.
It's the role of security agencies to gather intelligence, monitor for risks of foreign attacks and engage in case of a threat.
It's not their responsibility to prevent two guys from Germany from entering the premises of a critical infrastructure provider with gasoline. That operator of that facility has the responsibility to ensure security and resilience of his own premises.
-
> "Are Oil tankers and Cargo ships supposed to have air defense?"
No, this would turn a civilian into a combatant ship, causing it to lose the civilian protections of the UN (The Ocean is governed by conventions of the United Nations, it's a different jurisdiction)
And still, oil tankers and cargo ships have requirements to secure themselves against piracy, terrorism and even warfare, mandated by the international maritime organization.
> "It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors"
I think neither private companies nor tax-payers would appreciate if the POLICE would run security for a for-profit corporation, as it means that all corporate access-permissions would de-facto be managed by the government administration (which would be financed by the taxes of citizens and other corporations...)
Also: Would be even more ironic for Starlink to now demand big-BIG-government after their CEO keeps pushing for small-government for years now. But it fits the typical "Privatize profits, socialize costs" view...
If I open something like a stadium, and whenever there's a big game I need a load of security to deal with traffic, drunk fans, and fights - arguably most of the security should be paid for from ticket sales, rather than the taxpayer, although the taxpayer should be there as the final backstop.
Likewise, if I have a bank with a vault full of valuables and I think it needs 3 armed guards present 24/7 - probably that's going to be at my expense, not that of the taxpayer. Although any bank should get a police presence in a reasonably timely manner, once they raise the alarm about a robbery.
>Two men aged 20 and 21, both holding German passports
They way Germany has been handing out passports like candy in last years, they very well could be Russians or foreigners with sympathetic ties to Russia willing to commit crimes for them in exchange for some pocket money.
I didn't realize that in addition to the 11,127 satellites in our orbit it also takes over 1,500 ground antenna in the US alone to run this network? It seems likely that there is much more ground infrastructure than space infrastructure to make Starlink work
How else do you expect the satellites to connect to AWS or Google? It obviously has to come down at some point otherwise your packets wouldn’t be able to go anywhere…
I am getting a bit concerned that Russia is actually planning an attack on Eastern Europe.
It’s just like red storm rising, their refineries have been blown up and their diesel will only last 6 months. They need to move now or they’ll have to accept peace and economic prosperity.
At least one betting market has the odds at around 25% [1] of a direct military conflict with a NATO country by year's end. It will be interesting to see how things change after November's midterm elections. For what it's worth, Metaculus forecasters show a spike of likelihood at the end of September, 2027, with about 20% of forecasters saying that's when a military clash will happen. I'm not sure what's driving that spike in the forecast.
And there are people losing the same amount. I don’t get why people would use these markets as rigged as they are, other than using them to steer outcomes. (Bet 1b that Poland will attack Russia and that gives an incentive for someone to take that bet and stop it happening. Or vice versa.)
But isn't it somewhat realistic ? Once the Democrats take power in the House, they will ramp up the supply of US military aid and possibly force Trump to impose a so-called "no-fly" zone in Ukraine. There are war-hawks on both sides to push for this and they did push for this several times before. That will mean NATO & USAF involvement to enforce air superiority and bombing of Russian missile/drone sites and hence direct military clashes with Russia. It will likely snowball from there.
Attacking a NATO country would mean total war for Russia. Currently there are no signs that Russia is ready for total war, or willing to have one. Russia has been fighting a war of attrition in Ukraine for 4 years, without a moving frontline, exactly because it wants to win by slow attrition.
Total war (all money going to the war, millions of mobilized workers, etc.) would result in an economic collapse, which Russia is trying to avoid. Aside from "inconveniences" like Yandex AI not working after a data center hit, Russia's everyday life is largely unaffected by the war (at least compared to Ukraine's) - exactly because it is avoiding total war.
If Russia were desperate enough to finally go all in and have full mobilization (millions of conscripts, all industry working around the clock building nothing but drones and missiles, etc.), why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself? So I think it's very unlikely that anything is going to happen to Europe other than sabotage here and there. Remember that Putin is a KGB agent, and they're more about targeted tactical operations than strategic chess play.
The whole "special military operation" was itself just a way to quickly coerce Zelensky into signing an agreement by threatening force, without total war, but it fell apart, so they had to go this war-of-attrition route
> Attacking a NATO country would mean total war for Russia.
Is that so? I wouldn't trust the USA to commit to its NATO responsibilities anymore. The rest of NATO, torn as it is, could just as well find all kinds of reasons why this particular attack isn't a "real" attack, just to avoid the confrontation.
I wouldn't bet on that scenario happening, but as Russia, I wouldn't dismiss it outright either.
Europe has 4 times the population of Russia. The only successful attacks in the past 20 years have been against politically divided countries, like Syria, Venezuela and Ukraine (civil war since 2014). Iran is united, and so is Europe.
Lavrov has indicated he knows Russia would lose a conventional war against Europe by saying that an attack by Europe would start a quick (i.e. nuclear) war.
I agree that the US would stay out, especially if it is nuclear.
Lavrov says all kinds of things. Whatever he utters serves a purpose and has no logical relation to truth.
Don’t underestimate the capability of the EU to gridlock itself with decision paralysis. If we were decisive actors, we would have long stopped tolerating the hybrid attacks Russia is deploying against us today. Europe is anything but united now! We’re still purchasing oil from Russia. We can’t even agree on acting against the shadow fleet, or sanctioning all oligarchs, or applying second order sanctions.
A drone loaded with explosives targeting a German airport? We were merely lucky that it had a technical defect, or it may have been a disaster of epic proportions. Do you recall what the reaction to that was? I thought so.
Until we manage to gain some kind of unified agency, you better hope Russia cannot handle the logistics yet.
Multiple European governments are about to flip right. I’m not convinced a La Pen administration would send French troops to protect the Baltics or even Poland.
> why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself?
Because if russian troops appear in EU countries, EU might be more willing to accept Ukraine losing larger territories in peace deals. That's why EU has to - once attacked - hit russia so strongly, that they will retreat on our conditions.
No, there won't be an open attack, at least not yet. There will be more of those "hybrid" incursions. Russians will be gradually increasing the intensity of those operations, so that it becomes the new normal. There will never be a clear "well now they are attacking" boundary to point to.
Meanwhile, the EU is still buying fossil fuels from Russia, thus paying for all this. It boggles the mind.
Unfortunately most people don't think like that. They might say fuck those contracts, but then next day will say "why is my heating so damn expensive, I want cheaper gas!". And how do you think they can get cheaper gas? Definitely not from USA.
Technically the EU is buying from India which buys from Russia. Alas prices are still high in India, since the benefit is mainly going to a few billionaires. Our billionaires are even more richer than Chinese ones while our people are poorer.
> their refineries have been blown up and their diesel will only last 6 months.
They literally just struck a deal with the US to export diesel, and Trump has been pressuring Ukraine (most recently by disabling Starlink) into not attacking refineries in Russia. Like, situation is the opposite of what you're saying.
EDIT:
To be clearer in case you need it.
As they agreed to export means they definitely have for more than 6 months (and I believe 6 months claim is naive at best.).
And as US is pressuring Ukraine to not attack refineries means they'll be safe.
Far be it from me to suggest that Trump has announced a deal that would be physically impossible to execute just to try to swing the upcoming midterm elections by a couple points, but my guess is the next we hear of the deal is when he's telling us it was ruined by Democrats somehow.
> And as US is pressuring Ukraine to not attack refineries means they'll be safe.
Refineries are not moving targets. TERCOM, INS and commercial GPS are all accurate alternatives to Starlink for attacking those positions if needed.
Fact is, the US lacks the hard power to deter strikes on Russian oil. They have the soft power they can abuse, but punishing Ukraine will push them towards more drastic reprisals. Russian oil infrastructure is built up around Moscow, and it's very vulnerable while air defenses are being moved to the frontlines. America simply doesn't control the escalation ladder.
In the comment you're replying to, "their diesel will only last 6 months" is a reference to Red Storm Rising. I don't think the commentator literally meant diesel. But whatever's happening inside Russia is forcing their hand. Either they act now, or their window shuts.
Mobilization turned out to be extremely unpopular, so they can't just do that without some exceptional cause.
That cause would be NATO attacking Russia. So they're engaging heavily in hybrid warfare, doing stuff like that in Europe. They're tying to provoke some small retaliation from NATO countries.
If that happens, they'll declare that the barbarians are at the gate, and they need a huge mobilization of troops.
But they have no interest in actually fighting against NATO. It would end disastrously for Russia, any way you slice it. Kaliningrad would be completely cut off and surrounded, their Arctic and Baltic sea routes would be hostile.
As a bonus, a potential real war with Russia would increase far-right isolationist popularity in Europe.
Personally I think this is all a play to mobilize a ton of soldiers, send them to Ukraine, and expand their occupied areas before a peace deal comes to the table.
I follow most of what you're saying, but not so much the increase in the popularity of far-right ideology. Surely Russia explicitly positioning themselves as a common enemy of Europe (rather than the current cold war status) would galvanise Europe? Most of the far-right personalities across Europe are very soft on Russia, to say the least.
As it happens, pretty much all far right nationalist parties are friendly with Russia. It would take a huge effort to change that discourse, or to build a new far right party from scratch - and now even without russian botnet support.
Yes it’s complicated. Nationalists aren’t necessarily right or far right. Until a few decades ago, the left were anti-migration and anti-globalisation due to the downward pressure on wages and working conditions. In this current political zeitgeist, the left have abandoned the working class and the right is happy to take their votes.
In a war with Russia, I imagine parties aligned with European strength would fare better. Parties which have previously suggested using kid gloves with Russia will fare worse. I think this implies that some right and left wing parties will not do well.
Lavrov had said it would be a short war if Europe attacks, suggesting they will use nuclear weapons immediately. Russia knows it cannot win a conventional war with Europe.
They don't need a war with Europe for conscription, just to declare war on Ukraine instead of a Special Military Operation. There is pressure on Putin to do this to finish the war quickly, but he is resisting.
If Russia use nukes, every country in the world gets nukes and Moscow and St. Petersburg get destroyed at a minimum. For nukes to be a deterrent you have to be willing to use them in an immoral way unfortunately. Never mind that nuclear war comes with the potential that some good people inside Russia decide the president’s life is worth less than millions of innocent lives. We are also pretty sure the nukes Russia has are in a disastrous state of disrepair. Given all this it might better to sabre rattle than actually risk using them…
Russia is only winning in Ukraine because Ukraine has been in a civil war since 2014. They can take oblasts in the East of Ukraine but have no hope of taking Western Ukraine. Attacking a united Europe is unfeasible. I suspect the war drums in Europe are more to support unpopular leaders like Macron and Mertz.
Russia is exporting less than a day's worth of diesel per month. They don't have a surplus, they're trying to get US to stop Ukrainian attacks on their refineries, since they cannot do that on their own.
I am convinced that if a attack is to happen, it will be right after the midterms. The US will be paralyzed by invocation of the Insurrection Act (or similar coup-y acts) so, unable to react.
My even biggest concern is the US will support Russia in a hybrid war as they are currently doing in Ukraine, from disabling Starlink, convenient trade obligations/restrictions, to grounding F-35s.
There two possibilities. One is that our leaders being very secret about its fight back against the “hybrid war”. That seems unlikely given how many governments there are
The other is that there’s nothing much being done other than continued support of a democratic country that was invaded. The auS used to do that too during the Cold War, but that’s all ended now and the west hasn’t really groked it yet.
What is this response? Do you not understand that a lot of us Europeans and Americans want nothing more than our side to stop being so cringe-inducingly stupid and weak in the face of adversity? It's embarrassing. That doesn't make us astroturfers, or pro-Russia.
Your response is an example of that problem. What are you, 12? You don't recognize that our institutions are weak and corrupt, or that our alliances are fraying?
I know next to nothing about Bulgaria, other than where it is.
Is that sympathy expressed for the people or for the nation? I definitely have sympathy for Russian mothers, having their sons sent to war. And the emigrants that can barely return to meet their family. But I'd also be happy to fight those sons if they think Russia has claims to anything outside previously agreed borders.
Disclaimer: I am not Bulgarian; I know it only through an ex and her family. I learned some of the language but didn't get anywhere near fluency (it is easier than Russian though).
The Bulgarian national myth has an important chapter in the late 19c where Russia liberates their fellow Orthodox Slavs from the Ottoman yoke[0], paving the way for modern Bulgarian independence. This is a powerful historical memory for many Bulgarians, but is somewhat tempered by their experience of Soviet rule, and also by contemporary Russian territorial aggression. But in my experience you will still find a lot of older folks who instinctively sympathize with Russia for these historical reasons. I will defer to any actual Bulgarians here, though, who understand these matters much better than I ever will.
While the article deals with the topic that is not funny at all, I am amused by people having somewhat ironic names:
> Plamen Tonchev, head of Bulgaria's State Agency for National Security (DANS) said he believed the fire at the Starlink facility was an act of sabotage.
"Plamen" means "Flame", when translated from most Slavic languages (incl. bulgarian) to English.
Who else is very concerned that corporations are becoming valid war targets lately? I get that when a corporation is assisting a war effort it a combatant (corporate personhood etc..) but I work for a corporation and I don't want to be a valid war target.
Are you saying that you think providing people with internet access should be classified as an act of war, or do you mean that you worry that other people might?
I don’t want to be mean, but this seems like an extremely naïve thing to say unless you’re being insincere.
Are you familiar with how warring nations treat each others infrastructure during wartime? Silicon Valley is a top-5 target, if not top-3 target, for strategic[1] destruction.
[1] strategic in the sense of causing damage without escalating to nuclear war.
Meanwhile today's episode of Slow Horses, a British show, implied that Bulgaria is Russia's friend who will totally accept their plane with a spy and facilitate killing her on "neutral ground"
Sometimes u wonder how does the "West" get consistently so ignorant and/or lazy with their writing about the "East".
Ukrainian drones and missiles are using Starlink to navigate through Russian territory, and Russia is organizing these attacks to defend itself against them.
Factually incorrect. Ukraninian drones or missiles flying over Russia are not using StarShield or Starlink. These are enabled by the US Gov / SpaceX only over Ukraine.
The long range strikes you're seeing have other nav methods (gps, intertial, etc.). I'm sure if Iran can figure it out, Ukraine can too...
I'd hazard a guess that it's because Starlink service is denied in Russian territory and not denied in Ukrainian territory, and provides a way for Ukrainian citizens to remain informed and connected to their communities even with the Russian onslaught of their power and communications infrastructure.
Why do you even write this kind of comment when it's so easily proven to be false? I don't think it's acceptable at all to just claim things you somehow haphazardly assume to be true.
This isn't some obscure detail, but generic information about the ongoing war that most armchair generals know for sure.
178 comments
[ 0.18 ms ] story [ 54.4 ms ] thread"See guys please don't cancel your Starlink orders russia also thinks we are the enemy!"
Can you share a link? AFAIK Musk blocked Starlink for Russians, not Ukrainians.
Starlink, the commercial product, was always off limits for military operations (the type that require connectivity at 100+ MPH).
So, no, this is not one person dictating the usage.
Starlink’s Acceptable Use Policy explicitly prohibits:
- Remotely controlling or piloting any aerial drone or unmanned vehicle (unless otherwise contractually permitted by SpaceX).
- Engaging in any military activity other than approved morale/welfare/recreation programs for service members.
While there might be a legal distinction between the two systems, technically speaking, it's mostly a matter of configuration.
Lots of Ukrainian use of satellite communications is where people are hiding in a makeshift bunker. Those don't usually travel at 100+ MPH.
Incorrect. The US government limited Starshield, the military version of Starlink which it controls. SpaceX has no say.
It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors. If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies, I am not sure what is. I understand that railways in some countries have their own police, but it is my understanding that SpaceX has not been granted such powers in any country.
... it means those properties are own sovereign nations, or at least autonomous zones! woo hoo, time to declare independence of People's Republic of Mars.
So to prevent a sabotage is to have several layers of security (i.e multiple fences) so you will force the saboteur to commit minor crimes like trespassing first and also slow the saboteur significantly so you can arrest him for these minor crimes.
Sure you can. We convict people of conspiracy all the time.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/overt_act
You can very well arrest someone for the intention of sabotaging.
Nationalize the infrastructure if it's that important to the public.
Every place SpaceX decides to operate, regardless of what taxpayers want, the taxpayers should foot the entire security bill for their private facilities?
Sounds like socialism.
The comments in this thread you’ve joined seem to imply a private company should be held to no standards, and that this specific company’s security should primarily be the responsibility of other taxpayers.
I’m not subject to NIS2 or CRE standards, unlike the willing operator of this facility.
I still have a gun and cameras, because I’m not a welfare queen dependent on the government to do every single thing for me. With the billions of taxpayer dollars SpaceX has, maybe they should invest in some security.
I’m trying to say that the logical conclusion is to shift the responsibility explicitly to SpaceX, since otherwise you have to admit the attacks are state sponsored and you have to name the perpetrator.
Ukraine responds to Russian attacks? Why Ukraine doesn’t want peace! Why Ukraine doesn’t just capitulate? The coalition of war(he means countries who support Ukraine militarily) is causing so much suffering.
The pro-Russian folks are insufferable.
However, let's talk realpolitik.
Ukraine innovates and Russia copies/addapts. Russia has ALWAYS been good at this game. Russia reminds me so much of the roman military in this sense, extremely good at copying and incorporating foreign military tactics/equipment.
Think of the initial long convoys ukraine destroyed, the bayraktars -- Russia addapted, the then the brilliant Eastern campaign where Ukraine managed to route the russians -- Russia adapted, that stopped working, then the indiscriminate massive artilery strikes Russia was doing -- ukraine started using better western artilery and himars, stopped the russians but the russians also addapted spread their logistics and so on; then the drones -- russia copied those even innovated with fiberoptic drones, then the Shaheds, ukraine adapted with fpv interceptors, then Russia started using jet powered interceptors, balistic missiles -- Ukraine initially stunned the world with Patriot interceptors but Russia kept firing until Ukraine ran out of interceptors, then the USV -- Ukraine had and still has great success with them, but look, Russia started using USVs also and Ukraine has no response to those.
It looks like the end will be decided by the country who just has more resources and willpower to continue.
I'm seriously scared for the next years -- the US is clearly turning hostile to Ukraine, Europe is turing far right with russian puppets everywhere.
It was equally clear - also to me - that Ukraine is facing defeat in two or three days after the start of large scale invasion. And yet here we are, three years later.
They're doing great. Even if they surrendered today, they exceeded my initial expectations like 300 times already.
They've lost around 20% of their territory with no hope of getting it back because they don't have the required number (or armaments) to wage a proper counter offensive. They've lost around 1/4th of their armed force personnels and are now earning the ire of their citizens who are being forcefully conscripted to fight a war they don't want to fight. Huge number of their citizens have migrated to other countries. Their economy is totally devastated. They cannot re-build their country without the mercy, charity and exploitation of foreign powers. As the war drags on, they are getting to the point of no return from where they will not be able to recover from the destruction - population, territory, economy ...
Sure, those who hate the Russians can enjoy how much the war costs them and weakens them. But only racist Europeans have a vested interest in cheering Ukraine's leader to keep fighting an unwinnable war, while they cleverly stay out of it, because they don't care about Ukraine too - Slavs fighting Slavs is good politics for them.
I don't think that's the winning end game for Ukraine, but I also don't see there being a realistic winning end game.
One scenario would be that Russia f..ks of with that 20% taken and calls it a success (though strategically it is an enormous blunder), like they did in Finland and leaves Ukraine alone after that -- but is this realistic to happen?
Or Russia collapses internally and Ukraine does take back all the theritory.
Or the world steps in and secures a lasting peace for Ukraine.
Or Russia realizes Ukraine will outlast it because of external support and realizes how stupid and lose-lose this war is.
Or Ukraine collapses and Russia takes an even larger chunk and installs a puppet regime in Kiev.
But Russia seems unwilling to fuck off and call it quits because it's backed by China and has extended its influence in the USA and EU so it bets it can outlast Ukraine.
Please tell us more what a success this is.
Don't forget, against a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed army.
Also, if one assumes that capturing territory is their only military goal, that does sound bad. It isn't though, right? With Ukraine, their major goal is to ensure that it remains a neutral state whose army and territory can't be used to economically or militarily threaten Russia ever. And their military goals have focused on this task - dismembering the country (which, as you pointed, they have done so by capturing around 20% of its territory, with maybe another 5% still to be occupied?), destroying their economic infrastructure (the captured territory had an impact on Ukraine's GDP loss, 75-80% of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has already been decimated, and their only port was targeted this year - if the war continues, Russia plans to capture Odessa too and convert Ukraine into a land-locked country), destroying Ukraine's military infrastructure (Russia destroyed most of their local missile and drone manufacturing units this year), and by destroying Ukraine's army through attritional warfare (nearly a quarter of Ukraine's army has been killed or injured - sure, way less than that of Russia, but unlike Russia Ukraine can't afford to lose its people).
(In other words, Russia is in no hurry to capture the remaining 4-5% of territory it seeks, because dragging the war helps it focus on achieving its other military goals it has in mind).
But ofcourse, why should Europeans care if Ukraine is destroyed, as long as they kill as many Russians as possible?
It is common knowledge that Ukraine moved most of their Air Force assets to other countries, to prevent its destruction. It was the right move, but also makes them less useful as it isn't immediately available when needed. And it is also factual that Russia has targeted and destroyed most of the local military infrastructure, including drone manufacturing units this year, so that Ukraine now depends on its manufacturing units abroad or foreign imports for its needs. Again, a smart move, which also has its drawbacks.
All these battle tactics, and some battle victories, doesn't change the basic maths of warfare though - even with the limited support from allies, Ukrainian military is outnumbered and outgunned by the more powerful Russian military and thus cannot defeat it alone. That is why they are losing - they have lost soldiers, territory, their citizens, their economic infrastructure and economy incapacitated to the point of no return.
It is also a fact that the cowardice of Europeans is apparent in that they can only offer Ukrainians keyboard warriors who cheer them to fight on with fake propaganda and platitudes, while putting down anyone else as "Russian apologists" for talking common sense. (Comparing Putin to Hitler is laughable. It's also a typical westerner attitude to politics to think in "black and white" - if you are not with me, you are against me and thus my enemy, your reasons be damned!).
The actual body that coordinates military aid to Ukraine is the semi-formal contact group that consists of 57 countries, about half of whom are not members of NATO, and there are further countries beside them that provide aid through direct contacts. For example, Sudan has supplied ammunition for mortars in exchange for Ukraine's drone crews showcasing their skill on Russian mercenaries operating in Sudan.
The bulk of operational intelligence provided by foreign countres already comes from sources other than the US. Japan, for example, has sent people to coordinate access to Japanese satellites. A few days ago, the French foreign minister said that about 2/3 of the total foreign intelligence flow comes from Europe, in large part from France, which has a strong aerospace sector.Cutoff from US sources is very painful, because the US has the best early warning system for detecting ballistic missile launches and loss of access to it leaves Ukrainian civilians without a chance to seek shelter before the missiles hit, but the military value of revenge attacks on Ukrainian cities is near-zero.
That's another popular Russian propaganda trope that falls apart at closer inspection like they always do. Here's how the vote went on a UN resolution that condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a violation of UN's charter and demanded a full and unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...Likewise, popular opinion of Russia has also sharply fallen. South America saw especially sharp drop, scroll down for "Changes in Disapproval of Russia's Leadership Between 2021 and 2022" chart: https://news.gallup.com/poll/474596/russia-suffers-global-re...
Researchers summarised: "Despite significant Russian efforts to spread disinformation about the conflict, the massive shift in attitudes toward Russian leadership demonstrates that the geopolitical significance of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is not lost on most of the world’s population."
Interesting way to gloss over the fact that the Ukrainian Air Force never had the 674 aircraft and 284 helicopters that the Russia...> In other words, 2/3 of NATO (by expenditure) is not participating in supporting Ukraine.
In other words, over a period of 4+ years now, various NATO members have trained, armed, supported and financed Ukraine's army to fight the Russians. So, to repeat myself again - it is a fact that Russia is fighting a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed Ukrainian army. And without NATO support, it is apparent that Russia would have achieved all its military objectives in Ukraine a long time ago. That support for Ukraine, within NATO, is also declining is simply because Russia now has the upper-hand in this war, and NATO members are divided on whether it is beneficial for them to continue this proxy war.
> Cutoff from US sources is very painful ...
Yes, cutoff is painful because Ukraine cannot fight the Russians without NATO support, of which the US is the most militarily powerful member. The cutoff also highlights how dependent Ukraine is on NATO members to fight the Russians. And how NATO countries are supporting Ukraine against Russia. So stop arguing or pretending as if you aren't aware that that NATO is involved in this war when you know it very much is.
> Military value of such revenge attacks is near-zero. It is just pure terror against the civilian population ...
That's just normal wartime propaganda - both sides have claimed that civilians are being deliberately "targeted". Sift through this propaganda and you find that both sides are targeting what they believe to be military targets and both sides are dismissive of the collateral damage. Ukraine being the military weaker country is obviously facing the worse end of this war. Zelensky has proved to be a poor leader for Ukraine. In this case, in failing to understand the concept of "escalation dominance" while being manipulated by the Europeans (mainly French, British and German in this case) to pointlessly escalate the war when they were already losing the war.
> Trump's temper tantrums over his inability to force Ukraine to do what he wants clearly disprove the "proxy war" narrative ...
The Trump administration realises that all the benefits of the proxy war that they could get has been derived and, as Russia cannot be economically or militarily defeated, it is best to end the war before Russia starts to benefit from it now.
> here's how the vote went on a UN resolution that condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine..
And how many of those from the Global South has offered anything more substantial than words in this war? We in the Global South understand that this is a proxy war between superpowers, it is dangerous for us to get dragged into it and as it happened because of the foolishness of Ukraine's own leader, it is their own hard political lesson to learn from.
> Likewise, popular opinion of Russia has also sharply fallen. South America saw an especially sharp drop ...
South American countries swing between left and right, and whenever the US backed right- come to power, obviously negative opinions against Russia increases.
> Interesting way to gloss over the fact that the Ukrainian Air Force never had the 674 airplanes and 284 helicopters that the Russian Ministry of Defence claims to have destroyed.
I obviously have no idea where you plucked those numbers from as I have never read anything similar. The sources I have read claim that whatever the Ukrainian Air Force couldn't get ...
The invasion plan crumbled before Ukraine got any foreign aid worth mentioning. The airborne attack of Hostomel airport was successfully repelled, leading to failure to capture Kyiv, leading to failure to decapitate the military command structure, leading to successful coordinated counterattacks on the overstretched invasion force.
Five years and 1.5 million casualties later, Russia has still not managed to recover where it was a few weeks into the war, because it had no realistic plan B after the surprise attack failed.
Russian terror on Ukrainian civilians is widely documented. Eg, in Kherson, where Russian attacks are known as "human safari" UN: "From July 2024, Russian forces have recurrently killed and injured civilians in an area stretching over more than 100 kilometres along the right bank of the Dnipro River in Kherson Province. The drone attacks have been widespread, systematic and conducted as part of a coordinated state policy. /---/ The circumstances of the attacks, the videos, and the explicit threatening text posts demonstrate that Russian armed forces and those supporting them have committed acts or threats of violence for the primary purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population, in violation of international humanitarian law." https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/05/un-commissio... Morocco provided tanks, Cambodia sent military specialists to teach demining, Sudan provided mortar ammunition, etc. The "South-vs-North" dichotomy is artificial and mainly lives as yet another Russian propaganda trope. The territorial integrity of sovereign states is such a fundamental principle that it is understood and valued around the world. Stated by the Russian MoD, widely circulated by all major Russian news outlets, including the state-owned TASS: https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/28046063Russian war correspondents openly ridicule such statements, as well as comments like yours, according to which everything in Ukraine has already been blown up five times over. Yet the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. Russian official recruitment target is 34k soldiers per month, of which about 29k gets filled. Losses have been 37k this month, expected to reach 50k by the end. Territorial gains since the start of the summer, the most advantageous time of the year, have been 180 sq km in total, which is a rounding error in a country of 603 000 sq km.
Not quite so. In the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of August 1939, Hitler and Stalin agreed how to divide Eastern Europe. Germany was given a free hand to invade Poland, Russians were expected to attack at the same time from east, but stalled and attacked Poland a few weeks later. After Germans and Russians had held a victory parade over Poland, Russians set their sights on Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which Germans had left to them with the...Another propaganda which doesn't stand up to scrutiny - NATO members were already preparing for the proxy war with Russia by sabotaging diplomatic negotiations (the Minsk agreements) to delay the war they knew would eventually happen if Ukraine didn't address Russian security concerns. This period was used to train Ukraine's military by NATO members.
> Merkel: ... Thinking back to 2014, and the beginning of 2015, when Minsk II was negotiated: If we had done nothing, Putin could have caused tremendous damage to Ukraine, and those 7 years were crucial for the evolution of Ukraine. In spite of that, this terrible situation still came to occur. But back in 2008, when the NATO membership action plan discussed, my opinion (which you don't have to share, but it is my opinion) is that it would have happened even more rapidly. Back then, Ukraine was even further from being able to offer the degree of resistance it can offer today .... Secondly, I was certain that Putin would not allow this to happen. From his perspective, this would have been a declaration of war. (https://youtu.be/hiwnD00kV0w?t=2144 )
> The Kyiv Independent: Do you also believe that the negotiations in Minsk were intended to delay Russian advances in Ukraine? ... French President François Hollande: Yes, Angela Merkel is right on this point. The Minsk agreements stopped the Russian offensive for a while ... Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity. ( https://kyivindependent.com/national/hollande-there-will-onl... )
> Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko: ... what is the result of the Minsk agreement? We win 8 years to create the army. We win 8 years to restore the economy. We win 8 years to continue the reforms and move to the European Union ... ( https://youtu.be/YgpZ9mQ8p18?t=426 )
As for Russia's initial battle loses ... Russia had surrounded Kiev, and the only reason it stopped was because Zelensky and the EU superpowers offered to negotiate with them. And one of the terms of the negotiations was to stop their military advance. Russia, in its arrogance, was fooled to believe that they had achieved political success and asked its army to stop advancing, and even retreat in some places in the frontline to defensive positions. This period was then used to provide intelligence to Ukraine on Russian positions and plan a counter attack on Russia, which was successful because the Russians were unprepared for the deception and the newly trained armed forces of Ukraine.
Once they recovered from it, they revised their plan and decided to retreat and create defensive stronghold on all the areas of Eastern Ukraine they planned to annex and execute all their other objectives militarily. (Western propaganda of course prematurely touted this tactical retreat by the Russians as Ukraine wining the war).
- ... it had no realistic plan B after the surprise attack failed.
Only those who buy NATO propaganda believe that because they are ignorant of Russia's military objectives in Ukraine. NATO propaganda paints it as simple "land grab" (which you seem to believe too), when it was never about that. It is about securing Russian security interests in both Ukraine and with Europe / NATO. From that perspective, Ukraine is losing the war and Russians are quite close to achieving all their political goals militarily.
- Sure. That&...
Stalin was simply shopping around for a way to explo...
I partly agree with you - what you mentioned were the Ukrainian proxy backed by the Russians. The west had their own Ukrainian political leaders that they backed who also worked to divide the country. This is why I blame the Ukrainian leaders, first and foremost, for this mess - they couldn't unite their country, and allowed foreign meddling. One leader sought help from Russia, one from UK / NATO and now from US / EU to consolidate power. In the Angela Merkel interview that I have shared above, she too points this out:
> Merkel: First, Ukraine wasn't the Ukraine we know now. Politically, Ukraine was deeply divided between Yanukovych and Yushchenko, and even the reformers Tymoshenko and Yushchenko didn't like each other ...
When a nation is not united, it is easy to exploit it, and that is what the western superpowers and Russia did in Ukraine. The west was more successful here as the western backed coup managed to overthrow the democratically elected Russian friendly (I wouldn't call him a Russian stooge) leader. They then immediately branded all parties and leaders perceived as anti-west as "enemies" and either banned them, jailed them or exiled them. Then, after eliminating all competition, they held an "democratic election" which was hailed by the west as the "most democratic" in Ukraine's history while it created a permanent schism between the East Ukraine and West Ukraine.
Russia recognized the coup for what it was - a foreign backed coup - and so immediately annexed Crimea (to protect its own military interests).
Zelensky was elected on a platform to unite the people. He too failed, partly due to his inexperience and also because he followed the same destructive policies (guided by the west to whom he is beholden), like his predecessors that ignored Ukraine's history and culture and trying to end multiculturalism. He in fact exacerbated the issue by using violence against East Ukrainians, triggering a civil war. As Putin saw Zelensky's political actions were increasingly guided by the west, and increasingly militant, and he had no interest in a rapprochement with Russia, he escalated, which finally resulted in the illegal invasion of Ukraine.
(And now West Ukraine has a militia compromised of unmarked members of western armed forces, security services, and people under their direct control, with whom Zelensky too has to contend).
- Instead of a rapid advance toward Kyiv, Russian ground forces were met by fierce Ukrainian resistance ...
I agree that the initial Ukrainian resistance was good, and completely unanticipated by the Russians. The direct intelligence provided by NATO was also very helpful to slowdown the Russian invasion. All that said, a major reason for Russians dropping the advance towards Kiev, and later tactically withdrawing,, was because of request for urgent negotiations by the west and Ukraine. Remember that the first diplomatic negotiation took place just 4 days after the war, and one of the western pre-conditions to this was that negotiations shouldn't happen with the barrel of a gun to the face (i.e. Kiev surrounded) and asked them to withdraw, which the Russians complied with because they arrogantly and foolishly thought the negotiations would happen in good-faith and in their favour.
- Good of you to mention bullying ...
Oh, I am not defending Russia when it comes to such things. Even my own country gave in to the Russian demands to not vote in the UN resolution. (That was a cowardice on the part of the Modi government - the Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal, by international laws, and India should have upheld that principle). My point remains that western superpowers are no different from Russia or China in this, and so the west does not have any moral ground to claim superiority here.
- RT is trash-tier propaganda outlet ...
As is any media outlet, funded by the go...
Ofcourse, those who support the "revolution" obviously don't like when it is labelled a coup. I am sure it is the same with the "revolutionaries" in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal too, who, like the west-backed Ukrainians, violently overthrew their democratically elected leaders. (And, again, like the Ukrainians, these so-called "revolutionaries" then attacked or banned or jailed or exiled all their opponents and then held the farce of a "democratic election" without any opposition. Wait a minute - isn't this the kind of "communist revolution" that the west often derides and believes is undemocratic!? But, I guess it's ok when "your guys" do it ...).
And we also have the embarrassing leaked tapes of one of the brains behind the "revolution" discussing how to install the "right" Ukrainian leaders (aka western puppets) - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 ... Ofcourse, once the opposition had been decimated violently, and the west's open role in the coup revealed, that was quite easy to do so - all the "surviving" Ukrainian leaders knew that they had to submit to the western superpowers to politically survive in Ukraine. And they did so openly and blatantly.
- Can't be true.
The medals, the manufactured controversy over the dates are all irrelevant. It has always been public knowledge that for Russia, not losing Crimea and its naval base has always been the primary goal in negotiations with Ukraine. Even the unrest in Crimea, involving a referendum against the Ukrainian government, demanding independence / autonomy was supported by Russia. And if Ukraine was unwilling to renew its lease of Crimea to Russia, annexation was always the plan. Nearly 2+ decades back, Putin had publicly said that if Ukraine joins NATO, Ukraine would do so without Crimea and the Eastern regions. In other words, the political and military plan was always ready (if negotiations failed) as Plan B, and the western backed coup was one of the "red lines" that triggered Crimea's quick annexation.
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has publicly stated in an interview that he took a message from Putin to Zelensky that Russia would not invade Ukraine if he publicly committed to not join NATO. Zelensky was willing. But all subsequent negotiations (before and during the war) failed because the western superpowers always dissuaded him from signing and committing to "permanent neutrality" - the original condition on which the USSR had granted independence to the Ukrainians, and the condition on which the Russians had guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty.
- I honestly don't know what "civil war" you are talking about.
Lookup on the failures of the Ukranian side to uphold the Minsk treaties (which, as I have already shared, has now been acknowledged by the leaders of the west, and Ukraine, as a ruse that they didn't have any intention to honour, but were only using to buy time, especially after the coup).
- Stalin infamously misjudged Hitler's intentions ...
Not exactly. You again deliberately ignore that the first parties he approached for an alliance were the British and the French, because Germany and Russia have a history of animosity. Stalin knew that a German invasion would inevitably happen, and he wanted to buy time because he knew the Soviet economy and military wasn't ready to face any western superpower, alone. (The experience of fighting the Germans, with an impoverished army, during WW1 were still fresh for the Russians). That is why he reluctantly joined hands with Hitler, who, again, was never his first choice, to buy time to strengthen Soviet military positions. It was always an uneasy alliance where both were prepared for the other to turn against the oth...
Any political action under violence, and then the threat of violence (whether it be by so called "revolutionaries" or an army) resulting in the opposition capturing power undemocratically is exactly that - a coup ... that they made it "legal", after eliminating their opposition, has no bearing on this. Otherwise you should have no problem in accepting the referendum in Crimea or in Eastern Ukraine where the people also voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.
- ... 20 February 2014. The first Russian troop movements (810th marine brigade) were observed on the same date.
Again deliberately avoiding the context with selective facts that are irrelevant. I am saying Russia was always prepared to annex Crimea - Putin had declared that 20+ years ago, and repeatedly told this to every western leaders he met during this period, subsequently. That is why Russia has always had agents in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. The coup, and the elimination of Ukrainian politicians that were either pro-Russian or weren't pro-west, was the trigger for the Russians annexing Crimea. That they were in Crimea in February 20 is irrelevant here because recall that the "revolution" began with protests in November 2013. Russian intelligence were keeping close tabs on it (remember the tape leak about the US planning who to install in Ukraine?), and prepared for any eventuality. As it became clear that the West supported the right-wing extremists against President Viktor Yanukovych, and they too were pressuring him to resign and hand over power to the Western backed "revolutionaries" the Russians asked him to sign the transitional plan, offered him asylum in Russia (as he feared he may be assassinated) and activated their plan to annex Crimea ( https://www.politico.eu/article/yanukovych-signs-transition-... ) as it had become clear that Ukraine would no longer be neutral to Russia:
> In late February, a few days after Ukraine’s pro-Moscow president was ousted from power, strange bands of armed gunmen began seizing government buildings in Crimea. Some Crimeans held rallies to show support for the ousted president and, in some cases, to call to secede from Ukraine and re-join Russia. The bands of gunmen grew until it became obvious they were Russian military forces, who forcefully but bloodlessly brought the entire peninsula under military occupation. On March 16, Crimeans voted overwhelmingly for their region to become a part of Russia. ( https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/18088560/ukraine-everything-you... )
Even those in the west now publicly acknowledge that what happened in Ukraine is perceived as a coup by many - A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War - https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia... ).
- This is another factually incorrect statement. Benett met Putin on 5 March 2022, nine days after the invasion had started...
I am repeating what he said. Note that he has met Putin before the war too, where he informed Putin that Zelensky wanted to meet him and talk to him. Putin conveyed he wasn't interested. Benett also points out that Zelensky did publicly renounce Ukraine joining NATO. Benett has also said that all the negotiations were very carefully coordinated with the US, Germany, France and UK. And once Putin and Zelensky compromised and agreed to a deal and a ceasefire, the West then blocked it because they w...
The grapes are sour.
Russia is absolutely in a hurry because the war is hurting it tremendously, it simply is unable to do so at the moment, but it hopes it can undermine Ukraine's external support, which is indeed going much better than its campaign on the ukrainian front.
I think more precise language is important here. It is my perception that a small faction that currently controls the federal US government is hostile to Ukraine. A large majority of the general population of the US seems to support Ukraine.
You might argue that this distinction doesn't change the reality for Ukraine's prospects, but I disagree. The small anti-Ukraine faction in the US is becoming increasingly unpopular within the US. It is doubtful its dominance of the US executive branch will survive the next general election in two years. Its total control of the US government may not survive another month.
The willpower of Ukraine has been underestimated throughout this conflict. It seems a cinch it will hold strong for three more weeks. Then the US campaign for President begins in earnest and it would not be surprising for many US politicians to press against the anti-Ukraine faction in a bid for control of the US Presidency. The US Congress may try to remove itself from under the thumb of the current president and you might see sweeping changes in as little as three months. Or you might not.
Take courage. I think Ukraine's resolution to survive will outlast the influence of Putin fans who happen to have an outsized influence in US politics at the moment.
“61% of Americans sympathize more with Ukraine, compared to only 3% who sympathize more with Russia; 22% who take neither side” [1]. (45% of MAGA supporters, 63% of GOP.)
[1] https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54157-four-years-after-rus...
Russia can stop the war (and thus sanctions) whenever they choose to. Ukraine does not have that option.
Second, EU and US were not signatories to any deal between Russia and Ukraine, so any sanction relief was never on the table as part of the grain deal. Russia may have asked for it, but it was not offered or implied it in any way by anybody. And yes, this is typically how deals work everywhere.
Third, any ship that Ukraine sinks is 100% on Russia because they’re the reason any ships need to be sunk in the first place. Again, Russia could stop the war today and no further violence would be necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_MoLoChKa
Nothing. Your master did with his 3 day invasion.
Well, the official stance of the EU a couple of years ago, when the Nordstream pipeline was attacked, was that it was Russia (even though it was against its interests). So we can have something similar here, right? That it was Ukraine that sunk those vessels. I understand the Bulgarian PM, he's just trying to be a standard EU politician.
Well, the official stance of the EU a couple of years ago, when the Nordstream pipeline was attacked, was that it was Russia (even though it was against its interests). So we can have something similar here, right? That it was Ukraine that sunk those vessels. I understand the Bulgarian PM, he's just trying to be a regular EU politician.
SpaceX is actively meddling in foreign-state wars picking whichever side they choose to support on which day. They made their bed.
Starlink is banned, by the US government, from operating in a military context, and cannot be used for military purposes. Do you have a reference for them meddling/supporting wars, or a hint at what you're referring to for someone out of the loop? This is not allowed by very many laws and policies that have been in place since the company started operating.
https://x.com/FedorovMykhailo/status/2110432031968542721
Maybe this is the recent disruption referenced?
> On 14 October 2026, Musk said the Ukrainian military was using the US government owned and controlled Starshield system, not Starlink, and the recent change to restrict operational user terminals to those travelling at less than 100 mph (160 km/h) was a US government decision and not his decision.[87]
Fucking disgusting.
But nobody will pay attention because it’s more profitable that way.
Starlink providing services to a customer (which made them a target in this case) is not a matter the local government of that site needs to protect them against.
--> Is it a local governments' job to secure the local properties of e.g. Lockheed, or the job of Lockheed as a for-profit supplier to the military?
Petty vandalism no, but I’ve worked at a few and know more completely non-military business premises that absolutely have “military barricade” or the like quietly in their contingency plans.
Funny thing is, a bit of arson is kind of normal on their estates. But usually it’s just stolen cars.
That doesn't absolve the orgs responsibility, but the questions should be directed at both.
It's the role of security agencies to gather intelligence, monitor for risks of foreign attacks and engage in case of a threat.
It's not their responsibility to prevent two guys from Germany from entering the premises of a critical infrastructure provider with gasoline. That operator of that facility has the responsibility to ensure security and resilience of his own premises.
-
> "Are Oil tankers and Cargo ships supposed to have air defense?"
No, this would turn a civilian into a combatant ship, causing it to lose the civilian protections of the UN (The Ocean is governed by conventions of the United Nations, it's a different jurisdiction)
And still, oil tankers and cargo ships have requirements to secure themselves against piracy, terrorism and even warfare, mandated by the international maritime organization.
It's cute when Americans assume every country's constitution is the same as their own.
I think neither private companies nor tax-payers would appreciate if the POLICE would run security for a for-profit corporation, as it means that all corporate access-permissions would de-facto be managed by the government administration (which would be financed by the taxes of citizens and other corporations...)
Also: Would be even more ironic for Starlink to now demand big-BIG-government after their CEO keeps pushing for small-government for years now. But it fits the typical "Privatize profits, socialize costs" view...
If I open something like a stadium, and whenever there's a big game I need a load of security to deal with traffic, drunk fans, and fights - arguably most of the security should be paid for from ticket sales, rather than the taxpayer, although the taxpayer should be there as the final backstop.
Likewise, if I have a bank with a vault full of valuables and I think it needs 3 armed guards present 24/7 - probably that's going to be at my expense, not that of the taxpayer. Although any bank should get a police presence in a reasonably timely manner, once they raise the alarm about a robbery.
They way Germany has been handing out passports like candy in last years, they very well could be Russians or foreigners with sympathetic ties to Russia willing to commit crimes for them in exchange for some pocket money.
So the term is correct.
Pentagon gives SpaceX contracts, musk donates dark money far in excess of small donations to republicans.
This is a dark empire built on laundering, corruption and manipulation.
It’s just like red storm rising, their refineries have been blown up and their diesel will only last 6 months. They need to move now or they’ll have to accept peace and economic prosperity.
[1] https://polymarket.com/event/nato-x-russia-military-clash-in... [2] https://www.metaculus.com/questions/41238/when-will-russia-a...
Total war (all money going to the war, millions of mobilized workers, etc.) would result in an economic collapse, which Russia is trying to avoid. Aside from "inconveniences" like Yandex AI not working after a data center hit, Russia's everyday life is largely unaffected by the war (at least compared to Ukraine's) - exactly because it is avoiding total war.
If Russia were desperate enough to finally go all in and have full mobilization (millions of conscripts, all industry working around the clock building nothing but drones and missiles, etc.), why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself? So I think it's very unlikely that anything is going to happen to Europe other than sabotage here and there. Remember that Putin is a KGB agent, and they're more about targeted tactical operations than strategic chess play.
The whole "special military operation" was itself just a way to quickly coerce Zelensky into signing an agreement by threatening force, without total war, but it fell apart, so they had to go this war-of-attrition route
Is that so? I wouldn't trust the USA to commit to its NATO responsibilities anymore. The rest of NATO, torn as it is, could just as well find all kinds of reasons why this particular attack isn't a "real" attack, just to avoid the confrontation.
I wouldn't bet on that scenario happening, but as Russia, I wouldn't dismiss it outright either.
Lavrov has indicated he knows Russia would lose a conventional war against Europe by saying that an attack by Europe would start a quick (i.e. nuclear) war.
I agree that the US would stay out, especially if it is nuclear.
Don’t underestimate the capability of the EU to gridlock itself with decision paralysis. If we were decisive actors, we would have long stopped tolerating the hybrid attacks Russia is deploying against us today. Europe is anything but united now! We’re still purchasing oil from Russia. We can’t even agree on acting against the shadow fleet, or sanctioning all oligarchs, or applying second order sanctions.
A drone loaded with explosives targeting a German airport? We were merely lucky that it had a technical defect, or it may have been a disaster of epic proportions. Do you recall what the reaction to that was? I thought so.
Until we manage to gain some kind of unified agency, you better hope Russia cannot handle the logistics yet.
Multiple European governments are about to flip right. I’m not convinced a La Pen administration would send French troops to protect the Baltics or even Poland.
Because if russian troops appear in EU countries, EU might be more willing to accept Ukraine losing larger territories in peace deals. That's why EU has to - once attacked - hit russia so strongly, that they will retreat on our conditions.
The Bulgarian PM has refused to name Russia responsible.
It does seem like they’re “testing the waters”, so to speak.
Meanwhile, the EU is still buying fossil fuels from Russia, thus paying for all this. It boggles the mind.
Last I checked, >1.2bn € per month, countries leading: Hungary, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Spain.
They literally just struck a deal with the US to export diesel, and Trump has been pressuring Ukraine (most recently by disabling Starlink) into not attacking refineries in Russia. Like, situation is the opposite of what you're saying.
EDIT: To be clearer in case you need it.
As they agreed to export means they definitely have for more than 6 months (and I believe 6 months claim is naive at best.).
And as US is pressuring Ukraine to not attack refineries means they'll be safe.
There’s tons of photos or Iranian tankers in convoy in Russia.
Refineries are not moving targets. TERCOM, INS and commercial GPS are all accurate alternatives to Starlink for attacking those positions if needed.
Fact is, the US lacks the hard power to deter strikes on Russian oil. They have the soft power they can abuse, but punishing Ukraine will push them towards more drastic reprisals. Russian oil infrastructure is built up around Moscow, and it's very vulnerable while air defenses are being moved to the frontlines. America simply doesn't control the escalation ladder.
They need Starlink in order to attack other targets. Threatening Starlink is a way to coerce Ukraine into doing Trump's (and thus Putin's) bidding.
Mobilization turned out to be extremely unpopular, so they can't just do that without some exceptional cause.
That cause would be NATO attacking Russia. So they're engaging heavily in hybrid warfare, doing stuff like that in Europe. They're tying to provoke some small retaliation from NATO countries.
If that happens, they'll declare that the barbarians are at the gate, and they need a huge mobilization of troops.
But they have no interest in actually fighting against NATO. It would end disastrously for Russia, any way you slice it. Kaliningrad would be completely cut off and surrounded, their Arctic and Baltic sea routes would be hostile.
As a bonus, a potential real war with Russia would increase far-right isolationist popularity in Europe.
Personally I think this is all a play to mobilize a ton of soldiers, send them to Ukraine, and expand their occupied areas before a peace deal comes to the table.
In a war with Russia, I imagine parties aligned with European strength would fare better. Parties which have previously suggested using kid gloves with Russia will fare worse. I think this implies that some right and left wing parties will not do well.
They don't need a war with Europe for conscription, just to declare war on Ukraine instead of a Special Military Operation. There is pressure on Putin to do this to finish the war quickly, but he is resisting.
Russia started exporting diesel to the US with Trump's new deal, indicating Russia has a surplus.
There two possibilities. One is that our leaders being very secret about its fight back against the “hybrid war”. That seems unlikely given how many governments there are
The other is that there’s nothing much being done other than continued support of a democratic country that was invaded. The auS used to do that too during the Cold War, but that’s all ended now and the west hasn’t really groked it yet.
Your response is an example of that problem. What are you, 12? You don't recognize that our institutions are weak and corrupt, or that our alliances are fraying?
This is a clown show.
Is that sympathy expressed for the people or for the nation? I definitely have sympathy for Russian mothers, having their sons sent to war. And the emigrants that can barely return to meet their family. But I'd also be happy to fight those sons if they think Russia has claims to anything outside previously agreed borders.
The Bulgarian national myth has an important chapter in the late 19c where Russia liberates their fellow Orthodox Slavs from the Ottoman yoke[0], paving the way for modern Bulgarian independence. This is a powerful historical memory for many Bulgarians, but is somewhat tempered by their experience of Soviet rule, and also by contemporary Russian territorial aggression. But in my experience you will still find a lot of older folks who instinctively sympathize with Russia for these historical reasons. I will defer to any actual Bulgarians here, though, who understand these matters much better than I ever will.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%...
If it's about you, it is "our history".
> Plamen Tonchev, head of Bulgaria's State Agency for National Security (DANS) said he believed the fire at the Starlink facility was an act of sabotage.
"Plamen" means "Flame", when translated from most Slavic languages (incl. bulgarian) to English.
Are you familiar with how warring nations treat each others infrastructure during wartime? Silicon Valley is a top-5 target, if not top-3 target, for strategic[1] destruction.
[1] strategic in the sense of causing damage without escalating to nuclear war.
Sometimes u wonder how does the "West" get consistently so ignorant and/or lazy with their writing about the "East".
The long range strikes you're seeing have other nav methods (gps, intertial, etc.). I'm sure if Iran can figure it out, Ukraine can too...
This isn't some obscure detail, but generic information about the ongoing war that most armchair generals know for sure.